Nancy Kassebaum

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I would like to ask the Senator from Ohio a couple questions because, as I understand it, in his proposed amendment he redefines the term ``displaced homemaker'' to include anyone who has been on welfare and has a child under the age of 16; is that correct?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. As it is defined in the Senator's amendment, ``displaced homemaker'' would be anyone who has been on welfare and has a child under the age of 16?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. If they had been on welfare.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Then the Senator also adds employment training for displaced homemakers to the list of permissible job training activities?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Programs for single parents and displaced homemakers and single pregnant women--the list required educational activities?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes. Are they required to do that?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Well, I guess I thought that under the language, as I read it, the State would be required to offer that.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I think it would perhaps serve us best to have the Senator from California and the Senator from New York make their comments and then go to the three votes that have already been ordered, the one on trade adjustment assistance, the amendment of Senator Gramm, and the amendment of Senator Glenn. And then at that time the majority leader I think is to make a decision about whether we will continue this evening or put the rest of the amendments off until tomorrow.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes. Did I understand the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] wanted to speak?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am very sensitive to the concerns of the Senator from California. She is a very effective advocate for her State in wanting to protect, of course, what should come to her State. I would just point out that California gets twice what any other State gets. The closest States to California are New York and Texas. So while California has a large population, a population that has many needs, it also is a population that is getting a significant amount in this formula. No one knows better than the Senator from California how difficult these formula debates are. We all want to get as much as we can. I think that when we are taking formulas from some 80 programs and combining them into one formula, that will be the fairest to most States, it obviously is not an easy task. But we made 60 percent of the formula focus on population, which I think is the fairest way to distribute funds among the States. And the Senator from California has already pointed out 20 percent is based on poverty, 10 percent is based on the number of welfare recipients and 10 percent is based on employment. I would also suggest that we are going to be continuing to reduce appropriations to each of the various programs. I think combining the programs as we do provides a greater sense of certainty to the States about what they will be receiving. It is also bound to do better under a single appropriation than trying to split it up among all of the other efforts that really do not provide the continuum of planning and certainty that I think is in the work force development legislation. We did decrease the emphasis on welfare recipients because the JOBS program, which is the job training program for welfare recipients, was taken out of the bill during the welfare debate. Finally, and most importantly, we put a cap on the maximum amount a State can gain or lose. It cannot gain more than 5 percent. It cannot lose more than 5 percent. California, under this formula, does lose about 4.2 percent. This means, I think, that we have tried to again provide a balance over the previous year's allocation through the 5-percent provision. That is not such a dramatic shift that it cannot be accommodated. I certainly realize that some States can be adversely affected. But I believe, all in all, that this is the fairest approach that we could devise. It is, as I say, very difficult when we try to get into allocations. The Senator from California represents a State with a large population, and many parts of that population really need some significant assistance. It would be my hope that with the moneys that presently are going to California, that this one appropriation will be a far more effective means of delivering those funds to the State and provide a more effective job training system. [[Page S 14873]] Mr. President, I yield the floor. I do not know if the Senator from California wishes to respond in any other way to those comments. I will be happy to yield any other time that she might need.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, just to put everyone on notice, there will soon be a vote, as we had suggested earlier. Just so everyone will have a chance to get here in fashion, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I believe, if I am correct, the pending vote would be on the Moynihan amendment.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I believe we are prepared to vote.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes. I ask unanimous consent that the second and third votes be 10-minute votes, with 4 minutes in between for further debate.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Well, I am very sympathetic to what the Senator from Ohio is saying. I have been a strong supporter of the displaced homemaker programs. But I think that under the language of his amendment, as I read it, it significantly expands the concept of ``displaced homemaker.'' Under ``Education Activities'' it says that the State educational agency shall use the funds made available to the State under this subtitle for work force education activities. To carry it out, there are certain State activities that are included. It then lists these activities in this section.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the next two stacked votes be postponed to occur not before 5:20 this evening.