WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1995; Congressional Record Vol. 141, No. 156
(Senate - October 10, 1995)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S14877-S14882]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.


                Amendment No. 2892 to Amendment No. 2885

         (Purpose: To provide for evaluation of State programs)

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 2892 to amendment No. 2885.

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 105, strike lines 4 through 14 and insert the 
     following:
       (1) In general.--Each State that receives an allotment 
     under section 102 shall annually prepare and submit to the 
     Federal Partnership, a report that states how the State is 
     performing on State benchmarks, and the status and results of 
     any State evaluations specified in subsection (f), that 
     relate to workforce development activities (and workforce 
     preparation activities for at-risk youth) carried out through 
     the statewide system of the State. In preparing the report, 
     the State may include information on such additional 
     benchmarks as the State may establish to meet the State 
     goals.
       On page 113, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:
       (f) Evaluation of State Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Each State that receives an allotment 
     under section 102 shall conduct ongoing evaluations of 
     workforce employment activities, flexible workforce 
     activities, and activities provided through Job Corps 
     centers, carried out in the State under this title.
       (2) Methods.--The State shall--
       (A) conduct such evaluations through controlled experiments 
     using experimental and control groups chosen by random 
     assignment:
       (B) in conducting the evaluations, determine, at a minimum, 
     whether job training and job placement services provided 
     through the activities described in paragraph (1) effectively 
     raise the hourly wage rates of individuals receiving the 
     services through such activities; and
       (C) conduct at least 1 such evaluation at any given time 
     during any period in which the State is receiving funding 
     under this title for such activities.

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I want to thank the chairman, the Senator 
from Kansas, for her help and support in arriving at a final form of 
the performance measurement amendment that I am offering today. I 
understand and I think we heard the chairman just mention that both 
sides have cleared this, and I do appreciate the work of both the chair 
and the ranking member on agreeing to this amendment and working with 
us to get it to the form necessary for that agreement.
  This amendment embodies a simple, commonsense principle but one that 
is often lacking in many of our Federal programs. I refer to the idea 
that when we have a program, we should study what we are doing to 
determine whether it works and, most importantly, how well it works.
  This amendment simply would require that each State receiving an 
allotment under section 102 report on how it is performing on State 
benchmarks and on status and results of evaluations measuring the 
impact of job training programs on the wages of the individuals 
receiving the job training services. The need for and the benefits of 
such an evaluation process were brought home to me by the outstanding 
work already being done in this area by the Southwest Idaho Private 
Industry Council.
  The folks at the Southwest Idaho PIC have visited with my staff and 
me frequently and have prepared an impressive array of information 
measuring the effectiveness of the PIC's programs. Specifically, the 
Southwest Idaho PIC regularly computes, among other figures, a return 
on investment.
  Now, that is a very unique concept when we think of Federal programs. 
But this shows various ways that the clients of the PIC are repaying 
their entire investment made in their training program. Currently, the 
average graduate each earns enough, after just 13 months in the work 
force, to repay in Federal taxes the entire Federal share investment of 
his or her training.
  Mr. President, if every federally funded job training provider across 
the country had to compute a return on investment, or similar measure 
of its performance, based on objective, empirical research data, we 
would see the best of both worlds. And in Idaho, with the training 
program of the Private Industry Council, we are beginning to realize 
that. More importantly, they are able to fine-tune their program to get 
the highest yield; and, in this instance, the highest yield very simply 
means a better-trained person, who comes to the job market more 
prepared and, as a result, is able to perform not only to their own 
satisfaction, but in a business sense, it returns to the taxpayer the 
kind of investment all of us strive for in job training programs.
  We need to build a body of evidence on the true effectiveness of job 
training programs. Very few programs have ever been subjected to 
rigorous and scientific evaluation. We have the opportunity, with this 
amendment, to debate results, rather than mere hopes.
  As a Department of Labor report already has pointed out, ``there are 
many areas where little thorough and reliable evaluation evidence is 
available.''
  It is our intent with this amendment to compare the results for 
served clients with data from control groups--that is, unserved 
persons. Evaluations would be valid and reliable, and conducted through 
controlled experiments.
  I stress the importance of comparing applies with apples--the control 
group should be identical to the served group in every way except for 
the provision of the job training services. This is the essence of 
scientific studies of this sort. Therefore, it is my understanding and 
intent that this amendment require that the demographic characteristics 
in each group be proportional to the characteristics in the other.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their consideration. 
I urge adoption of this very simple and practical amendment.
  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.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, it is a good amendment. We are pleased to 
accept it on this side.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I urge adoption of the Craig 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 

