Nancy Kassebaum

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I would like to say that we are prepared to accept the Craig amendment. I believe it would add an additional measure of accountability to the bill. I am very appreciative of the Senator from Idaho bringing this to the attention of the committee. Under the Craig amendment, I think States will conduct ongoing evaluations of their training activities. I think that is enormously beneficial. It was something that was recommended in the Heritage Foundation bulletin as a weakness in the bill that we did not have that evaluation. I think being able to strengthen accountability is very important, and I am most appreciative. I think it has been agreed to on both sides.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I urge adoption of the Craig amendment.

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

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I, too, share the comments made by the Senator from Illinois in admiration for the sincerity and dedication of the Senator from Missouri in his efforts on this amendment. We all worry about the problem of drug abuse. Certainly, I think he makes a case, that if we are getting into job training, why should we not make sure during that process that those men and women who are engaged in programs will come out of it stronger and more able to be participants in a positive way in the work force? I share the concerns raised about unfunded mandates. I know the Senator [[Page S 14881]] from Missouri has said we talk about unfunded mandates and we talk about prevention programs. But this mandate becomes part of the equation on this that I think we must address. Because I believe it requires mandatory testing, I simply have to oppose the amendment as it is offered at this point. Under the legislation, as I understand it, the Governor of each State is responsible for administering the job training program. In some cases the Governor can contract with the private sector for necessary services. In other cases county officials or community colleges will run the program. Is that correct?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. So the cost of the drug testing for job training applicants and participants would be paid for by the State or local government, or by the private sector, potentially?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I am assuming that States could take funds to pay for this out of the job training moneys that are in the block grant going back to the State?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Or even vocational education dollars?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I tend to believe the costs will be substantial. Local drug testing labs charge between $22 and $50 per test, with an additional $5 to $8 for a doctor to review the test to eliminate any false positives. If we have one-half million to 1 million individuals in job training programs, the total cost of drug testing could run into millions of dollars. We could also say this will be well worth the effort because we will be able, hopefully, to provide some assistance to those who are in job training. Perhaps I did not understand the Senator from Missouri correctly. Did he say he did not think they should then be in a prevention program?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I think that anybody who would be in testing would have to be a participant in some type of treatment program. It seems to me that this becomes a part of the process that would be necessary. I really feel that we are adding a significant burden. I know it is of concern to the Governors. I received a letter from Governor Engler of Michigan and Governor Branstad of Iowa, respectively. They say that they write to share their concerns regarding the mandate of drug testing of job training participants. If I may quote the letter: In keeping with the principles adopted by the Republican Governors Association, we believe it is imperative for the States to have the maximum flexibility and freedom from mandates. If States want to use drug testing as a screening mechanism, then States should have the ability to do so. However, to make this a national policy is overprescriptive and holds serious cost implications in this time of budget cutback. We appreciate the concerns for our views and encourage you to oppose efforts that would mandate this effort. The Senator from Missouri mentioned the Job Corps program. This is the one program where they have had a zero tolerance policy. There have been major drug problems in some of the Job Corps centers. I think it is a real tragedy. Again, this is the place where they should be making sure that any drug trafficking and any use of drugs be closely monitored and not be tolerated. They are beginning to make some inroads toward this goal. But I can appreciate very much what the Senator is trying to say, that if they have this problem, what good will job training do if they cannot come to recognize that the problem needs to be corrected? I would suggest to the Senator from Missouri that he consider modifying his amendment to make it voluntary and limit it to voluntary, reasonable-cause testing. It seems to me that we state then that it is something that is very important to us, encourage it be voluntary, and hope that the States and employers would join forces in making that a major effort. But I myself could not support the amendment as long as it is not mandatory for the various reasons that the Senator from Illinois outlined as well.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, if I may just make one further comment. Of the $7.2 billion in the block grant, 25 percent is vocational education, potentially even more, 25 percent, as the Senator from Missouri knows, is job training, and 50 percent is the flex account which the Governors can use for either vocational education or the job services section. We tried hard to keep mandates as limited as possible. We do plan that the States have one-stop service centers rather than several duplicative job service outlets because we have found from experience that it is far better to have all that information in one place than a number of places. Mandates do creep into the legislation. It is not just turning the money over to the States but it includes, hopefully, enough flexibility that the Governors and the business community and the participants in either education or job training can design the programs to best fit their communities. I am very supportive of the efforts behind the amendment proposed by Senator Ashcroft. I only wish that I did not feel it was going to be overly prescriptive to the extent that it could potentially reduce the moneys which have become limited for both education and training.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the Extradition Treaty with Bolivia, Treaty Document No. 104-22, transmitted to the Senate by the President on October 10, 1995; that the treaty be considered as having been read for the first time; referred, with accompanying papers, to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and ordered that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators the Senate will resume the Workforce Development Act tomorrow at 11:30 a.m. Rollcall votes can be expected on or in relation to any remaining amendments to that bill. And it is the majority leader's hope that the Senate will complete action on S. 143 at an early hour on Wednesday. Following the completion of that bill, the Senate may begin consideration of the State Department reorganization bill, if available. [[Page S 14953]] Senators are also reminded that there will be a joint meeting tomorrow morning at 9 a.m., commemorating the anniversary of the ending of World War II. Senators should gather in the Senate Chamber at 8:45 a.m., to proceed to the Hall of the House of Representatives 8:50 a.m., for the ceremony. Mr. President, I would like to clarify that morning business tomorrow morning extends to 11:30 a.m.