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Over the past few years, I believe a bipartisan consensus has developed on the need to overhaul current Federal training efforts. I want to especially acknowledge the cooperation of the ranking member, Senator Kennedy, in moving this bill forward. Although we may not be in complete agreement about the solution, Senator Kennedy and I share the desire to reform the current fragmented system. Senator Kennedy has been a strong advocate for consolidation at the State level. His input in strengthening this bill has been most constructive. I am appreciative of his efforts and support in seeing this legislation fashioned and brought to the floor. Past job training legislation has reflected a tradition of bipartisan cooperation and support. I hope, as we consider this bill today, we will be able to resolve our remaining differences and emerge with strong work force development legislation that all of us can support and that will be of benefit to all who will be served in the process. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, under the terms of the unanimous- consent agreement relating to consideration of S. 143, I send to the desk a substitute amendment.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am pleased that today the Senate is considering Senate bill 143, the Work Force Development Act of 1995. This legislation is the product of several years of bipartisan efforts to bring about real and comprehensive reform of Federal job training programs. I do not think anyone would argue about the need for bold and far- reaching change in our current patchwork of training programs. S. 143 provides that change. The members of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee spent a lot of time in a number of hearings considering innovative, creative and constructive approaches to reform, and I am pleased that we are now going to take up consideration of this bill under a time agreement and give it our full attention. Right now, the Federal Government runs well over 100 separate job training programs, each with its own set of rules and regulations. In combination, they create a maze of confusion to anyone who needs help getting a job. As often as not, they spell disappointment, not results, for those who have sought assistance in building a better life for themselves and their families. Year after year, the General Accounting Office [GAO] has worked tirelessly to document how conflicting requirements and program overlap have reduced effectiveness and added unnecessary costs. What is worse, Mr. President, is that right now we have almost no idea how well any of these programs are performing. The GAO concluded that most Federal agencies have no idea whether their programs work. As just one example, last year Senator Kennedy, the ranking member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, and I asked Department of Labor officials to tell us how many people are placed in permanent jobs after they receive Federal training. With the exception of one program, the Department of Labor keeps no records of how many people get jobs after the taxpayers fund their training. I was not only surprised by this finding but, frankly, troubled as well. Mr. President, I concluded some time ago that the only way to truly reform Federal job training was to wipe the slate clean and begin again, and that is where the Work Force Development Act starts. This bill repeals over 80 different job training programs. They are wiped off the books, along with the stacks of regulations that go with them. But the repeal of all the major Federal job training programs is just the first step toward real reform. In place of these programs, S. 143 would give States and local communities the flexibility and the means to fashion training programs and placement services that meet the local needs of job seekers and employers alike. This is a critical change if we want to be successful in helping people find jobs. S. 143 would combine funds from these 80-odd programs and turn them over to the States and, in turn, to local communities, so that training programs will be tailored to actual jobs available in the community. Let me emphasize that the Work Force Development Act is more than just another block grant proposal. I [[Page S 14826]] would like to discuss briefly four reasons why I believe this legislation will bring a comprehensive transformation in our approach to job-related training and education. First, S. 143 will establish in each State a coordinated work force development system where everyone, regardless of why they are unemployed, can find help. Arbitrary eligibility requirements will be gone, as will the duplication now being created by having separate, independent programs offering essentially the same services. Savings and greater efficiency are bound to result from consolidation, as each State develops its own coordinated plan to meet the needs of its workers and the private sector. One-stop centers, broadly defined in the bill, form the cornerstone of each State's system. These are places that will be easy to find and easy to use. They will be available to anyone wanting to gain access to basic services, such as job listings, placement help and counseling. I think, Mr. President, we have done a poor job in our ability to serve and assist those who are looking for jobs, and far too often, there are many individuals who get lost in the cracks. At these one-stop centers, individuals will be given the full array of available options, from further education to on-the-job training in private industry. Many States have already adopted the one-stop approach, and S. 143 gives each State greater flexibility to adopt a method that works for that State. The second unique feature of this legislation is its emphasis on accountability. In exchange for flexibility in the use of the funds, each State must set goals and benchmarks laying out how they will improve skills and provide real jobs. This means that, for the first time, we will know exactly how many persons getting training actually get a job and for how long. Further, if a State fails to live up to its goals and benchmarks, it will face monetary sanctions. Unlike the current system, States will be accountable for real results, and taxpayers will know what they are getting for their Federal job training dollars. The third key feature of S. 143 is the significant role it gives to the private sector. It goes without saying that all the job training in the world will not help unless there are jobs available at the end of the road. Ultimately, it is the private sector that will provide these