[[Page S 14878]]

  The amendment (No. 2892) was agreed to.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SIMON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2893 to Amendment No. 2885

 (Purpose: To establish a requirement that individuals submit to drug 
  tests, to ensure that applicants and participants make full use of 
      benefits extended through work force employment activities)

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2893 to amendment No. 2885.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 65, between lines 23 and 24, add the following 
     subsection:
       (i) Limitations on Participants.--
       (1) Finding.--Congress finds that--
       (A) the possession, distribution, and use of drugs by 
     participants in workforce employment activities should not be 
     tolerated, and that such use prevents participants from 
     making full use of the benefits extended through such 
     activities at the expense of taxpayers; and
       (B) applicants and participants should be tested for 
     illegal drug use, in order to maximize the training and 
     assistance provided under this Act.
       (2) Drug tests.--Each local entity carrying out workforce 
     employment activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), 
     (C), (D), (E), (G), (H), (J), or (K) of subsection (a)(6) 
     shall administer a drug test--
       (A) on a random basis, to individuals who apply to 
     participate in such activities; and
       (B) to a participant in such activities, on reasonable 
     suspicion of drug use by the participant.
       (3) Eligibility of applicants.--In order for such an 
     applicant to be eligible to participate in workforce 
     employment activities, the applicant shall agree to submit to 
     a drug test administered as described in paragraph (2) and, 
     if the test is administered to the applicant, shall pass the 
     test.
       (4) Eligibility of participants.--In order for such a 
     participant to be eligible to participate in workforce 
     employment activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), 
     (C), (D), (E), (G), (H), (J), or (K) of subsection (a) (6), 
     the individual shall agree to submit to a drug test 
     administered as described in paragraph (2) and, if the test 
     is administered to the participant, shall pass the test. If a 
     participant refuses to submit to the drug test, or fails the 
     drug test, the local entity shall dismiss the participant 
     from participation in the activities.
       (5) Reapplication.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), an 
     individual who is an applicant and is disqualified from 
     eligibility under paragraph (3), or who is a participant and 
     is dismissed under paragraph (4), may reapply, not earlier 
     than 6 months after the date of the disqualification or 
     dismissal, to participate in the workforce employment 
     activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), 
     (G), (H), (J), or (K) of subsection (a)(6). If the individual 
     demonstrates that the individual has completed a drug 
     treatment program and passed a drug test within the past 30 
     days, the individual may participate in such activities, 
     under the same terms and conditions as apply to other 
     applicants and participants, including submission to drug 
     tests administered as described in paragraph (2).
       (B) Second disqualification or dismissal.--If the 
     individual reapplies to participate in the activities and 
     fails a drug test administered under paragraph (2) by the 
     local entity, while the individual is an applicant or a 
     participant, the local entity shall disqualify the individual 
     from eligibility for, or dismiss the individual from 
     participation in, the workforce employment activities. The 
     individual shall not be eligible to reapply for participation 
     in the activities for 2 years after such disqualification or 
     dismissal.
       (6) Appeal.--A decision by a local entity to disqualify an 
     individual from eligibility for participation in workforce 
     employment activities under paragraph (3) or (5), or to 
     dismiss a participant as described in paragraph (4) or (5), 
     shall be subject to expeditious appeal in accordance with 
     procedures established by the State in which the local entity 
     is located.
       (7) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       (A) Drug.--The term ``drug'' means a controlled substance, 
     as defined in section 102(6) of the Controlled Substance Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).
       (B) Drug test.--The term ``drug test'' means a biochemical 
     drug test carried out by a facility that is approved by the 
     local entity administering the test.

