- TXT
-
PDF
(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.)
Tip
?
Calendar No. 153
104th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 104-118
_______________________________________________________________________
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1995
_______
July 24 (legislative day, July 10), 1995.--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mrs. Kassebaum, from the Committee on Labor and Human Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany S. 143]
The Committee on Labor and Human Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 143) to consolidate Federal employment
training programs and create a new process and structure for
funding the programs, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment in the
nature of a substitute and recommends that the bill as amended
do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Summary of the bill..............................................2
II. Background and need for the legislation..........................4
III. History of the legislation and votes in committee................5
IV. Committee views.................................................13
V. Cost estimate...................................................38
VI. Regulatory impact statement.....................................53
VII. Section-by-section analysis.....................................54
VIII.
Additional views................................................70
IX. Minority views..................................................76
X. Changes in existing law.........................................96
I. Summary of the Bill
TITLE I
State Systems--Statewide work force development systems are
established through a single allotment of funds to each State.
A minimum of 25 percent of the funds are for work force
employment activities, such as creating one-stop career centers
or providing job training. Work force employment activities are
to be planned and administered under the authority of the
Governor. A minimum of 25 percent of the funds are for work
force education activities, including vocational and adult
education. Work force education activities are to be planned
and administered under the authority of the State Educational
Agency.
The remaining 50 percent of the funds are to be used for
any work force employment or education activities as a State
decides. The only requirement is that a portion of the funds be
used to support school-to-work activities, broadly defined. The
decision to allocate funds from this ``flex account'' is made
through a collaborative process involving, among others, the
Governor, the State educational agency, and the private sector.
State Plans--Through this collaboration, the stakeholders
develop an overall strategic plan for the State and designate
which employment or education activities the State will
emphasize through the flex account. State goals and benchmarks
are established in the plan, as well as how the State will use
its funds to meet those goals and benchmarks.
In addition, the plan includes how the State will establish
systems for one-stop career centers, labor market information,
and accountability for job placement, as described in the bill.
The plan also describes how the adult and vocational education
needs of the State will be met, including the allocation of
funds between adult and vocational education and within
vocational education between secondary and postsecondary
vocational education programs.
State and Local Efforts--Provisions is made for
distribution of work force employment and education funds at
the local level. The Governor must enter into agreements with
local communities for the delivery of work force employment,
school-to-work, or economic development activities, where
appropriate. If that is not possible, Governors must provide
local communities the opportunity to comment on the manner in
which funds will be spent at the local level. States are not
required, to establish State and local work force development
boards, but if such boards are established, the State may use
flex account funds for economic development activities aimed at
improving the skills of the State's current workers.
Accountability--Each State must, at a minimum, establish
specific benchmarks designed to meet the goals of providing
meaningful employment and improving academic, occupational, the
literacy skills. Incentives may be given or sanctions may be
imposed, depending upon the progress of the State toward
meeting such goals and benchmarks.
TITLE II
Transition--States may obtain waivers during the 2-year
transition period in order to begin the integration of existing
programs. Each State must submit an interim plan during the
first year of transition, and States that are capable of
establishing statewide systems after the first year may do so.
Job Corps and At-Risk Youth--Job Corps remains as a
residential program for at-risk youth, but is integrated with
the statewide work force development system. Primary
responsibility for the operation of Job Corps centers is
transferred to the States, and each center must be linked into
the one-stop career center system and other local training and
education efforts.
During the 2-year transition period, 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 must
close 25 underperforming Job Corps centers.
Funds saved as a result of these closures, as well as
additional funding, will be allocated to the State for work
force development activities directed specifically for at-risk
youth.
TITLE III
Federal Partnership--A Federal partnership is established
to administer all Federal responsibilities, including approval
of the State plans, negotiation of benchmarks with each State,
and dissemination of best practices.
A governing board, composed of 13 members, will manage the
partnership. The board is composed of a majority of
representatives from business and industry, and representatives
of labor, education and Governors. Upon the establishment of
the board, the Office of Vocational and Adult Education at the
Department of Education and the Employment and Training
Administration at the Department of Labor will be eliminated.
Final authority for the approval of State plans and
disbursement of funds, however, remains with the Secretary of
Education and the Secretary of Labor.
National Activities--Other national activities include
national assessments of vocational education, a national labor
market information system, and establishment of a national
center for research in education and work force development.
TITLE IV
Vocational Rehabilitation--Title I of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 is amended to link vocational rehabilitation
services with the statewide work force development system
including, to the extent feasible, the State goals and
benchmarks.
TITLE V
Amendments to Immigration and Nationality Act--The
Immigration and Nationality Act is amended to prohibit funds
authorized under that act to be used for work force employment
activities. Consequently, the employment needs of refugees will
be addressed in the statewide comprehensive work force
development system.
TITLE VI
Repeals--All major Federal job training programs are
repealed on July 1, 1998, the date by which each State must
implement its statwide work force development system.
II. Background and Need for the Legislation
Since the late 1960's, the Federal Government has invested
considerable resources in helping people find employment
through participation in numerous employment and training
programs. What began as a few limited programs, has exploded
today into a confusing maze of 163 separate programs, scattered
across 15 Federal agencies, and costing more than $20 billion a
year. These programs are hamstrung by duplication, waste, and
conflicting requirements that too often leave program trainees
no better off than when they started.
Today's fragmented system has more than 60 separate
programs targeted at the economically disadvantaged, with, for
example, 34 literacy programs aimed at reaching the same group.
It is a system with six different standards for defining income
eligibility levels, five for defining family and household
income, and five for defining what is included in income.
The system lacks any effective means for determining
whether programs actually work. Last year, the General
Accounting Office released a report indicating that fewer than
half of the 62 job training programs selected for study even
bothered to check to see if participants obtained jobs after
training. During the past decade, only seven of those programs
were evaluated to find out whether trainees would have achieved
the same outcomes without Federal assistance.
The current patchwork of employment and training programs
confuses those seeking assistance because there are no clear
entry points and no clear path from one program to another. The
programs targeted for consolidation currently have conflicting
eligibility criteria. They apply program incentives that are
not always compatible with assisting individuals to acquire
jobs. These program requirements may encourage staff to assist
individuals who are the easiest to serve, rather than the most
difficult. There is limited coordination across programs. There
is no systemic link between educational services and job
training services.
Organizations that provide Federal employment and training
assistance range from publicly supported institutions of higher
education to local education agencies and from nonprofit
community-based organizations to private for-profit
corporations. In addition, different programs frequently target
the same client populations. For example, youth are
specifically targeted by 19 programs. Other target groups, such
as veterans, Native Americans, the poor, and dislocated
workers, are each also targeted by several programs. Not
surprisingly, people have difficulty knowing where to begin to
look for assistance. As a result, they may go to the wrong
agency, or worse, give up altogether.
Employers also experience problems with the multitude of
employment and training programs. Employers want a system that
is easy to access and provides qualified job candidates.
Instead, they must cope with solicitations from over 50
programs that provide job referral and placement assistance to
individuals. Often, employers are not even involved in
designing programs that should be responsive to their labor
market needs. There is no clear linkage between economic
development activities and employment and training programs to
help employers meet their labor needs. Training programs are a
waste of Federal dollars if employers cannot hire newly trained
workers whose skills do not match employer needs.
Faced with stiff global competition, corporate
restructuring, and continuing Federal budget constraints, the
Federal Government cannot support a system that wastes
resources, does not help people better compete for jobs, and
does not help employers meet their labor force needs. People
across the country do not want the Government spending money on
programs that cannot deliver the results promised. As a nation,
we can no longer afford the ``Washington knows best'' mentality
that has created the current maze of employment and training
programs. With a few notable exceptions, the evidence on job
training results reveals far more failures than successes. Many
State and local entities have begun the task of creating
integrated employment and training systems which meet the
unique needs of their communities. They have been frustrated,
however, by Federal laws and regulations which prevent them
from developing a more responsive and effective job training
system.
If employment and training programs are to succeed, a
simple, integrated work force development system must be
established that gives States, local communities, and employers
both the assistance and the incentives to train real workers
for real jobs. The Workforce Development Act of 1995 promotes
the development of a new and coherent system in which all
segments of the work force can obtain the skills necessary to
earn wages sufficient to maintain a high quality of living and
in which a skilled work force can meet the labor market needs
of the businesses of each State.
III. History of the Legislation and Votes in Committee
On January 4, 1995, Senator Kassebaum introduced S. 143,
the Job Training Consolidation Act of 1995. The bill aims to
consolidate employment training, adult education and vocational
education programs and create integrated statewide work force
development systems.
On January 10, 11, and 12, 1995, the Committee on Labor and
Human Resources held hearings in Washington, DC, on ``Federal
Job Training Programs: The Need for Overhaul.'' The committee
heard from individuals experienced with employment and training
programs--both those who had enrolled in such programs and
those who run programs. In addition, the committee heard
testimony from the General Accounting Office, the Office of
Management and Budget, representatives of business and labor,
scholars who study training programs, and representatives of
Federal, State, and local governments.
Those experienced with programs told of their frustration.
For example, Ernestine Dunn of Seattle, WA, testified that she
``was on welfare for 16 years. During that time, I went through
eight different job training programs before I found what I
wanted. All I wanted was the support and training to get a good
job and to be on my own.'' Marion Pines of Johns Hopkins
University noted that ``these kinds of bizarre situations are
not unusual. Well-intentioned staff and clients get caught in a
crossfire of legislative and administratively mandated
regulations, leaving everyone frustrated.''
Several witnesses discussed why employment and training
programs need improvement. Carol D'Amico of the Hudson
Institute in Indianapolis, IN, observed that ``the Federal
Government holds sponsors of these programs accountable for
complying with hundreds of regulations instead of judging them
by what they are accomplishing, that is, whether they are
getting people private sector jobs.'' Clarence Crawford of the
General Accounting Office reported that the number of Federal
employment and training programs stands at 163. He concluded
that, ``We have a system that wastes resources, confuses
clients, employers, and administrators and, after spending
billions of dollars annually, we do not know if the programs
are really helping people find jobs.''
Two witnesses testified specifically about the
effectiveness of the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills
Training (JOBS) program in moving parents from welfare to work.
Janet Schrader, an employment service worker with the JOBS
program in Alexandria, VA, testified about the lack of success
of the JOBS program due in part to the multiple problems of
clients. Problems she cited included unstable housing, limited
academic ability, lack of day care or transportation, poor
social skills, personal or family illness, and the proclivity
to be easily defeated by rejection in looking for a job. To
make JOBS more successful, she recommended better assessment of
clients, better case management, and more employer commitment
to the program.
Jane L. Ross, Associate Director for Income and Security
Issues at the General Accounting Office in Washington, DC,
testified that a GAO review of the JOBS program showed that
only a quarter of the people who were eligible to participate
in JOBS were involved in any kind of activity; about 40 percent
of the programs in the study had no full-time or part-time
staff dedicated to job development; and less than one-third of
the counties placed participants in on-the-job training or work
supplementation programs. She concluded that ``JOBS focuses too
much on process, not enough on results, and it does not do
nearly enough to help AFDC recipients find employers who
actually may be willing to hire them.''
Several witnesses suggested strategies for improving
programs. Jerry R. Junkins, president and chief executive
officer of Texas Instruments Inc., Dallas, TX, called for
programs and systems that are ``better coordinated,
streamlined, consolidated where appropriate to ensure
efficiency and be more user-friendly, but a main principle is
that actual delivery should be administered as much as possible
at the local level so that training is tailored to meet the
needs of each specific community.'' Debra A. Bowland,
administrator, Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, Columbus,
OH, amplified these points: ``We need legislation to enable
States and localities to meet employer and worker needs. We
must simplify the system and improve administrative efficiency.
We need the flexibility to tailor services to customer needs.
We have to ensure accountability, and programs must be
implemented which promote the dignity of work.''
Several witnesses maintained that vouchers could be one
approach to improve programs but should not be the only
approach. For example, Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin
told the committee that ``vouchers is just one way, and I do
not think that it is really the panacea. What I really think
you should do is set some standards and allow the States to
adhere to those standards and set down some penalties.''
Other witnesses advocated one-stop centers as part of an
improved employment training system. Secretary of Labor Robert
Reich told the committee: ``With one-stop career centers,
people can go anywhere and get all the information they need.
They can also get unemployment insurance and assistance if they
have lost their jobs.'' The Secretary noted that pilot projects
in several States are already working.
Tony Young, Director of Residential Services and Community
Supports at the American Rehabilitation Association testified
on behalf of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities,
Task Force on Employment and Training. Young suggested a ``two-
pronged'' strategy for addressing the unique needs of
individuals with disabilities. First, mandate the preservation
of a distinct administrative entity with separate funding to
provide services for individuals with severe disabilities,
especially those that fall outside of those services readily
available in consolidated job training programs. Second,
require consolidated programs to practice principles that will
create training and employment opportunities for individuals
with disabilities, consistent with civil rights principles.
On January 18 and 19, 1995, the Committee on Labor and
Human Resources held hearings in Washington, DC, on ``Examining
Performance, Accountability, and the Incidence of Violence at
Job Corps Sites.'' The committee heard from students who had
attended Job Corps, former staff members, management staff, and
administration witnesses. Gerald W. Peterson, former assistant
inspector general for the Department of Labor testified that
his office prepared a study last year showing that one out of
five Job Corps participants is not placed in any job, does not
return to school, or does not enter the armed forces; only 13
percent of the students completing the Job Corps program were
placed in a job using the skills they learned; only 17 percent
of total Job Corps funds actually went toward educational/
vocational training; and over $100 million is wasted annually
producing no measurable gain for participants in the program.
Mr. Peterson also testified that ``The poor-performing centers
consistently rank at the bottom, yet they continue to be fully
funded despite the fact that they show little or no
improvement.''
Other witnesses testified about their experience with poor-
performing centers citing violence, drug abuse, sexual
activity, and theft. Shirley D. Sako, a former Job Corps staff
member from Piscataway, NJ, testified that centers were under
pressure to maintain their ``onboard strength'' of students
resulting in what she termed ``managing by the numbers.'' She
observed that ``because disruptive students were kept in the
program who should have otherwise been terminated, violence in
the center was allowed to proliferate.'' John P. Deering, an
admissions counselor for an area covering 11 Job Corps centers,
testified that because of gang activity and violence he would
send youth to only two small rural facilities that he believed
were safe. ``I have sent youth to some of these other campuses;
they come home scared, they come home frustrated,'' he
testified.
Two witnesses testified about their positive experiences
with Job Corps centers that established close linkages with the
local community. Karen Anderson of St. Paul, MN, told how her
company served as a work site for students who have completed
the program and not yet left Job Corps. For 6 weeks, students
through this work experience ``can see first hand what it is
like to operate a small business . . . so they can see what
happens in accounting, what happens up front with the
customers, how do we run production through.'' Luis Melendez, a
police officer from New York, NY, observed that, ``Over the
years, the students and the staff of the [South Bronx Job
Corps] center have become the best neighbors to the 46th
precinct and its community members. They have opened up the
facility to host a number of events, including joint community
relations meetings held monthly.''
On April 27, May 19, and May 25, 1995, the Senate
Subcommittee on Education Arts, and Humanities conducted three
hearings on adult and vocational education. The April 27
hearing focused on current federally funded vocational
education programs such as tech-prep and school-to-work. Marcia
Baker, director of the Burlington Technical Center in
Burlington, VT, discussed the difference between tech-prep and
school-to-work initiatives. She stated that tech-prep is the
one vocational education initiative which is ``inextricably
tied to post-secondary technical training and education.'' One
of the key points of Ms. Baker's testimony was that tech-prep
must be continued because there is a ``need for trained
technicians who also have the basic academic and workplace
readiness skills that are so necessary in today's businesses
and industries.'' The subcommittee also heard from Susan Brown,
director of the Main Youth Apprenticeship Program. Ms. Brown
distinguished between the roles of the Federal, State and local
governments in establishing the school-to-work program. She
said the Federal Government has provided the national
leadership which is important in providing not only the initial
dollars, but also lending technical expertise necessary in the
beginning stages of the program. The State and local
contributions include the overseeing of the school-to-work
grants, and involving local educators and business community
representatives in both the funding and implementing stages of
this effort.
Another key witness who testified before the April 27
subcommittee hearing was Peter McWalters, Rhode Island's
Commissioner of Education. Mr. McWalters highlighted three
areas which are essential to the reauthorization process.
First, it is important to continue to ``improve the quality and
capacity of the secondary-post secondary education system,
particularly integrating academic and occupational studies to
prepare students for work.'' Second, vocational education
should be linked with comprehensive programs for elementary and
secondary school reform. Third, Mr. McWalters emphasized the
importance of adult education and how it must be coordinated
with other literacy and education initiatives.
The May 19 hearing highlighted federally funded adult
education programs. Greg Hart, director of Pima County adult
education, testified before the Senate Subcommittee on
Education, Arts, and Humanities. Mr. Hart told the panel that
the Pima County program serves 12,000 individuals per year. He
said the current cost of the program for each student is $150
per year. Mr. Hart further stated that the ``Federal Government
should encourage, without being prescriptive, partnership
formation in order to maximize current existing and future
resources.''
On May 25, 1995, the subcommittee examined the role of the
business community in vocational education. Rebecca J. Taylor,
executive director of Vocational Foundation, Inc., discussed
how businesses involved with the foundation have had a major
influence in developing vocational education programs in the
New York City area. Some of the business community's efforts
include: (1) serving on advisory boards involved in developing,
evaluating, and revising classroom curricula, (2) providing
teachers and administrators with information about the
requirements of the workplace and industry trends, and (3)
hiring graduates from various vocational education programs.
She concluded her testimony by stating that ``[Federal]
legislation should include a variety of incentives, financial
and otherwise, to encourage business to provide work
experience.''
On June 2, 1995, Senator Mike DeWine held a field hearing
in Columbus, Ohio, in preparation for the Committee's
consideration of S. 143 in executive session. The hearing
focused primarily on the role of job training services in
assisting at-risk youth and individuals with disabilities.
Gabriella Hernandez, a seasonal migrant farmworker, told about
the assistance she received under the Job Training Partnership
Act. ``The individual one-on-one assistance from the staff is
what I attribute most to my success. The JTPA staff gave me
encouragement and a positive look toward my future from day
one.'' Ninia Downs, executive director of government programs
for the Ohio Restaurant Association and program director of
Ladders to Success, described that program's success in placing
individuals with disabilities into jobs in the restaurant
business. With employers as active partners in the program,
``more than 800 people have been placed into competitive entry-
level and skilled jobs. * * * These workers have a variety of
disabilities, including mental retardation, traumatic brain
injury, deafness, cerebral palsy, blindness and epilepsy. Their
similarity is a desire to work.''
On June 14 and 21, 1995, the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources met in executive session to consider S.143. Chairman
Kassebaum offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute
for S.143, the Workforce Development Act of 1995. On June 21,
1995, the chairman's substitute was adopted by a roll call vote
of 10 yeas to 6 nays.
YEAS NAYS
Kassebaum Kennedy
Jeffords Dodd
Coats Simon
Gregg Harkin
Frist Mikulski
DeWine Wellstone
Ashcroft
Abraham
Gorton
Pell
During consideration of the measure, there were roll call
votes taken on 11 amendments. One of the amendments passed.
Several amendments were adopted by voice votes. These included
Senator Pell's amendment to improve the definition of
dislocated workers; Senator Kennedy's amendment regarding
modifications to the labor market information provisions;
Senator DeWine's amendment to clarify the State plan
requirements for work force employment and work force education
activities; Senator Wellstone's amendment to include veterans'
representatives on State and local boards; Senator Ashcroft's
amendment to create incentives for States to decrease the
number of adult AFDC recipients within each State by increasing
the placement of such adult recipients in unsubsidized
employment; Senator Ashcroft's amendment to require non-high
school graduates in certain job training programs to make
progress toward a high school diploma or equivalent; Senator
Kennedy's amendment to provide for continued development of
school-to-work systems; Senator Harkin's amendment regarding a
sense-of-the-Senate in reference to welfare reform; Senator
Kennedy's amendment to clarify the role of local elected
officials; Senator Simon's amendment to continue the
authorization of planned new Job Corps centers before they are
subject to evaluation; Senator Kennedy's amendment to improve
provisions regarding refugee assistance; Senator Simon's
amendment to provide for Indian employment and training
services, and Chairman Kassebaum's amendment to provide that
final authority for the approval of State plans and
disbursement of funds will remain with the Secretary of Labor
and the Secretary of Education and to add two education
providers and two Governors to the governing board.
1. Senator Mikulski offered an amendment to strike the
Senior Community Services Employment Program from the Workforce
Development Act. The amendment failed by a roll call vote of 7
yeas to 9 nays.
YEAS NAYS
Kennedy Kassebaum
Pell Jeffords
Dodd Coats
Simon Gregg
Harkin Frist
Mikulski DeWine
Wellstone Ashcroft
Abraham
Gorton
2. Senator Jeffords and Senator Pell offered an amendment
to require that States spend a minimum of 25 percent of their
allocation for education activities on adult education. The
amendment failed by a roll call vote of 8 yeas to 8 nays.
YEAS NAYS
Kennedy Kassebaum
Pell Coats
Dodd Gregg
Simon Frist
Harkin DeWine
Mikulski Ashcroft
Wellstone Abraham
Jeffords Gorton
3. Senator Dodd offered an amendment to set aside funds at
the national level to address major economic dislocations and
provide assistance for migrant and seasonal farmworkers. The
amendment failed by a roll call vote of 8 yeas to 8 nays.
YEAS NAYS
Kennedy Kassebaum
Pell Coats
Dodd Gregg
Simon Frist
Harkin DeWine
Mikulski Ashcroft
Wellstone Abraham
Jeffords Gorton
4. Senator Dodd offered an amendment to restore the summer
youth employment program. The amendment failed by a roll call
vote of 8 yeas to 8 nays.
YEAS NAYS
Kennedy Kassebaum
Pell Coats
Dodd Gregg
Simon Frist
Harkin DeWine
Mikulski Ashcroft
Wellstone Abraham
Jeffords Gorton
5. Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to increase the
authorization of appropriations for Title I to $8,102,754,000.
The amendment failed by a roll call vote of 8 yeas to 8 nays.
YEAS NAYS
Kennedy Kassebaum
Pell Coats
Dodd Gregg
Simon Frist
Harkin DeWine
Mikulski Ashcroft
Wellstone Abraham
Jeffords Gorton
6. Senator Simon offered an amendment to ensure that
training for displaced homemakers be included in the uses of
funds for work force employment activities. The amendment
failed by a roll call vote of 7 yeas to 9 nays.
YEAS NAYS
Kennedy Kassebaum
Pell Jeffords
Dodd Coats
Simon Gregg
Harkin Frist
Mikulski DeWine
Wellstone Ashcroft
Abraham
Gorton
7. Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to strike the Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program from the Workforce
Development Act. The amendment failed by a roll call vote of 8
yeas to 8 nays.
YEAS NAYS
Kennedy Kassebaum
Pell Jeffords
Dodd Coats
Simon Gregg
Harkin Frist
Mikulski DeWine
Wellstone Ashcroft
Abraham Gorton
8. Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to require that
States establish local work force development boards. The
amendment failed by a roll call vote of 8 yeas to 8 nays.
YEAS NAYS
Kennedy Kassebaum
Pell Coats
Dodd Gregg
Simon Frist
Harkin DeWine
Mikulski Ashcroft
Wellstone Abraham
Jeffords Gorton
9. Senator DeWine offered an amendment to increase the
authorization of appropriations for at-risk youth in Title II
to $2,100 million. The amendment passed by a roll call vote of
12 yeas to 4 nays.
YEAS NAYS
Jeffords Kassebaum
Frist Coats
DeWine Gregg
Ashcroft Gorton
Abraham
Kennedy
Pell
Dodd
Simon
Harkin
Mikulski
Wellstone
10. Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to change the
State apportionment of funds to 40 percent for work force
employment activities, 25 percent for work force education
activities, and 35 percent for work force flex activities.
Senator Pell offered a second degree amendment to Senator
Kennedy's amendment to change the apportionment to 33\1/3\
percent for work force employment activities, 33\1/3\ percent
for work force education activities, and 33\1/3\ percent for
work force flex activities. Senator Pell's second degree
amendment failed by a roll call vote of 7 yeas to 9 nays.
YEAS NAYS
Kennedy Kassebaum
Pell Jeffords
Dodd Coats
Simon Gregg
Harkin Frist
Mikulski DeWine
Wellstone Ashcroft
Abraham
Gorton
Senator Kennedy's first degree amendment failed by voice
vote.
11. Senator Simon offered an amendment to retain the Job
Corps programs as a Federal program. The amendment failed by a
roll call vote of 7 yeas to 9 nays.
YEAS NAYS
Kennedy Kassebaum
Pell Jeffords
Dodd Coats
Simon Gregg
Harkin Frist
Mikulski DeWine
Wellstone Ashcroft
Abraham
Gorton
IV. Committee Views
TITLE I.--STATEWIDE WORK FORCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS
purpose
The legislation consolidates all major Federal training
programs into a single block grant to the States. The purpose
of the Workforce Development Act of 1995 is to enable each
state to develop, a single, unified system of job training and
training-related education activities designed to assure that:
A. There is a logical relationship among formal
education, job-specific training, and the jobs
available in our economy.
B. Individuals who need assistance in obtaining
employment are easily able to identify the resources
available for that purpose.
C. There is clear accountability for Federal dollars.
The committee intends that States will develop coherent
work force development systems designed to develop more fully
the academic, occupational, and literacy skills of all segments
of the work force as a means to make the Untied States more
competitive in the world economy. The term ``all segments of
the work force'' includes individuals with disabilities and
others for whom specific categorical programs currently exist.
``All segments of the work force'' means exactly that--and is
intended to be interpreted inclusively.
funding and formula
The legislation authorizes $7 billion for the block grants
over a 4-year period. This figure represents approximately a 15
percent reduction in current spending for similar education and
training programs. The committee believes that such a reduction
is justified because consolidating programs will result in the
elimination of overlapping and duplicative programs, thereby
saving administrative costs and increasing efficiency in the
delivery of services. The committee further believes that the
increased flexibility provided in this legislation should more
than compensate for the reduction in funds and expects that the
level of services to individuals will be maintained.
Funds made available to States through the block grants
will be distributed according to a formula based on the
following factors: 60 percent of the funds based on each
State's percentage share of the population aged 15 to 65 years,
10 percent of the funds based on each State's percentage share
of individuals aged 18 to 64 years who are at or below the
official poverty line, 10 percent of the funds based on each
State's percentage share of the average unemployment rate for
the previous 2 years; and 20 percent based on each State's
percentage share of adult recipients of Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC).
In addition to these factors, there is a provision for a
State minimum allocation, so that no State receives less than
0.5 percent of the total allocation. However, the application
of the minimum grant provision cannot result in a grant that is
larger than the product of a State's population times the
national per capita payment under the formula (which is the
total allocation divided by the total population).
Of the total authorization, approximately 7 percent will be
reserved for national activities including State incentive
grants, evaluation, technical assistance, development of a
labor market information system, and support for programs for
Native Americans and the outlying territories.
The remaining 93 percent will be distributed to the States
as a single block grant. The committee believes that individual
States need greater flexibility in designing systems which
address their specific needs and economic conditions.
Therefore, the legislative requirements on States will be
minimal--with the only significant conditions being that: (1) a
minimum of 25 percent of funds be used for work force
employment activities and a minimum of 25 percent of funds be
used for work force education activities, (2) job training
activities be based on the concept of one-stop career centers,
(3) school-to-work activities be supported, and (40 benchmarks
by which to measure results be developed.
principal elements of work force development system
Within each State, funds will be divided between the two
principal elements of the system; work force employment and
work force education.
Work force employment activities
Out of the total amount made available to a State, a
minimum of 25 percent of the funds shall be devoted to work
force employment activities, under the direction of the
Governor. The core work force employment activities include
establishing one-stop delivery of employment services and
training, developing a labor market information system, and
creating a job placement accountability system. These core
activities would include basis labor exchange functions such as
those now supported by the Wagner-Peyser Act and job training
activities such as those now supported by the Job Training
Partnership Act.
The Committee believes that the current collection of
disjoined employment and training programs has rendered the
efficient delivery of employment services virtually impossible,
and has stifled innovative solutions to meet ever-increasing
needs for job placement and training. For the most part, these
programs operate independently of each other, resulting in a
fragmented and ineffective response to the needs of job seekers
and employers alike. This legislation attempts to ``wipe the
slate clean'' and eliminate conflicting laws, regulations, and
administrative rules which have made it difficult for
administrators to integrate programs funded by multiple
sources.
Under this legislation, states would have the flexibility
to design and implement a statewide approach to job training,
based on the concept of one-stop career centers. The one-stop
career center concept replaces the current fragmentation in
service delivery by envisioning a system that would pride all
individuals seeking employment with accurate information
regarding employment opportunities and appropriate education or
training programs.
States could combine existing programs and agencies
offering related services together under one roof that would
provide a comprehensive strategy for meeting the needs of
individuals seeking employment. While having all services
available at one location may be ideal in some situations, it
may not be practical to implement in all areas. Therefore,
States may choose other strategies, such as linking service
providers through multiple electronic access points. Another
option would be to establish a network that assures that
services will be available regardless of where an individual
initially enters the system. States may also use some
combination of these options, but the key is to provide
individuals easy access to core services and a wide array of
training and education activities available in the statewide
system.
The legislation specifies certain, yet minimum, core
services which are to be provided through the one-stop career
centers including outreach to and orientation of the services
available through the one-stop career center system,
assessment, job search and placement assistance, career
counseling where appropriate, screening and referral of
qualified applicants to employment or other support services,
and accurate and timely information relating to employment
opportunities, training, education and support services.
If the system is to be successfully implemented, it must
provide the public and employers with timely, accurate and
easily accessible information. To facilitate the collection of
such information, States shall establish comprehensive labor
market information systems, as well as job placement
accountability systems to track the placement of individuals
into unsubsidized employment and to document the performance of
education and training providers.
relationship between one-stop career centers and the unemployment
compensation system
Employers currently pay taxes (Federal Unemployment Tax or
FUT) to support the administration of an unemployment
compensation system. Unemployment trust fund moneys are used
for unemployment benefits, the administration of unemployment
insurance, and the Employment Service. The Employment Service,
established by the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, is the job link
for the unemployed or dislocated workers and employers. The
Employment service was created as a means to assist the
unemployed to reenter the work force as quickly as possible,
thereby reducing payments for unemployment benefits and
reducing employer taxes.
The mission of the Employment Service is identical to the
concept and mission of the one-stop career centers in this
bill. The Employment Service provides basic job search and job
placement assistance for all job seekers, including referral
and placement services for the job-ready and workers in
transition, labor market information, skill assessment and
counseling, referrals to training for the non-job-ready, and a
place for individuals to improve their job search skills. For
employers, the Employment Service matches applicants with job
vacancies and labor market information for business and
economic planning. These functions are all core services that
States must continue to provide through the one-stop career
centers.
Because the mission of the Employment Service is
duplicative with the one-stop career centers, this legislation
consolidates the Employment Service into the overall statewide
work force development system. The committee anticipates that
many States will build their work force development systems
upon existing service delivery mechanisms, and would have the
discretion to integrate existing Employment Service resources
into the statewide system. Some States may follow the model
Ohio has adopted which has been to convert local employment
security offices into Customer Service Centers that offer a
central core of integrated employment and training services,
with the Employment Service as the lead State agency
administering the program. In other States, Employment Service
personnel are participating in one-stop career centers that are
managed by private companies. Still other States may choose to
have the functions of the Employment Service carried out
entirely by the private sector.
The committee believes that integrating the Employment
Service into the statewide work force development system will
improve and strengthen services for all individuals, and
particularly for workers in transition who are receiving
unemployment benefits. Developing better labor market
information, and making such information more accessible to
individuals, will facilitate the return to work for many
workers and reduce unemployment benefits. The committee
believes that where feasible, States should pay unemployment
benefits at the same location where reemployment services are
provided under this act. It is the committee's intent that
States ensure the continued linkage between the unemployment
insurance system and such reemployment services.
Finally, it is the committee's intent that States ensure
that the dedicated employer taxes which currently support these
activities continue to be used exclusively for those purposes.
permissive activities
The legislation provides for other permissive training
activities that States may use in order to assist individuals
to gain the skills necessary to become productively employed.
These include activities such as on-the-job training, rapid
response assistance for dislocated workers, skill upgrading and
retraining for persons not in the work force, programs for
adults that combine workplace training with related
instruction, and preemployment and work maturity skills
training for youth. It is not intended that these activities
constitute the exclusive list of permissive activities. States
will have maximum flexibility to tailor these activities to
meet the particular needs of employers and job-seekers in each
State.
States are encouraged to award incentive grants to local
areas that reach or exceed the State benchmarks established to
measure the effectiveness of the State's work force development
system toward placing people into unsubsidized jobs.
States are also given the option, but are not required, to
deliver some or all of the work force employment activities
through the use of vouchers. The committee believes that the
use of vouchers may, in fact, be an efficient and effective way
to deliver job training services under limited circumstances.
However, the committee does not believe that it would be
feasible at this time to replace the current unworkable system
with one that is in many ways completely unproven. Until
stricter measures of accountability for service providers
exist, rapid expansion of a voucher system would, in the
committee's view, be unwise. The committee strongly prefers to
allow States to begin testing the efficacy of vouchers in
limited and controlled situations.
If a State chooses to utilize vouchers as a delivery and
payment mechanism for job training activities, certain
requirements must be met. These requirements include
administering the vouchers through the one-stop career centers,
establishing eligibility criteria to determine what activities
will be funded through vouchers, which participants are
eligible to receive vouchers and the value of the voucher, and
which service providers will be eligible to receive payment
through a voucher. In addition, States will be required to
demonstrate in their State plans how the information obtained
through the labor market information system about the
performance of eligible providers will be utilized to assist
individuals in making informed decisions as to how to use
vouchers most effectively.
Work Force Employment: In-State Allocation
Out of the total amount of funds to be used by a State for
work force employment activities, 25 percent shall be reserved
by the Governor to carry out activities through the system and
75 percent shall be distributed to local entities to carry out
activities through the system, based on such factors as
population, poverty, unemployment, and the number of AFDC
recipients in the State, and any additional factors the
Governor determines to be necessary.
local partnerships and boards
Local communities, which will be responsible for carrying
out the State-based work force development system, should also
be given maximum flexibility in identifying local resources and
developing strategies that meet local private sector and labor
force needs. The challenges of a highly competitive global
economy require work force development strategies that allow
for rapid response to changing local economic conditions. The
success of any work force development system in meeting these
challenges will depend largely on the expertise, time, and
resources invested by local communities. The committee intends
that the statewide work force development system should draw
upon the expertise and recommendations of local communities and
businesses, in order to maximize available resources and ensure
the cooperation of local employers, administrators, and elected
officials.
The legislation requires the Governor to seek the
recommendations of key stakeholders in local communities by
negotiating and entering into agreements with local
partnerships (or, where established, local work force
development boards) for the delivery of work force employment,
school-to-work, and economic development activities in each
substate area. In addition to local elected officials, the
active participation of representatives of business, industry,
labor and workers, local secondary schools, local postsecondary
education institutions, local adult education providers,
rehabilitation agencies and organizations, and community-based
organizations, should be sought in securing the local
partnership agreement. Such an agreement must include a
description of how the funds allocated to a substate area will
be spent on work force employment, school-to-work, or economic
development activities, and evidence of support for the
agreement among the members of the local partnership (or board,
as the case may be).
When appropriate, the local partnership may recommend to
the Governor changes in the agreement which will improve the
performance of the work force development system. Local
partnerships may also assist the local one-stop career center
and service providers to ensure that the work force employment,
school-to-work and economic development activities are
responsive to the needs to the area served. Finally, local
partnerships may seek to ensure that goals and benchmarks are
achieved.
If, after a reasonable effort, the Governor is unable to
enter into an agreement with the local partnership (or board),
the Governor shall provide the partnership (or board) an
opportunity to comment upon the manner in which funds allocated
to the substate area will be spent for such activities.
States and communities have the discretion to establish
work force development boards as a part of their statewide work
force development system, but are not required to do so. The
approach taken in this legislation is to avoid mandates as much
as possible, thereby allowing States and communities the
flexibility to retain boards of their own choosing, or to
reconstitute local and private sector involvement in a
different way. It is not the committee's intent to prescribe
how States should design their work force development systems
at the local level.
The committee does recognize that business-led groups, such
as private industry councils (PIC's), have been very effective
in some cases in identifying the work force development needs
in their communities. However, the overall results have been
mixed. The most effective councils operate and are driven by
committed business leaders with an interest in work force
development, while the least effective have only nominal
business involvement. The committee does not believe that
merely mandating the establishment of a board or other
organizational entity will ensure that employers are actively
involved in the training and education needs at the State or
local level. While many such entities have been created in the
past, no one piece of Federal legislation has yet achieved the
right mix for ensuring their effectiveness.