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until the hour of 10:15 a.m., on Wednesday, October 11, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that there then be a period for morning business until the hour of 11:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each with the exception of the following: Senator Warner 20 minutes, Senator Grams 10 minutes, Senator Daschle 30 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m., the Senate resume consideration of S. 143, the Workforce Development Act.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any remaining time on that amendment would be yielded back.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Jeffords- Pell amendment be set aside for the consideration of the Moynihan amendment.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I am happy to yield some time to the Senator from Minnesota. It is my understanding that Senator Moynihan is prepared to offer the next amendment. Senator Grams has an amendment he will offer, and then we will stack those three votes. So we will complete the debate on this amendment, and that is with the agreement of Senator Jeffords and Senator Pell, just to give some indication for those who might be wondering what the timing is. I would be happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. If I may comment for a moment, many of us put education as a top priority of interest and concern. But there are no two people, I think, in the U.S. Senate who have spoken with greater dedication to the importance of education than Senator Pell, who has lent his name to one of the most important student aid programs that there is, the Pell grant program, and Senator Jeffords. So it is with regret that I must oppose this amendment. I opposed it in committee where it was defeated on a tie vote, and I oppose it today for one major reason. To me, it is an important one, because it goes to the heart of what we have tried to do with the work force development legislation. It would reduce the State flexibility, which is really at the heart of S. 143. Many have said that S. 143 is still too bureaucratic. Mr. President, we ended 80-some programs. We have really revolutionized the way we handle job training, and we have tried very hard to keep a flexibility in place so that the States can determine how best to design a program that fits the need of that State. Major goals of the legislation are to create a single work force development system, to allow States flexibility in deciding what is needed. Throughout the development of this legislation, we have made every effort to minimize the number of mandates and funding set-asides. Some guidance to the States is necessary to assure that the Federal dollars are appropriately and effectively spent. That is why the bill sets minimum amounts--25 percent--which must be spent both on work force training and work force education activities respectively. Beyond that point, however, I do not believe we should be dictating the mix of education or training activities the State feels is most important. If we start down this path, I suggest that we will soon arrive at the same place we started, which was 90-odd separate, narrowly defined programs. That is why, as I say, with all of the good intent of the authors of this amendment, I must oppose this. I do not believe that adult basic education services will be forgotten without this set-aside. The bill already requires that funds be provided for these services within the 25 percent that is reserved for education activities. So I just suggest, Mr. President, that I think we have addressed that concern without, again, going back to a set-aside that would be very restrictive to the flexibility that is necessary. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I do not know if anyone else wishes to be heard. Does the Senator from Vermont wish to speak at this time? Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask how much time remains?

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I was just here to fill in for the Senator from Georgia until he got to the floor. I just have a few very brief remarks to make. First, I want to say that I am very appreciative of Senator Hutchison and Senator Nunn for organizing this debate--a beginning debate, perhaps--on a very important subject. I think it is essential for us to begin to think about the consequences of the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and what that may mean. I would also like to say that the announcement of the Senator from Georgia yesterday was one which I think all of us felt great disappointment with, but also thoughtful understanding. Senator Nunn has brought to the U.S. Senate, and to the United States, sincerity, integrity, and a depth of knowledge in a debate of the public policy issues before us in this country through the four terms he has served that will be remembered far into the future. And his legacy will be one that will be an inspiration to all who wish to follow in public service. So I join with all on both sides of the aisle who will greatly miss his presence in the U.S. Senate. Mr. President, I would like to join for a few minutes in this discussion on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its future. This debate has been ongoing for years in Europe among foreign policy experts, and in the administration. But in Congress, which would have to approve any changes in the North Atlantic Treaty to accommodate new members, it is long overdue. I enter this debate as a strong supporter of NATO and a firm believer it must remain the foundation of the security architecture in Europe, just as the Senator from Texas pointed out in her excellent statement. Supporters of the NATO expansion have said for some time the issue is not, why and how, but rather who and when? In my mind, we have gotten ahead of ourselves. The issue, I believe, remains very much why and how. I believe the first order of business must be to clearly define in our own minds, and with our allies, what we want NATO to do in Europe's new security environment. The Soviet Union is gone and with it the clear threat that held NATO together. We know we still need a security structure in Europe and that America should be a part of that structure. But we have not in my mind made clear the new purpose for that structure. It seems to me difficult to construct a security system and to make significant decisions such as whom to include, and by implication whom to exclude, without a clear, shared purpose to pursue. The dangers of fuzzy purpose have been made clear in Bosnia. For years, NATO hesitated, the allies could not agree, we did not act, and, in my view, the alliance has been weakened as a result. While NATO now seems to have found its footing in the Bosnia conflict, I suggest Bosnia has shown our