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, the training of an appropriate and 
productive work force is essential to the future of America. We are not 
speaking this evening about some marginal enterprise. The success and 
survival of this society in the next century depends on our ability to 
be productive and our ability to be competitive in a global marketplace 
which, more frequently than not, now requires us to match the 
productivity of people around the globe. It is important for us, then, 
to do those things which we can to help our work force be the most 
competitive and productive work force on the face of the Earth.
  There are a variety of challenges to productivity and worker success 
in America. One of the challenges which our workers face is the 
challenge of narcotics and drugs. The National Institute on Drug Abuse 
has found that illicit drug use costs about $140 billion annually in 
lost productivity, thefts, absenteeism and accidents. It is as if a 
$140 billion tariff were to be placed upon American goods in the world 
marketplace. It is a cost which must be undertaken, a cost which must 
be covered. It hurts our ability to compete. It substantially impairs 
our ability to deliver to consumers goods at an appropriate price. And 
it challenges the sense in which this society can be successful, not 
only in this decade but in the next century.
  Just to give you an idea, we are debating a bill of $7.8 billion in 
terms of job training, and yet we are talking about $140 billion a year 
that we find is basically levied against our system because we have the 
problem of drug abuse in the workplace.
  The amendment which I have sent to the desk and which I called to the 
attention of the U.S. Senate, for which I urge Senator's serious 
consideration, is an amendment which would seek to signal very clearly 
that this Government does not endorse drug use in the marketplace. As a 
matter of fact, we could not endorse it and make it work. Seventy-seven 
percent of all the companies that hire employees in the United States 
do drug testing because they know that, as a matter of fact, 
individuals who are on drugs are not productive, are not capable, do 
not turn out to be good employees.
  The Utah Power and Light Co. ran a survey, and they found that 
individuals who had tested positive on drugs were 77 percent more 
likely to be fired during their first 3 years of employment.
  So this challenge to America, the challenge to our productivity, the 
challenge to our ability to appropriately deploy a resource which is 
scarce--training dollars--is an important challenge, and it is the drug 
challenge.
  There are a few facts about drugs in America which are not inspiring, 
but they are instructive. We began to make progress in the war on 
drugs. From 1989 to 1992, we were driving down the number of 
individuals who had used an illicit drug during the last 12 months. 
Unfortunately, since 1992, we have seen that on the uptake and on the 
increase.
  We will not be competitive or successful if drug use continues to go 
in this direction. We need, as a Government, as a society, and as a 
culture, to send a signal, to make it a signal which is unmistakably 
clear that individuals cannot contemporaneously be involved in illicit 
narcotics in the work force and in the achievement of other goals and 
dreams that are common to America.
  Certainly true in the private sector--77 percent of the firms in the 
private sector test for drug use. Even small firms, from 1 to 499 in 
number, 62.3 percent of those firms test. Of course, in the large 
firms, 88 percent test; 88.6 percent of those firms having between 
2,500 jobs and 10,000 jobs test; 88 percent of the firms with over 
10,000 test. It is important to note the categories in which firms do 
drug testing. Manufacturers--these are the places where people who are 
trained to work, who go through training programs need to find jobs.
  Eighty-nine percent of the manufacturers involve themselves in drug 
testing; 88 percent in transportation; and sales, 71 percent; financial 
service, only 47 percent.
  I venture to say that our job training program is not going to be 
training mutual fund managers. We are talking about folks who will have 
to find themselves employed in these categories. I think in fairness to 
individuals who will be looking for jobs in these industries where they 
will be drug tested, we should say to them, you need to be drug free to 
be part of the job training program. 

[[Page S 14879]]