It is the belief of the committee, however, that short of a
mandate there are significant incentives for States to
establish some type of work force development board at the
local level. One incentive is the strength and expertise that
PIC's have developed over the past 10 years or more in
administering the Job Training Partnership Act. There is a
public-private infrastructure in place that the committee
anticipates States will consider in designing their work force
development systems. This existing expertise will be valuable
for States and communities in managing the number of programs
consolidated under this act. It is the committee's expectation
that a strong existing local board with a solid reputation will
be a voice for how work force employment, school-to-work, and
economic development funds should be spent at the local level.
Another incentive is provided directly in the legislation
in the form of economic development activities. States that
establish State and local business-led work force development
boards, as defined in this act, may use funds for economic
development activities, including training for incumbent
workers of small and medium-size employers in the State. The
committee believes that many States would find this option
attractive enough to choose to establish work force development
boards.
employer involvement
The design of the State's work force development system
should be based on local labor market needs which, by
necessity, require the active involvement of the private
sector. Private sector businesses, which ultimately provide the
jobs, must be included as an integral part of the system. Too
often in the past, training programs have not been connected to
available employment opportunities. By and large employers have
lost confidence in the current public systems of labor exchange
and job training development because these programs do not
provide individuals with the skills necessary to succeed in the
workplace. Consequently, employers have turned to nonpublic
systems to locate, select, and train employees.
Employers must be confident that training programs are
providing individuals with useful skills and that one-stop
career centers will give them the most qualified applicants
available. Therefore, the system should require that employers
and industry representatives have a lead role in the choice,
design, and content of the types of skills and training needed
in each local area or State in order to link education and
training programs to real employment opportunities. States may
choose to establish or retain existing State and local work
force development boards as one means of obtaining employer
involvement.
The committee cannot emphasize strongly enough the critical
role businesses and employers must play in developing and
implementing a State's work force development system. It is the
committee's intent that employers, business organizations (such
as local chambers of commerce), and industry representatives be
actively involved in every step of the design and
implementation of State and local work force development
activities.
In the committee's view, where employers have volunteered
time and effort, and have become actively engaged in State and
local work force development activities, those activities have
been most effective. Unfortunately, such participation cannot
be mandated by law. The committee also recognizes that State
and local governments, in the process of designing and
implementing State and local programs, sometimes place a higher
priority on preserving their own interests and prerogatives
than on meeting the needs of employers and job-seekers alike.
It is the hope and intention of this committee that employer
involvement will become the highest priority to States and
localities in the design and implementation of statewide work
force development systems.
Work force education activities
Out of the total amount made available to a State, a
minimum of 25 percent of the funds shall be devoted to
education efforts designed and implemented by State and local
educational agencies. This would include activities such as
those now supported by the Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied
Technology Education Act and the Audit Education Act.
The increasing demands for assistance in preparing
individuals for entry into the work force, as well as for
opportunities for continual learning throughout one's working
career, are formidable. The legislation provides for the
continuation of certain core work force education activities
that have been instrumental in providing individuals with the
opportunity to improve their skills. These include the
integration of vocational and academic studies; linkages
between secondary and postsecondary education, including tech-
prep programs; career guidance and counseling activities; adult
education and literacy services; and programs for adults to
complete a high school education. Specific activities currently
authorized by either the Perkins Act or the Adult Education Act
are not precluded by this legislation. Rather, the committee
intends that in addition to the required activities listed,
States will also use these funds creatively to address a
State's particular work force education needs.
The legislation requires that funds made available for work
force education activities will supplement, and not supplant,
other public funds expended for this purpose. States must also
meet a maintenance-of-effort requirement based on the fiscal
effort per student or the aggregate expenditures of the State
for work force education activities in the preceding fiscal
year.
Work force education: In-State allocation
Out of the total amount of funds to be used by a State for
work force education activities, 20 percent shall be reserved
by the State educational agency to carry out State-level
activities (of which not more than 5 percent may be used for
administrative expenses) and 80 percent shall be distributed to
eligible entities to carry out activities at the local level
(of which no more than 5 percent may be used for
administration).
Local eligible entities (which include local educational
agencies, postsecondary institutions, and other described as
eligible for financial assistance under the within-State
formulas) shall submit applications to the State educational
agency. Local applications shall include descriptions of the
activities to be carried out, how those activities relate to
the State's goals and benchmarks for work force education, how
the activities are an integral part of the overall effort to
improve education for all students and adults, the process to
be used to monitor and continuously improve performance, and
how the entity will coordinate with the local work force
development board, if any, in its area.
The State shall divide its allocation for work force
education activities among 2 functions: vocational education
and adult education. Of the amount provided for vocational
education, a State may determine the relative amounts for
secondary and postsecondary vocational education.
Funds provided for secondary vocational education will be
distributed according to the formula in current Perkins law,
which is based primarily on counts of low-income and disabled
individuals. Funds provided for postsecondary education will be
distributed according to the formula in current Perkins law
which gives priority to institutions serving Pell Grant
recipients.
Adult education funds will be distributed by competitive
grant awards.
Work force flex funds
Through a collaborative process, the State will determine
how to allocate the remaining 50 percent of the block grant
funds. The purposes of the flex fund provisions are to assure
that individuals and entities involved with work force training
and those involved with work force education will work together
to identify State priorities and the means of their achievement
and to permit States flexibility to allocate funds based on
their unique work force development needs.
Specifically, States will have discretion in how they spend
funds for work force development based on the industries in
their States, various sectors of the existing work force, and
the in-school population. For example, some States may
determine that a higher percentage of funds should be directed
toward education efforts provided through State and local
educational agencies and, therefore, will allocate more money
for those purposes. Or, some States may decide that these funds
could better be used to support training efforts provided by
private employers or training institutions. This flexibility in
the allocation of funds will also allow States to utilize
innovative alternatives such as vouchers to most efficiently
and effectively deliver work force development services.
The committee fully intends, however, that when and where
the State determines that education services are necessary for
the adequate training of eligible individuals, those services
are to be provided through the work force education activities
and are to be accompanied by funding to insure their delivery.
The funds are also intended to encourage States to design
activities that ``bridge'' the worlds of school and work, and a
portion of the flex funds must be used for school-to-work
activities. School-to-work activities are broadly defined in
this act, incorporating such key elements as the integration of
school-based and work-based learning, the integration of
academic and occupational learning, the establishment of
effective linkages between secondary and postsecondary
education, the opportunity for youth participants to complete a
career major, and assistance in the form of connecting
activities that link each youth participant with an employer in
an industry or occupation relating to his or her career major.
States would have the discretion to develop such activities to
meet the unique employer needs of their States and to allocate
such funds as necessary.
States which received implementation grants under the
School-to-Work Opportunities Act, however, would be required to
use a portion of the flex funds in order to support the
continued development of their statewide school-to-work
systems. Those States with grants would continue to fund the
school-to-work activities in accordance with the terms of such
grants. Given the fact that these grants provide limited
Federal assistance, over a short period of time, the committee
believes that continuing support for such a statewide system is
not inconsistent with the goal of this act.
Economic development activities
States that establish State and local work force
development boards will also be permitted to use a portion of
these funds for economic development activities, including
customized assessments of the skills of workers and an analysis
of the skill needs of employers in the State; upgrading the
skills of incumbent workers; productivity and quality
improvement training programs for small and medium-sized
employers; recognition and use of voluntary, industry-developed
skills standards; training activities in companies that are
developing modernization plans in conjunction with State
industrial extension service offices; and on-site, industry-
specific training programs supportive of industrial and
economic development.
collaborative planning process
Under the legislation, the Governor will seek the support
and collaboration of a broad-based group of individuals with
expertise in work force development in designing the State-
based system. This approach is modeled on the partnerships
established under the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. This
collaborative effort will include the State educational agency,
representatives of business and industry, labor and workers,
local elected officials, State officials responsible for
vocational, adult and postsecondary education, economic
development, veterans' employment, vocational rehabilitation,
and other interested parties.
The committee believes that local elected officials are an
important part of the collaborative body responsible for
developing the State's strategic plan. To the extent
practicable, individuals participating in the process should
represent urban, suburban and rural areas of the State,
including those areas with expertise in assisting at-risk youth
and unemployed adults.
It is the expectation of the committee that this process
will allow for true collaboration among the education,
training, and employer communities in a way that has never been
accomplished before. The success of any statewide work force
development system will depend on a strong partnership among
employers, educators, and government working together, and such
cooperation cannot be legislated. Rather, the legislation seeks
to provide strong incentives for all parties to ``ante up'' to
the table and begin planning in a comprehensive fashion in
order for the participants to share in the flex account funds.
Flex funds: In-State allocation
Funds allocated through the collaborative process out of
the flex account for work force employment activities, school-
to-work activities, and economic development activities will be
added to the 25 percent allotment for that purpose and will be
administered by the Governor.
Funds allocated through the collaborative process out of
the flex account for work force education will be added to the
25 percent allocated for that purpose and will be administered
by the State educational agency.
state plans
The Governor will submit a single plan, outlining a 3-year
strategy for work force development in the State. The plan will
contain three parts:
1. The strategic plan and allocation of the flexible
work force funds, developed by the Governor through a
collaborative process.
2. The plan for the one-stop career center system and
work force employment activities, developed by the
Governor.
3. The plan for work force education activities,
developed by the State educational agency.
The State plan must be approved by the Governing Board if
the plan contains the necessary information, reasonable effort
was made to prepare through the collaborative process, and
State benchmarks were negotiated in accordance with the act.
State plans must address a number of fundamental issues
essential to the implementation of a statewide work force
development system. These include, for example:
Strategic plan and flexible work force activities
1. A description of how the State will identify the current
and future work force development needs of the industry sectors
most important to the economic competitiveness of the State.
2. An identification of the State goals and benchmarks and
how they will make the system relevant and responsive to labor
market and education needs at the local level.
3. A description of how the funds made available through
the 50 percent flex account will be allocated, and how the
flexible work force activities--including school-to-work
activities--will be carried out to meet the State goals and
benchmarks.
4. An identification of how the State will obtain the
active and continuous participation of business, industry, and
labor in the development and continuous improvement of the
system.
5. A description of how the State will eliminate
duplication in the administration and delivery of services
under this act.
6. A description of the process the State will use annually
to evaluate and continuously improve the performance of the
system.
7. An assurance that the funds made available under this
title will supplement and not supplant other public or private
funds.
8. Evidence of collaboration and support among the
Governor, business, industry and labor, local elected officials
and key State officials in the development of the overall
strategic plan.
Work force employment activities
1. An identification and designation of substate areas,
including urban and rural areas, to receive funds, which to the
extent feasible shall reflect local labor market areas.
2. A description of the basic features of a one-stop career
center system.
3. An identification of performance indicators relating to
the State goals and benchmarks for work force employment
activities.
4. A description of the work force employment activities to
be carried out.
5. A description of the steps the State will take over the
3 years covered by the plan to establish a statewide
comprehensive labor market information system.
6. A description of the steps that the State will take over
the 3 years covered by the plan to establish a job placement
accountability system.
7. A description of the steps the State will take to
segregate FUTA revenues from the block grant and how those
funds will be used for job search, placement services, and
labor market information.
Work force education
1. A description of how the funds will be allocated among
adult education providers, and among secondary and
postsecondary vocational education programs.
2. An identification of performance indicators relating to
the State goals and benchmarks for work force education
activities.
3. A description of the work force education activities to
be carried out.
4. A description of how the State will address the adult
education needs in the State.
5. A description of how the State will disaggregate data
relating to at-risk youth in order to adequately measure the
progress of the State toward meeting the State goals and
benchmarks relating to at-risk youth.
6. A description of how the State will adequately address
the needs of both at-risk youth who are in-school, and out-of-
school at-risk youth, through alternative education programs
that teach to the same challenging academic, occupational, and
skill proficiencies as are provided to in-school youth.
7. A description of how the State will annually evaluate
the effectiveness of the part of the plan with respect to work
force education activities.
8. A description of how the State will address the
professional development needs of the State with respect to
work force education activities.
The committee intends that the development of the single,
comprehensive plan will be accomplished through the close
collaboration of all parties. Ideally, the collaborative
process established to allocate the work force flex funds will
be used to develop the remainder of the plan. Indeed, the
elements of the strategic plan are applicable to both the work
force employment and work force education activities and must
be developed through the collaborative process.
In addition to the strategic plan, the plan must also
contain an elaboration of the State's approach to work force
employment and work force education. The purpose behind the
development of these two portions of the plan is to allow those
individuals and agencies with the most expertise to concentrate
on how best to implement training activities and the
dissemination of labor market information on the one hand, and
educational activities on the other hand. The intent is not to
further separate the two functions from each other but to join
them in a logical fashion. The committee anticipates that all
parties should learn from and comment upon the development of
each part of the plan so that each State develops a unified,
integrated statewide plan. The success of the statewide system
depends upon it.
accountability
This act shifts accountability for Federal dollars from
process to results. Rather than asking whether paperwork was
filled out correctly and specific regulations were followed to
the letter, the legislation focuses on whether individuals were
prepared for and obtained meaningful employment. For the first
time, States will be required to show specifically the number
and kinds of jobs the training system has provided. States must
also show the level of skills the work force has obtained.
After all, the goal of any work force development system should
be to improve skills and provide jobs. This legislation will
require an accountability mechanism so that taxpayers will know
precisely the return on Federal dollars. For example, taxpayers
will know how many jobs are being provided by each State's work
force development system. The committee believes that these
minimum Federal requirements are reasonable quid pro quo for
giving States maximum flexibility to design and implement their
own systems.
This act will require States to measure and report annually
on benchmarks--measurable indicators of the progress the State
has set out to achieve in meeting broad work force development
goals related to employment, education, and earnings gains.
Benchmarks related to employment and earning gains include,
at a minimum, placement and retention in unsubsidized
employment for one year, and increased earnings for
participants. Benchmarks related to education include, at a
minimum, student mastery of certain skills, including: academic
knowledge and work readiness skills; occupational and industry-
recognized skills according to skill proficiencies for students
in career preparation programs; placement in, retention in, and
completion of secondary education; placement and retention in
military service; and increased literacy skills. It is expected
that States will develop additional benchmarks.
In addition, States must, at a minimum, show how they are
meeting these goals for welfare recipients, disabled
individuals, older workers, at-risk youth, and dislocated
workers. Displaced homemakers are specifically included in the
definition of dislocated workers, and are to be considered as
such. States may add benchmarks for additional targeted
populations at their discretion, such as migrant and seasonal
farmworkers, food stamp recipients, veterans, refugees, and
other groups who are currently served by specific categorical
programs.
The Governing Board, through negotiations with States, must
assess how the State's quantifiable benchmarks compare with
model benchmarks established by the Governing Board and with
benchmarks proposed by other States, and whether the benchmarks
are sufficient to meet the State's goals. Through this
negotiation process, the committee anticipated that States will
set meaningful benchmarks that will lead them to achieve the
goals set forth in this act.
Finally, States must establish a job placement
accountability system to maintain data relating to these
measures, using existing quarterly wage records available
through the unemployment insurance (UI) system. Only a few
States currently utilize UI wage record data as a resource to
measure the effectiveness of job training and vocational
education programs, even though the data is highly reliable and
easily accessible. In expanding the use of UI wage record data,
however, provision should be made to protect the privacy of
individuals. The committee believes that in order for States to
be able to collect the data which will be useful in measuring
progress toward meeting their goals and benchmarks, and to
ensure the comparability of data on a national basis, such a
system must be utilized.
incentives and sanctions
While the legislation gives maximum flexibility to States
to design comprehensive systems for work force development, the
committee believes that strong measures are needed to both
encourage States to meet goals and to penalize States that do
not. By providing financial incentives, States will be
encouraged to attain or exceed their goals and benchmarks. By
the same token, the potential for decrease in funding if a
State fails to reach its goals and benchmarks will be further
incentive for States to improve their systems, thereby
maximizing the return on Federal dollars. In this way, the
legislation provides tangible consequences for States that
succeed or fail in reaching their benchmarks. By contrast,
current laws fail to provide either meaningful incentives or
disincentives for performance as Federal funds continue to flow
for training and education regardless of results.
The Governing Board may award incentive grants of not more
than $15 million annually to States that reach or exceed their
benchmarks. Alternatively, the Governing Board may reduce the
allotment for a State (not more than 10 percent) that fails to
make measurable progress toward meeting its States benchmarks
after 3 years. The Governing Board may attribute the State's
failure to reach its benchmarks either to work force
employment, work force education or flexible work force
activities, and may reduce only that portion of the State's
allotment for such activities. In this way, the Governing board
may target more effectively those activities which have led to
the State's poor performance, thereby allowing States to better
focus subsequent efforts to improve their performance.
Funds retained as a result of reductions may be used for
allotments for incentive grants.
indian employment and training activities
The committee acknowledges the government-to-government
relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian
tribes and advances the policy of Indian self-determination by
including provisions to address the unique employment and
training needs of Indians and resource needs of Indian tribes.
The committee is aware that Indians and Alaska Natives
experience the highest unemployment rate of all other
populations in the American work force. This is due, in large
part, to a lack of Indian educational and employment training
opportunities. As a result, the ability of Indians and Alaska
Natives to locate and retain employment and successfully
compete in the American work force is seriously impaired.
Federal programs intended to address such needs have been
successful at increasing employment training and opportunities
for Indians and reducing the overall unemployment rates.
Therefore, to preserve the benefits of existing Indian
employment and training programs, the legislation contains
provisions to consolidate training and education activities
currently being provided to Indians in a manner that is
consistent with the purpose of the act.
The legislation provides that the Governing Board shall
make grants to, or enter into contracts or cooperative
agreements with, Indian tribes, organizations, and Alaska
Native entities to provide consolidated training and related
educational services, including vocational education, adult
education, and literacy services. Such grants shall be
authorized at funding levels consistent with existing laws.
An office within the Federal partnership shall be
established to administer such grant activities, including
drafting regulations and policies in consultation with Indian
organizations, providing administrative support, and providing
technical assistance to improve the work force development
services provided by such entities. The committee believes that
such an office is necessary to effectively address local tribal
concerns and has previously demonstrated an ability to assist
Indians and Alaska natives to increase their academic,
occupational, and literacy skills. The committee also
encourages Indian tribes to consolidate employment, training,
and education programs pursuant to the Indian Employment,
Training and Related Services Demonstration Act of 1992.
The committee further recognizes that Native Hawaiians have
an economic status akin to Indians and Alaska natives which has
resulted in a similar lack of employment and training
opportunities for native Hawaiians. The committee notes that
programs have been implemented which successfully address those
special needs. Therefore, provisions are also included to
enable Native Hawaiians to continue to receive employment
training services at levels consistent with existing laws.
TITLE II.--TRANSITION PROVISIONS
waivers
Conflicting regulations and differences in annual operating
cycles are currently hampering the coordination of Federal
programs and the delivery of needed services.
Since it will require significant planning to move to the
block grant approach outlined in this act, a 2-year transition
period will be provided so that all States will have sufficient
time to develop their unified State plans. In the meantime, the
current programs will continue to be funded as they are now.
However, States do need immediate flexibility to begin
combining and consolidating programs and eliminating
differences in program requirements. Therefore, this act
provides authority for immediate up-front waivers for fiscal
years 1996 and 1997 for the following purposes: (1) to address
the high-priority needs of unemployed persons in the State or
community involved for employment training or education
services; (2) to improve efficiencies in the delivery of
services; or (3) in the case of overlapping or duplicative
activities, to combine programs and funding or to eliminate one
program and increase the funding to the remaining program.
These up-front waivers would also States or local entities
to combine administrative funds from any of the to-be-
consolidated programs for the purpose of planning and
developing the unified State plans that will be required in
1997 and 1998.
applications
A State seeking waivers may submit an application to the
Secretary describing: (1) the requirement to be waived and the
goal to be achieved through the waiver; (2) the actions the
State will take to remove similar State requirements; (3) the
activities to which the waiver will apply, including how
activities may be continued under the State's system; (4) the
number and type of persons to by affected by the waiver; and
(5) evidence of support for the waiver request by the State
agencies or officials with jurisdiction over the requirement to
be waived. A local entity will submit a similar application to
the State. With respect to waivers for work force education
activities, ``local entity'' means a local educational agency,
``State'' means the State educational agency, and ``Secretary''
means the Secretary of Education. With respect to waivers for
work force employment activities, ``local entity'' means the
local public or private entity responsible for carrying out the
activity, ``State'' means the Governor, and ``Secretary'' means
the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of Health and Human
Services--whoever carries out the activity.
Waivers expire on June 30, 1998, except in the case of a
State that fails to submit an interim plan--in which case its
waiver expires on September 30, 1997.
approval
A State must decide whether to submit a local entity's
request for a waiver within 30 days. After 30 days, the local
entity may submit its request directly to the Secretary. The
Secretary must approve or disapprove a State or local request
within 45 days. After 45 days, the request will be deemed
approved.
waivers not authorized
Requirements relating to the following Federal provisions
may not be waived: (1) the allocation of funds to States, local
entities, or individuals; (2) public health or safety, civil
rights, occupational safety and health, environmental
protection, displacement of employees, or fraud and abuse; (3)
the eligibility of an individual for participation in a covered
activity, except in a case where a State or local entity can
demonstrate that such individual will participate in a similar
covered activity; or (4) supplement not supplant requirements.
In addition, the maintenance of effort requirement for work
force education activities cannot be waived.
Interim State plans
In program year 1997, all States would be required to
present a draft of their unified plan to the Federal
partnership. If a State is ready to implement the new work
force development system in the first year of transition, then
the partnership would immediately authorize the full
integration of program funds and activities as outlined in the
block grant.
If a State is not ready to fully implement the new work
force development system, the partnership will review the draft
plan, make recommendations, and provide technical assistance.
Up-front waivers will continue to be available. In addition, no
other applications or plans required by other acts will be
required in fiscal years 1996 or 1997. Funding decisions for
activities under those acts will be based on the last
application or plan submitted.
The legislation extends the authorities for the Older
American Community Service Employment Act, the Carl D. Perkins
Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act, and the Adult
Education Act. This extension is necessary to continue the
authorization of appropriations for these three laws through
the transition period. These laws will be repealed on July 1,
1998.
The committee believes that the transition process allows
States that have made significant progress toward creating a
comprehensive work force development system to utilize the
flexibility of the block grant at the earliest possible stage.
At the same time, States that need more time and assistance in
integrating their programs are provided the opportunity to
submit draft plans and receive feedback while there is still
time to work on the final proposal.
Beginning July 1, 1998, the block grant program will be in
place and States will have submitted their unified work force
development plans.
Job Corps and At-Risk Youth
This subtitle is intended to provide a comprehensive
strategic approach for meeting the work force development needs
of at-risk youth. The legislation provides an authorization of
$2.1 billion for Jobs Corps and other work force preparation
activities directed specifically for at-risk youth.
Chapter 1--General Job Corps Provisions
The committee believes the Job Corps program is in need of
reform. This view is based not only on testimony provided to
the committee during hearings in January 1995, but on
information provided to the committee subsequently as well. For
example, on June 30, 1995, the General Accounting Office issued
a report entitled Job Corps: High Costs and Mixed Results Raise
Questions About Program's Effectiveness.
The legislation retains the essential feature of Job Corps.
Assistance will continue to be provided to at-risk youth who
need and can benefit from such an unusually intensive program,
operated in a group setting. However, primary responsibility
for the operation of Job Corps centers is transferred to the
States. The committee believes that States, rather than the
Federal Government, are in the best position to manage and
operate Job Corps centers that are integrated with their
statewide work force development systems. To achieve this, each
Job Corps center must be linked to the one-stop center and
other local training and education efforts. Finally, it is the
intention of the committee that the Governor of each State be
given the responsibility for contracting the operation of the
Job Corps centers.
In addition, during the transition period, 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. That
number reflects the approximate number of centers identified by
the Department of Labor and the Department's inspector general
that have been chronically underperforming and have not been
cost-effective.
The criteria used to determine which centers will be closed
is as follows:
1. Whether a given center has consistently received
low performance measurement ratings under the
Department of Labor or inspector general Job Corps
rating system.
2. Whether the center is among those that have
experienced the highest number of serious incidents of
violence or criminal activity.
3. Whether or not the center requires the largest
funding for rehabilitation and repair.
4. The relative and absolute cost of the centers
compared to all other centers.
5. Whether the center is among those with the least
State and local support.
Job Corps centers in the planning and construction phase as
of the date of enactment will not be included in the audit.
Chapter 2--Other Work Force Preparation Activities for At-Risk Youth
The committee believes that States should provide, in
addition to Job Corps, other education and training activities
specifically for at-risk youth. Of the $2.1 billion authorized
under this subtitle, all funds not allocated to the operation
of Job Corps centers will be distributed to the States for such
work force preparation activities.
These activities may include, for example, grants to carry
out programs to assist out-of-school at-risk youth in
participating in school-to-work programs. Another possible use
of funds would be for a State to make grants to assist public
or private entities in providing work-based learning as a
component of a school-to-work program. This could be in the
form of a summer job, provided that the job is linked to a
year-round school-to-work program. These are examples of the
types of work force development activities that States may
develop for at-risk youth.
It is the committee's intent that States be given the
maximum flexibility to design and implement programs for at-
risk youth in order to best meet the unique needs of this
population. However, in order to receive funds, each State must
describe in its State plan how such activities will be carried
out to meet the State's goals and benchmarks. In addition, 85
percent of a State's funds must be distributed to entities at
the local level.
TITLE III.--NATIONAL ACTIVITIES
federal administration
Consolidation and elimination of duplicative administrative
entities must begin at the Federal level and continue at the
State and local levels. The overwhelming majority of the
programs consolidated under this act are currently administered
by the Department of Education (DOE) and the Department of
Labor (DOL).
work force development partnership
The legislation establishes the Work Force Development
Partnership to administer the act. Building upon the existing
School-to-Work Office, which was designed to be jointly
administered by both Departments, this proposal goes one step
further and actually transfers DOL and DOE personnel, property
and relevant assets to the Partnership.
By limiting the Partnership to existing resources, this
proposal does not permit any new Federal resources to be used
to administer the block grant. Consequently, this act would
eliminate the Office of Employment and Training in the
Department of Labor, and the Office of Vocational and Adult
Education in the Department of Education. Any remaining
functions not transferred by this act would be referred to
other offices or departments. The legislation requires that
such a merger result in a one-third reduction in the number of
staff necessary to perform the functions associated with the
Federal administration of this act.
Consolidating existing functions into a streamlined Federal
entity for work force development, with broad policy
objectives, will allow the block grant program to be
administered by a functionally integrated team. However, the
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education would retain
authority for final approval of State plans and distribution of
funds.
governing board
The Work Force Development Partnership will be headed by a
Governing Board composed of 13 members, including 7
representatives of business and industry, 2 representatives of
labor and workers, 1 representative of adult education
providers, 1 representative of vocational education providers,
and 2 Governors, appointed by the President with the advice and
consent of the Senate. The Governing Board shall be appointed
not later than September 30, 1996.
The duties of the Governing Board include:
1. Overseeing the development of a national labor
market information system and job placement
accountability system.
2. Establishing model benchmarks, taking into account
existing work force development benchmark efforts at
the State level.
3. Negotiating benchmarks with the States.
4. Reviewing and approving State plans.
5. Reviewing reports on the States' progress toward
their benchmarks.
6. Preparing and submitting an annual report to
Congress on the absolute and relative performance of
States progress toward their benchmarks.
7. Awarding incentive grants.
8. Issuing sanctions.
9. Disseminating information on best practices.
10. Performing the duties relating to the Job Corps.
11. Reviewing other federally funded work force
development programs.
12. Reviewing and approving the transition work plan
submitted by the Secretaries of Labor and Education.
13. Overseeing all activities of the Federal
partnership.
national assessment of vocational education programs
The committees believes that the National Assessment of
Vocational Education Programs has been a valuable resource that
has guided many reauthorizations of the Carl D. Perkins
Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act. Therefore,
this legislation continues the authority for the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) at the U.S.
Department of Education to contract with an independent group
to conduct the assessment. OERI shall appoint an independent
advisory panel to advise it on the implementation of the
assessment.
The assessment will include descriptions and evaluations
of: (1) the effect of this act on State and tribal
administration of vocational education programs and on local
vocational education practices; (2) expenditures at Federal,
State, tribal, and local levels to address program improvement
in vocational education; (3) preparation and qualifications of
teachers; (4) participation in vocational education programs;
(5) academic and employment outcomes of vocational education;
(6) employer involvement in, and satisfaction with, vocational
education programs; (7) the effect of the act's measures of
accountability on the delivery of vocational education
services; (8) the degree to which minority students are
involved in vocational student organizations.
The Secretary of Education will submit interim and final
reports to Congress in 2000.
national center for research in education and work force development
The committee has also relied heavily on the research and
data provided by the National Center for Research in Vocational
Education, located at the University of California at Berkeley.
Therefore, the committee has continued the authority for this
grant and broadened its focus to apply to work force
development issues broadly. The Berkeley center may continue to
be funded through this act until its grant period ends on
December 31, 1997.
For the period beginning in 1998, the Governing Board may
award a new grant on a competitive basis to an institution of
higher education, public or private nonprofit organization or
agency, or a consortium to conduct research and provide
technical assistance in order to increase the effectiveness and
improve the implementation of work force development programs.
The national center's areas of focus are to include: (1)
combining academic and vocational education; (2) connecting
classroom instruction with work-based learning; (3) creating a
continuum of educational programs which provide multiple exit
points for employment; (4) establishing high-quality support
services for students; (5) developing new models for
remediation of basic academic skills; (6) identifying ways to
establish links among educational and job training programs at
State and local levels; (7) creating new models for career
guidance, counseling, and information; (8) evaluating economic
and labor market changes that will affect work force needs; (9)
preparing teachers and professionals; (10) obtaining
information on practices in other countries that may be adapted
for use in the United States; (11) providing assistance to
States and local entities in developing and using systems of
performance measures and standards; and (12) maintaining a
clearinghouse to provide information about the condition of
systems and programs funded under this act.
The national center will also identify current needs for
research and technical assistance and annually provide a
summary report to Congress and the Governing Board on its
results and findings.
national labor market information system
It has become increasingly important, due to expanded
international competition, technological advances, and
structure changes in the U.S. economy, that reliable, timely
and relevant information on key economic and employment
conditions be developed. Job seekers and employers alike need
the most reliable information available about jobs, hours,
wages and employer requirements for worker skills in order to
make employment, career and economic development decisions.
Currently, the collection of labor market information is
fragmented, funding is irregular, and relevance of much of the
data for job seekers, employers, and administrators of training
and education programs at the local level is questionable.
This legislation consolidates the myriad, far flung
information activities and funds, now scattered over at least
five separate Federal agencies, into a streamlined system with
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in the leadership role.
The Governing Board, with the principal assistance of the BLS,
and other Federal agencies where appropriate, will oversee the
development, maintenance and continuous improvement of a
nationwide integrated labor market information system. The
employment and consumer information provided through this
system must be current, comprehensive, automated, accessible
and easy for job seekers and employers to understand. The types
of employment information to be provided include, for example,
job vacancies, wages, benefits and skill requirements of
occupations, as well as current and projected employment
opportunities and trends by industry and occupation. The types
of consumer information to be provided include, for example,
the cost and effectiveness of training and education providers,
including the percentage of program completion, the acquisition
of skills and the job placement and earnings of participants,
and other relevant information that may be useful for
individuals in making informed choices among providers.
It is the committee's intent that the development and
dissemination of labor market information be focused at the
point where it will be most useful--at the state and local
level through the one-stop career centers. Therefore, the
legislation promotes the development of good state and local
information by creating a true and unique partnership between
the Governing Board and the BLS, at the federal level, and with
the States and the State Labor Market Information (LMI) offices
at the state and local level. The state LMI offices are on the
front lines for data requests from employers and the public
and, thus, should be involved in the Governing Board's planning
and data design activities for labor market information. This
will help to ensure that the needs of real people in local
labor markets are maintained as a top priority.
To complement this partnership, the legislation recognizes
in law the Federal interest and role in State and local labor
market information. It also gives the Governing Board a mandate
for State and local data gathering activities, something that
the BLS and other Federal agencies involved in LMI activities
do not currently enjoy. Within these parameters, States are
given sufficient flexibility to design their statewide labor
market information systems to meet local needs, while ensuring
the comparability of the data across State lines.
TITLE IV.--AMENDMENTS TO THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973
Title I of the Rehabilitation Act authorizes the vocational
rehabilitation program, which provides counseling, training and
employment services for individuals with disabilities. Each
State operates vocational rehabilitation programs, which
provide access to qualified rehabilitation counselors who
assist individuals with disabilities, especially those with
severe disabilities, in planning for employment, securing
training, and acquiring jobs. The Federal Government supplies
about 78 percent of the funding for vocational rehabilitation.
The committee believes that vocational rehabilitation
should be coordinated as much as possible with the
comprehensive work force development system developed under
this bill. The amendments to title I of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 make it clear that services funded under that act are
to be integral components of a seamless system of work force
development. The vocational rehabilitation program therefore
becomes a subset of a larger employment and training system in
a State, but retains its own statutory authority and funding
stream.
Vocational rehabilitation programs represent ``one-stop''
centers that provide core services and more, including
referrals and coordination with other entities. These programs
sometimes co-locate with other job training programs. Under the
comprehensive ``one-stop'' system developed in this
legislation, vocational rehabilitation services for individuals
with severe disabilities may or may not be provided in the same
facilities in which core job training services are provided.
The key is that individuals receive job training and placement
assistance and referrals from other parts of the system, not
that all services they receive occur in one location.
Throughout the job training system those involved in
coordinating and arranging for these services would follow the
same procedures and policies when interacting with applicants
and clients.
One intent of the legislation is to offer individuals with
disabilities access to job training and employment assistance
within the system--not outside of it. The legislation also
recognizes the need to make core services available to
individuals with disabilities and to offer specialized and/or
intensive services to individuals with severe disabilities who
need such services.
To address the limitations of current job training options
with regard to individuals with disabilities the bill took a
two-pronged approach. The first prong addresses access to one-
stop centers of the work force development system. In title I
of the bill individuals with disabilities are offered access to
the same core services and optional services as other
individuals. Title I specifies core services that are to be
made available and requires States to report, through
benchmarks, on how well they have done in serving individuals
with disabilities and four other groups of individuals.
Furthermore, the interests of individuals with disabilities are
to be represented on planning bodies (e.g., work force
development boards).
The second prong of the approach addressed the specialized
and intensive services some individuals with disabilities
require in order to prepare for, secure, or advance in
employment. The amendments to title I of the Rehabilitation Act
made in this bill do not modify the current authorization of
appropriations provisions and do not modify provisions related
to the administrative structure and designated agency status
and authority of State vocational rehabilitation agencies.
The amendments in this bill provide for the linkage and
integration of the activities of State vocational
rehabilitation programs and State work force development
systems. Such linkages and integration continue the
availability of specialized and/or intensive services to
individuals with disabilities who need such services through
vocational rehabilitation programs. Such linkages and
integration also allow technical assistance and training from
State vocational rehabilitation programs to be shared with
other components of the State work force development system,
particularly staff of one-stop centers, to assist them
appropriately and effectively in serving individuals with
disabilities directly and referring individuals with
disabilities who require specialized or intensive services to
vocational rehabilitation programs. Thus, under the work force
development system, individuals with disabilities would be able
to access core services and necessary auxiliary aids and
services through the system's one-stop centers, and if they
have highly specialized needs, they would receive assistance
from qualified rehabilitation professionals, who may or may not
be co-located with a local one-stop site.
Some specific examples of ``linking'' provisions are: The
legislation adds definitions for three terms--``statewide work
force development system,'' ``work force development
activities,'' and ``work force employment activities''--to the
``Definitions'' section of the Rehabilitation Act, defining
them as they are defined in title I of this bill. The
legislation gives the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration the authority to provide consultative
services and technical assistance to public and nonprofit
private agencies to achieve the meaningful participation of
individuals with disabilities in the statewide work force
development system. The reporting and evaluation provisions in
the Rehabilitation Act are amended to bring them in line with
reporting and evaluation obligations within the work force
development system, and the standards and indicators
established under title I of the Rehabilitation Act, to the
maximum extent appropriate, are required to be consistent with
benchmarks established under title I of the bill. The
legislation adds a provision encouraging links between members
of a State Vocational Rehabilitation Council and any boards
that may be established.
Some amendments to the Rehabilitation Act repeal,
consolidate, or revise provisions, especially State grant
provisions under title I of the Rehabilitation Act. The
committee adopted these amendments to facilitate coordination
and clarify the relationship between vocational rehabilitation
agencies and other components of the work force development
system, to make it easier for States to understand and comply
with requirements, and to enhance the delivery of services
within the work force development system. Thirteen of 35
current State grant provisions were deleted.
The committee also adds a requirement to refer individuals
with disabilities, who are not eligible for services when an
order of selection is in effect, to other components of the
work force development system; a requirement to report
statewide needs assessment results to the Commissioner,
reporting information about individuals with the most severe
disabilities separately if an order of selection is in effect;
and a requirement to describe training that will be offered to
vocational rehabilitation personnel and personnel of the
providers of core services in the work force development
system.