first order of business must be to find anew our shared purpose for America's involvement in Europe. Only then can we properly consider what security structure will best serve that purpose. Let me make clear that I am not arguing against changes in NATO. It is a cold war institution that must adapt to new realities. But I am not yet prepared to say that change necessarily equates with expansion. Perhaps President Clinton put it best in his speech at Freedom House last week when he called for NATO's modernization. It seems to me this broader question about how NATO should be updated to fit our new needs, not a predetermined notion that expansion is both desirable and inevitable, should be the debate we now take up. As this debate continues and reaches the Congress, we will face many questions. Are the American people prepared to pledge, in the words of the North Atlantic Treaty, that an armed attack against one or more of these potential new members will be considered an attack against all? That, I think, is a question we should keep first and foremost in our minds. It is easy to say how important this expansion will be. It is important to the future of the organization. But when it comes right down to it, are we prepared to do what is asked for in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Charter as it stands? I do not know the answer to that. But I do know that it is the basic issue we are debating. Those who support this expansion have a heavy burden to make their case. I look forward to the comments of Senator Nunn. I think the debate is called for by Mrs. Hutchison in her role on the Armed Services Committee and her important role as a Senator from Texas, where there are a number of military installations. Kansas has military installations also. Fort Riley is always very involved in forward deployment to Germany. And certainly the same for the senior Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn]. These are issues of grave importance to all of us, and I think, as we can begin to reason together, it will be useful in this dialog. I yield the floor.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I would like to speak for just a moment because at 11:30 we go back into morning business for an hour. We will be debating this later to a far greater extent, but because Job Corps has been raised this morning by several Members, I would like to speak for a moment to this because it is something on which we held several days of hearings. It is a subject on which I have had grave concerns. It has been a very important program through the years. But like many other things, it can stand change that I believe will make it even stronger. Job Corps, under the legislation that we are considering, remains a residential program for at-risk youth, but it is integrated into the statewide work force development system. Too often today we have Job Corps centers that are federally run that operate independently of the vocational education efforts that are ongoing in the State. These centers remain separate and apart from job service information when we could include them into initiatives better able to help students find jobs. I think it is just absolutely essential for us today to recognize that there is a population of at-risk youth that need a stronger support system. Many times the Job Corps centers have become, or should become perhaps, detention-center-type efforts, but because there has not been a directive that has focused on the changing needs of the population being served. I think that on the whole we are now doing a disservice. It is not to say that it is not an important initiative. And it remains so under this legislation with its own funding stream and its own section. But primary responsibility for the operation of the Job Corps centers is transferred to the State. And each center must be linked to the one- stop center and at other local training and education efforts. I think that linkage is vital today to make it a successful effort. During the 2-year transition period which is called for in this legislation, a national audit of the Job Corps Program will be performed. Based on the results of the audit, and other criteria, the Secretary of Labor is directed to close 25 underperforming Job Corps centers. The criteria used to determine which centers will be closed are as follows. This is, Mr. President, out of 112 centers which are operating with about 8 new ones under consideration. The criteria would be, first, whether a given center has consistently received low performance measurement ratings under the Department of Labor or Inspector General Job Corps rating system; second, whether the center is among those that have experienced the highest number of serious incidents of violence or criminal activity; third, whether or not the center requires the largest funding for rehabilitation and repair; fourth, the relative and absolute cost of the centers compared to all other centers; and, fifth, whether the center is among those with the least State and local support. The centers that we found that were working the best were those that had strong local support, that had strong ties to the community and worked well in that endeavor. Mr. President, funds saved as a result of these closures as well as additional funds will be allocated to the State for work force development activities directed specifically for at-risk youth. These activities may include, for example, grants to carry out programs to assist out-of-school at-risk youth and participating in school-to-work activities. Under this provision, 85 percent of the at-risk youth funds will be distributed at the local level. As I say, we will be debating this at some length later on because it is of concern and it has supporters and critics on both sides of the aisle. But it is something, I believe, that is a good example of a program that started with the best of intentions, and still has the best of intentions, but must be looked at in the light of the reality of what we are dealing with today. And I feel those who are participants, the young men and women in the Job Corps Program, are not being served consistently as successfully as I believe they could with some important changes that we could make in this bill. But we will be continuing this debate later. I wanted to mention those aspects of it at this point.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I said in my opening statement how much I and the ranking member, Senator Kennedy, have valued the efforts of the Senator from Tennessee to significantly improve the legislation, and I would like to again express appreciation to Senator Frist, who worked on the vocational rehabilitation section and strengthened it in ways that I believe have added immeasurably to not only the success of the legislation but I think also the assurance to those in the rehabilitation community that while they want to work to become integrated into the work force, they also want to retain a statutory authority and a funding stream that gives them some certainty they have a voice. And it was the effort of Senator Frist and staffs on both sides that worked together to develop this section that I think lends great strength to the bill, and I am very appreciative to the Senator.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I think he will be happy to have the Senator proceed for whatever amount of time the Senator wishes to use.