  We should not allow them to continue along a pathway of mythology 
which says you can go ahead and be involved in illicit drugs and still 
be involved productively in society. You can still get a good job. The 
truth of the matter is, you cannot.
  We need to ask ourselves whether we are really being compassionate if 
we have a program of job training that ignores drug use and suggests 
that the mythology that you can just waltz along in drug use and get a 
job is reality, or whether we ought to introduce people to the reality 
of the fact if you want a job, you want to be on the payroll, you have 
to be off the drug role. It is that simple.
  I think these are compelling facts that we do an injustice to a 
population of individuals that wants to aspire to and wants to prepare 
for the work force if we fail to tell them very clearly and 
unmistakably, you cannot have both of these tracks going. It does not 
work. It is bad national policy.
  It costs the country $140 billion a year. It will not work for you 
personally, because 90 percent virtually of the kinds of businesses 
where you get jobs will not allow you to come to work without first 
taking a drug test. I believe it is time for us to say we ought to have 
drug testing for those who are involved in job training.
  We need to prepare them at the earliest time possible to understand 
the reality of the work force. The reality of the work force is you 
cannot be on the payroll if you are on drugs.
  These numbers, these conditions, I think compel us to a conclusion 
that we need to have drug testing. I think there are other reasons to 
have drug testing.
  We have talked over and over again, we hear people remark how scarce 
job training funds are, how we need more job training funds, how there 
is a population that needs job training but we do not have all of the 
resources to meet the needs.
  When you have a universe of scarcity, when you have more people 
needing training than you have funds to train them, you have to decide 
who you will train. It seems to me you ought to decide to train the 
people who are most likely to get jobs and most likely to be able to 
keep those jobs.
  Now, the amendment which I have sent to the desk and for which I ask 
consideration and approval is an amendment that says we will train 
people who are drug free. It is really a way of saying we want to use 
our training funds efficiently. We want to use them effectively. We do 
not want to spend a lot of money training someone, then sending them to 
one of the manufacturers and having them wash them out of the system.
  I think that is eminently reasonable. I think it is important for us, 
it is fair to the worker to say we need for you to confront reality 
now. It is fair to America to say we ought to deploy our resource for 
training where it is most productive and where it will have a positive 
effect and where it is likely to help someone get a job, instead of 
perpetuating a myth for them until they run into their application 
which requires them to be involved in drug testing.
  Millions of taxpayers' dollars have been wasted on individuals 
expecting to receive or receiving training but not capable of being 
trained as they ought to. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to 
try and train someone who was on drugs? It seems to me that it is 
eminently reasonable we ought to say to individuals, if you want a job, 
you need to get off drugs.
  Our program ought to make a clear and unmistakable statement. I think 
a vote for this amendment is a vote that says we as a country ought to 
say to individuals honestly and early, you cannot follow both tracks. 
You cannot follow the drug culture and also the culture of industry.
  I think we ought to make that clear. It is unfair to them. If you 
vote against drug testing, you vote in favor of saying continue the 
current policy of ignoring drug use. I think ignoring drug use is like 
ignoring a cancer on the body of this great Nation. We may be able to 
ignore it today but its presence will be felt and it will erode and 
undermine and the canker of it all will make it impossible for us to 
succeed.
  I come to say stop suggesting that you can be involved in the drug 
culture and the culture of industry and the work ethic. That is the 