The legislation streamlines the provisions pertaining to
personnel development, especially the scope of reporting
requirements. In an effort to reaffirm the need to spend
vocational rehabilitation dollars on job training and
employment, the committee deletes the authority for designated
State vocational rehabilitation agencies to spend funds from
title I of the Rehabilitation Act on construction or surgery.
With regard to the obligation for vocational rehabilitation
agencies to identify comparable benefits and services prior to
expending rehabilitation dollars for authorized services, the
committee deleted the exception for ``any individual at extreme
medical risk.''
The committee did not amend titles II through VIII of the
Rehabilitation Act, nor the provisions authorizing the Client
Assistance Program.
TITLE V.--AMENDMENTS TO THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
It is the committee's intent that refugees, along with all
individuals seeking employment, be served through the statewide
work force development system established under this bill.
Currently, employment-related services for refugees are
provided as part of a comprehensive package of resettlement
services provided through the Refugee Social Services and
Targeted Assistance program administered by the Office of
Refugee Resettlement (ORR). This integrated package of
adjustment services includes services such as health screening,
English language instruction, cross-cultural orientation,
vocational training, and employment services. According to the
Department of Health and Human Services, approximately 49.2
percent of the funding for this program in fiscal year 1994 was
directly related to employment and training.
It is not the intent of this committee, however, to
eliminate any services currently provided to refugees as a part
of the Targeted Assistance program that are not directly
related to employment assistance. Therefore, the amendments
made to the Immigration and Nationality Act in this act would
only prohibit funds authorized under that program from being
used for work force employment activities.
TITLE VI.--REPEALS OF EMPLOYMENT AND VOCATIONAL AND ADULT EDUCATION
PROGRAMS
The bill will repeal 90 programs contained in the following
statutes:
The following programs will sunset immediately upon
enactment:
State Legalization Impact Assistant Grant (SLIAG)
Title II of Public Law 95-250
Displaced Homemakers Self-Sufficiency Assistance Act
Appalachian Vocational and Other Education Facilities
& Operations
Job Training for the Homeless Demonstration Project
Section 5322 of title 49, U.S.C.
Subchapter I of chapter 421 of title 49, U.S.C.
The following programs will sunset on July 1, 1998:
Food Stamp Employment and Training
Job Training Partnership Act
Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
Education Act
Adult Education Act
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS)
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), sections 235 and
236
NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment Assistance
Wagner-Peyser Act
Adult Education for the Homeless
Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP),
title V of Older Americans Act
School-to-Work Opportunities Act
V. Cost Estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 21, 1995.
Hon. Nancy Landon Kassebaum,
Chairman, Committee on Labor and Human Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
reviewed S. 143, the Workforce Development Act of 1995, as
ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Labor and Human
Resources on June 21, 1995.
Enactment of S. 143 would affect direct spending by
repealing mandatory job training programs. Therefore, pay-as-
you-go procedures would apply to the bill.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Christi
Hawley.
Sincerely,
James L. Blum
(for June E. O'Neill).
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
1. Bill Number: S. 143.
2. Bill Title: Workforce Development Act of 1995.
3. Bill Status: As ordered reported by the Senate Committee
on Labor and Human Resources on June 21, 1995.
4. Bill Purpose: S. 143 would repeal the authorizations of
appropriations for many education and job training programs,
and would modify other education and labor programs. In place
of the programs repealed, two new state grant programs would be
established beginning July 1, 1998: one for work force
employment and education, and one for at-risk you activities.
The bill also would establish a governmental corporation to
administer the new grant programs and would provide for
transitional activities for states and the federal government
beginning in 1996. The corporation would be governed by a Board
of Directors consisting of the Secretaries of Labor and
Education and other members representing industry and labor.
5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Most of the
spending that would occur under S. 143 would be subject to the
availability of appropriated funds. For purposes of this
estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted by the end
of this fiscal year, and that the funds authorized by the bill
for the 1996-2000 period will be appropriated. Estimated
outlays are based on historical spending patterns of programs
that are similar to the block grants created by the bill.
This bill would affect direct spending by repealing certain
mandatory programs including Food Stamp Employment and
Training, Job Opportunities for Basic Skills, and Trade
Adjustment Assistance Training programs.
The following table summarizes the estimated impact of the
bill on direct spending. Direct spending for training and
child-care programs affected by this bill would total $5.7
billion in outlays over the five years from 1996 to 2000,
compared with $9.8 billion under current law. Table 1
(attached) shows these direct spending effects through 2002.
DIRECT SPENDING UNDER S. 143
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Spending for Affected Training and Child-
Care Programs Under Current-Law
Trade adjustment assistance training:
Estimated budget authority........................ 125 129 116 126 92 92
Estimated outlays................................. 102 126 125 122 115 99
Job Opportunities for basic skills:
Estimated budget authority........................ 1,300 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Estimated outlays................................. 980 938 949 959 969 970
AFDC child care (JOBS portion):
Estimated budget authority........................ 605 640 675 715 750 795
Estimated outlays................................. 605 640 675 715 750 795
Food stamp employment and training:
Estimated budget authority........................ 160 163 165 168 171 174
Estimated outlays................................. 160 163 165 168 171 174
---------------------------------------------------------
Total projected spending under current law:
Estimated budget authority........................ 2,190 1,932 1,956 2,009 2,013 2,061
Estimated outlays................................. 1,847 1,867 1,914 1,964 2,005 2,038
=========================================================
Proposed Changes
Program repeals:
Trade adjustment assistance:
Estimated budget authority.................... ....... ....... ....... -126 -92 -92
Estimated outlays............................. ....... ....... ....... -38 -84 -99
Job Opportunities for basic skills (JOBS):
Estimated budget authority.................... ....... ....... ....... -250 -1,000 -1,000
Estimated outlays............................. ....... ....... ....... -240 -969 -970
JOBS child care:
Estimated budget authority.................... ....... ....... ....... -134 -563 -596
Estimated outlays............................. ....... ....... ....... -134 -563 -596
Food stamp employment and training:
Estimated budget authority.................... ....... ....... ....... -40 -171 -174
Estimated outlays............................. ....... ....... ....... -40 -171 -174
---------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, program repeals:
Estimated budget authority........................ ....... ....... ....... --550 -1,826 -1,862
Estimated outlays................................. ....... ....... ....... -452 -1,787 -1,839
=========================================================
Related welfare effects:
Family support payments:
Estimated budget authority.................... ....... ....... ....... 21 119 260
Estimated outlays............................. ....... ....... ....... 21 119 260
Food stamps:
Estimated budget authority.................... ....... ....... ....... 29 162 277
Estimated outlays............................. ....... ....... ....... 29 162 277
Earned income tax credit:
Estimated budget authority.................... ....... ....... ....... ....... -7 -39
Estimated outlays............................. ....... ....... ....... ....... -7 -39
Medicaid:
Estimated budget authority.................... ....... ....... ....... ....... 10 61
Estimated outlays............................. ....... ....... ....... ....... 10 61
Subtotal, related welfare effects:
Estimated budget authority.................... ....... ....... ....... 50 284 559
Estimated outlays............................. ....... ....... ....... 50 284 559
---------------------------------------------------------
Total changes:
Estimated budget authority.................... ....... ....... ....... -500 -1,542 -1,303
Estimated outlays............................. ....... ....... ....... -402 -1,503 -1,280
=========================================================
Direct Spending for Affected Training and Child Care
Programs Under S. 143
Estimated budget authority.................... 2,190 1,932 1,956 1,459 187 199
Estimated outlays............................. 1,847 1,867 1,914 1,512 218 199
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.
The following table shows discretionary spending under S.
143 with and without adjustments for inflation where such sums
as necessary are authorized. When inflation is considered,
authorizations of appropriations total $45.2 billion over the
1996-2000 period, as compared with $38.3 billion under current
law. When inflation is not considered, the authorizations of
appropriations total $44.3 billion over the 1996-2000 period,
as compared with $34.7 billion under current law. Tables 2 and
3 (attached) provide details on the costs and savings
associated with individual provisions.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING UNDER S. 143
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUTHORIZATIONS OF
APPROPRIATIONS
WITH ADJUSTMENTS
FOR INFLATION
Authorizations of
appropriations
under current
law:
Estimated
authorization 8,563 8,412 7,140 7,394 7,649 7,737
Estimated
outlays...... 7,903 8,304 8,214 7,416 7,398 7,602
Total proposed
change:
Estimated
authorization -- 425 1,997 1,697 1,416 1,327
Estimated
outlays...... -- 76 578 1,563 1,396 1,489
Authorizations of
appropriations
under S. 143:
Estimated
authorization 8,563 8,837 9,137 9,092 9,065 9,064
Estimated
outlays...... 7,903 8,380 8,793 8,980 8,794 9,091
AUTHORIZATIONS OF
APPROPRIATIONS
WITHOUT
ADJUSTMENTS FOR
INFLATION
Authorizations of
appropriations
under current
law:
Estimated
authorization
s............ 8,563 8,142 6,684 6,684 6,684 6,531
Estimated
outlays...... 7,903 8,279 7,976 6,975 6,714 6,666
Proposed changes:
Estimated
authorization
s............ -- 411 1,870 2,409 2,386 2,538
Estimated
outlays...... -- 74 551 1,511 2,052 2,415
Authorizations of
appropriations
under S. 143:
Authorization
level........ 8,563 8,553 8,553 9,092 9,070 9,070
Estimated
outlays...... 7,903 8,353 8,528 8,487 8,766 9,081
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Note.--Authorizations of Education programs assume a one-year extension
as provided under the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA).
The costs of this bill fall within budget functions 500 and
600.
6. Basis of estimate:
Direct Spending
S. 143 would repeal existing mandatory programs, including
Food Stamp Employment and Training, Job Opportunities for Basic
Skills, and Trade Adjustment Assistance Training programs
effective July 1, 1998.
Trade Adjustment Assistance.--This bill would repeal Trade
Adjustment Assistance training programs beginning July 1, 1998.
This repeal would save $0.2 billion in outlays from 1998-2000.
Cash benefits for trade adjustment assistance are not repealed
by S. 143. Under current law, a displaced worker must be in a
training program in order to receive cash benefits, but waivers
of this requirement are permitted. Therefore, CBO assumed that
the repeal of the training programs would not disrupt the cash
benefit program.
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) and Food Stamp
Employment and Training.--The bill would repeal the Job
Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) and Food Stamp
Employment and Training programs effective July 1, 1998. The
JOBS program is a capped entitlement to states for providing
training to recipients to Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC). The Food Stamp Employment and Training program
provides mostly job search and job search training to food
stamp recipients. Under the Balanced Budget Act, spending in
both programs in considered mandatory. In place of these
programs, the bill would designate welfare recipients as a
priority group to receive services under the new discretionary
block grant.
As a general rule, CBO does not project savings in
mandatory programs that would depend on future appropriations
for discretionary program. Thus, in estimating the budgetary
effects of repealing the two mandatory job training programs,
CBO includes effects on other entitlement programs from those
repeals. CBO does not include potential saving that could
result if appropriations are provided for the discretionary
block grants authorized by this bill and if services are
provided to the persons who would have received them under the
repealed program.
Repealing the JOBS program would result in $240 million in
outlay savings in fiscal year 1998 and about $970 million in
each fiscal year thereafter. Additional savings and costs would
be associated with the interactions between JOBS and other
entitlement programs. Because under S. 143 spending would no
longer be required for job training for AFDC recipients, AFDC
recipients who would otherwise have been enrolled in job and
training programs with guaranteed child care would no longer
have to be provided child care services. CBO estimates this
reduction in AFDC child care services would result in outlay
savings of $134 million in fiscal year 1998, increasing to
about $600 million in 2000.
Under the Food Stamp Employment and Training program, each
state currently receives a share of $75 million dollars each
fiscal year, plus a 50 percent match on any additional
expenditures for program and participant costs, including
transportation and child care. CBO estimates that repealing the
Food Stamp Employment and Training program effective in July
1998 would save the federal government $40 million in 1998,
$171 million in 1999, and $174 million in 2000 in outlays for
that program.
The savings from repealing JOBS and Food Stamp Employment
and Training would be partially offset by increased costs in
other welfare programs. Research has shown that training and
work programs for AFDC and food stamp recipients help some
recipients leave welfare faster than they would have without
the programs, generating savings in AFDC, Food stamps, and
Medicaid, and small costs in the Earned Income Tax Credit. In
addition, food stamp benefits are reduced for individuals who
do not comply with the work requirements of the Food Stamp
Program.
If individuals who are served in these mandatory job
training programs under current law would continue to be served
under the new block grant, benefit payments relative to current
law would remain unchanged. In addition, with this
participation the costs of child care under AFDC would not be
affected.
Vocational Rehabilitation Services.--Funds for the basic
state grants for vocational rehabilitation services authorized
under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act are considered
mandatory spending under the Balanced Budget Act. S. 143 would
make many changes to this grant program. current state
requirements would be altered to streamline and coordinate the
program with other work force development programs established
in this bill. In 1995, the basic state grant program was funded
at $2.1 billion. The revised program authorized by S. 143 would
retain the current legislative language for the program's
funding mechanism. Each year's authorized funding level would
be the preceding year's appropriation level adjusted for
projected inflation. Because this funding level would not be
altered, there would be no direct spending effect from the
programmatic changes to the state grant program. Also, the
authorization for the unfunded innovation and development
grants established under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act
would be repealed. This repeal would not affect projected
spending because no funds were included in the baseline
projections for the unfunded program.
Authorizations of appropriations
Title I.--Title I of this bill would establish a new
program of grants to states for work force employment and
education activities. If the programs are funded at the
authorized levels, new budget authority for these grants would
total $7.0 billion a year in fiscal years 1998-2001.
Title II.--This title would authorize work force
preparation activities for at-risk youth, including the
operation of Job Corps Centers. The grant program would be
authorized at $2.1 billion for fiscal years 1998-2001. Funds
are to be appropriated on a forward-funded or program-year
basis; funds would become available July 1 of the year for
which funds were appropriated. Because JTPA youth programs are
currently funded in this manner, estimated outlays reflect the
spending patterns of the current programs.
Title II also contains provisions to reauthorize through
fiscal year 1998 the following programs: Title V of the Older
Americans Act (the Older Americans Community Service Employment
Program), the Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
Act, and the Adult Education Act. These programs currently are
authorized only through fiscal year 1995, although the Carl
Perkins and Adult Education Acts would be automatically
extended through fiscal year 1996 under the General Education
Provisions Act. Reauthorizing these programs for the years
specified would increase budget authority by $6.2 billion over
five years, if the funding provided includes adjustments for
inflation. These reauthorizations would increase budget
authority $5.6 billion if inflation is not considered.
Title III.--This title would make provisions for the
transition to the new block grant by funding national
partnership activities, including the transfer of personnel
from the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human
Services. This title provides for $500,000 in administrative
expenses for 1996 and 1997. Also, this title would require the
Department of Labor and the Department of Education to reduce
by one-third the number of employees who work on activities
related to this bill. The remaining personnel would be
transferred to the government corporation that would manage
work force education and training activities. The staffing
reductions, combined with the transitional administrative
provisions, would result in savings of about $0.1 billion over
the 1996-2000 period.
Title VI.--Title VI would repeal several existing job
training and education programs in two stages. Some would be
repealed immediately; others would be repealed as of July 1,
1998. For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumed an effective
date for immediate repeals of October 1, 1995. Because none of
the programs being immediately repealed are authorized beyond
fiscal year 1995, this estimate does not show any savings from
these repeals. Programs that would be repealed immediately
include state legalization grants, the Redwood National Park
unemployment program, the displaced homemakers self-sufficiency
program, Appalachian Regional Development vocational training,
homeless job training, and the Federal Aviation
Administration's employee protection program. Programs that
would be repealed as of July 1, 1998, include the Adult
Education Act, the Carl Perkins Vocational Education and
Applied Technology Act, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act,
the Wagner-Peyser Act, the Job Training Partnership Act, Title
V of the Older Americans Act, and Title VII of the Stewart B.
McKinney Homeless Assistance Act.
Budget authority savings from these repeals would total
about $9.5 billing in 1998, after also accounting for the new
authorizations provided by the bill as well as accounting for
inflation. If inflation is not considered, these repeals would
total $8.6 billion in 1998.
When authorized levels for 1996 and beyond are compared to
baseline projections that include discretionary inflation, the
bill would result in a net decrease in budget authority of
about $0.4 billion for fiscal year 1998 and $2.2 billion over
the 1996-2000 period. Table 4 (attached) shows the changes
proposed in S. 143 relative to the 1995 baseline with
inflation. Program reauthorizations provided for in Title II
are not shown separately in Table 4, because continued
authorization of programs is implicit in baseline figures.
When these authorized levels are compared to 1995 funding
levels without adjustments for inflation, the bill would result
in a net increase in budget authority of $0.5 billion for
fiscal year 1998 and $1.5 billion over the 1996-2000 period.
Table 5 (attached) shows the changes proposed in S. 143
relative to the 1995 funding levels. As with Table 4, program
reauthorizations provided for in Title II are not shown
separately in Table 5, because continued authorization of
programs is implicit in baseline figures.
7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct
spending or receipts through 1998. The pay-as-you-go effects of
the bill as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays... ........... ........... ........... -402
Change in receipts.. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Not applicable.
8. Estimated cost to State and local governments: S. 143
would require certain actions by the states in order for them
to receive funding under any of the block grant programs it
would establish. Many of the processes required in the act are
similar to current requirements. However, application and
reporting requirements, as well as funding streams, are
consolidated under this bill, which could provide for
administrative efficiencies at the state level.
This bill would increase discretionary authorizations for
job training activities, while at the same time it would
eliminate mandatory spending for these purposes. Many of the
state match requirements, as well as work requirements for
certain populations, would be eliminated. S. 143 does require a
state maintenance-of-effort for education activities, however.
The bill also requires that federal funds provided by these
grants supplement, but not supplant, state spending for these
purpose. States would be required to set goals for assisting
participants in obtaining meaningful unsubsidized employment,
with emphasis on providing services to welfare recipients,
individuals with disabilities, older workers, at-risk youth,
and dislocated workers. One of the criteria for incentive
grants to be given under this act is the extent to which
recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children are moved
off of the welfare rolls and into unsubsidized employment.
The bill would allow the governing board of the government
corporation to award incentive grants of not more than $15
million per program year to a state that reaches or exceeds its
benchmarks, or that has made substantial reductions in the
number of adult recipients of AFDC as a result of placing these
individuals in unsubsidized employment. A state that fails to
demonstrate sufficient progress may have its grant amount
reduced by up to 10 percent per program year for up to three
years.
Under S. 143, funding to states for vocational
rehabilitation programs would be maintained at about the 1995
level.
9. Estimate comparison: None.
10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
11. Estimate prepared by: Sheila Dacey, Christi Hawley,
Deborah Kalcevic, and Dorothy Rosenbaum.
12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
TABLE 1.--PROJECTED DIRECT SPENDING UNDER S. 143
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECTED SPENDING UNDER CURRENT LAW
Trade adjustment assistance training:
Estimated budget authority.................. 125 129 116 126 92 92 92 92
Estimated outlays........................... 102 126 125 122 115 99 92 92
Job opportunities for basic skills:
Estimated budget authority.................. 1,300 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Estimated outlays........................... 980 938 949 959 969 970 970 970
AFDC child care (JOBS portion):
Estimated budget authority.................. 605 640 675 715 750 795 843 893
Estimated outlays........................... 605 640 675 715 750 795 843 893
Food stamp employment and training:
Estimated budget authority.................. 160 163 165 168 171 174 177 180
Estimated outlays........................... 160 163 165 168 171 174 177 180
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total projected spending under current law:
Estimated budget authority.................. 2,190 1,932 1,956 2,009 2,013 2,061 2,112 2,165
Estimated outlays........................... 1,847 1867 1,914 1,964 2,005 2,038 2,082 2,135
=======================================================================================================
PROPOSED CHANGES
Program Repeals:
Trade adjustment assistance:
Estimated budget authority.............. ........... ........... ........... -126 -92 -92 -92 -92
Estimated outlays....................... ........... ........... ........... -38 -84 -99 -92 -92
Job opportunities for basic skills (JOBS):
Estimated budget authority.............. ........... ........... ........... -250 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000 -1,000
Estimated outlays....................... ........... ........... ........... -240 -969 -970 -970 -970
JOBS child care:
Estimated budget authority.............. ........... ........... ........... -134 -563 -596 -632 -670
Estimated outlays....................... ........... ........... ........... -134 -563 -596 -632 -670
Food stamp employment and training:
Estimated budget authority.............. ........... ........... ........... -40 -171 -174 -177 -180
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated outlays....................... ........... ........... ........... -40 -171 -174 -177 -180
Subtotal program repeals:
Estimated budget authority.............. ........... ........... ........... -550 -1,826 -1,862 -1,901 -1,942
Estimated outlays....................... ........... ........... ........... -452 -1,787 -1,839 -1,871 -1,912
=======================================================================================================
Realted welfare effects:
Family support payments
Estimated budget authority.................. ........... ........... ........... 21 119 260 432 542
Estimated outlays........................... ........... ........... ........... 21 119 260 423 542
Food stamps:
Estimated budget authority.................. ........... ........... ........... 29 162 277 317 349
Estimated outlays........................... ........... ........... ........... 29 162 277 317 349
Earned income tax credit:
Estimated budget authority.................. ........... ........... ........... 29 162 277 317 349
Estimated outlays........................... ........... ........... ........... 29 162 277 317 349
Earned income tax credit:
Estimated budget authority.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... -7 -39 -85 -138
Estimated outlays........................... ........... ........... ........... -7 -39 -85 -138
Medicaid :
Estimated budget authority.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... 10 61 141 245
Estimated outlays........................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 10 61 141 245
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal of related welfare effects:
Estimated budget authority.............. ........... ........... ........... 50 284 559 805 998
Estimated outlays....................... ........... ........... ........... 50 284 559 796 998
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Changes:
Estimated budget authority.............. ........... ........... ........... -500 -1,542 -1,303 -1,096 -944
Estimated outlays....................... ........... ........... ........... -402 -1,502 -1,280 -1,075 -914
=======================================================================================================
Direct Spending Under S. 143:
Estimated budget authority.................. 2,190 1,932 1,956 1,459 187 199 211 223
Estimated outlays........................... 1,847 1,867 1,914 1,512 218 199 211 223
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Total Direct Spending Under S. 143 excludes offsets from welfare-related effects.
Although changes have been made to the Rehabilitation Act, the funding level would not be altered under S. 143. Therefore, no changes to that Act are
shown in this table.
TABLE 2.--PROJECTED DISCRETIONARY SPENDING UNDER S. 143 INCLUDING INFLATION FOR UNSPECIFIED AUTHORIZATIONS
(By fiscal year, in millions of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorizations under current law:
Estimated authorization................... 8,563 8,412 7,140 7,394 7,649 7,737
Estimated outlays......................... 7,903 8,304 8,214 7,416 7,398 7,602
PROPOSED CHANGES
Title I-III: New programs:
Wordforce Development Block Grant:
Estimated authorization............... ......... ......... ......... 7,000 7,000 7,000
Estimated outlays..................... ......... ......... ......... 575 5,651 6,830
At-Risk Youth Block Grant:
Estimated authorization............... ......... ......... ......... 2,100 2,100 2,100
Estimated outlays..................... ......... ......... ......... 118 1,707 2,100
National activities:
Estimated authorization............... ......... 1 1 -8 -35 -36
Estimated outlays..................... ......... ......... ......... -7 -29 -35
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal of new programs:
Estimated authorization............... ......... 1 1 9,092 9,065 9,064
Estimated outlays..................... ......... ......... ......... 686 7,329 8,895
=================================================================
Reauthorization of existing programs:
Senior community service employment:
Estimated authorization............... ......... 424 438 454 0 0
Estimated outlays..................... ......... 76 391 440 371 38
Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied
Technology Act:
Estimated authorization............... ......... ......... 1,251 1,295 1,340 0
Estimated outlays..................... ......... ......... 150 1,006 2,266 1,169
Adult Education Act:
Estimated authorization............... ......... ......... 307 318 329 0
Estimated outlays..................... ......... ......... 37 249 313 289
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal of reauthorizations:
Estimated authorization............... ......... 424 1,996 2,067 1,669 0
Estimated outlays..................... ......... 76 578 1,694 1,950 1,496
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total changes, TielesI-III:
Estimated authorization............... ......... 425 1,997 11,159 10,734 9,064
Estimated outlays..................... ......... 76 578 2,381 9,280 10,391
=================================================================
Title VI: Program repeals:
State Legalization Grants:
Estimated budget authority............ ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays..................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Redwood unemployment:
Estimated authorization............... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays..................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Displaced homemakers self sufficiency:
Estimated authorization............... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays..................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Appalachian Regional Development Act:
Estimated authorization............... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays..................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Homeless job training:
Estimated authorization............... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays..................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
FAA Employee Protection Program:
Estimated authorization............... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays..................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Adult Education Act:
Estimated authorization............... ......... ......... ......... -318 -329 0
Estimated outlays..................... ......... ......... ......... -38 -262 -281
Carl Perkins Vocational Education and
Applied Technology Education Act:
Estimated authorization............... ......... ......... ......... -1,295 -1,340 0
Estimated outlays..................... ......... ......... ......... -156 -1,066 -1,144
School to Work Opportunities Act:
Estimated authorization............... ......... ......... ......... -277 -286 -148
Estimated outlays..................... ......... ......... ......... -33 -228 -262
Wagner-Peyser Act:
Estimated authorization............... ......... ......... ......... -1,153 -1,192 -1,234
Estimated outlays..................... ......... ......... ......... -239 -1.184 -1,201
Job Training Partnership Act:
Estimated authorization............... ......... ......... ......... -5,893 -6,096 -6.310
Estimated outlays..................... ......... ......... ......... -261 -4,751 -5,905
Senior community service employment:
Estimated authorization............... ......... ......... ......... -464 0 0
Estimated outlays..................... ......... ......... ......... -82 -334 -38
Stewart B. McKinney homeless assistance:
Estimated authorization............... ......... ......... ......... -72 -75 -45
Estimated outlays..................... ......... ......... ......... -9 -58 -70
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal title VI:
Estimated authorization............... ......... 0 0 -9,462 -9,318 -7,737
Estimated outlays..................... ......... 0 0 -817 -7,883 -8,902
Total changes:
Estimated authorization............... ......... 425 1,997 1,697 1,416 1,327
Estimated outlays..................... ......... 76 578 1,563 1,396 1,489
=================================================================
Authorization Under S. 143:
Estimated authorization................... 8,563 8,837 9,137 9,092 9,065 9,064
Estimated outlays......................... 7,903 8,380 8,793 8,980 8,794 9,091
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Note.--Authorizations of education programs assume a one-year extension as provided under the General Education
Provisions Act.
TABLE 3.--PROJECTED DISCRETIONARY SPENDING UNDER S. 143 NOT INCLUDING INFLATION FOR UNSPECIFIED AUTHORIZATIONS
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorizations under current law:
Estimated authorization................... 8,563 8,142 6,684 6,684 6,684 6,531
Estimated outlays......................... 7,903 8,279 7,976 6,975 6,714 6,666
PROPOSED CHANGES
Titles I-III: New programs:
Workforce Development Block Grant:
Estimated authorization............... -- -- -- 7,000 7,000 7,000
Estimated outlays..................... -- -- -- 559 5,652 6,828
At-Risk Youth Block Grant:
Estimated authorization............... -- -- -- 2,100 2,100 2,100
Estimated outlays..................... -- -- -- 118 1,707 2,100
National activities:
Estimated authorization............... -- 1 1 -8 -30 -30
------------
Estimated outlays..................... -- -- -- -6 -26 -29
Subtotal of new Programs:
Estimated authorization............... -- 1 1 9,092 9,070 9,070
Estimated outlays..................... -- -- -- 672 7,333 8,899
=================================================================
Reauthorization of existing programs:
Senior community service employment:
Estimated authorization............... -- 411 411 411 0 0
Estimated outlays..................... -- 74 376 411 337 34
Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied
Technology Act:
Estimated authorization............... -- -- 1,171 1,171 1,171 0
Estimated outlays..................... -- -- 141 937 1,148 1,030
Adult Education Act:
Estimated authorization............... -- -- 288 288 288 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated outlays..................... -- -- 35 231 284 255
Subtotal of Reauthorizations:
Estimated authorization............... -- 411 1,869 1,869 1,459 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated outlays..................... 74 551 1,579 1,768 1,320
Total Changes, Titles I-III:
Estimated authorization............... -- 411 1,870 10,961 10,528 9,070
Estimated outlays..................... -- 74 551 2,250 9,101 10,218
=================================================================
Title VI: Program Repeals:
State Legalization Grants:
Estimated budget authority............ -- 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays..................... -- 0 0 0 0 0
Redwood unemployment:
Estimated authorization............... -- 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays..................... -- 0 0 0 0 0
Displaced homemakers self sufficiency:
Estimated authorization............... -- 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays..................... -- 0 0 0 0 0
Appalachian Regional Development Act:
Estimated authorization............... -- 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays..................... -- 0 0 0 0 0
Homeless job training:
Estimated authorization............... -- 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays..................... -- 0 0 0 0 0
FAA Employee Protection Program:
Estimated authorization............... -- 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated outlays..................... -- 0 0 0 0 0
Adult Education Act:
Estimated autorization................ -- -- -- -288 -288 0
Estimated outlays..................... -- -- -- -35 -230 -247
Carl Perkins Vocational Education and
Applied Technology Education Act:
Estimated authorization............... -- -- -- -1,171 -1,171 0
Estimated outlays..................... -- -- -- -141 -937 -1,007
School to Work Opportunities Act:
Estimated authorization............... -- -- -- -250 -250 -125
Estimated outlays..................... -- -- -- -30 -200 -230
Wagner-Peyser Act:
Estimated authorization............... -- -- -- -1,042 -1,042 -1,042
Estimated outlays..................... -- -- -- -216 -1,042 -1,042
Job Training Partnership Act:
Estimated authorization............... -- -- -- -5,326 -5,326 -5,326
Estimated outlays..................... -- -- -- -236 -4,286 -5,181
Senior Community service employment:
Estimated authorization............... -- -- -- -411 0 0
Estimated outlays..................... -- -- -- -74 -302 -34
Stewart B. McKinney homeless assistance:
Estimated authorization............... -- -- -- -65 -65 -38
Estimated outlays..................... -- -- -- -8 -52 -62
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, title VI:
Estimated authorization............... -- 0 0 -8,553 -8,142 -6,531
Estimated outlays..................... -- 0 0 -739 -7,049 -7,804
Total Changes:
Estimated authorization............... -- 411 1,870 2,409 2,386 2,538
Estimated outlays..................... -- 74 551 1,511 2,052 2,415
=================================================================
Authorizations under S. 143:
Estimated authorization................... 8,563 8,553 8,553 9,092 9,070 9,070
Estimated outlays......................... 7,903 8,353 8,528 8,487 8,766 9,081
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.
Note--Authorizations of education programs assume a one-year extension as provided under the General Education
Provisions Act.
TABLE 4.--PROJECTED DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CHANGES INCLUDED IN S. 143 ESTIMATED RELATIVE TO THE CBO FEBRUARY
1995 BASELINE INCLUDING DISCRETIONARY INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current programs included in CBO baseline
including discretionary inflation:
Budget authority.......................... 8,563 8,846 9,147 9,473 9,799 10,142
Outlays................................... 7,903 8,380 8,800 9,120 9,433 9,770
PROPOSED CHANGES
Titles I-III: New programs:
Workforce Development Block Grant:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... 7,000 7,000 7,000
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... 575 5,651 6,830
At-Risk Youth Block Grant:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... 2,100 2,100 2,100
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... 118 1,707 2,100
National activities:
Budget authority...................... ......... 1 1 -8 -35 -36
Outlays............................... ......... * * -7 -29 -35
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal of reauthorizations:
Budget authority...................... ......... 1 1 9,092 9,065 9,064
Outlays............................... ......... * * 686 7,329 8,895
=================================================================
Title VI: Program repeals:
State Legalization Grants:
Budget authority...................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Outlays............................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Redwood unemployment:
Budget authority...................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Outlays............................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Displaced homemakers self sufficiency:
Budget authority...................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Outlays............................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Appalachian Regional Development Act:
Budget authority...................... ......... -5 -5 -6 -6 -6
Outlays............................... ......... -0 -2 -3 -4 -5
Homeless job training:
Budget authority...................... ......... -5 -5 -6 -6 -6
Outlays............................... ......... -1 -4 -5 -6 -6
FAA Employee Protection Program:
Budget authority...................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Outlays............................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Adult Education Act:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... -318 -329 -341
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... -38 -262 -322
Carl Perkins Vocational Education and
Applied Technology Education Act:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... -1,295 -1,340 -1,386
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... -155 -1,066 -1,310
School to Work Opportunities Act:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... -277 -286 -296
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... -33 -228 -280
Wagner-Peyser Act:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... -1,153 -1,192 -1,234
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... -239 -1,184 -1,201
Job Training Partnership Act:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... -5,893 -6,096 -6,310
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... -261 -4,751 -5,905
Senior community service employment:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... -454 -470 -486
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... -82 -419 -471
Stewart B. McKinney homeless assistance:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... -72 -75 -77
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... -9 -58 -74
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, title VI:
Budget authority...................... ......... -10 -11 -9,473 -9,799 -10,142
Outlays............................... ......... -1 -6 -826 -7,978 -9,574
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total changes:
Budget authority...................... ......... -10 -10 -381 -734 -1,078
Outlays............................... ......... -1 -6 -140 -649 -679
=================================================================
Current programs included in CBO baseline
without discretionary inflation revised for
S. 143:
Budget authority...................... 8,563 8,837 9,137 9,092 9,065 9,064
Outlays............................... 7,903 8,380 8,793 8,980 8,794 9,091
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.
TABLE 5.--PROJECTED DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CHANGES INCLUDED IN S. 143 ESTIMATED RELATIVE TO THE CBO FEBRUARY
1995 BASELINE WITHOUT DISCRETIONARY INFLATION (WODI) ADJUSTMENTS
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current programs included in CBO baseline
without discretionary inflation:
Budget authority.......................... 8,563 8,563 8,563 8,563 8,563 8,563
Outlays................................... 7,903 8,354 8,533 8,562 8,564 8,564
PROPOSED CHANGES
Titles I-III: New programs:
Workforce Development Block Grant:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... 7,000 7,000 7,000
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... 559 5,652 6,828
At-Risk Youth Block Grant:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... 2,100 2,100 2,100
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... 118 1,707 2,100
National activities:
Budget authority...................... ......... 1 1 -8 -30 -30
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... -6 -26 -29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal of Reauthorizations:
Budget authority...................... ......... 1 1 9,092 9,070 9,070
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... 672 7,333 8,899
=================================================================
Title VI: Program repeals:
State Legislative Grants:
Budget authority...................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Outlays............................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Redwood unemployment:
Budget authority...................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Outlays............................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Displaced homemakers self sufficiency:
Budget authority...................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Outlays............................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Appalachian Regional Development Act:
Budget authority...................... ......... -5 -5 -5 -5 -5
Outlays............................... ......... -0 -2 -3 -4 -5
Homeless job training:
Budget authority...................... ......... -5 -5 -5 -5 -5
Outlays............................... ......... -1 -4 -5 -5 -5
FAA Employee Protection Program:
Budget authority...................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Outlays............................... ......... 0 0 0 0 0
Adult Education Act:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... -288 -288 -288
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... -35 -230 -282
Carl Perkins Vocational Education and
Applied Technology Education Act:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... -1,171 -1,171 -1,171
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... -141 -937 -1,148
School to Work Opportunities Act:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... -250 -250 -250
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... -30 -200 -245
Wagner-Peyser Act:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... -1,042 -1,042 -1,042
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... -216 -1,042 -1,042
Job Training Partnership Act:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... -5,326 -5,326 -5,326
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... -236 -4,286 -5,181
Senior community service employment:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... -411 -411 -411
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... -74 -376 -411
Stewart B. McKinney homeless assistance:
Budget authority...................... ......... ......... ......... -65 -65 -65
Outlays............................... ......... ......... ......... -8 -52 -65
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, title VI:
Budget authority...................... ......... -10 -10 -8,563 -8,563 -8,563
Outlays............................... ......... -1 -5 -747 -7,132 -8,382
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Total charges:
Budget authority...................... ......... -10 -10 530 507 507
Outlays............................... ......... -1 -5 -75 201 517
=================================================================
Current programs included in CBO baseline
without discretionary inflation revised to S.
143:
Budget authority...................... 8,563 8,553 8,553 9,092 9,070 9,070
Outlays............................... 7,903 8,353 8,528 8,487 8,766 9,081
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components may not sum to totals due to rounding.
VI. Regulatory Impact Statement
The committee has determined that there will be substantial
reductions in the regulatory burden of paperwork as the result
of this legislation.
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short Title; Table of Contents.--Provides a
short title and a table of contents.
Section 2. Purposes.--Contains the findings and purposes of
Congress in enacting the bill.
