Nancy Kassebaum

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that votes now occur, first, on the Pell-Jeffords amendment, second, on the Moynihan amendment and, third, on the Grams amendment. I further ask unanimous consent that the second and third votes be limited to 10 minutes each and that 4 minutes of debate time be available between each vote.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island whatever time is necessary for the offering of his amendment. Amendment No. 2886 (Purpose: To provide for the State distribution of funds for secondary school vocational education, postsecondary and adult vocational education, and adult education)

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to say that I am very appreciative of the Senator from Minnesota and the initiative he has undertaken on his amendment. I believe it strengthens our bill. I appreciate his willingness to work with us to craft a provision that streamlines the planning process for some States while maintaining important jurisdictional protections. I think this is a very worthy addition. Unanimous-Consent Agreement

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield to Senator Grams.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I now call on the Senator from Minnesota. I ask unanimous consent, first, to set aside the Moynihan amendment for a brief presentation of an amendment that has been agreed to by both sides.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I do not know if the Senator from New York wishes to make any further comment.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if I may put a little different perspective on this issue, recognizing, as has been eloquently stated by the Senator from New York, Senator Moynihan, and the ranking member of the Labor Committee, that there has been, through both Republican and Democratic administrations, a commitment regarding trade adjustment assistance. But let me make clear how the TAA is handled in the work force development bill. While the training part of the trade adjustment assistance is consolidated into the bill, the entitlement to income support for dislocated workers under TAA is not repealed. This, of course, is something that remains under the Finance Committee. This means our commitment to workers who lose their jobs because of a trade agreement is maintained, it is not eliminated. That is why I believe S. 143 is important in the context of helping all workers. Workers who may have been affected by any trade agreement will still receive the assistance for job training but, I suggest, in a far more effective way. It makes no sense to keep separate and distinct programs for workers who are laid off for one reason or another. All workers who lose their jobs should have access to job training. All workers who need assistance should be able to enter the system with the kind of quality assistance that is their due. Dislocated workers who need good training linked to real jobs have been ill-served by existing programs, including TAA. We must reform these programs and establish a comprehensive system that is based on accountability for putting people into real jobs. I think the Senator from New York would be certainly one who would agree with that goal as I know the Senator from Massachusetts does as well. Secretary of Labor Reich has pointed out that under the current program when a plant closes, one group of workers may be eligible for training while others on a different assembly line are [[Page S 14860]] not. This makes no sense. How do you know whether somebody has lost work at Cessna Aircraft because of NAFTA or because of structural related cutbacks? We need to move to a single integrated job training system and not single out a particular group for special training programs. That is, as I suggested before, how we end up with the maze of programs that we have here today. I believe that Governors and local elected officials will be responsive to the training needs of all their citizens and in particular to those who are laid off and have lost their jobs. Anyone who is mindful of the concerns in their State will be putting those people first and foremost in wanting to offer the very best program. Mr. President, I would like for a moment to comment on the General Accounting Office's report on the Trade Adjustment Assistance Job Training Program. It stated that it believes the TAA Program is seriously flawed. The GAO has testified that its study, as well as those of the Department of Labor Inspector General and a study commissioned by the Department of Labor, concluded that the TAA Program falls short in assisting dislocated workers to enter the work force. I would like to list a few of the findings: TAA benefits are not equally available to all available workers as a result of the flawed certification process; and the TAA Program is often slow in reaching workers as a result of this complex certification process. I think there is a recognition that some of this does need to be improved. The TAA recipients do not receive services tailored to their needs because only a limited mix of services are provided. TAA lacks the ongoing counseling and support necessary to ensure completion of training. The liberal use of waivers has resulted in as many as half of TAA recipients not even participating in training. It rarely works with participants after they finish training to help them find jobs, and TAA does not have an effective accountability system in place. The GAO has also pointed out that the existence of ``several other targeted dislocated worker programs,'' in addition to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, suggesting that the United States overall approach to dislocated worker assistance needs reform. The GAO followup study of the NAFTA-TAA Program last year indicated that many of the shortcomings of the existing TAA Program had not been addressed. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I believe that the protection in the entitlement that exists still with the Finance Committee for financial support is protected and continues. At the same time the job training portion would be included in, I think, a much superior system so that everybody can be helped and assisted in a comprehensive way. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I suggest that if it is only something the Senator is wanting to list as a permissible activity, we already do that under the Workforce Development Act. It is listed as a definition. It is included in the dislocated workers as one of the benchmarks in the bill. Although displaced homemakers are not counted separately, I will argue this is still a population that is very much a part of the training, both education and jobs, under the work force development bill.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I will only say, the definition as we traditionally thought of is one which is defined as a full-time homemaker for a substantial number of years and who no longer receives financial support previously provided by a spouse or public assistance. That is what we traditionally thought of as a displaced homemaker. I will suggest that this expanded definition includes anyone who has been on welfare and has a child under the age of 16 will be, obviously, someone who is receiving some duplicative assistance as well. I just suggest while it is a very vulnerable population, the amendment does make a dramatic change, and I suggest, at least of my reading of it, under the education requirements that it is a required education activity. While it is permissible under job training, as I read it, it is required under education activities. I just think, Mr. President, that it runs contrary to the thrust of this bill which is attempting to get away, again, from our practice of narrowly defining programs and eligible recipients. Not that we do not all have some real sympathy; I believe it is important to be able to reach that population. But this practice is the reason we have, again, so many separate programs and I think have not served any of them as well as they could be and why we worked hard to try and do a totality of the system that could provide better quality assistance. So I have to oppose this. I think that it really goes in a different direction to [[Page S 14865]] a larger degree than we had intended by creating the programs that we had under this legislation.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, just to clarify, displaced homemakers is listed in the bill. It is a category under ``dislocated workers,'' and that is true with the definition that I gave earlier. But it is a benchmark under the dislocated worker section as something that should be addressed without setting aside any special allocation. So just to clarify, we were conscious of it being an important population. It was not addressed as the Senator from Ohio would like to see it by his amendment. I do not want people to think we did not debate this and were not cognizant of that group. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I, too, am pleased that we have been able to work out an agreement on the language with the Senator from Louisiana. He spent a lot of time on this. He has given a lot of thought to it. And I have supported the limited use of vouchers for job training services but only as an option for the States. I think there is a recognition that there is a place, but we need to be careful on how we move in that direction. I have been very concerned about mandating vouchers because it is a new and untested concept. Therefore, I think the direction that this amendment would take us is an important one. I very much value the effort of Senator Breaux to speak to this. He cares a lot about it. And the amendment will not mandate that States provide vouchers but, rather, will provide additional means to assist and encourage States to implement a voucher system. I am pleased to be a supporter of this amendment.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I, too, am pleased that we have been able to come together in agreement on the amendment put forward by the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Rhode Island. Senator Dodd has been an eloquent advocate for wanting to make sure that these workers who may be laid off due to some sort of natural disaster would be taken care of, and we had some lengthy debates in the committee. This is an issue on which Members on both sides of the aisle have worked hard to address. The national interest in addressing major economic dislocations from natural disasters is something that affects all of our States and goes often across State lines. It is difficult for States to adequately prepare to handle themselves when there is a disaster that may happen without any advanced notice. While I have been reluctant to set aside a large amount at the Federal level which would further diminish moneys going to the States, this amendment will allow those funds already set aside at the national level for incentive grants to also be used for rapid response grants. This will assist workers affected by plant closures or mass layoffs or natural disasters. In addition, a small amount of funds are being made available for migrant and seasonal farm workers, and this I believe is also something that the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Rhode Island have been particularly concerned about as well. So I am pleased that this amendment does not substantially reduce the amount of funding that is going directly to the States under this bill, which was my primary concern when it was offered in committee. I appreciate the willingness of my colleagues on the committee, Senator Dodd and Senator Pell, to try to work out some language that we could all come together and support and I believe this is it. So for all these reasons, Mr. President, I think it is a good amendment. I am very appreciative of the efforts of the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Rhode Island to help work out the language.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if there is no one else who wishes to speak on this amendment, I would urge adoption of the amendment.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield back the time.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2888