wrong set of values. It is wrong. It is morally wrong to suggest that 
you can come along, go ahead and get training, you will get a job, send 
them out to hit this 89, 90 percent of the companies, and then have 
them rejected, told that the money the taxpayers have spent for their 
training is wasted. I think that is morally wrong.
  I think it is also a bad allocation of public resources. If the 
resources are scarce, train the people for jobs who can benefit from 
the training. Make a statement to the people who pay their taxes, who 
send us here to Washington, that we will honor and respect those who 
care enough about themselves, their families and their futures to be 
drug free and to seriously deal with job training, and we will prefer 
them over people who do not care enough about themselves or their 
families to stay off drugs long enough to get job training.
  I cannot imagine that this body would want to reject this amendment 
and thereby say that we preferred to tell people that we do not have a 
preference between drug use and nondrug use.
  This bill is not an unreasonable bill. It provides for random drug 
tests. It provides for drug tests on reasonable suspicion. It allows 
individuals who have failed the drug test to clean up their lives and 
to come back. It allows firms to have greater confidence in graduates 
of drug training programs.
  It makes the right statement. It says to America we need to be 
productive. We need to be competitive. We need to be successful. Yes, 
we need to be compassionate, so compassionate that we will not allow 
people to sail along in the middle of a myth but we will ask people to 
respect reality. Early in the program if you want to be involved in 
training, you should be drug free.
  Let me just say this is not novel or new. There are Job Corps 
programs. Of course, they cost $23,000 a year for full-time people. 
There are requirements that there be drug training there. I think it is 
a good program. I think it is a good requirement. I think it is a 
requirement that should be extended to other individuals.
  I believe that this amendment which would provide for this random 
drug testing would provide for opportunities for individuals to be 
preferred if they were drug free, because it would say to individuals 
if you are not drug free, we will not waste the public's resource on 
trying to train you for a job you cannot get because of your drug 
habit.
  I think this is an amendment which ought to have the approval of the 
U.S. Senate because I believe it carries a strong endorsement of the 
people of this country. I urge the Members of the Senate to respond 
constructively and vote in favor of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I respect the sincerity of our new 
colleague from Missouri. He is dealing with a problem that is 
unquestionably a major problem in our society.
  I believe his approach is wrong. I want to tell him why I believe his 
approach is wrong.
  First of all, if you take the logic of what he has to say, then why 
do we not take all of the citizens of this Nation and just randomly 
test them for drugs? We do not do that because there is an invasion of 
privacy that takes place if we do that.
  We do that for people who are in public safety positions--pilots, 
people on the railroads, in positions like that.
  I can recall some years ago when one of our colleagues who is no 
longer here announced he was going to have everyone in his Senate 
office tested for drugs. I guess I was around here and happened to be 
present and I was the next person the reporters could grab hold of and 
they asked me what I thought.
  I said I was not going to do that. I related that we did have at one 
point one employee whose conduct was a little erratic and I had told my 
chief of staff that I wanted to talk to him and insist that he take a 
drug test or we were going to discharge him, and he quit before we got 
to that point.
  I would not favor an amendment like this for Senate employees even 
though this is a hugely important role here. There is a basic privacy.
  When you talk about people who are unemployed, you are talking about 
people who face disaster. What about other disaster programs? What 
about farmers in Missouri and Illinois or 