Section 3. Definitions.--Provides definitions for the
principal terms used in the bill.
TITLE I.--STATEWIDE WORK FORCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS
subtitle a--state provisions
Section 101. Statewide Work Force Development Systems
Established.--Provides that, beginning in fiscal year 1998, the
Governing Board shall make allotments to States to assist in
paying for the cost of establishing development systems in each
State.
Section 102. State Allotments.--Section 102 provides that
the funds will be allocated to the States according to a
formula based on the following factors: 60 percent of the funds
based on each State's percentage share of the population ages
15 to 65 years, 10 percent of the funds based on each State's
percentage share of individuals ages 18 to 64 years who are at
or below the official poverty line, 10 percent of the funds
based on each State's percentage share of the average
unemployment rate for the previous 2 years, and 20 percent
based on each State's percentage share of adult recipients of
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
No State shall receive less than 0.5 percent of the total
allocation, but cannot receive an allocation that is larger
than the product of the State's population ages 15 to 65 times
the national per capita payment under the formula.
Section 103. State Apportionment by Activity.--Section 103
provides that of the funds made available under this act, 25
percent shall be made available for work force employment
activities, 25 percent shall be make available for work force
education activities, and 50 percent shall be made available
for work force flex activities. (The 25 percent portion for
work force employment activities includes FUTA revenue which
can only be spent for job search, placement services and the
development of labor market information.)
Section 104. State Plans.--Section 104(a) provides that the
Governor shall submit a 3-year comprehensive State work force
development plan to the Governing Board.
Subsection (b) of section 104 provides that each plan must
contain three parts: (1) the strategic plan and flexible work
force activities shall be developed by the Governor, in
collaboration with the private sector and a broad-based group
of individuals with expertise in work force development, (2)
the one-stop career center system and work force employment
activities shall be developed by the Governor, and (3) the work
force education activities shall be developed by the State
educational agency.
Subsection (c) of section 104 sets forth the required
contents of the State plan, as follows:
1. With respect to the overall strategic plan for the
system.--(a) a description of how the State will identify the
current and future work force development needs of the industry
sectors most important to the economic competitiveness of the
State; (b) a description of how the State will identify the
current and future work force development needs of all segments
of the population; (c) an identification of the State goals and
benchmarks and how they will make the system relevant and
responsive to labor market and education needs at the local
level; (d) a description of how the State will coordinate work
force development activities to meet the State goals and
benchmarks; (e) a description of how the funds made available
through the 50 percent flex account will be allocated, and how
the flexible work force activities--including school-to-work
activities--will be carried out to meet the State goals and
benchmarks; (f) an identification of how the State will obtain
the active and continuous participation of business, industry
and labor in the development and continuous improvement of the
system; (g) an identification of how any funds that a State
receives under this title will be leveraged with other public
and private resources to maximize the effectiveness of such
resources for all work force development activities; (h) a
description of how the State will eliminate duplication in the
administration and delivery of services under this act; (i) a
description of the process the State will use to annually
evaluate and continuously improve the performance of the
system; (j) an assurance that the funds made available under
this title will supplement and not supplant other public or
private funds; (k) an identification of the steps that the
State will take over the 3 years covered by the plan to
establish common data collection and reporting requirements for
work force development activities and vocational rehabilitation
program activities; (l) with respect to economic development
activities, a description of the activities to be carried out
and how those activities will lead directly to increased
earnings of nonmanagerial employees in the State; (m) and (n)
evidence of collaboration and support among the Governor,
business, industry and labor, local elected officials and key
State officials in the development of the overall strategic
plan.
2. With respect to work force employment activities.--(a)
an identification and designation of substate areas, including
urban and rural areas, to receive funds, which to the extent
feasible shall reflect local labor market areas; (b) a
description of the basic features of a one-stop career center
system; (c) an identification of performance indicators
relating to the State goals and benchmarks for work force
employment activities; (d) a description of the work force
employment activities to be carried out; (e) a description of
the steps the State will take over the 3 years covered by the
plan to establish a statewide comprehensive labor market
information system; (f) a description of the steps that the
State will take over the 3 years covered by the plan to
establish a job placement accountability system; and (g) a
description of the steps the State will take to segregate FUTA
revenues from the block grant and how those funds will be used
for job search, placement services, and labor market
information.
3. With respect to work force education activities.--(a) a
description of how the funds will be allocated among adult
education providers, and among secondary and postsecondary
vocational education programs; (b) an identification of
performance indicators relating to the State goals and
benchmarks for work force education activities; (c) a
description of the work force education activities to be
carried out; (d) a description of how the State will address
the adult education needs in the State; (e) a description of
how the State will segregate data relating to at-risk youth in
order to adequately measure the progress of the State toward
meeting the State goals and benchmarks relating to at-risk
youth; (f) a description of how the State will adequately
address the needs of at-risk youth in-school and through
alternative education programs that teach to the same
challenging academic, occupational, and skill proficiencies as
are provided for in-school youth; (g) a description of how the
funds and activities carried out under this part of the plan
are an integral part of comprehensive State efforts to improve
education for all students and adults; (h) a description of how
the State will annually evaluate the effectiveness of the part
of the plan with respect to work force education activities;
(i) a description of how the State will address the
professional development needs of the State with respect to
work force education activities; (j) a description of how the
State will provide local educational agencies with technical
assistance; and (k) a description of how the State will assess
its progress in implementing student performance measures.
Subsection (d) of section 104 sets forth the procedure for
developing the strategic plan, including a description of the
manner in which the governor, business, industry and labor,
local elected officials and key State officials collaborated in
the development of the plan and evidence of agreement and
support for the plan among the collaborators.
Subsection (e) of section 104 provides that a State plan
will be approved if the Governing Board determines that the
State (1) has included the information described in subsection
(c), (2) has developed the plan in accordance with the
procedures established under this act, and (3) has negotiated
the State benchmarks with the Governing Board.
Subsection (f) of section 104 provides that nothing in this
act shall be construed to provide any individual with an
entitlement to a service provided under this act.
Section 105. State Work Force Development Boards.--Section
105(a) provides that a Governor may establish a State Work
Force Development Board, on which a majority of the members are
representatives of business and industry, not less than 25
percent of the members are representatives of labor, workers,
and community-based organizations, and that includes
representatives of veterans, State officials for education and
vocational rehabilitation.
Subsection (b) of section 105 provides that the chairperson
of the board shall be from business and industry.
Subsection (c) of section 105 provides for the functions of
the board.
Section 106. Use of Funds.--Section 106(a) provides for how
a State shall use its allocation of funds for work force
employment activities:
(1) To establish a means of providing one-stop access to
the statewide work force development system through the core
services described below, which may be provided either through
multiple, connected access points, linked electronically or
otherwise, through a network that assures participants that
such core services will be available regardless of where the
participant initially enters the system, at not less than one
physical location in each substate area, or through some
combination of these options. The core services include
outreach and orientation to the services available through the
one-stop career center system, including assessment, job search
and placement assistance, career counseling where appropriate,
screening and referral of qualified applicants to employment,
accurate and timely information relating to employment
opportunities, training, education and support services, and
referral to appropriate services;
(2) To establish a comprehensive labor market information
system;
(3) To establish a job placement accountability system;
(4) To use for any of the following discretionary uses:
additional services which may be provided through one-stop
access, including the collocation of related services such as
unemployment insurance, veterans' employment services, or
welfare assistance, intensive services, and the dissemination
of information on one-stop activities to employers; training
activities such as occupational skills training, on-the-job
training, and rapid response for dislocated workers; staff
development and training; incentive grants for substate areas
that exceed its goals; vouchers--A State may deliver work force
employment activities through vouchers, along the following
guidelines:
1. Vouchers must be administered through the one-stop
career center system;
2. The State must establish eligibility criteria for
individuals to receive vouchers and for providers of
employment, training and education service;
3. The State must demonstrate in its State plan how it will
utilize the information obtained through the labor market
information system about the performance of eligible providers
to assist individuals to make informed decisions as to how to
use their voucher most effectively.
Subsection (b) of section 106 provides for how a State
shall use its allocation of funds for work force education
activities: to provide activities that include the integration
of academic and vocational education, linkages between
secondary and post-secondary education (including tech-prep),
career counseling, basic education and literacy services and
programs for adults and out-of-school youth to complete their
secondary education.
Subsection (c) of section 106 provides that funds made
available for work force education activities shall supplement,
and not supplant, other public funds. This subsection also
includes a maintenance of effort provision.
Subsection (d) of section 106 provides how a State shall
use its allocation of funds of work force flex activities: to
carry out school-to-work activities, work force employment
activities and work force education activities.
Sebsection (e) of section 106 provides that States which
establish State and local private-sector led work force
development boards may use a portion of their work force flex
funds for economic development activities, including training
for the incumbent work forces of small and medium-size
employers in the State.
Subsection (f) of section 106 provides that no funds
provided for economic development activities may be used to pay
the wages of workers during training or to encourage or induce
the relocation of businesses to the State.
Subsection (g) of section 106 requires that individuals who
desire to participate in certain work force employment
activities obtain, or be working toward, a high school diploma
or its equivalent.
subtitle b--local provisions
Section 111. Local Apportionment by Activity.--Section
111(a) provides that of the funds made available to a State for
work force employment activities, 25 percent shall be reserved
by the Governor to carry out activities through the system and
75 percent shall be distributed to local entities to carry out
activities through the system, based on such factors as
population, poverty, unemployment, and the number of AFDC
recipients in the State, and any additional factors the
Governor determines to be necessary.
Subsection (b) of section 111 provides that of the funds
made available to a State for work force education activities,
20 percent shall be reserved by the State educational agency to
carry out activities through the system (of which not more than
5 percent may be used for administrative expenses) and 80
percent shall be distributed to eligible entities to carry out
activities through the system. The State shall divide its 25
percent allocation for work force education activities among 2
functions: secondary or postsecondary vocational education and
adult education.
Subsection (c) of section 111 provides that nothing in this
title shall prohibit any individual or agency (other than the
SEA) that is currently administering work force education
activities from continuing to do so.
Section 112. Distribution for Secondary School Vocational
Education.--Subsections (a) through (d) of section 112 provide
that funds shall be distributed according to the formula in
current Perkins law which is based primarily on counts of low-
income and disabled individuals.
Section 113. Distribution for Postsecondary and Adult
Vocational Education.--Subsections (a) through (e) of section
113 provide that funds shall be distributed according to the
formula in current Perkins law which give priority to
institutions serving Pell Grant recipients.
Section 114. Distribution for Adult Education.--Subsections
(a) through (c) of section 114 provide that funds shall be
distributed according to provisions in the current Adult
Education Act regarding State discretion and competitive awards
at the local level.
Section 115. Special Rule for Minimal Allocation.--Section
115 provides that in situations where a minimal amount (not
more than 15 percent) is made available by a State educational
agency for distribution under sections 108 or 109, an
alternative method for distribution other than the formula may
be used.
Section 116. Redistribution.--Provides that funds not
expended during an academic year shall be returned to the State
educational agency for redistribution.
Section 117. Local Application for Work Force Education
Activities.--Section 117(a) provides that an eligible entity
desiring to carry out work force education activities shall
submit an application to the State educational agency.
Subsection (b) of Section 117 sets forth the contents of
the local application.
Section 118. Local Partnerships, Agreements, and Work Force
Development Boards.--Section 118(a) provides that the Governor
must negotiate and enter into agreements with local
partnerships (or, where established, local work force
development boards) for the delivery of work force development
activities in each substate area. Such an agreement must
include a description of how the funds allocated to a substate
area will be spent on work force employment, school-to-work, or
economic development activities, and evidence of support for
the agreement among the members of the local partnership (or
board).
If, after reasonable effort the Governor is unable to enter
into an agreement with the local partnership (or board), the
Governor shall provide the local partnership (or board) and
opportunity to comment upon the manner in which funds allocated
to a substate area will be spent for such activities.
Subsection (b) of section 118 provides that a State may
establish local work force development boards, on which a
majority of the members are representative of business and
industry.
Subsection (c) of section 118 provides that a State will be
eligible to use a portion of the funds under the work force
flex account for economic development activities.
subtitle c--provisions for other entities
Section 121. Indian Employment and Training Activities.--
Provides that the Governing Board shall make grants to, or
enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with, Indian
tribes, organizations, and Alaska Native entities to provide
consolidated training and related educational services.
Section 122. Grants to Outlying Areas.--Provides that the
Governing Board shall make grants to outlying areas to carry
out work force development activities.
subtitle d--general provisions
Section 131. Accountability.--Section 131(a) provides that
States must measure and report annually on benchmarks--
measurable indicators of the progress the State has set out to
achieve in meeting broad work force development goals related
to employment and education.
Subsection (b) of section 131 sets for the two principal
work force development goals of this act: to assist individuals
in obtaining meaningful employment, and to develop the
academic, occupational, and literacy skills of all segments of
the population.
Subsection (c) of section 131 provides that States must
develop quantifiable benchmarks to measure the State's progress
toward meeting these goals including, at a minimum, placement
and retention in unsubsidized employment for 1 year, increased
earnings for participants, and mastery in certain skill
categories. In addition States must show how they are meeting
these goals for welfare recipients, disabled individuals, older
workers, at-risk youth, and dislocated workers.
The Governing Board must assess how the State's
quantifiable benchmarks compare with model benchmarks
established by the Governing Board, with benchmarks proposed by
other States, and whether the benchmarks are sufficient to meet
the State's goals. The Governing Board must notify the State
within 30 days of receipt of its plan whether its benchmarks
are sufficient to make the State eligible to receive an
incentive grant. If not, the Governing Board must provide the
State an opportunity to revise its benchmarks in order to make
it eligible to receive an incentive grant.
Subsection (d) of section 131 provides that States must
establish a job placement accountability system to maintain
data relating to these measures, using existing quality wage
records available through the unemployment insurance system.
Section 132. Incentives and Sanctions. Section 132(a)
provides that the Governing Board may award incentive grants on
a yearly basis to States that reach or exceed their benchmarks.
Section (b) of section 131 provides that the Governing
Board may reduce the allotment for a State (up to 10 percent)
that fails to make measurable progress toward meeting its State
benchmarks after 3 years. The Governing Board may attribute the
State's failure to reach its benchmarks to either work force
employment, work force employment, work force education or
flexible work force activities, and may reduce that portion of
the State's allotment for such activities.
Subsection (c) of section 132 provides that the Governing
Board may use the funds retained as a result of reductions in
allotments for incentive grants.
Section 133. Unemployment Trust Fund.--Provides that FUTA
revenue (formerly funding Wagner-Peyser) shall only be used to
carry out the core services relating to job search, placement
assistance, and labor market information provided through the
one-stop career center system.
Section 134. Authorization of Appropriations.--Authorizes
appropriations of $7 billion for the block grant for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2001. Of this authorization, 1.25
percent shall be designated for Native Americans, 0.2 percent
for the Territories, 1.4 percent for labor market information,
0.15 percent for national evaluations, and 4.3 percent for
incentive grants.
Section 135. Effective Date.--This title shall take effect
on July 1, 1998.
TITLE II.--TRANSITION PROVISIONS
subtitle a--transition provisions relating to use of federal funds for
state and local activities
Section 201. Waivers.--Sections 201(a) provides that a
State or local entity may apply for a waiver from certain
statutory or regulatory provisions under any of the programs
covered by this act during the 2-year transition period.
Subsection (b) of section 201 provides that a State must
submit an application for a waiver to the Secretaries.
Subsection (c) of section 201 provides that a local entity
must submit an application for a waiver to the State, and the
State must decide whether to submit the application to the
secretaries within 30 days of receiving the request from the
local entity. If the State does not submit the request within
30 days, the local entity may submit the request directly to
the Secretaries.
Section (d) of section 201 lists certain requirements of
law that cannot be waived.
Subsection (e) of section 201 provides that waivers may be
approved to address the high priority needs of unemployed
persons, to improve efficiencies in the delivery of services,
to eliminate duplication, or to sue administrative funds to pay
for the cost of developing the interim and regular State plans.
Subsections (f) and (g) of section 201 provide that if the
Secretaries fail to approve or disapprove a request for a
waiver within 45 days of receiving the request, then it shall
be deemed to be approved. The waiver may subsequently be
terminated if it is determined to relate to a requirement of
law that cannot be waived under subsection (d).
Subsection (h) of section 201 provides definitions for the
principal terms used in this section.
Subsection (i) of section 201 contains conforming
amendments to the School-to-Work Opportunities Act
subtitle b--transition provisions relating to applications and plans
Section 211. Interim State Plans.--Subsection 211(a)
provides every state must submit an interim State plan to the
Governing Board no later than September 30, 1996.
Subsection (b) of section 211 provides that the interim
State plan must comply with the requirements for a regular
State plan under section 104.
Subsections (c), (d) and (e) of section 211 provide that
the Governing Board may approve the interim plan and authorize
the full integration of program funds and activities as
provided in the block grant in fiscal year 1997. If the
Governing Board disapprove the interim plan, it must make
recommendations and provide technical assistance to the State
for developing an approvable plan to be submitted in fiscal
year 1998. Disapproval of an interim plan shall not affect a
waiver already approved in section 201 for fiscal year 1997.
Section 212. Applications and Plans Under Covered Acts.--
Provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
State or local entity will be required to submit an application
or a plan in fiscal years 1996 or 1997 in order to receive
funding under any program which will ultimately be repealed
under this act.
Subtitle C--Job Corps and Other Work force Preparation Activities for
At-Risk Youth
Chapter 1--General Job Corps Provisions
Section 221. Purposes.--Contains the purposes of this
subtitle.
Section 222. Definitions.--Provides definitions for the
principal terms used in this subtitle.
Section 223. General Authority.--Provides that a State
shall use a portion of the funds under this subtitle to
maintain and carry out activities through Job Corps centers
located within the State.
Section 224. Individuals Eligible for the Job Corps.--
Provides that in order to be eligible for Job Corps, an
individual must be an at-risk youth.
Section 225. Screening and Selection of Applicants.--
Section 225(a) provides that the State shall determine the
specific standards and procedures for the screening and
selection of Job Corps enrollees which, to the extent
practicable, are implemented through one-stop career centers or
other appropriate agencies.
Subsection (b) of section 225 provides that no individual
shall be selected as an enrollee unless there is a reasonable
expectation that the individual can participates successfully
in the program, and that the individual manifests a basic
understanding of the rules of the program and the consequences
of failing to observe the rules.
Section 226. Enrollment and Assignment.--Section 226(a)
provides that enrollment in Job Corps shall not relieve any
individual of obligations under the Military Selective Service
Act.
Subsection (b) of section 226 provides that enrollees shall
be assigned to the Job Corps center within the State that is
closest to their residence.
Section 227. Job Corps Centers.--Section 227(a) provides
that States shall enter into agreements with Federal, State or
local agencies or with private sector organizations to operate
Job Corps centers.
Subsections (b) and (c) of section 227 provides that Job
Corps centers may be residential or nonresidential, and may
include Civilian Conservation Centers located primarily in
rural areas.
Subsection (d) of section 227 provides that agencies or
organizations operating Job Corps centers on the date of
enactment of this act shall enter into similar contracts with
the State to operate the center through the remainder of the
contract.
Section 228. Program Activities.--Section 228(a) requires
that Job Corps centers provide enrollees with access to the
one-stop career centers and other appropriate work force
development activities, including assistance in obtaining
meaningful employment upon completion.
Subsection (b) of section 228 provides that arrangements
shall be made to allow enrollees to participate in the
statewide work force development system, including activities
provided through local entities.
Subsection (c) of section 228 provides that each Job Corps
center must also be connected to the statewide job placement
accountability system.
Section 229. Support.--Provides that the State shall
provide Job Corps enrollees with such personal allowances as
the State may determine to be necessary or appropriate to meet
the needs of enrollees.
Section 230. Operating Plan.--Requires that operators of
Job Corps centers submit an operating plan to the Governor for
approval containing, at a minimum: (1) how the center will
contribute to achieving the State goals and benchmarks, (2) how
the work force development activities provided by the Job Corps
center are linked to the State's work force development needs,
and (3) a strategy to ensure all enrollees will have access to
the one-stop career centers.
Section 231. Standards of Conduct.--Section 231(a) provides
that strict standards of conduct shall be enforced within Job
Corps centers.
Subsection (b) of section 231 provides for termination of
enrollees who have committed a violation of the standards,
including immediate dismissal for incidents involving violence,
drug abuse, or other criminal activity.
Section (c) of section 231 permits the expeditious appeal
of disciplinary action taken against enrollees according to
procedures established by the State.
Section 232. Community Participation.--Provides that the
States shall encourage cooperation between Job Corps centers
and local communities. Such cooperation may involve the local
work force development board, where established.
Section 233. Counseling and Placement.--Provides that the
State shall ensure that Job Corps enrollees receive counseling
and job placement services which shall be provided, to the
maximum extent possible, through the one-stop career center
system.
Section 234. Leases and Sales of Centers.--Provides for the
lease or sale of Job Corps centers to the State in return for
nominal consideration.
Section 235. Closure of Job Corps Centers.--Section 235(a)
provides that the Governing Board shall conduct an audit of all
Job Corps centers and submit to Congress the results of that
audit. The audit will include the following information: (1)
funds expended in fiscal year 1996 to operate Job Corps center,
(2) the amount of funds expended for the direct operation of
each Job Corps center, (3) the amount of funds expended for
indirect costs relating to the operation of Job Corps centers,
such as student travel, national outreach, screening and
placement services, (4) the amount of funds expended for
construction, rehabilitation and acquisition of Job Corps
centers, and (5) the amount of funds required to be expended to
rehabilitate and repair existing Job Corps centers.
Subsection (b) of section 235 provides that, based on the
results of the audit, the Governing Board will identify to the
Secretary of Labor 25 Job Corps centers to be closed by
September 30, 1997. In determining which centers will be
closed, the Governing Board will use the following criteria:
(1) whether a given center has consistently received low
performance measurement ratings under the Department of Labor
or inspector general Job Corps rating system, (2) whether the
center is among those that have experienced the highest number
of serious incidents of violence or criminal activity, (3)
whether or not the center requires the largest funding for
rehabilitation and repair, (4) the relative and absolute cost
of the centers compared to all other centers, and (5) whether
the center is among those with the least State and local
support.
Allowance is made for new Job Corps centers to be completed
before they become subject the audit.
Subsection (c) of section 235 provides that the Secretary
of Labor, after reviewing the results of the audit, will close
25 Job Corps centers by September 30, 1997.
Section 236. Interim Operating Plans for Job Corps
Centers.--Provides that Job Corps center operators prepare and
submit to the Secretary of Labor and the Governor an interim
operating plan for the center during fiscal year 1997.
Section 237. Effective Date.--Section 237(a) provides that
this chapter shall take effect on July 1, 1998.
Subsection (b) of section 237 provides that sections 234,
235 and 236 shall take effect on the date of enactment of this
act.
Chapter 2--Other Work Force Preparation activities for at-risk youth
Section 241. Work force Preparation Activities for At-Risk
Youth.--Section 241(a) provides that the Governing Board shall
make allotments to the States to carry out work force
preparation activities for at-risk youth.
Subsection (b) of section 241 provides for the core and
permissible activities for which states may use funds under
this chapter. States are required to continue to operate Job
Corps centers that have not been closed under section 235.
States may use funds to (1) assist out-of-school at-risk youth
in participating in school-to-work activities, (2) make grants
to entities to provide work-based learning as part of school-
to-work activities, including summer jobs linked to year-round
school-to-work programs, or (3) carry out any other work force
development activities specifically for at-risk youth.
Subsection (c) of section 241 provides for the allotment of
an amount to each State equal to the total of the amount of
funds the State received in fiscal year 1996 to operate Job
Corps centers and an additional amount based according to a
formula based on the following factors: 33\1/3\ percent of the
funds based on each State's percentage share of unemployed
individuals, 33\1/3\ percent of the funds based on each State's
percentage share of individuals in poverty, and 33\1/3\ percent
of the funds based on each State's percentage share of at-risk
youth.
Subsection (d) of section 241 requires the State to
describe in its State plan submitted under section 104 how
activities for at-risk youth will be implemented to meet the
State's goals and benchmarks.
Subsection (e) of section 241 provides that entities may
submit applications to the Governor to provide work force
preparation activities for at-risk youth.
Subsection (f) of section 241 provides that, of the funds
allocated for work force preparation activities for at-risk
youth, 15 percent is reserved for the Governor and 85 percent
is distributed to local entities to carry out such activities
through the statewide system.
Subsection (g) of section 241 authorizes appropriations of
$2.1 billion for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2001.
Subsection (h) of section 241 provides that this chapter
shall take effect on July 1, 1998.
subtitle d--interim administration of school-to-work programs
Section 251. Administration of School-to-Work Programs.--
Effective October 1, 1996, the authority granted to the
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education under the
School-to-Work Opportunities Act shall be considered to be
granted to the Governing Board.
subtitle e--amendments relating to certain authorizations of
appropriations
Section 261. Older American Community Service Employment
Act.--Provides that the authorization for this program shall be
extended through fiscal year 1998.
Section 262. Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied
Technology Education Act.--Provides that the authorization for
this program shall be extended through fiscal year 1998.
Section 263. Adult Education Act.--Provides that the
authorization for this program shall be extended through fiscal
year 1998.
TITLE III.--NATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Section 301. Federal Partnership.--Section 301(a) provides
that a government corporation, known as the Workforce
Development Partnership, will be established to administer this
act.
Subsection (b) of section 301 provides that the Workforce
Development Partnership will be headed by a Governing Board
composed of 9 members, including the Secretaries of Labor and
Education, 5 representatives of business and industry (at least
2 of whom shall be employers), and 2 representatives of labor
and workers, appointed by the President with the advice and
consent of the Senate. The Governing Board shall be appointed
not later than September 30, 1996.
The duties of the Governing Board include (1) overseeing
the development of a national labor market information system
and job placement accountability system, (2) establishing model
benchmarks, taking into account existing work force development
benchmark efforts at the State level, (3) negotiated benchmarks
with the States, (4) reviewing and approving State plans, (5)
reviewing reports on the States' progress toward their
benchmarks, (6) preparing and submitting an annual report to
Congress on the absolute and relative performance of States
progress toward their benchmarks, (7) awarding incentive
grants, (8) issuing sanctions, (9) disseminating information on
best practices, (10) performing the duties relating to the Job
Corps, (11) reviewing other federally funded work force
development programs, (12) reviewing and approving the
transition work plan submitted by the Secretaries of Labor and
Education, and (13) overseeing all activities of the Federal
partnership. However, final authority for the approval of State
plans and disbursement of funds remain with the Secretary of
Education and the Secretary of Labor.
Subsection (c) of section 301 provides for the appointment
of a Director to administer the general duties of the
Partnership.
Subsection (d) of section 301 provides that the Secretary
of Education, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall detail Government employees, as
needed, to carry out the functions of the Federal partnership.
Subsection (e) of section 301 provides for an Office of the
Inspector General in the Federal partnership.
Subsection (f) of section 301 authorizes $500,000 to be
appropriated to the Governing Board for the administration of
this act.
Subsection (g) contains conforming amendments to the
Inspector General Act of 1978.
Section 302. National Assessment of Vocational Education
Programs.--Section 302(a) provides that the Office of Education
Research and Improvement (OERI) at the Department of Education
shall conduct a national assessment of vocational education
programs under this act. It also requires OERI to appoint an
assessment.
Subsection (b) of section 302 lists the descriptions and
evaluations the assessment shall include.
Subsection (c) of section 302 provides that the Secretary
shall consult with the Committee on Labor and Human Resources
of the Senate and the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities of the House of Representatives in the design and
implementation of the assessment. The Secretary shall submit
interim and final reports to the Congress in 2000, and the
reports will not be subject to any review outside OERI before
their transmittal to Congress.
Section 303. Labor Market Information.--Section 303(a)
provides that the Governing Board shall oversee the
development, maintenance, and continuous improvement of a
nationwide integrated labor market information system that
provides reliable information on job vacancies, occupational
trends, skill requirements, and the performance of education
and training providers.
Subsection (b) of section 303 provides that the Governing
Board shall, with the assistance of the Bureau of Labor
Statistics and other appropriate Federal agencies, prepare an
annual plan for achieving the cooperative Federal-State
governance structure for the nationwide integrated labor market
information system.
Subsection (c) of section 303 provides that States shall
establish an interagency process for the oversight of a
statewide comprehensive labor market information system, and
shall designate a single state agency or entity within the
State to be responsible for the management of the statewide
system. Such state agency must consult with employers about the
labor market relevance to the data to be used throughout the
statewide system.
Section 304. National Center for Research in Education and
Workforce Development.--Section 304(a) provides that the
Governing Board is authorized to continue supporting the
National Center for Research in Vocational Education until
December 31, 1997, and to award a new grant for the period
following that date.
Subsection (b) of section 304 describes the activities to
be conducted by the national center.
Subsection (c) of section 304 provides that the Governing
Board may request the national center to conduct additional
activities not described in subsection (b) as it deems
necessary.
Subsections (d) and (e) of section 304 provide that the
national center shall identify current needs for research and
technical assistance and shall annually prepare a report
summarizing its findings and results and submit it to the
Governing Board and the Congress.
Section 305. Transfers to Federal Partnership.--All
functions that the Secretary of Labor, acting through the
Employment and Training Administration and the Secretary of
Education, acting through the Office of Vocational and Adult
Education, perform with respect to the programs that are
repealed under this act, shall be transferred to the Federal
partnership. The Secretaries shall prepare and submit a
transition workplan to the Governing Board that provides
information on how the transfers will be conducted, and
proposes a reduction in staffing levels of at least one-third
over current levels.
Section 306. Transfers to Other Federal Agencies and
Offices.--Any functions currently performed by the Secretary of
Labor, acting through the Employment and Training
Administration, and the Secretary of Education, acting through
the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, shall be
transferred to an another appropriate Federal agency. The
Secretaries shall prepare and submit a transition workplan to
the Governing Board that provides information on how the
transfers will be conduction.
Section 307. Elimination of Certain Offices.--Effective
July 1, 1998, the Office of Vocational and Adult Education at
the Department of Education and the Employment and Training
Administration at the Department of Labor shall be terminated.
TITLE IV.--AMENDMENTS TO TITLE I OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973
Section 401. References.--Provides that references in title
IV of the Workforce Development Act of 1995, unless otherwise
noted, are to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Section 402. Findings and Purposes.--Amends section 2(4)(a)
to indicate that increased employment of individuals with
disabilities can be achieved through implementation of a
statewide work force development system that provides
meaningful and effective participation for such individuals in
work force development activities and through title I of the
Rehabilitation Act.
Amends section 2(b)(1)(A) by adding that empowering
individuals with disabilities can occur through a statewide
work force development system that includes comprehensive and
coordinated programs of vocational rehabilitation.
Section 403. Consolidated Rehabilitation Plan.--Repeals
section 6 that allows consolidated plans from State vocational
rehabilitation agencies and State developmental disability
councils.
Section 404. Definitions.--Amends section 7 with additional
definitions.
Section 405. Administration.--Amends section 12(a)(1) by
giving the Commissioner of Rehabilitation Services
Administration the authority to provide consultative services
and technical assistance to public and nonprofit private
agencies to achieve the meaningful participation of individuals
with disabilities in the statewide work force development
system.
Section 406. Reports.--Amends section 13 to conform data
collection requirements under the Rehabilitation Act with those
required in the Workforce Development Act of 1995.
Section 407. Evaluation.--Amends section 14(a) to conform
information collected for evaluation purposes under the
Rehabilitation Act with the State benchmarks required in the
Workforce Development Act of 1995.
Section 408. Declaration of Policy.--Amends section
100(a)(1) to include new terms, findings and purposes.
Section 409. State Plans.--Amends section 101(a) to conform
the submission of the State plan under title I with the
submission of the State plan under the Workforce Development
Act of 1995 and other conforming amendments.
Section 410. Individualized Employment Plans.--Amends
section 102 substituting the term ``individualized employment
plan'' for the term ``individualized written rehabilitation
program.''
Section 411. Scope of Vocational Rehabilitation Services.--
Amends section 103 by eliminating the authority to use title I
dollars for surgery or construction.
Section 412. State Rehabilitation Advisory Council.--Amends
section 105 to encourage linkages between members of the
Council and boards established under the Workforce Development
Act of 1995.
Section 413. Evaluation Standards and Performance
Indicators.--Amends section 106(a)(1) to require the standards
and indicators, to the maximum extent appropriate, will be
consistent with benchmarks established under the Work force
Development Act of 1995.
Section 414. Repeals.--Repeals part C of title I.
Section 415. Effective Date.--The effective date of this
title is July 1, 1998.
TITLE V.--OTHER PROGRAMS
subtitle a--amendments to immigration and nationality act
Section 501. Prohibition on Use of Funds for Certain
Employment Activities.--Provides that funds authorized under
the Immigration and Nationality Act shall not be used for work
force employment activities for refugees.
subtitle b--welfare programs
Section 511. Welfare Reform.--Provides a Sense of the
Senate regarding welfare reform.
TITLE VI.--REPEALS OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING AND VOCATIONAL AND ADULT
EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Section 601. Repeals.--Section 601(a) provides that the
following programs will sunset immediately upon enactment:
State Legalization Impact Assistance Grant (SLIAG)
Title II of Public Law 95-250
Displaced Homemakers Self-Sufficiency Assistance Act
Appalachian Vocational and Other Education Facilities
& Operations
Job Training for the Homeless Demonstration Project
Section 5322 of title 49, U.S.C.
Subchapter I of chapter 421 of title 49, U.S.C.
Subsection (b) of section 601 provides that the following
programs will sunset on July 1, 1998:
Food Stamp Employment and Training
Job Training Partnership Act
Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
Education Act
Adult Education Act
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS)
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), sections 235 and
236
NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment Assistance
Wagner-Peyser Act
Adult Education for the Homeless
Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP),
title V of Older Americans Act
School-to-Work Opportunities Act
Section 602. Conforming Amendments.--Section 602(a)
provides conforming amendments for the programs that are
immediately repealed.
Subsection (b) of section 602 provides that the Governing
Board shall submit legislation to the Congress containing
technical and conforming amendments for the programs that are
repealed on July 1, 1998.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR DeWINE
The Chairman, Senator Kassebaum, deserves our gratitude for
her leadership on this bill. Thanks in large part to her
efforts, we have succeeded in reporting legislation that will
make a substantial difference in preparing America's work force
for the 21st century.
I am especially pleased with the sections of the Workforce
Development Act that deal with the problems of at-risk youth.
For too long, job training policy has focused on problems that
are easier to solve, like retraining temporarily displaced
workers--and ignored America's number one social challenge:
Young people growing up outside the mainstream of U.S. society
and the U.S. economy.
The group of young Americans is large, and it is growing.
Since 1965, the juvenile arrest rate for violent crimes has
tripled. Children are the fastest-growing segment of the
criminal population.
Since 1975, homelessness has been on the rise. And it has
increased faster among families with children than among any
other group.
Every year, nearly one million young people between 12 and
19 are victims of violent crime.
Too many young people are not getting the education they
need. Since 1960, we have spent 200 percent more on public
schools--but the quality of education is not improving. A 1988
study found that of all the nations tested, the United States
finished dead last in science.
The Ohio Department of Education does not have complete
statistics on graduation. But the statistics they do have
suggest that of the kids who enter Ohio high schools, only 75
percent graduate four years later. And that statistic
sugarcoats the much more dismal reality in Ohio's cities. In
Youngstown, only 46 percent graduate after four years. In
Columbus, only 44 percent. In Toledo, only 37 percent.
These children are not being educated. And we know what
that leads to. According to the Educational Testing Service,
half of the heads of households on welfare are dropouts. And
the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections reports
that 25 percent of the inmates in Ohio prisons are dropouts.
Almost 5 million children are growing up in neighborhoods
where the majority of men are unemployed for most of the year.
Too many kids are having kids. Since 1960, the rate of
unmarried teenagers having kids has increased almost 200
percent.
Since 1960, the percentage of families headed by single
parents has also tripled. One reason this is important is that
children growing up in single-parent families are poorer than
children living with two parents. Children who don't have
fathers around are five times more likely to be poor. They are
ten times more likely to be extremely poor--to live in the kind
of grinding poverty from which it's very hard to escape.
It's hard to escape from because it's more than economic
poverty. It's a poverty of spirit--the poverty, especially, of
young men who have no role models.
These are the people we refer to as ``at-risk youth.'' For
too long, we as a society have ignored this problem.
The Workforce Development Act targets $2.1 billion of the
funding on Job Corps and other education and training programs
directly on the problems of at-risk youth. This is an overdue
measure in response to a major national problem--an essential
step in reclaiming the futures of some seriously threatened
young people.
Under this legislation, states will be given a great deal
of flexibility in their use of these funds for at-risk youth.
Job Corps centers will come directly under state authority.
In this area, even more than others, we need state
experimentation to demonstrate which approaches are most
effective. Our task is nothing less than re-civilizing at-risk
sectors of society--in effect, reclaiming a life of hope for
young people who have never learned the values of work and
responsibility.