jobs, and they must be brought into the system in an integral way to help develop programs that work for each State and local community. That is why the active and meaningful involvement of employers and businesses is critical to the success of any job training effort. No legislation can ever guarantee such involvement. Nevertheless, we have assured that businesses, large and small, will be at the table in the planning and implementation of the new system at every level--local, State, and Federal. In addition, the legislation provides an incentive for greater business involvement, by permitting a limited portion of job training funds to be used for economic development in States which establish formal local boards. Finally, and perhaps most important, this legislation will forge a new link between education and training. Mr. President, there is one thing that is fundamental to the success of any work force development effort and that is sound, strong education programs. We have often talked about the important link between quality vocational education and job training. But we have done very little to really forge that link in a way that will last, both at the Federal level and the State and local level. Basic education is often the foundation, and should be, of any successful job training program. While vocational education is clearly aimed toward job preparation, we have paid far too little attention to vocational education over the years. It has been shoved off to the side and not made an integral part of the total work force preparation process. In spite of the obvious connections, vocational and adult educators and job training providers have lived far too often in different worlds. As often as not, they have operated independently, sometimes at cross purposes. The Workforce Development Act brings the education and training communities together in each State through a collaborative planning process. This process gives all interested parties the opportunity to sit down together and work toward common goals. Moreover, they will have every incentive to cooperate because the stakes will be high. S. 143 provides that half of each State's funds be placed in a flexible account to be used in whatever mix of education and training the State sees fit. This flex account will be the vehicle through which all parties will come together to develop a unified training system. This bill also brings down the walls between training and education at the Federal level. Two offices--one in the Department of Labor, the other in the Department of Education--are both eliminated. They are replaced by a single Federal partnership to oversee State efforts, reducing by at least one-third the number of Federal employees now involved with work force training and education programs. These four features, I believe, are really the heart of this legislation. We will see the creation of a new initiative that I am convinced will provide far better services than we currently do, through the myriad job training programs that have been added on top of each other over the years without thinking of how they should really fit together. These four features are one-stop centers, strong accountability, private sector involvement, and links between education and training. Together, they create a new, bold, and innovative approach to Federal support of work force development. In addition, the bill contains two provisions that deal specifically with at-risk youth and the disabled. There is a separate subtitle for Job Corps and other activities aimed at addressing the specific needs of our most vulnerable young people. There will be more discussion on Job Corps in the course of today's debate. But I want to emphasize at the outset that Job Corps is not a part of the block grant. Rather, it remains as a separate program that is fully funded. However, it does mean an end to Federal administration of the Job Corps Program, and allows the States the flexibility to design a program with their Job Corps center that best meets the needs of the population being served there. Title II amends the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to integrate vocational rehabilitation programs into the State's training system, while still recognizing the unique requirements of bringing the disabled into the work force. As I noted at the outset, Mr. President, many years of work have gone into the development of this legislation. Members of the Labor Committee, in particular, have devoted a great deal of time in helping to shape this bill. I want to acknowledge all of their efforts as well as the contributions made by a number of Members who do not serve on the committee. I also note that it would not have been possible to tackle a project of this scope without the benefit of the expertise of that individual Members brought to this issue. Senator Frist was especially helpful in integrating vocational rehabilitation programs for the disabled into the statewide system. Senator DeWine played a key role in developing a separate provision for at-risk youth. Senator Jeffords, as chairman of the Education Subcommittee, was particularly helpful in shaping the education provisions. On the other side of the aisle, I want to recognize the support and contributions of Senator Pell, ranking member of the Education Subcommittee, whose early and steadfast support has been invaluable. Likewise, the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, deserves special recognition. He has been a stalwart supporter of job training reform, as a cosponsor of this bill in its earlier versions. S. 143 has a broad spectrum of support that includes Governors, representatives of the business community, and educators that will play a key role in the development of this new system. We have received letters of support from the Republican Governors Association, the National Governors' Association, the State Board of Vocational Technical Education, the National School Boards Association, the American Vocational Association, the Council of Great City Schools, the National [[Page S 14827]] Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Alliance of Business. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, what is the order of business at this point?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, if the Senator from Missouri is finished, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the call of the quorum be dispensed with.