[[Page S 14880]]
Maine or Kansas who are getting disaster relief?
  Are we going to test farmers before they get disaster relief? Or, 
what about people who, in Missouri and Illinois, receive flood relief? 
We had a major problem in our two States. That is disaster assistance. 
Are we going to send a signal to the Nation: Sorry, if you cannot pass 
a drug test, we are not going to give you flood relief? I do not think 
we want to go down that road.
  I am sure any study will show that people who have house mortgages 
under FHA and have a drug problem are much greater risks. Should we 
test everyone who wants to get a house mortgage in this country? Again, 
I think we should not go down that road. And I have a few other points, 
and then I am going to have to leave before my colleague even has a 
chance to rebut my arguments here.
  I have heard a lot of speeches about unfunded mandates on this floor. 
I made a few myself and my guess is maybe the new Senator from Missouri 
has made a few speeches on unfunded mandates. This is an unfunded 
mandate. It costs about $35 apiece for these tests. And, incidentally--
maybe not so incidentally--about 4 percent of the tests are inaccurate. 
So if we test 500,000 people, 20,000 of those tests--no small number--
are inaccurate.
  Do we have a problem? Should we deal with it? You bet. But the House 
of Representatives has just cut 23 percent from drug treatment and 
prevention. That is what we ought to be working on.
  I visited Cook County jail--9,000 prisoners. I visited with a group 
of prisoners in the minimum security area, about 40 of them, in what is 
like an old army barracks that I remember. I was going around talking 
to them, and I said to one fellow, ``What can we do to be of help to 
you?'' He said, ``I want to get into drug treatment.''
  I turned to the warden and I said, ``How come he cannot get into drug 
treatment?'' The warden said, ``We have 9,000 prisoners and places for 
200 in drug treatment.''
  I turned to this room with 40 people and said, ``How many of you 
would like to get into drug treatment?'' Probably three-quarters of 
them raised their hands.
  If the Senator from Missouri wants to increase funding for drug 
treatment in our country, I will cosponsor the amendment. That is what 
we ought to do. We ought to do much more along that line.
  Then, finally, let me just add one other point. Why do people go on 
drugs? I think there is a variety of reasons, but one factor for a 
great many is a lack of hope. What job training does is to give that 
spark of hope to a lot of people who have just given up in our society. 
I do not question for a moment the motivation of the junior Senator 
from Missouri. He is dealing with a problem that is very real, and he 
wants to do something to solve it. I want to do something to solve it. 
I do not think this does anything to solve it, and it creates some real 
problems. So I will, tomorrow when we vote on this, vote against it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I thank my friend from Illinois. I 
really regret the fact he is leaving, because I would like to have a 
chance to respond. But I understand people leave this Senate very 
frequently. I would like to address, and I hope he will not be offended 
if I address very specifically, the arguments which he has raised, in 
his absence. I do not do that because he is leaving in anticipation he 
will not refute me, but I do it because, though he is leaving, I cannot 
do it at any other time.
  Mr. SIMON. I understand.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator raised a number of questions. If we are 
going to drug test individuals who are in the job training program, why 
not drug test farmers in Missouri who get crop subsidies in some way? 
Here are the reasons to drug test individuals. They are going to be 
drug tested anyway, and the benefit we give them is going to be lost. 
They are not going to get the jobs. Madam President, 89 percent of the 
manufacturers are going to say, ``No dice. You are on drugs. You cannot 
work here.'' We are going to have spent $1,000, $2,000, $3,000, up to 
$20,000, $21,000, $22,000, $23,000 on these individuals and what are 
they going to do? They are going to run into a brick wall.
  The idea that somehow it is compassionate to say, ``That is quite all 
right. Just stay with your drugs. Don't worry, we aren't going to test 
you. Because we are not going to test everybody, we cannot test you.'' 
These are the folks who are going to run into the wall of tests as soon 
as they try to get jobs. These tests I am recommending are related to 
the fact we are trying to give them a benefit for purpose of 
employment. And one of the things that will stop them from enjoying the 
benefit is the fact they will have to take a drug test.
  It seems to me it is eminently reasonable that, instead of saying we 
will spend the $5,000, $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 on your training and 
then you take the drug test, why do you not take the drug test first? 
Why do you not make a part of your preparation for the rest of your 
life, part of the development for the workplace--why do you not make it 
so you move yourself into a drug-free category?
  No. 2, he said, ``Why do we not do the farmers and the flood relief 
people,'' as if we pick and choose between farmers and individuals who 
get flood relief. Not so, we do not do it that way. But we do pick and 
choose. How often has it been said in this debate alone, ``I wish we 
had more money. I wish we had more training. We need more training.'' 
So we are picking and choosing, except we are not picking and choosing 
wisely. We have decided we will just ignore the fact that some of the 
individuals who are in the program have a far lower opportunity to 
succeed than others. They are people on drugs.
  Why do we not--since this resource is scarce, since we do not have a 
lot of money, since we have limited resources--why do we not focus it 
on people who are likely to succeed? It seems to me that is a question 
that hardly demands an answer.
  Then, that is an unfunded mandate; somehow, that this is costly to 
the States, when you could spend $35 to find out you are not going to 
waste $5,000, $10,000, $15,000 or $20,000 on people because people will 
later run into a wall or not have the kind of training for the job for 
which they were seeking training. It seems to me this is a classic case 
of the ounce of prevention is better than the pound of cure.
  They get a pound of cure. They get pounded when they go to ask for a 
job. They ought to have this clear statement made earlier. The Senator 
kindly says, if I would just agree to build drug treatment centers all 
over the country and fund drug treatment, he would be a cosponsor. I 