This is an effort for which there is little if any
precedent. We need to build on successful approaches like the
Center for Employment Training (CET) in San Jose, California;
the Jobs Plus program in the ``Over-The-Rhine'' district of
Cincinnati, Ohio; and the ``Cleveland Works'' program in
Cleveland, Ohio, which has already been replicated in six other
cities.
While we shouldn't seek to mandate any of these programs
nationally, they have all established a record of success that
makes them valuable models for further experimentation by other
communities.
The Workforce Development Act will encourage precisely this
kind of experimentation. It is an important positive step in
the effort to address the monumental challenge of rescuing
America's at-risk youth.
Mike DeWine.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR PELL
When I voted to report S. 143, the Workforce Development
Act of 1995, I emphasized that I had concerns that had not been
resolved. Thus, in addition to my support for the language in
the committee report and the additional views on adult
education, I thought it important to highlight several of those
concerns.
While I applaud the effort to bring better coordination
between education and training, I am concerned with the
governance structure provided in the legislation. I believe the
Governing Board's responsibilities should be advisory, and that
actual program authority should rest with the Secretaries of
Education and Labor. This may be the intent of the legislation,
but new or additional legislative language is necessary to
accomplish this.
I am a strong advocate and longtime supporter of the Job
Corps program. I believe deeply that this should be a national
program, and should not be relegated to the states. In
addition, I am concerned about the merit of a national audit of
the Job Corps program and the decision to require the closure
of a certain number Job Corps centers before that audit is even
conducted.
I am of the mind that the percentage of Work Force
Development funds that flow to Work Force Education and Work
Force Employment should be increased, and that funding for the
flexibility Account should be decreased. I offered an amendment
in committee to divide funds in the following manner: one third
for Work Force Education, one-third for Work Force Employment,
and one-third for the Flexibility Account. While I continue to
prefer this approach, I remain open to other alternatives.
I do not favor repealing the dislocated worker provisions
of the Trade Act. These are important provisions to help
workers who have lost their jobs because of international
competition that has occurred because of agreements such as the
North American Free Trade Act and the General Agreement on
Trade and Tariffs.
On a related and equally important matter, the legislation,
in my opinion, needs to be better targeted to meet the needs of
dislocated workers. Strengthening the voucher provision in the
legislation is one way that might be considered to accomplish
this objective.
I also believe we should have provisions that would enable
the Secretary of Labor to make grants to address major economic
dislocations, to provide disaster relief employment assistance,
and to provide employment and training assistance for migrant
and seasonal farmworkers. Circumstances like these often cross
state lines or are beyond an individual state's resources. By
their nature, large dislocations are abrupt events. In
designing its plan, no state should or would plan for an event
that may never take place. Therefore, a national program,
similar to the one Senator Dodd and I proposed during the
markup, is a critical necessity.
Further, there are a series of concerns I have regarding
the Employment Service and labor protections that are not
currently reflected in the legislation. It is important that
these issues be adequately addressed.
Repeal of the Summer Youth Employment Program would be most
unfortunate. It provides important help to young people who
have no other place to turn. It should be retained.
Additional, specific changes in the legislation would also
help address the employment and training needs of particular
individuals, such as those of limited English proficiency,
those seeking to enter areas of employment not traditional to
their gender, and those who are displaced homemakers.
Some of these concerns were the subject of amendments
considered by the committee. I regret very much that they were
not approved, and would hope that they might again be
considered on the floor. I also remain hopeful that other
concerns I have highlighted and that were not considered during
the committee executive session might be addressed either in a
committee amendment or other amendments during floor debate on
this important legislation.
Claiborne Pell.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS PELL, SIMON, JEFFORDS, AND KENNEDY
The Workforce Development Act of 1995 contains several
sections that emphasize the importance of Adult Education.
While we are supportive of all of the provisions regarding
Adult Education in the bill, we are deeply concerned that the
absence of an assured stream of funding puts adult education
services very much at risk. Accordingly, we strongly believe
that the Workforce Development Act should include a specific
Adult Education allotment of twenty-five percent of the amount
allocated for Workforce Education activities.
Over fifty percent of adults in the United States are
functionally illiterate. Tens of millions of Americans cannot
write a brief letter, read a bus schedule, understand a warning
label, or calculate the difference between a regular price and
a sale price in an advertisement. In the aggregate, these
problems have a very telling impact not only on our
competitiveness in the international economy but also on the
very fabric of our society. Estimates place the cost of
illiteracy to the marketplace at $225 billion dollars.
Adult Education provides support for educational programs
geared toward out of school youth, age 16 and above, so that
adults can acquire the necessary oral and written competencies
essential to success in the workplace and to everyday living
and functioning in society. Individuals enter adult literacy
programs for a number of reasons. While one person may be
unemployed and enter a literacy course to improve his or her
employability status, another may already have a job and may
seek adult education services simply to enhance their general
work force skills. Another may wish to improve their literacy
skills so that they can better assist their children with their
school work. And still another may be an immigrant whose
language is not English and needs adult education services so
that individual can become a full and successful participant in
our society.
In 1993, 3.8 million students were enrolled in Adult
Education programs. Almost 300,000 passed the GED test or
received a high school diploma. More than 227,000 gained
employment or advanced in the work force due to adult
education. An additional 30,000 were removed from public
assistance. More than 39,000 registered to vote for the first
time, 11,000 obtained citizenship, and almost 200,000 entered
another educational or training program. While these statistics
are impressive, it is important to emphasize that only one-half
of those individuals seeking adult education services receive
them. This number does not include the thousands, perhaps
millions, of individuals who need services but do not know how
to find them.
The Federal government has been a leader in emphasizing the
importance of literacy and skills necessary for an improved
lifestyle and success on the job. We firmly believe that a
strong federal presence must be continued. In order to
accomplish that directive, we consider it imperative that adult
education services not be left to chance.
In Committee, the vote on the amendment to accomplish this
objective was evenly divided. Fully one-half of the Committee
membership believes that this legislation should include a
provision insuring that at least one-fourth of the Workforce
Education funds flow to adult education. To do otherwise would,
in our opinion, threaten the very existence of these critically
important services.
Claiborne Pell.
Paul Simon.
Jim Jeffords.
Ted Kennedy.
MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS KENNEDY, DOOD, SIMON, HARKIN, MIKULSKI, AND
WELLSTONE
Since the drafting of the Manpower Development Training Act
in 1962, the Senate has maintained a strong bipartisan
tradition in the development of legislation dealing with the
education and training of the nation's work force. The Job
Training Partnership Act of 1982, the JTPA Amendments of 1992,
and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 are some of
the more recent examples of legislation developed and enacted
with strong bipartisan support.
In that same spirit of bipartisanship, Members on both
sides of the aisle have worked closely together for more than a
year to develop a bill that reflects our shared goal of
achieving a more integrated approach to work force development.
It is widely agreed that we need to replace the current
fragmented system of many separate federal job training and
education programs with a more coherent system that operates
more effectively to serve the needs of workers and firms. For
that reason, it has been and continues to be our hope that we
can reach agreement with the majority on a set of reforms that
achieve that goal.
This bill reported from committee takes important steps in
this direction by consolidating federal programs and
establishing a framework for state and local design and
management. However, we continue to have a number of
significant concerns about the bill which we were not able to
resolve prior to the committee mark-up of S. 143, and which are
described below. We will continue to work with the majority to
resolve these differences with the hope that we can reach
agreement by the time the bill goes to the floor.
the national governance structure needs revision
The governance structure for federal administration of the
Workforce Development Act as currently described in the
committee-reported bill is, in our view, both unworkable and
unwise. There is, however, general agreement among members of
the committee that better linkages among education, training,
and employment services must be achieved at all levels:
National, State, and local. Senator Kassebaum's specific goal
of better integrating the administration of workforce education
and training programs at the national level is also an
objective which we generally endorse. Thus, while we are unable
to support the governance structure proposed in the bill as
reported, we look forward to continuing to work with the
majority to develop a structure that all members of the
committee can support.
S. 143, as reported, creates a part-time governing board,
composed of two governors and representatives of business,
labor and education, that would oversee all the activities
conducted under this act. The bill also creates a new
government corporation called the Federal Partnership--an
entity that is a combination of some components of the current
Office of Vocational and Adult Education in the Department of
Education and the Education and Training Administration in the
Department of Labor--to administer the act under the direction
of the Governing Board. While we support the effort to
consolidate and streamline Federal work force development
programs, we believe this proposed governance structure would
in fact have just the opposite result, adding new layers of
government and increasing rather than decreasing administrative
complexity. We strongly support the establishment of a national
board to play an advisory role with regard to the
administration of the act, but we are not prepared to turn over
direct administrative responsibility and authority for a $7
billion Federal program to a part-time board that meets four
times a year. The Federal Partnership should report directly to
the Secretaries and not through the Board to the Secretaries,
and the Secretaries should have ultimate responsibility for all
decisions related to approval of plans, establishment of
benchmarks, allocation of funds, and program administration.
We are particularly distressed by the lack of a clear, firm
line of accountability and responsibility at the Federal level.
The reported bill continues to blur lines of accountability and
responsibility. It is not clear who is in charge of, and can be
held fully accountable for, the Federal role: the President
through his Cabinet appointees (the Secretaries of Labor and
Education), the quasi-governmental Governing Board, the new
Partnership, or some combination of these. The absence of
clarity with respect to lines of authority at the Federal level
stands in marked contrast with the explicitness of the language
regarding authority in the design of the state level system:
State-level Workforce Development Boards provided for under the
bill have advisory functions, while the Governor with state
officials is given unmistakable overall responsibility and
authority.
It is imperative that Federal taxpayers and Congress know
exactly whom to hold accountable in the executive branch for
the effective and efficient execution of the act. It is equally
important that there be direct, clear, high-level
accountability to the President, and that these accountable
have the tools at their disposal to ensure that they can carry
out their responsibilities under the act. In our view this
means three conditions must be present. First, the Secretaries
must have direct and final authority to decide whether State
plans are adequate to carry out the purposes of the act and
accomplish State goals and to approve them. Second, any new
intermediary or board of public members should be advisory to
the Secretaries. Finally, any entity that carries out Federal
responsibilities must be directly responsible to the
Secretaries who are, in turn, responsible to the President and
to Congress.
An additional concern is that the bill's overly
prescriptive instructions on the elimination of existing
offices and reductions in staff run counter to sound management
philosophy for restructuring and downsizing an organization.
Many activities outside the provisions of the act are the
responsibility of the existing entities that are merged under
the Partnership, and the structure under which these activities
will be administered is not yet fully resolved. Although the
establishment of the proposed Partnership would achieve the
consolidation of some related functions that are currently
housed within the Departments of Education and Labor, it
threatens to create a series of new, potentially severe
coordination problems among the departments and the Partnership
that in many ways may far outweight the advantages. For
example, new mechanisms would be required to ensure coordinated
planning of and access to School-to-Work activities, because
elementary and secondary education programs, student financial
assistance and family literacy would remain in the Department
of Education while vocational education would move to the
Partnership. Some of these linkages are discussed in greater
detail elsewhere in the minority views.
Similar coordination mechanisms would be needed because the
time-tested, and business-supported, linkage of the
unemployment insurance system with both the employment
service's labor exchange functions and the reemployment
services authorized under the Economic Dislocation and Worker
Adjustment Assistant Act (EDWAA) would be severed. The former
stay in the Labor Department and the latter two would be turned
over to the Partnership.
We reiterate our support for the overall objective of
Federal consolidation and coordination. Without substantial
additional changes, however, S. 143 threatens diminished rather
than enhanced accountability, greater rather than lesser
problems in Federal coordination, and poorer rather than
improved Federal administrative performance.
improvements are needed to provisions dealing with at-risk youth
As reported by the committee, the bill contains a number of
important provisions designed to help at-risk youth--both out-
of-school young people and students--acquire the skills and
knowledge they need to begin productive careers. We were also
pleased to lend our support to Senator DeWine's successful
amendment in committee to increase funds available for Job
Corps and other at-risk youth programs and services to $2.1
billion. We remain concerned, however, that the proposed
funding structure will pit at-risk youth programs into direct
competition with the devolved Job Corps infrastructure for
scarce resources. We will continue to work to make the funding
of State programs for at-risk youth independent of Job Corps
funding, and to link these programs with the State school-to-
work framework and activities. We also want to make it clear
that these programs are intended to encourage at-risk students
to complete their high school degrees and school dropouts to
enroll in alternative education programs.
Preventing minority youth from dropping out of school and
better serving youth if they do drop out holds the key to large
impacts--both in terms of cost savings to Federal taxpayers and
benefits to society. By a conservative estimate, the average
high school dropout costs taxpayers almost $70,000 in welfare
and prison costs between age 18 and 54. Thus, it is essential
that we target work and training resources on at-risk youth in
order to give them a fair chance to make it in our society.
Although many programs serving disadvantaged youth have not
proved to be effective, we have learned of promising projects
that do effectively serve disadvantaged youth and point the way
for restructuring other youth programs. Under this bill and
with adequate resources, we believe that we can expand the use
of successful models and reform others around what works.
the job corps should be preserved as a national program
For more than three decades Job Corps has provided this
country's disadvantaged youth a chance and a hope to live
prosperous and productive lives. Created by Congress in 1964,
its historic and enduring charge has been to serve our most
troubled young people by providing comprehensive counseling,
training and education in a safe and supportive residential
setting.
Of the 62,000 young people who participate in Job Corps
each year, over 80 percent are high school dropouts, and 73
percent have never been employed full-time. One-fourth come to
the program with reading skills at the 6th grade level or less,
and the average income of a Job Corps member is less than
$7,000 per year. Yet 70 percent of participants in the program
get jobs, join the military, or later obtain further education
after leaving the program. These results illustrate why the
Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation, in a 1993 report entitled
Investing in Children and Youth Reconstructing Our Cities
concluded that:
Next to Head Start, the Job Corps appears to be the
second most successful, across-the-board American
prevention program ever created for high-risk kids. Job
Corps is an intensive program with multiple solutions
over one year that takes seriously the need to provide
supportive, structured environment for the youth it
seeks to assist * * *. [The program's] results have
been consistently positive and its performance highly
cost-effective. A 1991 analysis by the Congressional
Budget Office calculated that for each $10,000 invested
in the average participant in the mid-1980's, society
received roughly $15,000 in return--including about
$8,000 in ``increased output participants'' and another
$6,000 in the ``reducing in the cost of crime-related
activities.
Despite this record of achievement, the committee-reported
bill would end Job Corps as a national program and close 25 of
the 110 Job Corps centers--eliminating opportunities for about
one in four of the at-risk youth currently served. While we
support reforms to the Job Corps program as part of our overall
effort to develop a more coherent national approach to youth
employment policy--particularly those provisions in the bill
which require direct linkages between Job Corps centers and the
emerging one-stop career centers and school-to-work systems in
the States--we believe the bill as reported by the committee
would do serious damage to this important program.
On the untested and unproven theory that States can do a
better job in setting policy and providing oversight of the
program, the bill transfers responsibility for operation of all
Job Corps centers to the States, but at the same time does not
require the States to continue to operate the centers. Although
funds provided to the States under a Separate title for at-risk
youth may be used for Job Corps activities, States could
significantly decrease the number of students attending a
center or shift funds to nonresidential programs without
violating the ``core'' requirements of the subtitle. Funds that
would otherwise be available for Job Corps could also be
diverted to other activities for at-risk youth not related to
Job Corps at all.
By putting state boundaries on Job Corps centers, the bill
would also arbitrarily limit applicants' access to centers
outside their states that might offer programs better suited to
their needs and interests than the programs offered at the
center or centers in their state. Worse, at-risk youth in
states without a center would be deprived of access to Job
Corps altogether.
While we agree that there should be rigorous monitoring of
Job Corps centers' performance, and that corrective action
should be taken when a center is performing poorly, we are also
not persuaded that the appropriate corrective action is to
close the center. Poor performance is in most cases a function
of poor management, and therefore should be addressed by
terminating the contractor or otherwise changing the management
structure. To legislatively mandate that 25 centers must be
closed is, in our view, both arbitrary and ill-advised.
We agree with the majority that Job Corps can be better
integrated into State work force development plans and systems
and local decision-making, and we support changes to accomplish
that goal. But it is vitally important to retain a national Job
Corps system, avoiding the fragmentation and restricted
opportunities for access created by the committee's approach.
the summer jobs program should be retained
We also strongly object to the bill's repeal of the highly
successful summer jobs program. This program is critically
important to the 600,000 young Americans who rely on it every
summer to learn needed skills, acquire lessons in
responsibility, and spend their summer days out of trouble.
While the private sector provides many summer jobs for
American students, individual employers cannot provide enough
jobs for all the young people who want and need to work.
Minority youth in particular are dependent on this program for
summer work opportunities: an estimated one-third of summer
jobs held by African-American youth and one-fourth of the
summer jobs held by Hispanic youth are provided through the
summer jobs program.
There is ample evidence that the summer jobs program works
well. Recent studies by Westat and the Labor Department's
Office of the inspector general both reported very positive
findings, concluding that work sites are well-supervised and
disciplined, that jobs are real not make-work, that the
education component teaches students new skills they can apply
in school, and that students learn the value of work. According
to the inspector general's report on the 1992 summer program,
``participants were productive, interested, closely supervised,
learned new skills they could apply to their school work and
took pride in their employment.'' Participants work in a
variety of areas, from tutoring children at day care centers to
assisting in hospitals to working at a local park. The students
receive strict supervision, and those who don't follow the
rules are let go.
For many youth, the summer jobs program is their first
opportunity to work and their first critical step in learning
the work ethic. We believe that the summer program meets
performance expectations, and we will work to make sure that
States reserve funds to local areas for summer jobs for at-risk
youth.
While the bill as reported does allow States to use a
portion of their funds for at-risk youth to fund summer jobs
program, this is a permissive rather than a required activity,
and there is no assurance even in states that do choose to have
such a program that it will be funded at a level comparable to
current level. And while we are pleased that any summer jobs
program would have to be linked to a year-round school-to-work
program, this requirement is of little value if no summer jobs
are made available.
During the mark-up, Senator Dodd offered an amendment to
delete the bill's repeal of the summer jobs program. Although
that amendment failed on an 8-8 vote, we intend to continue to
work for restoration and full funding of the program. The
summer jobs program is a success story, and it provides hope
and concrete skills to hundreds of thousands of young people.
We see no need to repeal this program.
worker protections should be included
The committee-reported bill contains none of the worker
protections which have been crucial components of Federal
employment and training legislation for almost 25 years.
Without such protections we cannot support S. 143, and we will
therefore continue to work with the majority to secure their
inclusion in the bill when it goes to the floor.
From the Emergency Employment Act of 1971 through the
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1972 and the Job
Training Partnership Act of 1982, the Congress enacted and
Republican Presidents signed into law legislative language
setting forth carefully crafted worker protections. These
include requirements that participants in job training programs
who are performing work as part of their training must be
covered by workers' compensation insurance and protected by the
same health and safety standards applicable to other employees
performing the same type of work, and that individuals employed
in subsidized jobs must be provided benefits and working
conditions at the same level and to the same extent as other
employees performing the same work who have worked a similar
length of time. To ensure that Federal funds are not used in a
way that would adversely affect already employed workers, these
statutes have also included prohibitions against displacement
of current workers.
It is equally important that the bill include provision
establishing grievance procedures for the resolution of
complaints alleging violations of the worker protection
provisions. Those procedures have worked well in federally
assisted employment and training programs to ensure that
allegations of abuse are fairly and promptly addressed. Leaving
them out of the legislation is a recipe for more litigation in
the courts. The better course is to enable grievants to pursue
administrative remedies, rather than to precipitate court
litigation unnecessarily or prematurely.
the authorization level is not adequate to fulfill the purposes of the
act
The committee-reported bill would authorize, for titles I
through III, approximately $9 billion for each of fiscal years
1998 through 2001. This amount is a reduction of almost 15
percent from the total available in fiscal year 1995 for the
Perkins Vocational Education Act, the Job Training Partnership
Act (JTPA), the Adult Education Act, and other programs
consolidated under the first three titles of the committee-
reported bill. While we agree with the majority that the
Federal budget deficit should be eliminated as soon as
possible, we do not agree that work force programs which
provide urgently needed training to disadvantaged and
dislocated populations should be required to bear such heavy
burdens in achieving these budget savings. Education and
training programs are essential to enable participants to be
economically self-supporting, demonstrably resulting in
increased tax revenues, lower costs for social services, and
eventually lower expenditures for Federal, State, and local
governments.
In the committee's markup of S. 143, we supported an
amendment offered by Senator Kennedy which would have increased
the authorization for title I from $7 billion to $8.1 billion,
the level needed to maintain these important programs at their
current levels without adjusting for inflation. Unfortunately,
this amendment was defeated by a tie (8-8) vote, but we intend
to press for its adoption on the floor as the minimum adequate
level we should provide for equipping American workers to face
21st century economic challenges.
provisions should be included for national level activities
Authority and funding for research, demonstrations and
evaluations should be provided. We remain concerned that the
bill makes only very limited provisions for important national
work force education and employment activities such as data
collection and research, evaluation of programs,
demonstrations, technical assistance, and dissemination of
information to States and local communities on effective
programs and practices, nor does the bill provide funding or
authority for the Secretaries to conduct these activities. This
a serious deficiency in the bill that has broad implications
for the effectiveness of activities funded under the act.
Research, demonstration and evaluation, combined with
dissemination of best practices and technical assistance, are
the principal mechanisms for improving employment and training
programs. Not only do these activities provide important
support to those directly involved in providing services, they
also provide evidence to taxpayers about the cost-effectiveness
of federally supported programs. Demonstrations serve to test
new approaches for better targeting resources and increasing
the effectiveness of programs. Evaluations serve to keep
programs on track--to make sure that we are serving the right
population and providing services that have long-term impacts
on enrollees. Through these activities, we learn what is
effective in producing long-term educational and earnings
gains. Strong programs of research, development, and evaluation
are as important in government as they are in the private
sector, and they are most economically accomplished at the
federal level.
The implementation of the Government Performance and
Results Act will increase the demand for information on program
outcomes and results. To ensure this accountability, national
activities of the type described above should be strengthened
rather than weakened. We will continue to pursue legislative
language that guarantees both funding and authority for these
important national activities when the bill comes to the Senate
floor.
A dislocated workers reserve fund should be maintained. We
are also very concerned by the absence of a national
discretionary reserve to serve workers affected by mass
disclocations, including natural disasters, base closings and
other mass layoffs. This legislation anticipates transforming
our job training system into a formula block grant to the
states, and in many cases the states are well-equipped to
handle the job. We believe, however, that we must preserve a
federal role to meet special needs the states would be unable
to address.
A national rapid response fund is necessary because no one
state can be expected to predict or respond effectively to
massive economic dislocations. Highly concentrated economic
dislocations can be caused by caused by plant closings, base
realignments or natural disasters. Major economic disclocations
often cross State lines and affect thousands of workers. In
addition, many mass dislocations, such as base closure, are
precipitated by federal actions and therefore merit a Federal
response.
The current JTPA title III program, which includes a
national reserve account, has been extremely successful in
helping workers find new jobs and rapidly reach their previous
earnings levels. The reserve account feature has been
especially important in areas where formula is inadequate to
meet unanticipated need, and to develop innovative and more
effective responses to layoffs in selected industries. As
appropriations for smaller worker dislocation programs such as
the Defense Conversion Act, the Defense Diversification Program
and the dislocated worker program created under the Clean Air
Act have been eliminated, the Department of Labor has used the
national reserve to continue serving the workers affected by
these situations. The States represented on this committee have
benefited from the current national reserve mechanism for
dislocations as varied as defense cutbacks, military base
closures, changes in the timber and fishing industries,
reorganization of large private companies and natural disasters
such as the midwest floods.
The need for such assistance will not diminish in the
coming years. The recent release of the BRAC 95 base closure
and realignment list signals the start of another round of
military base closings, which will have a severe economic
impact on surrounding communities. Defense-related layoffs in
the private sector also are continuing, with up to an
additional 25 to 30 percent reduction expected within the next
2 to 3 years. In addition, natural disasters, like the recent
flooding in the midwest, seem to grow more and more
devastating, affecting large regions of our nation. It is
unrealistic to assume that individual States can adequately
plan or set aside sufficient funds to assist workers affected
by such mass dislocations to find and prepare for new jobs, nor
should they be expected to. Rather, events like these
underscore the need to maintain a national reserve which States
can tap when a worker dislocation is so large as to surpass the
ability of a State to fund activities from their formula
allocation.
Federal grants for migrant worker services should be
restored. Another area in which we believe a Federal role is
essential is services to migrant farmworkers.
The needs of migrant farmworkers and their departments for
employment, training and other supportive services have
historically been addressed from the national level because of
these workers' unique migration patterns among States, their
seasonal employment work history, their severe barriers to
employment, their lack of State fair labor standard
protections, and problems associated with their isolation and
lack of access to State and local service delivery systems. Yet
S. 143 would also discontinue direct Federal grants to serve
this population.
Migrant farmworkers move from place to place every year,
sometimes covering 20 States in one season. Many states
establish residency requirements of up to 6 months for access
to job training programs, a requirement that migrant
farmworkers could rarely meet. Understandby, States often
locate their offices providing these services in populations
centers, which are convenient for many targeted for services,
but are far from migrant workers laboring in rural areas. For
all these reasons, we must have a Federal commitment to provide
training and employment services to migrant farmworkers. If we
do not, their needs will undoubtedly go unmet.
During the mark-up, the committee rejected by an 8-8 vote
an amendment offered by Senator Dodd that would have set aside
money at the federal level to address concentrated economic
dislocations and to provide services to migrant farm workers.
The Dodd amendment would have created a modest 2.7 percent set-
aside for these activities. This proportion of the bill's $7
billion total authorization would have come to roughly $189
million. That would have represented a sizeable cut from the
$290 million presently spent on these activities. Even with the
proposed set-aside, 90 percent of the funds authorized under
the act would go directly to the States.
We will continue to pursue the inclusion of provisions in
the bill to serve migrant workers and to preserve an ability at
the federal level to respond to mass dislocations. We are also
willing to discuss modifications to the Dodd amendment,
including one suggested by Senator Jeffords during the mark-up
to add revolving fund language to the provisions for mass
dislocations to ensure that there is no incentive to spend down
all the money every year.
retraining rights for workers adversely affected by trade should be
restored
Among the aspects of the S.143 that we find most
objectionable are provisions that repeal sections of the Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program and the NAFTA-TAA program
that guarantee retaining services to workers adversely affected
by our trade policies.
Since the TAA program was created in the Trade Expansion
Act of 1962, Republicans and Democrats alike have recognized
our special responsibility to workers who lose their jobs as a
direct result of government trade policies. We reaffirmed our
commitment to honor that responsibility less than 2 years ago,
when we enacted the NAFTA/TAA program for workers displaced
because of increased imports or shifts in production to Mexico
and Canada. And Congress passed the GATT just 8 months ago with
the understanding that workers adversely affected by that
agreement would also have a right to government retraining
assistance through the TAA program. We are not prepared to
abandon that commitment now, particularly in a bill that is
simultaneously cutting back on the federal investment in
retraining for dislocated workers generally.
The proponents of this legislation have asserted that
trade-impacted workers who will lose their entitlement to
retraining services as a result of the repeal of these programs
will still be eligible to receive whatever services are made
available by the States to dislocated workers under the work
force development systems created under S.143. However, even
under the current JTPA title III program for dislocated
workers, the level of funding is so low that less than 25
percent of eligible workers are able to be served. Not only
does S.143 reduce the overall authorization for work force
education and training by 15 percent, but there is also no
requirement in the bill that a State spend any particular
portion of the Federal funds it receives to serve dislocated
workers. Moreover, while the bill requires states to offer job
search and job placement services through their one-stop
centers, there is no requirement in the bill that States
actually provide job training to anyone. Thus, the reality is
that if trade-impacted workers are no longer entitled to
employment and training services under the TAA and NAFTA-TAA,
there is a good chance that they will not be served at all.
At the committee mark-up, Senator Kennedy offered an
amendment which preserved the right of trade-impacted workers
to obtain retraining services, but required that all such
services be provided through the same systems established by
the State to serve other dislocated workers. This amendment
would have accomplished Senator Kassebaum's goal of
establishing a unified employment and training system that
eliminates duplication or fragmentation of services--a goal
which we share--while at the same time honoring our commitment
to ensure that workers adversely affected by national trade
policies actually receive training and other services to help
them find new employment. Unfortunately, this amendment was
defeated on a tie (8-8) vote, but we intend to offer it again
when this legislation is brought to the floor.
the federal-state employment service should be retained
As reported by the committee, S.143 eliminates the Federal-
State Employment Service by repealing the Wagner-Peyser Act. We
believe strongly that the Wagner-Peyser Act should not be
repealed, but rather amended to ensure that the Employment
Service is fully integrated into the States' one-stop career
center systems, and we are hopeful that ongoing bipartisan
discussions concerning the retention of the Wagner-Peyser Act
will be favorably concluded before this bill is brought to the
floor.
The nationwide network of 1700 state-operated, federally
financed Employment Service offices funded through the Wagner-
Peyser Act is a valuable existing resource that is already
equipped to provide intake, assessment, job search and
placement services which are integral to the one-stop system.
Rather than dismantling this network, we believe we should
encourage the States to make the labor exchange services
provided through the Employment Service a cornerstone of their
work force development systems.
There are several important reasons for maintaining a
separate funding stream for the Employment Service. The
Employment Service is unique among work force employment
programs in that it is almost entirely funded by employers
through the Federal unemployment (FUTA) tax. Employers pay this
tax based on the understanding that these funds will be used to
provide labor exchange services that facilitate the placement
of unemployed workers in available jobs, thereby reducing the
overall costs to employers of maintaining the unemployment
system. Eliminating the separate Wagner-Peyser funding stream
and combining the revenues from the FUTA tax with general
revenues in the form of a block grant to States for general
work force development activities would weaken the link between
the Employment Service and the UI system and undermine employer
willingness to pay the FUTA tax.
In addition to its labor exchange functions, the Employment
Service also performs various statutorily required functions
that would have to be performed by other entities if the
Employment Service were eliminated. For example, the Employment
Service provides a base of operations for the Disabled Veterans
Outreach program (DVOP) and for Local Veterans Employment
Representatives (LVER), and repeal of the Wagner-Peyser Act
would endanger the effectiveness of these programs for American
veterans.
We believe that rather than repealing the Wagner-Peyser
Act, we should amend the act to require that the labor exchange
services provided by the Employment Services must be provided
through the State's one-stop career center systems, and we are
hopeful that we can reach agreement on such an amendment with
our colleagues before the bill goes to the floor.
services need to be targeted to those who need them most
S. 143 represents a bold effort to transform our current
collection of separate, stand-alone work force education and
training programs providing services to specific, targeted
populations into an integrated and accountable work force
development system accessible to all workers and employers in a
State. We support the goal of making our work force development
system more comprehensive and universal. But in an era of
limited Federal resources, we believe it is also our
responsibility to ensure that services are provided to those
who need them most.
During our 30 years of experience with federally assisted
employment and training programs, evaluations have repeatedly
shown that some kind of targeting provisions are necessary in
order to avoid the problem of ``creaming''--that is, the
tendency of service providers to serve those who are already
the most job-ready, instead of concentrating upon those who are
least job-ready and in the greatest need of training and
employment services. History tells us that specific provisions
are needed to ensure that the needs of the most at-risk or
underserved individuals are addressed. Unfortunately, the bill
as reported by the committee does not adequately ensure that
hard-to-serve groups and others most in need of education and
training services will receive priority for limited Federal
dollars.
In particular, we are disturbed by the bill's lack of focus
on disadvantaged out-of-school youth. The committee-passed
measure does not include any dedicated funding for young people
who are out-of-school, and the funding available for ``at-
risk'' youth could be spent entirely on the easier-to-serve,
in-school population.
We are also concerned that the bill does not ensure
adequate support for dislocated worker retraining and services.
We have long recognized our special responsibility to provide
retraining and adjustment services to workers impacted by mass
layoffs after lifetimes as productive contributors to the
strength of the American economy. This committee in recent
years has developed and refined assistance programs to assist
those workers who are disrupted by trade impacts, base
closings, and technological change. Yet under S. 143, the
provision of rapid response services to dislocated workers is
just one of a number of ``permissive activities'' that a state
``may'' undertake if it chooses. In providing greater
flexibility to States in implementing job training programs, we
should not reduce the emphasis upon assuring adequate services
for dislocated workers.
S. 143 does require States to establish specific goals for
serving at-risk youth, dislocated workers including displaced
homemakers, welfare recipients, the disabled, and older
workers, and this is a step in the right direction. Provisions
for incentive grants that reward States and localities that
meet or exceed those goals are also a positive feature of the
bill. Indeed, we would like to see the same concept applied to
sanctions, so that States that fail to make a good faith effort
to assist workers in these categories could face penalties and
the possible loss of Federal funds.
We continue to believe, however, that there are ways to
more explicitly target services to particular populations
without creating restrictions that unnecessarily limit the
flexibility of States and localities to develop integrated
systems. We look forward to continuing to work with our
colleagues in the Senate toward that end.
local work force development boards should be required not optional
The concept of giving states more flexibility to determine
how work force development resources should be spent is one of
the central elements of this bill. We support this concept, but
believe that this flexibility must extend to the local level as
well. For that reason, we believe that the local work force
development boards which are now optional in the Workforce
Development Act should be mandated instead.
Most States consist of a collection of separate labor
markets. Often the mix of industries and occupations varies
considerably among different labor markets within a State. For
example, in Massachusetts, Boston and the Route 128 high tech
area have a very different industry structure than Cape Cod and
the Berkshires--which are heavily based on the tourism
industry--or southeastern Massachusetts, which has a high
concentration of semi-skilled manufacturing jobs in the
textile, apparel and shoe industries. The point is that often
different skills are needed to compete for jobs within
different regions within a State; and any new work force
development system that we establish must recognize this point.
More than a decade ago, members of this committee worked
together on a bipartisan basis to pass the Job Training
Partnership Act. One of the central elements of JTPA was the
establishment of a public-private partnership at the local
level between the private-sector led Private Industry Councils
(PICs) and local elected officials. The concept behind the
establishment of PIC's remains true today; we stand a much
better chance of making our job training programs market-driven
if the businesses that provide the jobs have a role in
designing and overseeing training programs. Many of our major
international competitors have established work force
development systems that are based on this key principle.
Over the past decade our nation has made great strides in
securing more local business involvement in our job training
system. Roughly 10,000 business leaders throughout the Nation
now serve as PIC members. They play an important role in
working with labor, community-based organizations and education
officials to make our JTPA programs more responsive to the
training needs of local businesses and workers.
Some States are now moving to expand their PIC's
responsibilities far beyond JTPA to encompass the entire array
of work force employment and work force education programs in
their regions. Massachusetts, for example, has established 16
Regional Employment Boards whose mandate goes far beyond
managing the roughly $50 million that the State received each
year in JTPA resources; their function is to serve as a ``Board
of Directors'' that sets policy and provides oversight over the
State's $700 million work force development system.
Under S. 143, states would have the option to create local
private sector led Workforce Development Boards like the REB's
in Massachusetts. However, if a state doesn't exercise this
option, there are very few mechanisms in the Workforce
Development Act to ensure that local business, labor, and
community leaders can have any meaningful say in how a State
spends block grant funds within their labor market. Beyond
these options local boards, the only other real requirement in
the committee bill for local involvement centers around
negotiations that would take place every 3 years between the
Governor and a ``local Partnership'' over a plan for how funds
under this act would be spent in their communities to meet
State policy goals and performance benchmarks. However, once
these negotiations are completed, these ``Partnerships'' would
dissolve, and there would be no ongoing public-private board in
place to set policy or provide oversight over the local job
training system.
At the committee mark-up, Senator Kennedy offered an
amendment to make Local Workforce Development Boards mandatory
rather than optional that was defeated in by an 8-8 vote.
Because there is strong support within the business community
and among local elected officials for this amendment, we intend
to continue to push for its passage prior to final enactment of
the Workforce Development Act.
``economic development'' spending should be capped
As reported by the committee, S. 143 would allow Governors
to spend up to 50 percent of the funds they receive under the
act on so-called ``economic development activities''--that is,
the provision of Federal funds to private companies to pay for
training and related services for their own workers. We agree
that more must be done to encourage both public and private
investment in training for incumbent workers. Undoubtedly it is
both more humane and more cost-effective to upgrade the skills
of an already employed worker who is at risk of losing his job
because of changing skill requirements in the workplace,
thereby enabling the worker to retain the job he has, than to
wait until that worker is unemployed and then try to retrain
him for a new job. But there are also significant potential
downsides to allowing scarce public training dollars to be used
by private companies to meet their customized training needs.