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I yield back any time I might have.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I am also a strong supporter of the displaced homemaker program, but the amendment of Senator Glenn will start an entirely new program. It will create another set-aside effort for a particular special category. It is an expanded category because it substantially distorts the concept of what was thought of as a displaced homemaker by including anyone with a child aged 16 or younger who has received AFDC assistance. Madam President, I feel strongly that the way we have addressed it in [[Page S 14876]] the bill, by listing it as one of the considerations under dislocated workers, which provides a benchmark but does not require it being set aside as a special program, is a very important rationale. Otherwise, we get right back into trying to serve a special population. If we do serve this one, then why should we not serve that one? This would put us right back where we started. I think expanding the definition is a mistake. I think the requirement that it be so defined is a mistake, and I urge opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, for the information of Senators, there will be no further rollcall votes this evening. However, we will continue to debate several amendments this evening. First, we will consider the amendment of Senator Craig, from Idaho, that I believe has been worked out on both sides. Then we will move to debate the amendment of the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] followed by, I believe, an amendment offered by the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm]. Rollcall votes on those two amendments will occur tomorrow, as well as the disposition of the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] and then there will be final passage. It is my understanding the Senator from Ohio would like to offer a few minutes of comments as in morning business.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Reserving the right to object, and I will not do so, just to suggest we are waiting for, I believe, probably Senator Jeffords and Senator Pell to offer the first amendment. But certainly I look forward to Senator Pryor being able to speak as in morning business.