really think we ought to be involved in something other than treatment. 
This is a way for us to say let us prevent this. Let us not try to slam 
this gate after the horses are gone. Do you know what the success rate 
is for drug treatment centers that are sponsored by the Government? It 
is so low, it is less than 5 percent. It is less than 5 percent. And we 
want to do that instead of telling people up front they should not be 
involved in drugs? It is no wonder what is happening to us is that we 
are seeing this escalation.
  We need to stop this escalation. We need to say it is time for us to 
wake up to reality. Let us not focus our resources on those who will 
not be able to benefit from them. Let us not perpetuate the myth that 
they can be a part of the drug culture and the work culture at the same 
time, and send them out to have these doors slammed in their faces. 
That is not compassion. That is not kindness.
  We are sticking our heads in the sand while they are sticking needles 
into their arms. We need to be real, and we need to ask them to 
confront reality.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  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?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. My understanding is that the local entity, whether it 
is the Governor or whether another institution, would be responsible.
  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?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Yes. If the Senator is inquiring of me under my 
amendment, there is no intention on our part to have additional funding 
from the Federal Government outside the block grant.
  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?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. That is correct.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Or even vocational education dollars?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. They could match this with resources of their own. The 
bill does not require that any particular funding, of course, be used 
to conduct the drug testing.
  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?
  Mr. ASHCROFT. No. We do not specify what can happen. We just say that 
they are eligible to apply again for participation, and, if they can 
apply and demonstrate that they are drug free, then they are eligible 
for participation. So there is no continuing prejudice as a result of a 
single negative drug test. The multiple drug test amendment provides 
that after several drug tests, all of which are positive, the person 
has to wait for about a 2-year period before coming in to ask again for 
an application in the 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.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, let me just address these issues. And 
I thank the Senator from Kansas. I particularly thank her for providing 
me the opportunity to offer this amendment.
  First of all, as it relates to whether or not this is a mandate, we 
are sending Federal money--$7.8 billion--in block grants. That money 
can be used to conduct the test. That is not an unfunded mandate. It is 
an opportunity to deploy the money that the Federal Government invests 
wisely. To take a $35 test and decide we are not going to spend $2,000 
or $5,000 or $10,000 on someone who is going to fail a drug test when 
they go out to get a job--you can call it a Federal mandate, if you 
want, but any condition at all in the law, I guess, is called a Federal 
mandate. But the funding is in this bill.
  I am delighted that the Republican Governors have written about 
mandates. But there are lots of other conditions in this bill. I would 
be most pleased to agree with the chairman that we would take all of 
the mandates out of this bill, but I would withdraw all of the 
conditions, and I would withdraw these conditions.
  I hope she will submit the letters of the Republican Governors for 
the Record so that they can be clear about the fact that all of the 
other things in the bill that they objected to are not really less 
onerous. Many of them are far more onerous than this particular idea. 
The Job Corps obviously is the tough area. It is a residential program. 
It costs a lot of money. It takes the toughest cases, and in those 
toughest cases that is where they have problems with drugs more 
frequently than others. But they have recognized that it is 
inappropriate to spend this kind of resource and expect, having spent 
the kind of resource, to get good results unless we get people to be 
drug free. Because they have some failures does not mean that they 
should not do it. As a matter of fact, if they did not do drug testing, 
we would never know about the problem. People would just whistle 
through the program taking their drugs, and then hitting the wall when 
they go to apply for work. That is what we are really setting up as the 
way of handling this.
  Two last points: First, this is a very generous amendment which 
suggests to the States that they do not have to have a specific program 
of testing. It says they have to develop a program, and it can be a 
random testing program.
  It leaves it up to the States as to how to shape it, how often to 
have it, what numbers involved in the program. It does not say they 
have to do 10 per 1,000. It does not say they have to do 50 per 1,000. 
It says use your good judgment. It says to the States use your good 
judgment, but in spending this Federal resource find a way not to spend 
it so as to waste it, and do not lead people to believe they are on a 
track for a job when they are going to hit a wall of employers who say 
they are going to have to be tested.
  The last point. The bill does provide that in addition to the random 
approach that Governors are allowed to select, there is a reasonable 
suspicion test that can be used in the program. So we are very close to 
what the chairman has suggested as a compromise. We do require that a 
State would set up a random testing program to be determined by the 
State. We also allow the States to participate in a reasonable 
suspicion imposition of a test.
  I believe we should stop suggesting it is unimportant whether or not 
people who seek training are on drugs. We must make a statement to 
them. We must allocate our resource effectively, 

[[Page S 14882]]
and that means we should stop devoting resource to those who are on 
drugs and begin to focus the resource on those who care enough to be 
ready to go on the payroll by being off drugs.
  I thank the Senator, and I thank the Chair.
  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.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, if the Senator from Missouri is 
finished, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
proceedings under the call of the quorum be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________