Evidence from States that have experimented with such
programs over the past decade indicates that without adequate
safeguards, there is a real risk that companies will simply
substitute scare public dollars for private investments in
training that the companies would or could have made themselves
had public funds not been available for these purposes. A 1990
study by the National Commission for Employment Policy and the
National Governors' Association entitled ``Evaluating State-
financed, Workplace-Based Retraining Programs'' concluded that
this ``substitution'' effect could be minimized through the use
of careful screening procedures, monitoring systems and
procedures for evaluating performance outcomes, but no such
safeguards are included in S. 143. Nor are there any criteria
in the bill protect against the potential for fraud or abuse by
recipients of these funds. At a time of increasing bipartisan
interest in reducing ``corporate welfare,'' we are unwilling to
five the Governors what amounts to a blank check to spend more
than $3 billion in Federal funds on this new and open-ended
form of business subsidy.
Our concerns about these provisions could be partially
addressed by the inclusion of language we have already proposed
that would target economic development resources on upgrading
the skills of employed workers who are at risk of being
permanently laid off, and on retraining currently employed
workers in new technologies to help struggling businesses to
restructure themselves and avert plant closings and layoffs.
However, our concern is as much with the amount of money
available under the bill for these ``economic development''
activities, as with the types of activities on which the money
can be spent. We will therefore continue to seek a cap on the
amount of funds that can be spent on this activity.
states should be required to spend funds on adult job training and
funds available for training should be increased
The Workforce Development Act makes a deliberate effort to
ensure that funding for certain important education activities
is maintained. The same cannot be said for funding for adult
training programs.
A very high percentage of funds that are in the programs
which the Workforce Development act would collapse into block
grants are funds currently spent on job training programs.
However, there is no explicit requirement that States provide
training for adults in either the 25 percent of funds allotted
to Workforce Employment activities or the 50 percent of funds
allotted to ``Flex Account'' activities.
Within the Workforce Employment grant a significant portion
of funds are specifically earmarked for development of one-stop
career centers; but training is only a permissive activity.
Similarly, while the bill now devotes $2.1 billion to work
force development activities directed to at-risk youth, there
are no guarantees that States will use any of their flex
account funds for adult training.
Even if States and localities are willing to spend their
Workforce Employment funds on adult job training, they will be
hard-pressed to do it. Of the 25 percent of funds allotted to
Workforce Employment activities, 25 percent of that amount is
reserved for state-level activities. Thus by the time the funds
reach the local level for actual services to individuals, the
amount available for these purposes represents only slightly
more than one-half the current expenditure for adult training--
$1.2 billion under S. 143 versus $2.3 billion under current
law. And since the local share for work force employment
activities is also to be used to pay for one-stop career
centers, labor market information systems and the job placement
accountability system, these requirements could end up
consuming the entire sum of local work force employment
activity funds, leaving nothing for actual job training.
This diminution of the priority and resources devoted to
job training for adults is a serious flaw in the bill. With the
increasing pace of corporate downsizing, trade-related
dislocations, and defense-related layoffs, it should be clear
that we need to increase rather than diminish our investment in
helping dislocated workers retrain for new occupations.
Moreover, any serious reform of the welfare system will require
a substantially increased investment in job training services
for economically disadvantaged adults.
At the committee mark-up Senator Pell and Senator Kennedy
advanced two separate proposals to try to correct for this
problem. One proposal would have increased the amount of funds
in the Workforce Employment account from 25 percent to 40
percent, there by ensuring that sufficient resources exist for
States and local communities to fund both one-stop activities
and training activities. The other proposal would change the
ratio of funding for the three block grants in the bill from
25-50-25 percent to 33-33-33 percent. Unfortunately, both of
these amendments failed. We intend to offer similar amendments
on the Senate floor.
separate funding should be provided for adult education
S. 143, as currently configured, threatens adult education
services. The current wording of the legislation could result
in decreased or zero funding to adult education at a time when
strengthening basic education is fundamental to strengthening
the skills of workers, helping youth obtain their high school
equivalency degree, and providing parents with the literacy
skills they need to help their children succeed in school.
Current estimates suggest that only one-half of those
requesting adult education services are now receiving them. An
amendment added at the committee markup requires States to
withhold certain work force employment and training services
from adults who have not completed or are not enrolled in a
course of study leading to a high school equivalency degree.
However, State responsibility for the requirement ends when
individuals are referred for adult education services.
Increased demand as a result of this provision of the
legislation, added to estimates of current need for adult
education, suggest a minimum tenfold increase over the current
demand for services.
Adult education service delivery in most States is heavily
dependent on the services of volunteers and part-time
instructors. These individuals provide an invaluable service to
clients, but are able to meet only half of the demand for
services and cannot grow to meet a ten times greater demand.
There is a real danger that we may end up wasting the already
meager Federal dollars authorized for work force development
unless we include provisions that these core adult education
services be adequately supported. It was for these reasons that
we supported in committee and will support on the floor efforts
to designate a minimum percentage of the funds that are
authorized under this legislation for adult education.
These problems we have noted are exacerbated by provisions
that fail to direct adult education and literacy services to
those who need them. As conceived in this bill, literacy and
adult education services would serve primarily as a means to
get individuals off public assistance and into employment.
While this is a worthy and necessary goal, its narrow focus is
inconsistent with the purposes of the laws which this
legislation seeks to repeal, and contradicts recent data on the
education needs of adult learners.
The National Evaluation of Adult Education Programs found
that half of those receiving adult education services were
employed. These individuals do not necessarily need services
for employment-related reasons. Only 11 percent of those
enrolled in adult education programs were receiving public
assistance. Over 70 percent of instruction hours were focused
on those for whom English is a second language.
The bill does not recognize these findings. Even though S.
143 repeals the Adult Education Act, nothing in the bill as
currently written would require States to monitor their
performance in serving those with limited reading and writing
skills. Benchmarks in the Work Force Development bill, intended
to ensure that States monitor their progress in serving those
most in need of education services, focus only on welfare
recipients, dislocated workers, older workers, and those with
disabilities. As the National Evaluation suggests, it is a
different segment of the population whose members are most in
need of adult education services. Attempts to revise the bill
to address this deficiency were unsuccessful, but we intend to
revisit this issue when the bill goes to the Senate floor.
We commend Senator Kassebaum for accepting changes to the
bill that include adult education service providers in the
development of State and local plans. Their participation will
increase the likelihood that plans will be guided by applicable
knowledge and experience, and that the needs of adult education
recipients will be represented when State and local priorities
are established. We also applaud the specific inclusion of
public libraries, one of the principal providers of adult
education literacy services, among those entities eligible to
receive adult education funds. However, we are concerned that
these provisions, absent adequate levels of funding, will not
achieve the desired outcome.
provisions relating to vouchers should be modified
We are pleased that the committee bill includes the concept
of skill grants or vouchers for the delivery of job training
services. Skill vouchers will empower Americans by placing the
purchasing power for education and training in their hands.
Armed with information on job prospects in the local labor
market, the skill requirements of employers, and the
performance of community colleges and other training providers,
recipients will be able to make informed choices about training
and education courses. We believe that the opportunity to use
skill vouchers should be made available to participants in job
training programs in all 50 States. However, we are concerned
about broadening the use of vouchers to all types of services--
including those for which they may not be appropriate--rather
than limiting them to education and training services.
maintaining the connection between vocational education and school-to-
work programs and other k-12 reform initiatives
Senator Kassebaum has been unyielding in her efforts to
ensure that S. 143 establishes important linkages between
vocational and career preparation programs and post-secondary
and adult training programs. She is right to insist on this
connection. However, we are concerned that as we are
strengthening this connection we may be jeopardizing a
different and equally important set of linkages.
Over the past 5 years, in a series of education reform
bills--Goals 2000, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act--Congress has laid out
a framework of Federal support for elementary and secondary
education that would encourage States to consolidate their
planning for Federal education dollars with their own State
education plans. In the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,
States were given the flexibility to write one application for
all Federal education dollars, including vocational education
funds. The effect of this provision will be integration of
programs throughout our schools, and more specifically, a
better connection between academic and vocational education in
the high schools.
This integration is threatened by this legislation because
States are required to plan the use of Federal work force
education funds as part of an overall work force development
plan rather than as part of an education plan for high schools.
This latter provision is an extremely worthwhile goal, but some
flexibility needs to be built into the legislation so that
integration of education planning is not sacrificed to reach
the goal of integration of education and job training. The 1990
amendments to the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act
greatly enhanced the integration of academic and vocational
education, and we do not want that process interrupted.
The committee worked in a bipartisan fashion to strengthen
the local planning role in order to encourage integrated
planning, and we intend to seek a floor amendment that would
give States more flexibility in integrating education and work
force education planning. From our earliest discussions about
work force development, we have believed that a separate title
for youth in the work force development consolidation would
have been the best way to maintain the progress States have
made in integrated planning, and would have allowed a much
better articulation between high schools and post high school
training. From our perspective, the Nation's success in
creating a well-trained work force for the future will be
directly related to its success in achieving well-articulated
kindergarten through post-baccalaureate education programs that
hold all students to high academic and skill standards.
OPERATIONAL PROVISIONS OF THE SCHOOL-TO-WORK MODEL SHOULD BE RETAINED
We are pleased to see that language supporting school-to-
work activities is included in the bill reported from the full
committee. However, the language does not ensure a clear role
for the private sector at the school district level, through
local level partnerships. Current law is based on the principle
that Federal ``catalytic'' resources will only be available to
partnerships where school and business leaders agree on what
will be done. It is a model that is working.
As John Hamill, president of Fleet Bank of Massachusetts,
said in a letter to members of the committee, the requirement
for local school-business agreement is at the heart of the
school-to-career reform concept: ``If businesses are to be
asked to provide employment and learning on the job they need a
seat at the planning table and a share of the responsibility
for results. The requirement to collaborate with business in
design and implementation helps schools achieve dramatic
change.'' To ensure a structure of opportunity for full
business participation at the local level, the committee's bill
should be amended to include within the definition of ``School-
to-Work Activities'' a requirement that such activities be
designed and operated by local partnerships which include
representatives of the private sector and local educational
agencies.
We were unsuccessful in securing an explicit preservation
of the core operational provisions of the school-to-work model
in this bill, and we believe the bill, in its current form, is
not explicit enough to ensure that these important provisions
will be implemented by all States. The committee did, however,
make very important changes on the School-to-Work transition
activities. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act sunsets in
2001. We were successful in working with Senator Kassenbaum to
push back the repeal date to 1998. This change will allow every
State to receive Federal start-up funds to plan and construct
the infrastructure for a better system for students who are
preparing to enter the work force. Further, the legislation
requires that Governors, once their State has accepted school-
to-work funds, continue to implement these activities from the
``flex account'' in later years. This was an important
compromise, and one we strongly supported. In a June 1995
letter to Senator Kassenbaum, the National Governor's
Association supports a mechanism that will ensure that School-
to-Work, as it is currently constructed continues. The letter
is included at the end of the minority views.
GAINS IN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION SHOULD BE RETAINED
As a result of both the 1990 Perkins reauthorization and
the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, vocational education has
begun a number of important changes in the past few years. As
stated earlier, it is critically important that the Perkins
provisions that led to these promising improvements not be
abandoned and that States and schools review the valuable
lessons of the last 3 years. We would have preferred language
in the legislation that more explicitly encourages States to
preserve the gains that have resulted from the 1990
reauthorization, and to build on their current efforts. These
changes are essential to enable vocational education to be an
important building block in the school-to-work system.
Among the most important lessons is that standards to which
students in vocational programs are held must be the same as
the standards for all students. Too often in the past,
vocational activities in high schools have been isolated from
mainstream academic activities. As a result, many students have
not acquired academic and technical skills needed in today's
economy. Furthermore, it is important that work force education
programs used to support general track students also adhere to
high expectations and standards for students.
Accountability for federal funds in this legislation rests
entirely on measuring outcomes for students, an accountability
mechanism we support. Nearly every State, however, has
developed academic standards for students. We expect,
therefore, that in developing benchmarks to determine
accountability for work force education funding, States will
use these standards in developing benchmarks for section
114(c)(2)(A).
Another important change in the 1990 legislation is
increased emphasis on educating students about all aspects of
the industry they are preparing to enter. We intend to continue
to seek the inclusion of language that would encourage States
to design work force education activities in such a way that
students study ``all aspects'' of industries, not just a narrow
skills. This kind of broad-based education strengthens the
ability of individuals to move within the industry, advance in
their careers, and improve their standard of living.
labor market information
We appreciate the bipartisan manner in which the majority
has approached the critical issue of improving the quality of
labor market information and believe that the legislation lays
the foundation for a system which will provide quality
information to both jobseekers, employers and those responsible
for designing and managing the work force development system.
Before the bill goes to the floor, we would like to clarify
our understanding that the reservation in section 119 for labor
market information activities is for new activities described
in subparagraph 1(E) and paragraphs (2) through (6) of section
303, and that the current cooperative statistics program run by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) would continue to be
funded as they are at present. We are also concerned that the
role of the Governing Board in the LMI area would seriously
jeopardize the ability of BLS to fulfill its responsibility to
produce high quality national statistics and hope that this
issue can be resolved in the continuing discussions on the
governance aspects of this legislation.
the senior community service employment program should not be part of
the block grant
We believe that Title V, the Senior Community Service
Employment Program (SCSEP) is a critical part of the Older
Americans Act and is more appropriately reauthorized as part of
the Older Americans Act. Therefore, we believe that Title V
does not belong as part of the block grant.
SCSEP is primarily a community service program. It has a
unique mission in serving the needs of disadvantaged low-income
Americans 55 years of age or older who have poor employment
prospects. As an integral part of the Older Americans Act,
SCSEP merges this employment program with community service. It
is the backbone of senior nutrition and support services
programs as well as many day care centers and recreational
programs.
In committee, we supported an amendment offered by Senator
Mikulski to strike Title V of the Older Americans Act from the
block grant. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected. We
intend to offer a similar amendment on the Senate floor.
conclusion
We look forward to working with proponents of S. 143 to
resolve the issues that separate us. We commend Senator
Kassebaum and her staff for their excellent work on this
legislation, and for the spirit of collaboration and
bipartisanship that has characterized our efforts from the
beginning. Workforce development is an issue of extraordinary
importance, and on our success in this arena hinges the
economic futures of individuals, and the strength of this
country's economic competitiveness. We are eager to get it
right, and look forward to supporting this important
legislation.
Edward M. Kennedy.
Paul Simon.
Barbara Mikulski.
Chris Dodd.
Tom Harkin.
Paul Wellstone.
X. Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with rule XXVI paragraph 12 of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, the following provides a print of the
statute or the part or section thereof to be amended or
replaced (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in
black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law
in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 42--UNITED STATES CODE
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1101 * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(ii) the establishment and
maintenance of systems of public
employment offices in accordance with
the Act of June 6, 1933, as amended]
(ii) the establishment and
maintenance of statewide workforce
development systems, to the extent the
systems are used to carry out
activities described in section 303, or
in any of clauses (ii) through (v) of
section 113(a)(2)(B) of the Workforce
Development Act of 1995.
* * * * * * *
(B) such amounts (not in excess of the limit
provided by paragraph (4) with respect to
clause (iii)) as the Congress may deem
appropriate for the necessary expenses of the
[Department of Labor] Department of Labor or
the Workforce Development Partnership, as
appropriate, for the performance of its
functions under--
* * * * * * *
[(iii) the provisions of the Act of
June 6, 1933, as amended,]
(iii) the Workforce Development Act
of 1995.
* * * * * * *
(4) For purposes of paragraph (1)(A)(ii) and
(1)(B)(iii) the amount authorized to be made available
out of the employment security administration account
for any fiscal year after June 30, 1972, shall reflect
the proportion of [the total cost of administering the
system of public employment offices in accordance with
the Act of June 6, 1933, as amended, and of the
necessary expenses of the Department of Labor for the
performance of its functions under the provisions of
such Act, as the President determines] the total cost
of administering the statewide workforce development
systems, to the extent the systems are used to carry
out described in section 303 or in any of clauses (ii)
through (v) of section 113(a)(2)(B), of the Workforce
Development Act of 1995, and of the necessary expenses
of the Workforce Development Partnership for the
performance of the functions of the partnership under
such Act, as the President determines.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 20--UNITED STATES CODE
SCHOOL-TO-WORK OPPORTUNITIES ACT OF 1994
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--WAIVER OF STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 501. * * *
(a) State Request for Waiver.--A State may submit to the
[Secretaries] Secretary of Education a request for a waiver of
1 or more requirements of the provisions of law referred to in
sections [502 and 503] 502, or of the regulations issued under
such provisions, in order to carry out the statewide School-to-
Work Opportunities system established by such State under
subtitle B of title II. The State may submit the request as a
part of the application described in section 213 (or as an
amendment to the application at any time after submission of
the application). Such request may include a request for
different waivers with respect to different areas within the
State.
(b) Local Partnership Request for Waiver.--
(1) In general.--A local partnership that seeks a
waiver of such a requirement shall submit an
application for such waiver to the State, and the State
shall determine whether to submit a request for a
waiver to the [Secretaries] Secretary of Education, as
provided in subsection (a).
(2) Time limit.--
(A) In general.--The State shall make a
determination to submit or not submit the
request for a waiver under paragraph (1) not
later than 30 days after the date on which the
State receives the application from the local
partnership.
(B) Direct submission.--
(i) In general.--If the State does
not make a determination to submit or
not submit the request within the 30-
day time period specified in
subparagraph (A), the local partnership
may submit the application to the
[Secretaries] Secretary of Education.
(ii) Requirements.--In submitting
such an application, the local
partnership shall obtain the agreement
of the State involved to comply with
the requirements of section
[502(a)(1)(C) or 503(a)(1)(C), as
appropriate,] section 502(a)(1)(C) and
comply with the other requirements of
section 502 or 503, as appropriate, and
of subsections (c) and (d), that would
otherwise apply to a State submitting a
request for a waiver. In reviewing such
an application, the [Secretaries]
Secretary of Education shall comply
with the requirements of such section
and such subsections that would
otherwise apply to the [Secretaries]
Secretary of Education with respect to
review of such a request.
(c) Waiver Criteria.--Any such request by the State shall
meet the criteria contained in [section 502 or 503] section 502
and shall specify the provisions or regulations referred to in
such sections with respect to which the State seeks a waiver.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 502. * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) part B of title IX of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965[;] and
(5) title XIII of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965[; and].
[(6) the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied
Technology Education Act.]
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 503. * * *.
[(a) Waiver
[(1) In general Except as provided in subsection (b),
the Secretary of Labor may waive any requirement under
any provision of the Job Training Partnership Act (29
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), or of any regulation issued under
such provision, for a State that requests such a waiver
and has an approved State plan--
[(A) if, and only to the extent that, the
Secretary of Labor determines that such
requirement impedes the ability of the State or
a local partnership to carry out the purposes
of this Act;
[(B) if the State provides the Secretary of
Labor with documentation of the necessity for
the waiver, including information concerning
[(i) the specific requirement that
will be waived;
[(ii) the specific positive outcomes
expected from the waiver and why those
outcomes cannot be achieved while
complying with the requirement;
[(iii) the process that will be used
to monitor the progress of the State or
local partnership in implementing the
waiver; and
[(iv) such other information as the
Secretary of Labor may require;
[(C) if the State waives, or agrees to waive,
similar requirements of State law; and
[(D) if the State
[(i) has provided all local
partnerships that carry out programs
under this Act in the State with notice
and an opportunity to comment on the
proposal of the State to seek a waiver,
[(ii) provides, to the extent
feasible, to students, parents,
advocacy and civil rights groups, and
labor and business organizations an
opportunity to comment on the proposal
of the State to seek a waiver; and
[(iii) has submitted the comments of
the local partnerships to the Secretary
of Labor.
[(2) Approval or disapproval. The Secretary of Labor
shall promptly approve or disapprove any request
submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) and shall issue a
decision that shall
[(A) include the reasons for approving or
disapproving the request, including a response
to comments on the proposal; and
[(B) in the case of a decision to approve the
request, be disseminated by the State seeking
the waiver to interested parties, including
educators, parents, students, advocacy and
civil rights organizations, labor and business
organizations, and the public.
[(3) Approval criteria. In approving a request under
paragraph (2), the Secretary of Labor shall consider
the amount of State resources that will be used to
implement the approved State plan.
[(4) Term.--Each waiver approved pursuant to this
subsection shall be for a period not to exceed 5 years,
except that the Secretary of Labor may extend such
period if the Secretary of Labor determines that the
waiver has been effective in enabling the State or
local partnership to carry out the purposes of this
Act.
[(b) Waivers Not Authorized.--The Secretary of Labor may
not waive any requirement under any provision of the Job
Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), or of any
regulation issued under such provision, relating to--
[(1) the basic purposes or goals of such provision;
[(2) maintenance of effort;
[(3) the distribution of funds;
[(4) the eligibility of an individual for
participation in a program under such provisions;
[(5) public health or safety, labor standards, civil
rights, occupational safety and health, or
environmental protection; or
[(6) prohibitions or restrictions relating to the
construction of buildings or facilities.
[(c) Termination of Waivers.--The Secretary of Labor shall
periodically review the performance of any State or local
partnership for which the Secretary of Labor has granted a
waiver under this section and shall terminate the waiver under
this section if the Secretary of Labor determines that the
performance of the State or local partnership affected by the
waiver has been inadequate to justify a continuation of the
waiver, or the State fails to waive similar requirements of
State law as required or agreed to in accordance with
subsection (a)(1)(C).]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 504. * * *
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
(B) * * *
[(i) the provisions of law listed in
paragraphs (2) through (6) of section
502(b); and
[(ii) the Job Training Partnership
Act (29 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).]
(i) the provisions of law listed in
paragraphs (2) through (5) of section
502(b);
(ii) the Job Training Partnership Act
(29 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.); and
(iii) the Carl D. Perkins Vocational
and Applied Technology Education Act
(20) U.S.C. 2301 et seq.)
(b) Use of Funds.--A local partnership may use the Federal
funds combined under subsection (a) under the requirements of
this Act, except that the provisions relating to the matters
specified in paragraphs (1) through (6) and paragraphs (8) and
(9) of section 502(c), and paragraphs [(1) through (3) and
paragraphs (5) and (6) of section 503(b)] paragraphs (2)
through (4) and paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 505(b), that
relate to the program through which the funds described in
subsection (a)(2)(B) were made available, shall remain in
effect with respect to the use of such funds.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 505. * * *
* * * * * * *
[(b) Use of Funds.--A State may use, under the requirements
of this Act, Federal funds that are made available to the State
and combined under subsection (a) to carry out school-to-work
activities, except that the provisions relating to the matters
specified in section 502(c), and section 503(b), that relate to
the program through which the funds described in subsection
(a)(2)(B) were made available, shall remain in effect with
respect to the use of such funds.]
(b) Use of Funds.--A State may use, under the requirements
of this Act, Federal funds that are made available to the State
and combined under subsection (a) to carry out school-to-work
activities, except that the provisions relating to--
(1) the matters specified in section 502(c); or
(2) basic purposes or goals;
(3) maintenance of effort;
(4) distribution of funds;
(5) eligibility of an individual for participation;
(6) public health or safety, labor standards, civil
rights, occupational safety and health, or
environmental protection; or
(7) prohibitions or restrictions relating to the
construction of buildings or facilities; that relate to
the program through which the funds described in
subsection (a)(2)(B) were made available, shall remain
in effect with respect to the use of such funds''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 29--UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
JOB TRAINING PARTERSHIP ACT
Sec. 1691 * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 439A. Operating Plan.
(a) Submission of Plan.--To be eligible to operate a Job
Corps center and receive assistance under this part for fiscal
year 1997, an entity shall prepare and submit, to the Secretary
and the Governor of the State in which the center is located,
and obtained the approval of the Secretary for, an operating
plan that shall include, at a minimum, information indicating--
(1) in quantifiable terms, the extent to which the
center will contribute to the achievement of the
proposed State goals and State benchmarks identified in
the interim plan for the State submitted under section
211 of the Workforce Development Act of 1995;
(2) the extent to which workforce employment
activities and workforce education activities delivered
through the Job Corps center are directly linked to the
workforce development needs of the industry sectors
most important to the economic competitiveness of the
State; and
(3) an implementation strategy to ensure that all
enrollees assigned to the Job Corps center will have
access to services through the one-stop career center
system of the State identified in the interim plan.
(b) Submission of Comments.--Not later than 30 days after
receiving an operating plan described in subsection (a), the
Governor of the State in which the center is located may submit
comments on the plan to the Secretary.
(c) Approval.--The Secretary shall not approve an operating
plan described in subsection (a) for a center if the Secretary
determines that the activities proposed to be carried out
through the center are not sufficiently integrated with the
activities carried out through the system of the State in which
the center is located.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 5--UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 11. As used in this Act--
(1) the term ``head of the establishment'' means the
Secretary of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy,
Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the
Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, or the Treasury; the
Attorney General; the Governing Board of the Workforce
Development Partnership; the Administrator of the Agency for
International Development, Environmental Protection, General
Services, National Aeronautics and Space, or Small Business, or
Veterans' Affairs; the Director of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the Office of Personnel Management or the
United States Information Agency; the Chairman of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission or the Railroad Retirement Board; the
Chairperson of the Thrift Depositor Protection Oversight Board
and the chief officer of the Resolution Trust Corporation; as
the case may be;
(2) the term ``establishment'' means the Department of
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and
Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior,
Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, or the Treasury; the
Workforce Development Partnership; the Agency for International
Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, the General Services
Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Office
of Personnel Management, the Railroad Retirement Board, the
Resolution Trust Corporation, the Small Business
Administration, the United States Information Agency, or the
Veterans' Administration; as the case may be;
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5315. * * *
* * * * * * *
[Assistant Secretaries of Labor (10)], Assistant
Secretaries of Labor (9), one of whom shall be the Assistant
Secretary of Labor for Veterans' Employment and Training.
* * * * * * *
[(Assistant Secretaries of Education (10)]
(Assistant Secretaries of Education (9)
* * * * * * *
TITLE 20--UNITED STATES CODE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ORGANIZATION ACT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3412. * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(C) an Assistant Secretary for Vocational
and Adult Education;]
[(D)] (C) an Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services;
[(E)] (D) an Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights; and
[(F)] (E) a General Counsel.
* * * * * * *
[(h) Literacy related programs in the Department of
Education. The Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult
Education, in addition to performing such functions as the
Secretary may prescribe, shall have responsibility for
coordination of all literacy related programs and policy
initiatives in the Department. The Assistant Secretary for
Vocational and Adult Education shall assist in coordinating the
related activities and programs of other Federal departments
and agencies.]
[(i)] (h) Liaison for Community and Junior Colleges.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 3416. Office of Vocational and Adult Education
[There shall be in the Department an Office of Vocational
and Adult Education, to be administered by the Assistant
Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education appointed under
section 202(b). The Assistant Secretary shall administer such
functions affecting vocational and adult education as the
Secretary shall delegate, and shall serve as principal adviser
to the Secretary on matters affecting vocational and adult
education. The Secretary, through the Assistant Secretary,
shall also provide a unified approach to rural education and
rural family education through the coordination of programs
within the Department and shall work with the Federal
Interagency Committee on Education to coordinate related
activities and programs of other Federal departments and
agencies.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE 20--UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * *
IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 1994
* * * * * * *
Sec. 9001. * * *
(c) Definitions.--For the purpose of this title and unless
otherwise specified--
(1) the term ``Assistant Secretary'' means the
Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and
Improvement [established under section 202(b)(1)(E) of
the Department of Education Organization Act];
* * * * * * *
TITLE 20--UNITED STATES CODE
GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 6031. * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) * * *
* * * * * * *
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(iii) the Office of Vocational and
Adult Education; (iv) the National
Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research; and (v) the
Office of Postsecondary Education;]
[(iv)] (iii) the National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research; and
[(v) (iv) the Office of Postsecondary
Education;
* * * * * * *
TITLE 29--UNITED STATES CODE
VETERANS' BENEFITS AND PROGRAMS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1988
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1721 Note. * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) * * *
* * * * * * *
``(3) Employment assistance and unemployment
compensation under the trade adjustment assistance
program provided in chapter 2 of title II of the Trade
Act of 1974 [and under any other program administered
by the Employment and Training Administration of the
Department of Labor].
* * * * * * *
TITLE 38--UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4110 * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(7) The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment
and Training.]
[(8)] (7) The Chairman of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
[(9)] (8) The Administrator of the Small Business
Administration.
[(10)] (9) The Postmaster General.
[(11)] (10) The Director of the United States
Employment Service.
[(12)] (11) Representatives of--
* * * * * * *
TITLE 42--UNITED STATES CODE
NATIONAL COMMUNITY AND SERVICE ACT OF 1990.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12622 * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Secretary of Labor. Upon the establishment of the
Program, the Secretary of Labor shall identify and assist in
establishing a system for the recruitment of persons to serve
as members of the Civilian Community Corps. [In carrying out
this subsection, the Secretary of Labor may utilize the
Employment Service Agency [or the Office of Job Training]].
* * * * * * *
TITLE 5--UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3327. * * *
(a) The Office of Personnel Management shall provide that
information concerning opportunities to participate in
competitive examinations conducted by, or under authority
delegated by, the Office of Personnel Management shall be made
available to [the employment offices of the United States
Employment Service] Governors.
(b) Subject to such regulations as the Office may issue,
each agency shall promptly notify the Office and the employment
offices [of the United States Employment Service] of--
* * * * * * *
TITLE 10--UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1143a * * *
(d) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(3) The Secretary may provide personnel registered
under subsection (b) with access to the interstate job
bank program of the United States Employment Service if
the Secretary determines that such program meets the
needs of separating members of the armed forces for job
placement.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2410k * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Requirement.--The regulations promulgated under this
section shall require each contractor carrying out a contract
described in subsection (c) to list immediately with the
appropriate local employment service office[, and where
appropriate the Interstate Job Bank (established by the Untied
States Employment Service),] all of its suitable employment
openings under such contract.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 26--UNITED STATES CODE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
* * * * * * *
Sec. 51 * *
* * * * * * *
[(g) United States Employment Service to notify employers
of availability of credit, The United States Employment
Service, in consultation with the Internal Revenue service,
shall take such steps as may be necessary or appropriate to
keep employers apprised of the availability of the targeted
jobs credit determined under this subpart.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE 29--UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1662d-1 note
* * * * * * *
[Job Bank program for discharged military personnel,
terminated defense employees, and displaced employees of
defense contractors. Act Oct. 23, 1992,
[Section 4468, 106 Stat. 2752, provides:
[``(a) Interstate Job Bank program. The Secretary of
Defense shall establish a program to expand the services of and
provide access to the Interstate Job Bank program in the United
States Employment Service to individuals eligible for training,
adjustment assistance, and employment services under sections
325 and 325A of the Job Training Partnership Act and, in the
case of members of the Armed Forces so eligible, the spouses of
such members. The Secretary may establish such program in
coordination with the Defense Outplacement Referral system and
other automated job opening networks.
[``(b) Services included. The program established under
subsection (a) may include the following services:
[``(1) A phone bank reachable by a toll-free number,
staffed by an international ``help desk'' of
individuals familiar with the services provided under
section 1144 of title 10, United States Code, and
related transition programs under chapter 58 of such
title (in the case of members of the Armed Forces,
priority shall be given to recently-discharged
veterans, members of the Armed Forces who have been
separated from active duty, and their spouses).
[``(2) Interstate Job Bank satellite offices or
systems at defense contractor plants by State
employment security agencies and at all military bases
for direct access and self service to job listings.
[``(3) Specialized job banks to integrate with the
Interstate Job Bank for specialized listings or
services such as the Defense Outplacement Referral
System (DORS) of resumes, National Academy of Sciences
Network, commercial systems, and the outplacement of
defense-related personnel in high-tech occupations
through the expansion and coordination of existing
networks to ensure that resources are available at all
service locations.
[``(4) A system by which individuals and public and
private organizations may access the Interstate Job
Bank using individual modems or related automated
employment systems.
[``(c) Funding for fiscal year 1993. Of the amount
authorized to be appropriated in section 301
[unclassified] for Defense Agencies, $4,000,000 shall
be available to carry out the program established under
subsection (a).'']
* * * * * * *
TITLE 38--UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4110 * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(10) The Postmaster General.]
[(11)](10) The Director of the United States
Employment Service.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 39--UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3202. * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) the Pan American Sanitary Bureau[;]; and
[(E) the United States Employment Service and
the system of employment offices operated by it
in conformity with the provisions of sections
49-49c, 49d, 49e-49k of title 29, and all State
employment systems which receive funds
appropriated under authority of those sections;
and]
[(F)](E) any college officer or other person
connected with the extension department of the
college as the Secretary of Agriculture may
designate to the Postal Service to the extent
that the official mail consists of
correspondence, bulletins, and reports for the
furtherance of the purpose of section 341-343
and 344-348 of title 7;
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3203 * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) The Postal Service shall prescribe the endorsement to
be placed on covers mailed under clauses [(1)(E), (2), and (3)]
(2) and (3) of section 3202(a) of this title.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3206 * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) The Department of Agriculture shall transfer to the
Postal Service as postal revenues out of any appropriations
made to it for that purpose the equivalent amount of postage,
as determined by the Postal Service, for penalty mailings under
clauses [(1)(F)](1)(E) and (4) of section 3202(a) of this
title.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 29--UNITED STATES CODE
REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973
* * * * * * *
Sec. 701. * * *
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) increased employment of individuals with
disabilities can be achieved through the [provision of
individualized training, independent living services,
educational and support services,] implemenation of a
statewide work force development system that provides
meaningful and effective participation for individuals
with disabilities in work force development activities
and activities carried out through the vocational
rehabilitation program established under title I, and
through the provision of independent living services,
support services, and meaningful opportunities for
employment in integrated work settings through the
provision of reasonable accommodations;
* * * * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(A) statewide work force development systems
that include, as integral components,
comprehensive and coordinated state-of-the-art
programs of vocational rehabilitation;
[Sec. 705. Consolidated rehabilitation plan
[(a) Election by State; agency concurrence. In order to
secure increased flexibility to respond to the varying needs
and local conditions within the State, and in order to permit
more effective and interrelated planning and operation of its
rehabilitation programs, the State may submit a consolidated
rehabilitation plan which includes the State's plan under
section 101(a) of this Act and its program for persons with
developmental disabilities under the Developmental Disabilities
Assistance and Bill of Rights Act Provided, That the agency
administering such State's program under such Act concurs in
the submission of such a consolidated rehabilitation plan.
[(b) Approval by Secretary of consolidated rehabilitation
plan meeting statutory requirements; submission by State of
separate rehabilitation plans. Such a consolidated
rehabilitation plan must comply with, and be administered in
accordance with, all the requirements of this Act and the
Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act If
the Secretary finds that all such requirements are satisfied,
the Secretary may--
[(1) approve the plan to serve in all respect as the
substitute for the separate plans which would otherwise
be required with respect to each of the programs
included therein; or
[(2) advise the State to submit separate plans for
such programs.
[(c) Noncompliance; assistance termination procedures.
Findings of noncompliance in the administration of an approved
consolidated rehabilitation plan, and any reductions,
suspensions, or terminations of assistance as a result thereof,
shall be carried out in accordance with the procedures set
forth in subsections (c) and (d) of section 107 of this Act.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 706. * * *
* * * * * * *
(35) * * *
(36) The term ``statewide workforce development
system'' means a system, as defined in section 3 of the
Workforce Development Act of 1995.
(37) The term ``workforce development activities''
has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the
Workforce Development Act of 1995.
(38) The term ``workforce development activities''
means the activities described in paragraphs (2)
through (8) of section 113(a) of the Workforce
Development Act of 1995, including such activities
provided through vouchers described in section
113(a)(9) of such Act.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 711 * * *
(a) * * *
(1) provide consultative services and technical
assistance to public or nonprofit private agencies and
organizations, including providing assistance to
achieve the meaningful and effective participation by
individuals with disabilities in the activities carried
out through a statewide workforce development system;
* * * * * * *
Sec. 712. Reports to President and Congress
Not later than one hundred and twenty days after the close
of each fiscal year, the Commissioner shall prepare and submit
to the President and to the Congress a full and complete report
on the activities carried out under this Act, including the
activities and staffing of the information clearinghouse under
section 15. The Commissioner shall annually collect information
on each client whose case is closed out in the preceding fiscal
year and include the information in the report required by this
section. The information shall set forth a complete count of
such cases in a manner permitting the greatest possible cross-
classification of data. [The data elements shall include, but
not be limited to, age,] The information shall include all
information that is required to be submitted in the report
described in section 114(a) of the Workforce Development Act of
1995 and that pertains to the employment of individuals with
disabilities, including information on age, sex, race,
ethnicity, education, type of disability, severity of
disability, key rehabilitation process dates, earnings at time
of entry into program and at closure, work status, occupation,
cost of case services, types of services provided, including
types of rehabilitation technology services provided, types of
facilities or agencies which furnished services and whether
each such facility or agency is public or private, and reasons
for closure. The Commissioner shall take whatever action is
necessary to ensure that the identity of each client for which
information is supplied under this subsection is confidential.
Such annual reports shall also include statistical data
reflecting services and activities provided individuals during
the preceding fiscal year. The annual report shall include an
evaluation of the status of individuals with severe
disabilities participating in programs under this Act.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 713. * * *
(a) Statement of purpose; standards; persons eligible to
conduct evaluations. For the purpose of improving program
management and effectiveness, the Secretary, in consultation
with the Commissioner, shall evaluate all the programs
authorized by this Act, their general effectiveness in relation
to their cost, their impact on related programs, and their
structure and mechanisms for delivery of services, using
appropriate methodology and evaluative research designs. The
Secretary shall establish and use standards for the evaluations
required by this subsection. The standards shall, [to the
extent feasible, for all appropriate programs include standards
relating to the increases in employment and earnings, taking
into account economic factors in the area to be served by the
program, the characteristics of the individuals with
disabilities to be served, and the employment outcome to be
attained.] to the maximum extent appropriate, be consistent
with the State benchmarks established under paragraphs (1) and
(2) of section 14(c) of the Workforce Development Act of 1995.
For purposes of this section, the Secretary may modify or
supplement such benchmarks after consultation with the
Governing Board established under section 301(b) of the
Workforce Development Act of 1995, to the extent necessary to
address unique considerations applicable to the participation
of individuals with disabilities in the vocational
rehabilitation program established under title I and activities
carried out under other provisions of this Act.
Evaluations shall be conducted by persons not immediately
involved in the administration of the program or project
evaluated.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 720 * * *
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(1) * * *
(E) enforcement of title V and of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 holds
the promise of ending discrimination for
individuals with disabilities[; and];
(F) the provision of workforce development
activities and vocational rehabilitation
services can enable individuals with
disabilities, including individuals with the
most severe disabilities, to pursue meaningful
careers by securing gainful employment
commensurate with their abilities and
capabilities[.]; and
(G) linkages between the vocational
rehabilitation program established under this
title and other components of the statewide
workforce development system are critical to
ensure effective and meaningful participation
by individuals with disabilities in workforce
development activities.
* * * * * * *
(2) The purpose of this title is to assist States in
operating [a comprehensive] statewide comprehensive,
coordinated, effective, efficient, and accountable
[program of vocational rehabilitation that is designed]
programs of vocational rehabilitation, each of which
is--
(A) an integral component of a statewide
workforce development system; and
(B) designed to assess, plan, develop, and
provide vocational rehabilitation services for
individuals concerns, abilities, and
capabilities, so that such individuals may
prepare for and engage in gainful employment.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 721 * * *
(a) Three year plan; annual revisions; general and specific
requirements. In order to be eligible to participate in
programs under this title, a State shall submit to the
Commissioner a State plan for vocational rehabilitation
services for a 3-year period[, or shall submit the plan on such
date, and at such regular intervals, as the Secretary may
determine to be appropriate to coincide with the intervals at
which the State submits State plans under other Federal laws,
such as part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.)]. and shall submit the State plan
on the same dates as the State submits the State plan described
in section 104 of the Workforce Development Act of 1995 to the
Governing Board established under section 301(b) of such Act.
The State shall also submit the State plan for vocational
rehabilitation services for review and comment to any State
workforce development board established for the State under
section 105(b) of the Workforce Development Act of 1995, which
shall submit the comments on the State plan to the designated
State unit. In order to be eligible to participate in programs
under this title, a State, upon the request of the
Commissioner, shall make such annual revisions in the plan as
may be necessary. Each such plan shall--
* * * * * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(B) provide that the State agency so
designated to administer or supervise the
administration of the State plan, or (if there
are two State agencies designated under
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph) to
supervise or administer the part of the State
plan that does not relate to services for
individuals who are blind, shall be (i) a State
entity primarily responsible for implementing
workforce employment activities through the
statewide workforce development system of the
State, [(i)] (ii) a State agency primarily
concerned with vocational rehabilitation, or
vocational and other rehabilitation, of
individuals with disabilities, [(ii)] (iii) the
State agency administering or supervising the
administration of education or vocation
education in the State, or [(iii)] (iv) a State
agency which includes at least two other major
organizational units each of which administers
one or more of the major public education,
public health, public welfare, or labor
programs of the State;
(2) * * *
provide, except in the case of agencies described in paragraph
[(1)(B)(i)] (1)(B)(ii)--
* * * * * * *
(B)(i) that such unit shall be located at an
organizational level and shall have an
organizational status within such State agency
comparable to that of other major
organizational units of such agency, or (ii) in
the case of an agency described in paragraph
[(1)(B)(ii)] (1)(B)(iii), either that such unit
shall be so located and have such status, or
that the director of such unit shall be the
executive officer of such State agency; except
that, in the case of a State which has
designated only one State agency pursuant to
paragraph (1) of this subsection, such State
may, if it so desires, assign responsibility
for the part of the plan under which vocational
rehabilitation services are provided for
individuals who are blind to one organizational
unit of such agency, and assign responsibility
for the rest of the plan to another
organizational unit of such agency, with the
provisions of this paragraph applying
separately to each of such units;
(3) provide a plan for expanding and improving
vocational rehabilitation services for individuals with
disabilities on a statewide basis, including--
(A) a statement of values and goals;
(B) evidence of ongoing efforts to use
outcome measures to make decisions about the
effectiveness and future direction of the
vocational rehabilitation program established
under this title in the State; and
(C) information on specific strategies for
strengthening the program as an integral
component of the statewide workforce
development system established in the State,
including specific innovative, state-of-the-art
approaches for achieving sustained success in
improving and expanding vocational
rehabilitation services provided through the
program, for all individuals with disabilities
who seek employment, through plans, policies,
and procedures to link the program with other
components of the system, including plans,
policies, and procedures relating to--
(i) entering into cooperative
agreements, between the designated
State unit and appropriate entities
responsible for carrying out the other
components of the system, which
agreements may provide for--
(I) provision of
intercomponent staff training
and technical assistance
regarding the availability and
benefits of, and eligibility
standards for, vocational
rehabilitation services, and
regarding the provision of
equal, effective, and
meaningful participation by
individuals with disabilities
in workforce employment
activities in the State through
program accessibility, use of
nondiscriminatory policies and
procedures, and provision of
reasonable accommodations,
auxiliary aids and services,
and rehabilitation technology,
for individuals with
disabilities;
(II) use of information and
financial management systems
that link all components of the
statewide workforce development
system, that link the
components to other electronic
networks, and that relate to
such subjects as labor market
information, and information on
job vacancies, skill
qualifications, career
planning, and workforce
development activities;
(III) use of customer service
features such as common intake
and referral procedures,
customer data bases, resource
information and human service
hotlines;
(IV) establishment of
cooperative efforts with
employers to facilitate job
placement and to develop and
sustain working relationships
with employers, trade
associations, and labor
organizations;
(V) identification of staff
roles and responsibilities and
available resources for each
entity that carries out a
component of the system with
regard to paying for necessary
services (consistent with State
law); and
(VI) specification of
procedures for resolving
disputes among such entities;
and
[(3)] (4) * * *
[(4)] (5) * * *
[(5)] (6) * * *
[(A) contain the plans, policies, and methods
to be followed in carrying out the State plan
and in its administration and supervision,
including the results of a comprehensive,
Statewide assessment of the rehabilitation
needs of individuals with severe disabilities
residing within the State and the State's
response to the assessment, a description of
the method to be used to expand and improve
services to individuals with the most severe
disabilities, including individuals served
under part C of title VI of this Act and a
description of the method to be used to utilize
community rehabilitation programs to the
maximum extent feasible, an explanation of the
methods by which the State will provide
vocational rehabilitation services to all
individuals with disabilities within the State
who are eligible for such services, and, in the
event that vocational rehabilitation services
cannot be provided to all eligible individuals
with disabilities who apply for such services,
(i) show and provide the justification for the
order to be followed in selecting individuals
to whom vocational rehabilitation services will
be provided, and (ii) show the outcomes and
service goals, and the time within which they
may be achieved, for the rehabilitation of such
individuals, which order of selection for the
provision of vocational rehabilitation services
shall be determined on the basis of serving
first those individuals with the most severe
disabilities in accordance with criteria
established by the State, and shall be
consistent with priorities in such order of
selection so determined, and outcome and
service goals for serving individuals with
disabilities, established in regulations
prescribed by the Commissioner;]
(A) contain the plans, policies, and methods
to be followed in carrying out the State plan
and in the administration and supervision of
the plan, including--
(i)(I) the results of a
comprehensive, statewide assessment of
the rehabilitation needs of individuals
with disabilities (including
individuals with severe disabilities,
individuals with disabilities who are
minorities, and individuals with
disabilities who have been unserved, or
underserved, by the vocational
rehabilitation system) who are residing
within the State; and
(II) the response of the State to the
assessment;
(ii) a description of the method to
be used to expand and improve service
to individuals with the most severe
disabilities, including individuals
served under part C of title VI;
(iii) with regard to community
rehabilitation programs--
(I) a description of the
method to be used (such as a
cooperative agreement) to
utilize the programs to the
maximum extent feasible; and
(II) a description of the
needs of the programs,
including the community
rehabilitation programs funded
under the Act entitled ``An Act
to Create a Committee on
Purchases of Blind-made
Products, and for other
purposes'', approved June 25,
1938 (commonly known as the
Wagner-O'Day Act; 41 U.S.C. 46
et seq.) and such programs
funded by State use contracting
programs; and
(iv) an explanation of the methods by
which the State will provide vocational
rehabilitation services to all
individuals with disabilities within
the State who are eligible for such
services, and, in the event that
vocational rehabilitation services
cannot be provided to all such eligible
individuals with disabilities who apply
for such services, information--
(I) showing and providing the
justification for the order to
be followed in selecting
individuals to whom vocational
rehabilitation services will be
provided (which order of
selection for the provision of
vocational rehabilitation
services shall be determined on
the basis of serving first the
individuals with the most
severe disabilities in
accordance with criteria
established by the State, and
shall be consistent with
priorities in such order of
selection so determined, and
outcome and service goals for
serving individuals with
disabilities, established in
regulations prescribed by the
Commissioner);
(II) showing the outcomes and
service goals, and the time
within which the outcomes and
service goals may be achieved,
for the rehabilitation of
individuals receiving such
services; and
(III) describing how
individuals with disabilities
who will not receive such
services if such order is in
effect will be referred to
other components of the
statewide workforce development
system for access to services
offered by the components;
* * * * * * *
[(C) describe
[(i) how a broad range of
rehabilitation technology services will
be provided at each stage of the
rehabilitation process;
[(ii) how a broad range of such
rehabilitation technology services will
be provided on a statewide basis; and
[(iii) the training that will be
provided to vocational rehabilitation
counselors, client assistance
personnel, and other related services
personnel;]
(C) with regard to the statewide assessment
of rehabilitation needs described in
subparagraph (A)(i)--
(i) provide that the State agency
will make reports at such time, in such
manner, and containing such
information, as the Commissioner may
require to carry out the functions of
the Commissioner under this title, and
comply with such provisions as are
necessary to assure the correctness and
verification of such reports; and
(ii) provide that reports made clause
(i) will include information regarding
individuals with disabilities and, if
an order of selection described in
subparagraph (A)(iv)(I) is in effect in
the State, will separately include
information regarding individuals with
the most severe disabilities, on--
(I) the number of such
individuals who are evaluated
and the number rehabilitated;
(II) the costs of
administration, counseling,
provision of direct services,
development of community
rehabilitation programs, and
other functions carried out
under this Act; and
(III) the utilization by such
individuals of other programs
pursuant to paragraph (11); and
(D) describe--
(i) how a broad range of
rehabilitation technology services will
be provided at each stage of the
rehabilitation process;
(ii) how a broad range of such
rehabilitation technology services will
be provided on a statewide basis; and
(iii) the training that will be
provided to vocational rehabilitation
counselors, client assistance
personnel, personnel of the one-stop
career system authorized under section
113(a)(2) of the Workforce Development
Act of 1995, and other related services
personnel;
[(6)] (7) * * *
[(7)] (8) * * *
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(II) the number and type of
personnel needed by the State,
and a projection of the numbers
of such personnel that will be
needed in 5 years, [based on
projections of the number of
individuals to be served, the
number of such personnel who
are expected to retire or leave
the field, and other relevant
factors];
* * * * * * *
[(iii) a description of the
development and maintenance of a system
of determining, on an annual basis,
information on the institutions of
higher education within the State that
are preparing rehabilitation
professionals, including--
[(I) the numbers of students
enrolled in such programs; and
[(II) the number who
graduated with certification or
licensure, or with credentials
to qualify for certification or
licensure, during the past
year;
[(iv) a description of the
development, updating, and
implementation of a plan that--]
(iii) a description of the ways in
which the system for evaluating the
performance of rehabilitation
counselors, coordinator, and other
personnel used in the State facilitates
the accomplishment of the purpose and
policy of this title, including the
policy of serving, among others,
individuals with the most severe
disabilities;
(iv) provide satisfactory assurances
that the system in no way impedes such
accomplishment; and
* * * * * * *
[(8)] (9) Consideration of eligibility for similar
benefits under any other program. Provide, at a
minimum, for the provision of the vocational
rehabilitation services specified in paragraphs (1)
through (3) and paragraph (12) of section 103(a), and
for the provision of such other services as are
specified under such section after a determination that
comparable services and benefits are not available
under any other program, except that such a
determination shall not be [required--
(A) if the determination would delay the
provision of such services to any individual at
extreme medical risk; or
(B) prior] required prior to the provision of
such services if an immediate job placement
would be lost due to a delay in the provision
of such comparable benefits;
[(9)] (10) * * *
(A) * * *
(B) an individualized [written rehabilitation
program] employment plan meeting the
requirements of section 102 will be developed
for each individual with a disability eligible
for vocational rehabilitation services under
this Act;
(C) such services will be provided under [the
plan in accordance with such program] State
plan in accordance with the employment plan;
and
[(10) Reports of State agency; form, scope of
information; time of report; correctness and
verification.
[(A) provide that the State agency will make
such reports in such form, containing such
information (including the data described in
subparagraph (D) of paragraph (9) of this
subsection, periodic estimates of the
population of individuals with disabilities
eligible for services under this Act in such
State, specifications of the number of such
individuals who will be served with funds
provided under this Act and the outcomes and
service goals to be achieved for such
individuals in each priority category specified
in accordance with paragraph (5) of this
subsection, and the service costs for each such
category), and at such time as the Commissioner
may require to carry out the functions of the
Commissioner under this title, and comply with
such provisions as are necessary to assure the
correctness and verification of such reports;
and
[(B) provide that reports under subparagraph
(A) will include information on--
[(i) the number of such individuals
who are evaluated and the number
rehabilitated;
[(ii) the costs of administration,
counseling, provision of direct
services, development of community
rehabilitation programs, and other
functions carried out under this Act;
and
[(iii) the utilization by such
individuals of other programs pursuant
to paragraph (11);]
(11) Intergovernmental cooperation.
(A) provide for interagency cooperation with,
and the utilization of the services and
facilities of, the State agencies administering
the [State's public assistance programs, other
programs for individuals with disabilities,
veterans programs, community mental health
programs, manpower programs, and public
employment offices, and the Social Security
Administration of the Department of Health and
Human Services, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, and other Federal, State, and local
public agencies providing services related to
the rehabilitation of individuals with
disabilities (specifically including
arrangements for the coordination of services
to individuals eligible for services under this
Act, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational
and Applied Technology Education Act, and the
Act entitled ``An Act to create a Committee on
Purchases of Blind-made Products, and for other
purposes'', approved June 25, 1938] State
programs that are not part of the statewide
workforce development system of the State;
* * * * * * *
(C) in providing for interagency cooperation
under subparagraph (A), provide for such
cooperation by means including, [if
appropriate--
(i) establishing interagency working
groups; and
(ii) entering into] if appropriate,
entering into formal interagency
cooperative agreements that--
[(I)] (i) identify policies,
practices, and procedures that
can be coordinated among the
agencies (particularly
definitions, standards for
eligibility, the joint sharing
and use of evaluations and
assessments, and procedures for
making referrals);
[(II)] (ii) identify
available resources and define
the financial responsibility of
each agency for paying for
necessary services (consistent
with State law) and procedures
for resolving disputes between
agencies; and
[(III)] (iii) include all
additional components necessary
to ensure meaningful
cooperation and coordination;
[(12) Community resources; utilization; agreement for
services provided by rehabilitation facilities.
[(A) provide satisfactory assurances to the
Commissioner that, in the provision of
vocational rehabilitation services, maximum
utilization shall be made of public or other
vocational or technical training programs or
other appropriate resources in the community;
and
[(B) provide (as appropriate) for entering
into agreements with the operators of community
rehabilitation programs for the provision of
services for the rehabilitation of individuals
with disabilities;]
[(13) Disabled Federal employees; disabled public
safety officers.
[(A) provide that vocational rehabilitation
services provided under the State plan shall be
available to any civil employee of the United
States who is disabled while in the performance
of the employee's duty on the same terms and
conditions as apply to other persons, and
[(B) provide that special consideration will
be given to the rehabilitation under this Act
of an individual with a disability whose
disability was sustained in the line of duty
while such individual was performing as a
public safety officer if the proximate cause of
such disability was a criminal act, apparent
criminal act, or a hazardous condition
resulting directly from the officer's
performance of duties in direct connection with
the enforcement, execution, and administration
of law or fire prevention, firefighting, or
related public safety activities;]
[(14)] (12) * * *
[(15) Continuing studies. Provide for continuing
statewide studies of the needs of individuals with
disabilities and how these needs may be most
effectively met, including--
[(A) a full needs assessment for serving
individuals with severe disabilities;
[(B) an assessment of the capacity and
effectiveness of community rehabilitation
programs, plans for improving such programs,
and policies for the use thereof by the State
agency;
[(C) review of the efficacy of the criteria
employed with respect to ineligibility
determinations described in paragraph (9)(C) of
this subsection with a view toward the relative
need for services to significant segments of
the population of individuals with disabilities
and the need for expansion of services to those
individuals with the most severe disabilities;
and
[(D) outreach procedures to identify and
serve individuals with disabilities who are
minorities and individuals with disabilities
who have been unserved or
[(16) (13) * * *
[(17) State facilities, construction; Federal share
of construction costs; general grant and contract
requirements applicable; nonreduction of other
rehabilitation services provide that if, under special
circumstances, the State plan includes provisions for
the construction of facilities for community
rehabilitation programs--
[(A) the Federal share of the cost of
construction thereof for a fiscal year will not
exceed an amount equal to 10 per centum of the
State's allotment for such year,
[(B) the provisions of section 306 shall be
applicable to such construction and such
provisions shall be deemed to apply to such
construction, and
[(C) there shall be compliance with
regulations the Commissioner shall prescribe
designed to assure that no State will reduce
its efforts in providing other vocational
rehabilitation services (other than for the
establishment of facilities for community
rehabilitation programs) because its plan
includes such provisions for construction;
underserved by the vocational rehabilitation
system;]
[(18)] (14)(A) Policy planning; trainee
participation.
provide satisfactory assurances to the Commissioner
that the State agency designated pursuant to paragraph
(1) (or each State agency if two are so designated) and
any sole local agency administering the plan in a
political subdivision of the State will take into
account, in connection with matters of general policy
arising in the administration of the plan, the views of
individuals and groups thereof who are recipients of
vocational rehabilitation services (or, in appropriate
cases, their parents or guardians), personnel working
in the field of vocational rehabilitation, providers of
vocational rehabilitation services, and the Director of
the client assistance program under section 112 and, in
the case of the designated State unit, will take
actions to take such views into account that include
providing timely notice, holding public hearings,
preparing a summary of hearing comments, and
documenting and disseminating information relating to
the manner in which the comments will affect services;
and;
[(19) Amendments; continuing studies and annual
evaluation as basis, provide satisfactory assurances to
the Commissioner that the continuing studies required
under paragraph (15) of this subsection, as well as an
annual evaluation of the effectiveness of the program
in meeting the goals and priorities set forth in the
plan, will form the basis for the submission, from time
to time as the Commissioner may require, of appropriate
amendments to the plan, and for developing and updating
the strategic plan required under part C.]
[(20)] (B) * * *
[(21)] (15) * * *
[(22)] (16) Information and referral programs.
provide for the establishment and maintenance of
information and referral programs (the staff of which
shall include, to the maximum extent feasible,
interpreters for individuals who are deaf) in
sufficient numbers to assure that individuals with
disabilities within the State are afforded accurate
vocational rehabilitation information and appropriate
[referrals to other Federal and State programs]
referrals within the statewide workforce development
system of the State to programs and activities which
would benefit them;
[(23) Public meetings; notice and comment; response.
[(A) provide satisfactory assurances that in
the formulation of policies governing the
provision of the rehabilitation services
consistent with the State plan, and any
revisions, that the State agency conducts
public meetings throughout the State, after
appropriate and sufficient notice, to allow
interested groups and organizations and all
segments of the public an opportunity to
comment on the State plan before development of
the plan by the State, (B) include a summary of
such comments and the State agency's response
to such comments, and (C) provide satisfactory
assurances that the State agency will consult
with the Director of the client assistance
program under section 112 in the formulation of
policies governing the provision of vocational
rehabilitation services consistent with the
State plan and other revisions;]
[(24)] (17) * * *
* * * * * * *
(B) facilitate the transition from the
provision of a free appropriate public
education under the responsibility of an
educational agency to the provision of
vocational rehabilitation services under the
responsibility of the designated State unit,
including the specification of plans for
coordination with educational agencies in the
provision of transition services authorized
under section 103(a)(14) to an individual,
consistent with the individualized [written
rehabilitation program] employment plan of the
individual; and
(C) provide that such plans, policies, and
procedures will address--
(i) provisions for determining State
lead agencies and qualified personnel
responsible for transition services;
(ii) procedures for outreach to and
identification of youth in need of such
services [and];
(iii) a timeframe for evaluation and
followup of youth who have received
such services[;]; and
(iv) the manner in which students who
are individuals with disabilities and
who are not in special education
programs can access and receive
vocational rehabilitation services,
where appropriate;
[(25] (18) * * *
[(26)] (19) * * *
[(27) Cooperative agreements with private nonprofit
vocational rehabilitation service providers, describe
the manner in which cooperative agreements with private
nonprofit vocational rehabilitation service providers
will be established;
[(28) Community rehabilitation programs under the
Wagner-O'Day Act. identify the needs and utilization of
community rehabilitation programs under the Act
commonly known as the Wagner-O'Day Act;
[(29)] (20) * * *
[(30) Access to vocational rehabilitation services
for students not in special education programs,
describe the manner in which students who are
individuals with disabilities and who are not in
special education programs can access and receive
vocational rehabilitation services, where appropriate;
[(31)] (21) * * *
[(32)] (22) * * *
[(33)] (23) * * *
[(34) Expansion and improvement of vocational
rehabilitation services in accordance with part C
provide satisfactory assurances to the Commissioner
that the State--
(A) has developed and implemented a strategic
plan for expanding and improving vocational
rehabilitation services for individuals with
disabilities on a statewide basis in accordance
with part C of this title and
(B) will use at least 1.5 percent of the
allotment of the State under section]
[(35) Furtherance of purpose and policy of title
through performance evaluation.
(A) describe how the system for evaluating
the performance of rehabilitation counselors,
coordinators, and other personnel used in the
State facilitates the accomplishment of the
purpose and policy of this title including the
policy of serving, among others, individuals
with the most severe disabilities; and
(B) provide satisfactory assurances that the
system in no way impedes such accomplishment;
and]
[(36)] (24) * * *
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 102. Individualized written rehabilitation program] Sec. 102.
Individualized employment plans.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) The designated State unit shall ensure that a
determination of ineligibility made with respect to an
individual prior to the initiation of an individualized
[written rehabilitation program] employment plan, based
on the review, and to the extent necessary, the
preliminary assessment, shall include specification
of--
* * * * * * *
(b) * * *
(1)(A) * * *
(i) an individualized [written rehabilitation
program] employment plan is jointly developed,
agreed upon, and signed by--
* * * * * * *
(ii) such [program] plan meets the
requirements set forth in subparagraph (B).
* * * * * * *
(B) Each individualized [written rehabilitation
program] employment plan shall--
* * * * * * *
(iv) [(l) include a statement of the specific
vocational rehabilitation services to be
provided, and the projected dates for the
initiation and the anticipated duration of each
such service] (I) include a statement of the
specific vocational rehabilitation services to
be provided (including, if appropriate,
rehabilitation technology services and training
in how to use such services) that includes
specification of the public or private entity
that will provide each such vocational
rehabilitation service and the projected dates
for the initiation and the anticipated duration
of each such service; and;
[(II) if appropriate, include a statement of
the specific rehabilitation technology services
to be provided to assist in the implementation
of intermediate rehabilitation objectives and
long-term rehabilitation goals for the
individual; and]
[(III)] (II) if appropriate, include a
statement of the specific on-the-job and
related personal assistance services to be
provided to the individual, and, if appropriate
and desired by the individual, the training in
managing, supervising, and directing personal
assistance services to be provided to the
individual;
* * * * * * *
(xi) * * *
(I) the reasons that an individual
for whom a [program] plan has been
prepared is no longer eligible for
vocational rehabilitation services; and
* * * * * * *
(1)(C) The designated State unit shall furnish a copy
of the individualized [written rehabilitation program
and amendments to the program] employment plan and
amendments to the plan to the individual with a
disability or, in an appropriate case, a parent, a
family member, a guardian, an advocate, or an
authorized representative, of the individual.
* * * * * * *
(2) Each individual [written rehabilitation program]
employment plan shall be reviewed annually, at which
time such individual (or, in appropriate cases, the
parents or guardian of the individual) will be afforded
an opportunity to review such [program] plan and
jointly redevelop and agree to its terms. Any revisions
or amendments to the [program] plan resulting from such
review shall be incorporated into or affixed to such
[program] plan. Such revisions or amendments shall not
take effect until agreed to and signed by the
individual with a disability, or, if appropriate, by a
parent, a family member, a guardian, an advocate, or an
authorized representative, of such individual. Each
individualized [written rehabilitation program]
employment plan shall be revised as needed.
* * * * * * *
(c) * * *
The Director of the designated State unit shall also ensure
that (1) in making any determination of ineligibility referred
to in subsection (a) of this section, or in developing and
carrying out the individualized [written rehabilitation
program] employment plan required by section 101 in the case of
each individual with a disability, emphasis is placed upon the
determination and achievement of a vocational goal for such
individual, (2) a decision that such an individual is not
capable of achieving such a goal and thus is not eligible for
vocational rehabilitation services provided with assistance
under this part, is made only in full consultation with such
individual (or, in appropriate cases, such individual's parents
or guardians), and only upon the certification, as an amendment
to such written [program] plan, or as a part of the
specification of reasons for an ineligibility determination, as
appropriate, that the preliminary diagnosis or assessment for
determining eligibility and vocational rehabilitation needs
described in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 7(22), as
appropriate, has demonstrated that such individual is not then
capable of achieving such a goal, and (3) any such decision, as
an amendment to such written [program] plan, shall be reviewed
at least annually in accordance with the procedure and criteria
established in this section.
* * * * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) Unless the individual with a disability so
requests, or, in an appropriate case, a parent, a
family member, guardian, an advocate, or an authorized
representative, of such individual so requests, pending
a final determination of such hearing or other final
resolution under this subsection, the designated State
unit shall not institute a suspension, reduction, or
termination of services being provided under the
individualized [written rehabilitation program]
employment plan, unless such services have been
obtained through misrepresentation, fraud, collusion,
or criminal conduct on the part of the individual with
a disability.
(6)(A) The Director shall collect data described in
subparagraph (B) and prepare and submit to the
Commissioner a report containing such data. [For the
report submitted on or before February 1, 1988, the
Commissioner shall prepare a summary of the information
furnished under this paragraph and include the summary
in the annual report submitted under section 13.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 723 * * *
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) physical and mental restoration services,
including, but not limited to, (A) corrective surgery
or therapeutic treatment necessary to correct or
substantially modify a physical or mental condition
which is stable or slowly progressive and constitutes a
substantial impediment to employment, of such nature
that such correction or modication may reasonably be
expected to eliminate or reduce such impediment to
employment within a reasonable length of time, (B)
necessary hospitalization in connection with [surgery
or] treatment, (C) prosthetic and orthotic devices, (D)
eyeglasses and visual services as prescribed by
qualified personnel, under State licensure laws, that
are selected by the individual[,] and [(E) special
services (including transplantation and dialysis),
artificial kidneys, and supplies for the treatment of
individuals with end-stage renal disease, and] [(F)]
(E) diagnosis and treatment for mental and emotional
disorders by qualified personnel under State licensure
laws;
* * * * * * *
(b) * * *
* * * * * * *
(1) In the case of any type of small business
operated by individuals with [the most severe]
disabilities the operation of which can be improved by
management services and supervision provided by the
State agency, the provision of such services and
supervision, along or together with the acquisition by
the State agency of vending facilities or other
equipment and initial stocks and supplies.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 725 * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(A) * * *
(iv) at least one vocational
rehabilitation counselor, with
knowledge of and experience with
vocational rehabilitation programs, who
shall serve as an ex officio, nonvoting
member of the Council if the counselor
is an employee of the designated State
agency who, to the extent feasible, are
members of any State workforce
development board established for the
State under section 105(b) of the
Workforce Development Act of 1995;
* * * * * * *
(c) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) * * *
(3) advise the designated State agency and the
designated State unit regarding strategies for ensuring
that the vocational rehabilitation program established
under this title becomes an integral part of he
statewide workforce development system of the State;
[(3)](4) to the extent feasible, conduct a review and
analysis of the effectiveness of, and consumer
satisfaction with--
(A) the function performed by State agencies
and other public and private entities
responsible for performing functions for
individuals with disabilities; and
(B) vocational rehabilitation services--
(i) provided, or paid for from funds
made available, under this Act or
through other public or private
sources; and
(ii) provided by State agencies and
other public and private entities
responsible for providing vocational
rehabilitation services to individuals
with disabilities;
[(4)](5) prepare and submit an annual report to the
Governor or appropriate State entity and the
Commissioner on the status of vocational rehabilitation
programs operated within the State, and make the report
available to the public;
[(5)](6) coordinate with other councils within the
State, including the Statewide Independent Living
Council established under section 705, the advisory
panel established under section 613(a)(12) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C.
1413(a)(12)), the State Planning Council described in
section 124 of the Developmental Disabilities
Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (42 U.S.C. [6024),
and] 6024, the State mental health planning council
established under section 1916(e) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300x-4(e))[;], and any State
workforce development board established for the State
under section 105(b) of the Workforce Development Act
of 1995;
[(6)](7) advise the State agency designated under
section 101(a)(1) and provide for coordination and the
establishment of working relationships between the
State agency and the Statewide Independent Living
Council and centers for independent living within the
State; and
[(7)](8) perform such other functions, consistent
with the purpose of this title, as the State
Rehabilitation Advisory Council determines to be
appropriate, that are comparable to the other functions
performed by the Council.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 726 * * *
(a) * * *
(1) In general.--The Commissioner shall, not later
than September 30, [1994] 1996, establish and publish
evaluation standards and performance indicators for the
vocational rehabilitation program under this title [.]
that shall, to the maximum extent appropriate, be
consistent with the State benchmarks established under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 114(c) of the
Workforce Development Act of 1995. For purposes of this
section, the Commissioner may modify or supplement such
benchmarks, after consultation with the Governing Board
established under section 301(b) of the Workforce
Development Act of 1995, to the extent necessary to
address unique considerations applicable to the
participation of individuals with disabilities in the
vocational rehabilitation program.
* * * * * * *
TITLE I
* * * * * * *
Sec. 720 * * *
* * * * * * *
[(C) individuals with disabilities, including
individuals with the most severe disabilities,
have demonstrated their ability to achieve
gainful employment in integrated settings if
appropriate services and supports are
provided;]
[(D)](C) reasons for the significant number
of individuals with disabilities not working,
or working at a level not commensurate with
their abilities and capabilities, include--
(i) discrimination;
(ii) lack of accessible and available
transportation;
(iii) fear of losing health coverage
under the medicare and medicaid
programs under titles XVIII and XIX of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395
et seq. and 1396 et seq.) or fear of
losing existing private health
insurance; and
(iv) lack of education, training, and
supports to meet job qualification
standards necessary to enter or retain
or advance in employment;
[(E)](D) enforcement of title V and of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) holds the promise of
ending discrimination for individuals with
disabilities; and
* * * * * * *
TITLE 8--UNITED STATES CODE
IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1255a. note
[State legalization impact-assistance grants.
[Sec. 204 of Public Law 99-608, Oct. 25, 1994, P.L. 103-416, Title II,
SEC, 219(cc), 108 Stat. 4319 (effective as if
included in the enactment of Act Nov. 29, 1990, as
provided by SEC. 219(dd) of the 1994 Act, which
appears as 8 USCS SEC. 1101 note), provides:
[``(a) Appropriation of Funds.(1) In general. (A) Out of
any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated to carry out this section (and including Federal,
State, and local administrative costs) $1,000,000,000 (less the
amount described in paragraph (2)) for fiscal year 1988 and for
each of the three succeeding fiscal years.
[``(b) Funds appropriated for fiscal year 1990 under this
section are reduced by $555,244,000, and funds appropriated for
fiscal year 1991 under this section are reduced by
$566,854,000.
[``(c) For fiscal years 1993 and 1994 combined, there are
appropriated to carry out this section for costs incurred on or
after October 1, 1989 (including Federal, State, and local
administrative costs) out of any money in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, $2,000,000,000 (less the amount
described in paragraph (2) for each of fiscal years 1990 and
1991) less the amount made available for allotments to States
under subsection (b) for fiscal year 1990 and fiscal year 1991:
Provided, That $812,000,000 shall be available in fiscal year
1994 and the remainder of these funds shall be available in
fiscal year 1993.
[``(2) Offset. (A) In general. Subject to subparagraphs (B)
through (D), the amount described in this paragraph for a
fiscal year is equal to the amount estimated to be expended by
the Federal Government in the fiscal year for the programs of
financial assistance, medical assistance, and assistance under
the Food Stamp Act of 1977 for aliens who would not be eligible
for such assistance under paragraph (1)(A) of section 245A(h)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act but for the provisions
of paragraph (2) or paragraph (3) of such section.
[``(B) No offset for certain SSI eligible individuals. The
amount described in this paragraph shall not include any
amounts attributable to supplemental security benefits paid
under title XVI of the Social Security Act or medical
assistance furnished under a State plan approved under title
XIX of the Social Security Act, in the case of an alien who is
determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, based
on an application for benefits under title XVI of the Social
Security Act or section 212 of Public Law 93-66 filed prior to
the date designated by the Attorney General in accordance with
section 245A(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(subsec. (a)(1)(A) of this section), to be permanently residing
in the United States under color of law as provided in section
1614(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act and to be eligible
to receive such benefits for the month prior to the month in
which such date occurs, for such time as such alien continues
without interruption to be eligible to receive such benefits in
accordance with the provisions of title XVI of the Social
Security Act or section 212 of Public Law 93-66, as
appropriate.
[``(C) Estimated initial offset. For purposes of
subparagraph (A), with respect to fiscal year 1988, the amount
estimated to be expended shall be such estimate as is contained
in the annual fiscal budget submitted for that year to the
Congress by the President.
[``(D) Adjustment for estimates. If the actual amount of
expenditures by the Federal Government described in
subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year exceeds, or is less than,
the amount estimated to be expended for that year under
subparagraph (C) (taking into account any adjustment under this
subparagraph), then for the subsequent fiscal year the amount
described in this paragraph shall be decreased, or increased,
respectively, by the amount of such excess or deficit for that
previous fiscal year.
[``(b) Entitlement of States. (1) From the sums
appropriated under subsection (a) for a fiscal year (less the
amount reserved for Federal administrative costs), the
Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this section
referred to as the `Secretary') shall allot to each State with
an application approved under subsection (d)(1) an amount
determined in accordance with a formula, established by the
Secretary by regulation, which takes into account--
[``(A) the number of eligible legalized aliens (as
defined in subsection (j)(4)) residing in the State in
that fiscal year;
[``(B) the ratio of the number of eligible legalized
aliens in the State to the total number of residents of
that State and to the total number of such aliens in
all the States in that fiscal year;
[``(C) the amount of expenditures the State is likely
to incur in that fiscal year in providing assistance
for eligible legalized aliens for which reimbursement
or payment may be made under this section;
[``(D) the ratio of the amount of such expenditures
in the State to the total of all such expenditures in
all the States;
``(E) adjustments for the difference in previous
years between the State's actual expenditures
(described in subparagraph (C)) incurred and the
allocation provided the State under this section for
those years; and
[``(F) such other factors as the Secretary deems
appropriate to provide for an equitable distribution of
such amounts.
[``(2) To the extent that all the funds appropriated under
this section for a fiscal year are not otherwise allotted to
States either because all the States have not qualified for
such allotments under this section for the fiscal year or
because some States have indicated in their description of
activities that they do not intend to use, in that fiscal year
or any succeeding fiscal year (before year 1995) year, the full
amount of such allotments, such excess shall be allotted among
the remaining States in proportion to the amount otherwise
allotted to such States for the fiscal year without regard to
this paragraph.
[``(3) In determining the number of eligible legalized
aliens for purposes of paragraph (1), the Secretary may
estimate such number on the basis of such data as he may deem
appropriate.
[``(4) For each fiscal year the Secretary shall make
payments, as provided by section 6503 of title 31, United
States Code, to each State from its allotment under this
subsection. Any amount paid to a State for a fiscal year and
remaining unobligated at the end of such year shall remain
available after September 30, 1994. Any funds not expended by
States by December 30, 1994 shall be reallocated by the
Secretary to States which had expended their entire allotments,
based on each State's percentage share of total unreimbursed
legalized alien costs in all States. Funds made available to a
State pursuant to the preceding sentence of this paragraph
shall be utilized by the State to reimburse all allowable costs
within 90 days after a State has received a reallocation of
funds from the Secretary, but in no event later than July 31,
1995.
[``(5) For fiscal year 1993, the Secretary shall make
allotments to States under paragraph (1) no later than October
15, 1992, Provided, That with respect to States in which total
allowable unreimbursed State and local costs incurred prior to
October 1, 1992 exceed $100,000,000, within each such State's
allocation, the State shall first reimburse all allowable costs
incurred between October 1, 1990 and October 1, 1992, before
reimbursing costs incurred on or after October 1, 1992, except
for State and local administrative costs and for costs of
services required to enable aliens granted temporary residence
under section 245A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to
attain citizenship skills described in section 245A(b)(1)(D)(i)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act: Provided further, That
in reimbursing costs incurred prior to October 1, 1992, each
State shall reimburse each provider at the same pro rata rate.
[``(c) Providing assistance. (1) Of the amounts allotted to
a State under this section, the State may only use such funds,
in accordance with this section--
[``(A) for reimbursement of the costs of programs of
public assistance provided with respect to eligible
legalized aliens, for which such aliens were not
disqualified under section 245A(h) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act at the time of such assistance,
[``(B) for reimbursement of the costs of programs of
public health assistance provided to any alien who is,
or is applying on a timely basis to become, an eligible
legalized alien,
[``(C) to make payments to State educational agencies
for the purpose of assisting local educational agencies
of that State in providing educational services for
eligible legalized aliens,
[``(D) to make payments for public education and
outreach (including the provision of information to
individual applicants) to inform temporary resident
aliens regarding--
[``(i) the requirements of sections 210,
210A, and 245A of the Immigration and
Nationality Act regarding the adjustment of
resident status,
[``(ii) sources of assistance for such aliens
obtaining the adjustment of status described in
clause (i), including educational,
informational, referral services, and the
rights and responsibilities of such aliens and
aliens lawfully admitted for permanent
residence,
[``(iii) the identification of health,
employment, and social services, and
[``(iv) the importance of identifying oneself
as a temporary resident alien to service
providers,
[except that nothing in this subparagraph may be
construed as authorizing the provision of client
counseling or any other service which would assume
responsibility for the alien's application for the
adjustment of status described in clause (i),
[``(E)(i) subject to clause (ii), to make payments
for education and outreach efforts by State agencies
regarding unfair discrimination in employment practices
based on national origin or citizenship status,
[``(ii) except that the State agencies shall not
initiate such efforts until after such consultation
with the Office of the Special Counsel for Unfair
Immigration-Related Employment Practices as is
appropriate to ensure, to the maximum extent feasible,
a uniform program. Subject to paragraph (2), the State
may select the distribution of the use of such funds
among such purposes.
[``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), of the
amounts allotted to a State under this section in any fiscal
year, 10 percent shall be used by the State for reimbursement
under paragraph (1)(A), 10 percent shall be used by the State
for reimbursement under paragraph (1)(B), and 10 percent shall
be used by the State for payments under paragraph (1)(C).
[``(B) If a State does not require the use of the full 10
percent provided under subparagraph (A) for a particular
function described in a subparagraph of paragraph (2) for a
fiscal year, the unused portion shall, subject to subparagraph
(C), be equally distributed among the two other subparagraphs.
[``(C) In no case shall the funds provided under this
section be used to provide reimbursement for more than 100
percent of the costs described in paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B).
[``(D) Of the amount allotted to a State with respect to
any fiscal year, a State may not use more than--
[``(i) 1 percent (or, if greater, $100,000) for
payments under paragraph (1)(D), and
[``(ii) 1 percent (or, if greater, $100,000) for
payments under paragraph (1)(E).
[``(3) To the extent that a State provides for the use of
funds for the purpose described in paragraph (1)(C), the
definitions and provisions of the Emergency Immigrant Education
Act of 1984 (title VI of Public Law 98-511; 20 U.S.C. 4101 et
seq.) shall apply to payments under such paragraph in the same
manner as they apply to payments under that Act, except that,
in applying this paragraph--
[``(A) any reference in such Act to `immigrant
children' shall be deemed to be a reference to
`eligible legalized aliens' (including such aliens who
are over 16 years of age) during the 60-month period
beginning with the first month in which such an alien
is granted temporary lawful residence under the
Immigration and Nationality Act 8 USCS et seq.
generally; for full classification, consult USCS Tables
volumes;
[``(B) in determining the amount of payment with
respect to eligible legalized aliens who are over 16
years of age, the phrase `described under paragraph
(2)' shall be deemed to be stricken from section
606(b)(1)(A) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 4105(b)(1)(A));
[``(C) the State educational agency may provide such
educational services to adult eligible legalized aliens
through local educational agencies and other public and
private nonprofit organizations, including community-
based organizations of demonstrated effectiveness; and
[``(D) such service may include English language and
other programs designed to enable such aliens to attain
the citizenship skills described in section
245A(b)(1)(D)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(subsec. (b)(1)(D)(i) of this section).
[``(d) Statements and assurances. (1) No State is eligible
for payment under subsection (b) unless the State--
[``(A) has filed with, and had approved by, the
Secretary an application containing such information,
including the information described in paragraph (2)
and criteria for and administrative methods of
disbursing funds received under this section, as the
Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out this
section, and
[``(B) transmits to the Secretary a statement of
assurances that certifies that (i) funds allotted to
the State under this section will only be used to carry
out the purposes described in subsection (c)(1), (ii)
the State will provide a fair method (as determined by
the State) for the allocation of funds among State and
local agencies in accordance with paragraph (2) and
subsection (c)(2), and (iii) fiscal control and fund
accounting procedures will be established that are
adequate to meet the requirements of paragraph (2) and
subsections (e) and (f).
[``(2) The application of each State under this
subsection for each fiscal year must include detailed
information on--
[``(A) the number of eligible legalized aliens
residing in the State, and
[``(B) the costs (excluding any such costs otherwise
paid from Federal funds) which the State and each
locality is likely to incur for the purposes described
in subsection (c)(1).
[``(e) Reports and audits. (1)(A) Each State shall prepare
and submit to the Secretary annual reports on its activities
under this section. In order to properly evaluate and to
compare the performance of different States assisted under this
section and to assure the proper expenditure of funds under
this section, such reports shall be in such form and contain
such information as the Secretary determines (after
consultation with the States and the Comptroller General) to be
necessary--
[``(i) to secure an accurate description of those
activities,
[``(ii) to secure a complete record of the purposes
for which funds were spent and of the recipients of
such funds, and
[``(iii) to determine the extent to which funds were
expended consistent with this section. Copies of the
report shall be provided, upon request, to any
interested public agency, and each such agency may
provide its views on these reports to the Congress.
[``(B) The Secretary shall annually report to the Congress
on activities funded under this section and shall provide for
transmittal of a copy of such report to each State.
[``(2)(A) For requirements relating to audits of funds
received by a State under this section, see chapter 75 of title
31, United States Code (relating to requirements for single
audit).
[``(B) Each State shall repay to the United States amounts
ultimately found not to have been expended in accordance with
this section, or the Secretary may offset such amounts against
any other amount to which the State is or may become entitled
under this section.
[``(C) The Secretary may, after notice and opportunity for
a hearing, withhold payment of funds to any State which is not
using its allotment under this section in accordance with this
section. The Secretary may withhold such funds until the
Secretary finds that the reason for the withholding has been
removed and there is reasonable assurance that it will not
recur.
[``(3) The State shall make copies of the reports and
audits required by this subsection available for public
inspection within the State.
[``(4)(A) For the purpose of evaluating and reviewing the
assistance provided under this section, the Secretary and the
Comptroller General shall have access to any books, accounts,
records, correspondence, or other documents that are related to
such assistance, and that are in the possession, custody, or
control of States, political subdivisions thereof, or any of
their grantees.
[``(B) In conjunction with an evaluation or review under
subparagraph (A), no State or political subdivision thereof (or
grantee of either) shall be required to create or prepare new
records to comply with subparagraph (A).
[``(f) Limitation on payments. (1) Payments under this
section shall not be made for costs to the extent the costs are
otherwise reimbursed or paid for under other Federal programs.
[``(2) Payment may only be made to a State with respect to
costs for assistance of a program of public assistance or a
program of public health assistance to the extent such
assistance is otherwise generally available under such programs
to citizens residing in the State.
[``(g) Criminal penalties for false statements. Whoever--
[``(1) knowingly and willfully makes or causes to be
made any false statement or misrepresentation of a
material fact in connection with the furnishing of
assistance or services for which payment may be made by
a State from funds allotted to the State under this
section, or
[``(2) having knowledge of the occurrence of any
event affecting his initial or continued right to any
such payment conceals or fails to disclose such event
with an intent fraudulently to secure such payment
either in a greater amount than is due or when no such
payment is authorized, shall be fined in accordance
with title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not
more than five years, or both.
[``(h) Anti-discrimination provision. (1)(A) For the
purpose of applying the prohibitions against discrimination on
the basis of age under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, on
the basis of handicap under section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, on the basis of sex under title IX of the
Education Amendments of 1972, or on the basis of race, color,
or national origin under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, programs and activities funded in whole or in part with
funds made available under this section are considered to be
programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance.
[``(B) No person shall on the ground of sex or religion be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or
be subjected to discrimination under, any program or activity
funded in whole or in part with funds made available under this
section.
[``(2) Whenever the Secretary finds that a State or
locality which has been provided payment from an allotment
under this section has failed to comply with a provision of law
referred to in paragraph (1)(A), with paragraph (1)(B), or with
an applicable regulation (including one prescribed to carry out
paragraph (1)(B)), he shall notify the chief executive officer
of State and shall request him to secure compliance. If within
a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 60 days, chief
executive officer fails or refuses to secure compliance, the
Secretary may--
[``(A) refer the matter to the Attorney General with
a recommendation that an appropriate civil action be
instituted,
[``(B) exercise the powers and functions provided by
title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975, or section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as may be applicable, or
[``(C) take such other action as may be provided by
law.
[``(3) When a matter is referred to the Attorney General
pursuant to paragraph (2)(A), or whenever he has reason to
believe that the entity is engaged in a pattern or practice in
violation of a provision of law referred to in paragraph (1)(A)
or in violation of paragraph (1)(B), the Attorney General may
bring a civil action in any appropriate district court of the
United States for such relief as may be appropriate, including
injunctive relief.
[``(i) Consultation with State and local officials. In
establishing regulations guidelines to carry out this section,
the Secretary shall consult with representatives of State and
local governments.
[``(j) Definitions. For purposes of this section:
[``(1) The term `State' has the meaning given such
term in section 101(a)(36) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
[``(2) The term `programs of public assistance' means
programs in a State or local jurisdiction which--
[``(A) provide for cash, medical, or other
assistance (as defined by the Secretary)
designed to meet the basic subsistence or
health needs of individuals,
[``(B) are generally available to needy
individuals residing in the State or locality,
and
[``(C) receive funding from units of State or
local government.
[``(3) The term `programs of public health
assistance' means programs in a State or local
jurisdiction which--
[``(A) provide public health services,
including immunizations for immunizable
diseases, testing and treatment for
tuberculosis and sexually-transmitted diseases,
and family planning services,
[``(B) are generally available to needy
individuals residing in the State or locality,
and
[``(C) receive funding from units of State or
local government.
[``(4) The term `eligible legalized alien' means an
alien who has been granted lawful temporary resident
status under section 210, 210A, or 245A of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, but only until the end
of the five-year period beginning on the date the alien
was first granted such status, except that the five-
year limitation shall not apply for the purposes of
making payments from funds appropriated under the
fiscal year 1995 Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for
providing public information and outreach activities
regarding naturalization and citizenship; and English
language and civics instruction to any adult eligible
legalized alien who has not met the requirements of
section 312 of the Immigration and Nationality Act for
purposes of becoming naturalized as a citizen of the
United States.'']
* * * * * * *
PUBLIC LAW 95-250
* * * * * * *
[TITLE II
[Sec. 201. As used in this title, the term--
[(1) ``Secretary'' unless otherwise indicated, means
the Secretary of the Department of Labor;
[(2) ``expansion area'' means the area indicated as
``Proposed (exclusive of the park protection zone) on
the map entitled ``Additional Lands, Redwood National
Park, Humboldt County, California'', numbered 167-
80005-D and dated March 1978. The number of acres
authorized to be included within the expansion area is
forty-eight thousand acres, as further provided herein;
[(3) ``employee'' means a person employed by an
affected employer and, with such exceptions as the
Secretary may determine, in an occupation not described
by section 13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
[(4) ``contract employees'' are employees performing
work pursuant to a contract or agreement for services
within or directly related to the expansion area
between an affected contract employer and an affected
woods employer;
[(5) ``industry employer'' means a corporation,
partnership, joint venture, person, or other form of
business entity (including a predecessor or successor
by purchase, merger, or other form of acquisition), of
which a working portion or division is an affected
employer;
[(6) ``affected employer'' means a corporation,
partnership, joint venture, person, or other form of
business entity (including a predecessor or a successor
by purchase, merger, or other form of acquisition), or
a working portion or division thereof, which is engaged
in the harvest of timber or in related sawmill,
plywood, and other wood processing operations, and
which meets the qualifications set forth in the
definition of affected woods employer, affected mill
employer, or affected contract employer;
[(7) ``affected woods employer'' means an affected
employer engaged in the harvest of redwood timber who
owns at least 3 per centum of the number of acres
authorized to be included within the expansion area on
January 1, 1997, and on the date of enactment of this
section: Provided, That an affected woods employer
shall be only that major portion or division of the
industry employer directly responsible for such
harvesting operations:
[(8) ``affected mill employer'' means an affected
employer engaged in sawmill, plywood, and other wood
processing operations in Humboldt or Del Norte Counties
in the State of California who has either (A) obtained
15 per centum or more of its raw wood materials
directly from affected woods employers during calendar
year 1977, or (B) is a wholly owned mill of an affected
woods employer: Provided, That an affected mill
employer shall be only that major portion or division
of tile industry employer directly responsible for such
wood processing operations;
[(9) ``affected contract employer'' means an affected
employer providing services pursuant to contract with
an affected woods employer, if at least 15 per centum
of said employer's employee-hours worked during
calendar year 1977 were within or directly related to
the expansion area pursuant to such contract or
contracts;
[(10) ``covered employee'' means an employee who
[(A) had seniority under a collective
bargaining agreement with an affected employer
as of May 31, 1977, has at least twelve months
of creditable service as of the date of
enactment of this section, and has performed
work for one or more affected employers on or
after January 1, 1977, or
[(B) has performed work for one or more
affected employers for at least one thousand
hours from January 1, 1977, through the period
to the date of enactment of this section, and
has a continuing employment relationship with
an affected employer, as determined by the
Secretary, as of the date of enactment of this
section or, if laid off on or after May 31,
1977, had such a relationship as of the date of
such layoff;
[(11) ``affected employee'' means a covered employee
who is either totally or partially laid off by an
affected employer within a period beginning on or after
May 31, 1977, and ending September 30, 1980, unless
extended, as provided in section 203, or is determined
by the Secretary to be adversely affected by the
expansion of the Redwood National Park. An employee
shall be deemed adversely affected as of the date of
the employee's layoff, downgrading, or termination:
[(12) ``total layoff'' means a calendar week during
which affected employers have made no work available to
a covered employee and made no payment to said covered
employee for time not worked and ``partial layoff''
means a calendar week for which all pay received by a
covered employee from affected employers is at least 10
per centum less than the layoff or vacation replacement
benefit that would have been payable for that week had
said covered employee suffered a total layoff:
Provided, That the terms ``total layoff'' and ``partial
layoff'' shall also apply to i covered
employee who had received any workers' compensation
benefits or unemployment compensation disability
benefits after aid covered employee becomes able to
work and available for work and is otherwise within the
meaning of total layoff and partial layoff as defined
in this paragraph;
[(13) ``Federal agency'' has the same meaning as
``agency'' in section 552(c) of title 5, United States
Code;
[(14) ``suitable work'' shall be defined
[(A) as set forth in the California
Unemployment Insurance Code, or Federal law if
applicable, unless otherwise more restrictively
defined by the Secretary, taking into account
the unique characteristics of logging and
related work; and
[(B) with respect to an employee who has
completed retraining paid for by the Secretary,
as a job paying no less than the prevailing
wage rate in the area for the occupation for
which said employee was retrained; or
[(C) as a job comparable with that which said
employee would be required to accept pursuant
to the seniority provisions of the applicable
collective-bargaining agreement (or, if not
covered by such an agreement, in accordance
with the usual practice of the affected
employer)
[(15) ``seniority'' with respect to an employee
covered by a collective-bargaining agreement with an
affected employer, shall be determined as provided in
such agreement and shall be deemed to refer to company
seniority, if the agreement provides for such seniority
and, otherwise, to plant seniority;
[(16) ``continuous service'' with respect to
employees not having seniority under a collective-
bargaining agreement with an affected employer or an
industry employer shall mean a period of time measured
in months equal to the sum of all hours during which
the employee performed work for said employer plus all
hours for which the employee received pay for time not
worked divided by one hundred and seventy-three:
[(17) ``performed work'' shall include any time
during which an employee worked for an affected
employer or with respect to which an employee received
pay from such an employer for time not worked, and
shall also include any time during which an employee
would have been at work for such an employer if not for
service in the armed forces, for a leave (approved by
the employer) for work with an employee organization,
or for a disability for which said employee received
workers' compensation, disability compensation benefits
provided under California law, of social security
disability pension benefits: Provided, That contract
employees shall be deemed to have performed work during
the period of such service or disability only if--
[(A) the employee worked within or directly
related to the expansion area immediately prior
to the occurrence of such service or disability
and
[(B) the employee returned or sought to
return to work for an affected contract
employer immediately after the end of the
service or disability if that was prior to the
date of enactment. The term ``work performed'',
when use in relation to a period of time, shall
also be deemed to include any period during
which an employee is deemed to have performed
work;
[(18) ``terminal pay'' means the payments to
employees provided for in sections 207, 208, and 209
which, regardless of the designations used herein to
distinguish among them are intended and shall be deemed
to be severance pay and, as such, shall be treated for
Federal income tax and State unemployment insurance
purposes in the same manner as is provided by
California State law;
[(19) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, the Secretary shall reduce the amount of terminal
pay for an employee, as calculated pursuant to section
207, 208, or 209, by the amount of the Federal and
State income taxes which would be required to be
withheld by an employer from wages equal to such
terminal pay if paid to an employee with the same
number of income tax exemptions as the recipient. For
purposes of determining the amounts of such reductions
with respect to severance payments made pursuant to
sections 208 and 209, said severance payments shall be
prorated over the number of weeks the equivalent sums
would have been paid if the employees were eligible for
and claiming the weekly layoff benefits provided in
section 207. The Secretary shall withhold social
security contributions from terminal pay in the same
amounts as would be withheld if such pay (before the
reductions provided for in this subsection) were wages
and the Secretary shall make contributions on behalf of
employees receiving terminal pay to the trust funds
created under section 201 of the Social Security Act
equal to the contributions required to be made by an
employer paying wages equal to such unreduced terminal
pay; and
[(20) ``Sixty-fifth birthday'' means the last day of
the month in which the sixty-fifth birthday occurs.
[Sec. 202. The Secretary is authorized to develop the
necessary procedures to implement this title.]
[affected employees
[Sec. 203. The total or partial layoff of a covered
employee employed by an affected employer during the period
beginning May 31, 1977, and ending September 30, 1980, other
than for a cause that would disqualify an employee for
unemployment compensation, except as provided in section 205,
is conclusively Presumed to be attributable to the expansion of
Redwood National Park: Provided, That the Secretary may, for
good cause, extend this period for any group of covered
employees by no more than one year at a time after September
30, 1980. Any covered employee laid off during that period by
an affected employer shall be considered an affected employee
at any time said employee is on such layoff within the period
ending September 30, 1984, or, if earlier, the end of said
employee's period of protection as defined herein: Provided,
however, That the number of affected employees with respect to
an affected contract employer shall be limited in any week to
that number of such employees otherwise affected as provided
herein that is equal to the percentage of the affected
employer's employee hours during calendar year 1977 that were
worked within or directly related to the expansion area.
[Sec. 204. (a) The Secretary shall provide, to the maximum
extent feasible, for retention and accrual of all rights and
benefits which affected employees would have had in an
employment with affected employers during the period in which
they are affected employees. The Secretary is authorized and
shall seek to enter into such agreements as he may deem to be
appropriate with affected employees and employers, labor
organizations representing covered employees, and trustees of
applicable pension and welfare funds, or to take such other
actions as he deems appropriate to provide for affected
employees (including the benefits provided for in section
207(d)) the following rights and benefits:
[(1) retention and accrual of seniority rights,
including recall rights (or, in the case of employees
not covered by collective bargaining agreements,
application of the same preferences and privileges
based upon length of continuous service as are applied
under the affected employers usual practices) under
conditions no more burdensome to said employees than to
those actively employed; and
[(2) continuing entitlement to health and welfare
benefits and accrual of pension rights and credits
based upon length of employment and/or amounts of
earnings to the same extent as and at no greater cost
to said employees than would have been applicable had
they been actively employed.
[(b) The Secretary shall provide, additionally, for
continuing entitlement to health and welfare benefits (other
than group life and additional death, dismemberment, and loss
of sight benefits) for employees who
[(1) retired from employment with an affected
employer for reasons other than disability on or after
May 31, 1977, but not later than September 30, 1984;
[(2) are receiving pension benefits under a plan
financed by industry employers
[(3) were age sixty-two or older but less than age
sixty-five at the time of retirement and
[(4) are not eligible for benefits under title XVIII
of the Social Security Act.
[(c) The agreements described in subsection (a) of this
section shall provide for the Secretary, effective October 1,
1977, to make payments on behalf of eligible affected employees
including employees eligible for the benefits provided for in
section 207(d) to the applicable pension and welfare trust
funds and to insurance companies. Such payments may be made in
the form of grants and/or contributions equivalent to the
difference between the amounts payable by their affected
employers and labor organizations pursuant to collective-
bargaining agreements (or, in the absence of such agreements,
pursuant to established practice) and the amounts that would
have been paid by their affected employers and their labor
organizations had said employees worked or received pay for the
periods for which they receive layoff benefits: Provided, That
no payment shall be made to a pension fund on behalf of an
employee who is receiving a pension from such fund. For
purposes of determining the amounts of contributions calculated
on the basis of worked or compensable hours, layoff and
vacation replacement benefits shall be converted into the hours
they represent in accordance with regulations to be issued by
the Secretary.
[(d) No person shall be subject to liability under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, section 302 of
the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, or any other law,
solely by reason of the receipt of payments from the Secretary
or the payment of benefits to affected employees in accordance
with this section. Receipt of such payments and the payment of
such benefits are deemed to be consistent with any relevant
plan documents. No action taken pursuant to this section shall
be deemed to place the Secretary in the position of an employer
or a party in interest (including a fiduciary) for purposes of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
[Sec. 205. (a) An application for unemployment compensation
filed by a covered employee on or after the first Monday
following the date of enactment shall be deemed an application
for the benefits provided by this Act.
[(b) An affected employee shall be eligible (unless said
employee has received a social security retirement or
disability benefit or a pension under a plan contributed to by
an affected employer) for layoff and vacation replacement
benefits, as defined herein, effective the first Monday
following the date of enactment, for each week of total or
partial layoff if, with respect to said week, said employed
[(1) is registered with the United States Employment
and Training Service in Humboldt or Del Norte Counties
or one of the adjacent counties in the State of
California or at such other location as the Secretary
may designate;
[(2) is eligible for unemployment compensation
benefits under the California Unemployment Insurance
Code: Provided, That the Secretary is authorized and
directed to provide for the payment of benefits under
this title to an affected employee who is held
ineligible or is disqualified for benefits under said
code solely because of one or more of the following
reasons: insufficient base period earnings; exhaustion
of benefit rights; earnings in excess of the amount
which would entitle the employee to a partial benefit
for the week; the waiting week requirement;
unavailability for work because of jury duty, National
Guard duty, retraining authorized, financed or approved
by a public agency, or because of a similar reason as
determined by the Secretary; refusal of work which is
not ``suitable work'' as defined in section 201(14)
receipt of a worker's compensation or other benefit for
partial disability which the employee would be entitled
to receive while working; and any other cause of
ineligibility with respect to which the Secretary
determines that, under the circumstances, it would be
unreasonable or otherwise contrary to the purpose of
this Act to deny said employee a benefit provided for
herein; and
[(3) the employee's period of protection has not been
exhausted or otherwise ended by acceptance of a
severance payment.
[Sec. 206. (a) The period of protection for an affected
employee shall start with the beginning of the first week for
which said employee is eligible to receive a layoff or vacation
replacement benefit as provided by this title, and shall
continue until the earliest of (i) the date said employee
accepts a severance payment provided for below, (ii) a period
equal to the length of the employee's creditable service is
exhausted, or (iii) said employee's sixty-fifth birthday. In no
event shall such period extend beyond September 30, 1984,
except as provided by subsection (d) of section 207.
[(b) creditable service shall be computed as follows:
[(1) a period equal to the length of an employee's
seniority (or continuous service as defined herein)
with said employee's last affected employer as of the
date said employee's period of protection begins; plus
[(2) a period equal to the sum of all prior periods
during which the employee had seniority (or continuous
service) with the same affected employer and with other
industry employers: Provided, That if such seniority
was broken (or such continuous service was interrupted)
for more than three consecutive years for any reason
other than employment with other affected or industry
employers, periods of service in the Armed Forces or
disabilities for which said employee received any
workers' compensation benefits, unemployment
compensation disability benefits, or disability
benefits under the Social Security Act, any periods of
seniority (or continuous service) prior to the break in
seniority (or interruption in continuous service) shall
be disregarded.
[(c) If necessary, in order to establish an employee's
creditable service, the Secretary shall request authorization
to examine said employee's social security wage record and
shall compute such service from it by a method to be prescribed
by regulation.
[Sec. 207. (a) Except as further provided in this section,
the amount of an eligible employee's weekly layoff benefit
shall be equal to (1) the annual average of all hours of work
performed by said employee for the last affected employer for
whom the employee worked prior to the date of enactment of this
section during those three of the five calendar years
immediately preceding said date during which such hours were
greatest, counting hours paid for at time and a half and double
time as one and one-half and two hours, respectively,
multiplied by (2) the wage rate applicable during the week for
which the benefit is payable, to the highest paid job held by
said employee, other than by temporary assignment, with said
affected employer during the period from January 1, 1977,
through the date of enactment of this section, and divided by
(3) fifty-two.
[(b) The weekly benefit amount for an eligible employee
with less than five calendar years of employment with one
affected employer immediately prior to the enactment date shall
be equal to the lessor of--
[(1) the average benefit that would be payable with
respect to the same week to those covered employees (if
they were eligible in the same week) who had five or
more calendar years of employment with the same
affected employer (in accord with subsection (a) of
this section) whose benefit amounts are computed on the
basis of the wage rate for a job the same as, or most
similar to, the highest paid job said employee had
held, other than by temporary assignment, with said
affected employer during the period from January 1,
1977, through the date of enactment of this section, or
[(2) an amount calculated by substituting in clause
(1) of subsection (a) the annual average of all hours
of work performed by said employee for said employer
during those calendar years for which said employee had
performed work and throughout which lie had seniority
(or continuous service).
[(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary
shall classify as a ``seasonal employee'' any affected employee
whose highest paid job held, other than by temporary
assignment, with said affected employer during the period from
January 1, 1977, through the date of enactment of this section
was in an occupation in which the average annual number of
weeks during which work was actually performed by all covered
employees employed in said occupation during the five calendar
years preceding the enactment date was forty or less. With
respect to such seasonal employees--
[(1) the calculation of benefit amount set forth in
subsection (a) shall be modified by--
[Deducting from the hours representing
vacation pay and vacation pay increments and:
[(B) substituting for the fifty-two provided
in clause (3) of subsection (a) a divisor equal
to the average annual number of weeks for which
said employee performed work for an affected
employer in said occupation during those three
of the five calendar years immediately
preceding the date of enactment during which
the number of such weeks was greatest:
Provided, That this calculation shall be
modified in accord with subsection (b) with
respect to those employees who had less than
five calendar years of employment with one
affected employer immediately prior to the date
of enactment of this section.
[(2) the number of weekly benefits payable in any
calendar year shall not exceed the annual average
number of weeks for which a seasonal employee received
pay from an affected employer for work performed in the
employee's occupation, as established by paragraph
(1)(B), and shall be payable only during those weeks of
each year determined by the secretary to be the usual
season for that occupation;
[(3) vacation pay and vacation pay increments shall
be paid in tile same amounts and at the said times of
each year as they would have been paid had said
employee performed work during all of the time for
which said employee receives layoff benefits. Such pay
is referred to herein as ``vacation replacement
benefit's''.
[(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
benefits for any affected employee who will reach the age of
sixty on or before September 30, 1984, shall be extended after
the end of the employee's period of protection (unless
severance pay has been accepted) until the employee's sixty-
fifth birthday, and shall be equal to said employees weekly
layoff benefit.
[(e) The benefit amount provided by this section for any
week of total or partial layoff shall be reduced by--
[(1) the full amount of any earnings, including pay
for time not worked with respect to the same week, from
employment obtained pursuant to section 103, or
employment by employers engaged in timber harvesting,
or in related sawmill, plywood, and other wood
processing operations;
[(2) 50 per centum of earnings and pay for time not
worked from any other employer with respect to that
week; and
[(3) the full amount of any unemployment compensation
attributable to that week.
[Sec. 208. (a) An affected employee (other than a short-
service employee described in subsection (a) of section 209)
shall be paid severance pay in accordance with this section if
said employee;
[(1) has been on a continuous layoff from employment
with the employee's last affected employer for a period
of at least twenty weeks subsequent to December 31,
1977;
[(2) has no definite recall date for work with the
affected employer by whom the employee was laid off and
on offer of suitable work by any affected employer; and
[(3) applies for severance pay during a week with
respect to which said employee has not performed work
for an affected employer: Provided, That this clause
shall not result in denial of severance pay to an
otherwise eligible employee who at the time of
application is totally and permanently disabled as
defined in the Social Security Act; or
[(4) was permanently separated from employment with
an affected employer during the period beginning May
31, 1977, and ending on the date of enactment of this
Act, as a result of the closure of the mill or plant in
which said employee was employed and has not, since
said separation, been employed by an affected employer.
Provided, That an employee shall be deemed an affected
employee for purposes of this section if said employee
meets the requirements of clauses (1), (2), and (3) of
section 204(b).
[(b) The amount of severance pay payable to an employee
shall be computed by multiplying the applicable number of weeks
determined in accordance with subsection (c) by the amount of
the weekly layoff benefit (without reduction for earnings or
other benefits) which is payable, or would be payable if the
employee were eligible, for the week in which the application
was filed; Provided, That for a seasonal employee the amount so
calculated, plus the amount of vacation replacement benefits
applicable for that year shall be multiplied by the number of
weeks in said employee's usual season, as determined ill
section 20i(c). and the result divided by fifty-two.
[(c) Tile number of weeks of severance pay shall be equal
to one week for each month of the employee's creditable service
up to a maximum of seventy-two weeks; Provided, That the
severance payment to any employee shall not exceed the total
amount of the weekly layoff and vacation replacement benefits
which would have been payable if said employee were to be
eligible for such benefits continuously from the week of
application until the end of the applicable period of
protection (or, in the case of an employee described in the
final provision of subsection (a), until the earlier of said
employee's sixty-fifth birthday or September 30, 1984),
calculated on the basis of the weekly amounts of such benefits
as of the date of application for severance pay.
[(d) Acceptance of severance pay terminates the affected
employee's period of protection and makes said employee
ineligible thereafter for all other forms of terminal pay and
for the protections provided in section ,04. except as
otherwise specifically provided in this Act.
[(e) Before making a severance payment to an employee, the
Secretary shall obtain said employee's written agreement that,
upon resumption of employment in the industry within Humboldt
and Del Norte Counties and the counties adjacent thereto in the
State of California prior to September 30, 1980, or such later
date established by the Secretary with respect to said employee
pursuant to section 203, said employee will return it in weekly
installments equal to a specified percentage of the employee's
earnings in the industry, which the Secretary shall set at a
reasonable level. The agreement shall include authorization for
the Secretary to arrange with an employer for withholding of
the applicable amounts from the employee's pay.
[short-service employees
[Sec.209. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, an affected employee as defined in this title shall be
ineligible for any benefit under this title except as provided
in this section if:
[(1) said employee will not reach age sixty before
October 1, 1984; and
[(2) said employee as of the date of becoming an
affected employee, does not have service credit for
pension purposes of at least five full years under a
pension plan contributed to by industry employers.
[(b) An affected employee described in subsection (a) shall
be paid severance pay in accordance with this section if said
employee meets tile requirements of section 208(a).
[(c) Said employee shall be paid a severance Payment equal
to forty times the hourly wage rate applicable at the time of
application for severance pay to the highest paid job held by
said employee other than by temporary assignment, during
calendar year 19p77, with the employee's last affected employer
for each one hundred and seventy-three hours for which said
employee performed work for affected employers.
[(d) Subsection (d) of section 208 shall be applicable to
employees applying for and accepting severance payments
pursuant to this section except that such employees shall
remain eligible for allowances provided for in sections 211 and
212, and for retraining as provided for in section 210(a) and
while in good faith engaged in such training shall be paid the
same stipends and allowances as are generally applicable to
individuals engaged in such retraining programs who are not
employees as defined in this Act.
[retraining
[Sec. 210. (a) An affected employee is eligible to apply
for and the Secretary shall authorize training (including
training for technical and professional occupations) at
Government expense during said employee's period of protection
if--
[(1) the Secretary determines that there is no
suitable employment available for the employee within a
reasonable commuting area; and
[(2) there is substantial reason to believe that the
employee's employment prospects would be enhanced after
successful completion of the training for which
application has been filed.
[(b) An affected employee engaged in training
authorized by subsection (a) shall be paid layoff and
vacation replacement benefits while in good faith
engaged in such training and shall continue to be paid
such benefits while so engaged.
[Sec. 211. Upon application filed by an affected employee
during said employee's period of protection, said employee
shall be eligible for a job search allowance under the same
terms, conditions, and amounts as provided in section 237 of
the Trade Act of 1974
[Sec. 212. (a) A relocation allowance shall be paid upon
application by an affected employee during the applicable
period of protection if--
[(1) the Secretary determines that said employee
cannot reasonably be expected to obtain suitable work
in the commuting area in which said employee resides;
and
[(2) the employee has obtained--
[(A) suitable employment affording a
reasonable expectation of long-term duration in
the area in which said employee wishes to
relocate; or
[(B) a bona fide offer of such employment; or
[(3) the employee relocated during the period
beginning May 31, 1977, and ending on the date of
enactment, because of acceptance of employment
requiring a change ill residence to a location outside
the commuting area in which said employee resided
immediately prior to becoming an affected employee.
[(b) The Secretary shall provide the same moving expense
benefits for the same purposes as are set forth ill the
Regional Raid Reorganization Act of 1973 ( Public Law 93-236).
[administration
[Sec. 213.(a) The Secretary shall be responsible for
paying promptly all benefits and payments provided by this
title.
[(b) Effective October 1, 1977, there are authorized to
be appropriated annually such sums as may be required to meet
the obligations provided for in this title.
[(c) The Secretary shall have the authority to obtain
information necessary to carry out the responsibilities created
under this Act in the same manner as provided by section 249 of
the Trade Act of 1974.
[(d) The Secretary shall offer all reasonable cooperation
and assistance to individuals who believe they may qualify for
the benefits, payments, preferential hiring rights, and other
protections provided for employees under this Act. Among other
things, the Secretary shall--
[(1) provide all covered employees with literature
stating their rights and obligations in nontechnical terms; and
[(2) develop and implement procedures for the filing
(including filing by mail in appropriate circumstances as
determined by the Secretary) of applications; appeals, and
complaints relating to the rights and entitlements established
for employees by this title designed to facilitate prompt
determinations and prompt payment to eligible applicants.
[(e) The Secretary shall direct that notices; reports,
applications, appeals, and information concerning the
implementation of this title required to be filed with the
Secretary shall be filed at the offices of the United States
Employment and Training Service in Humboldt and Del Norte
Counties of the State of California and that information
required to facilitate employees; exercise of their rights
under this title shall be kept available at such offices unless
the Secretary shall designate additionally.
[(f) In all cases where two or more constructions of the
language of this title would be reasonable, the Secretary shall
adopt and apply that construction which is most favorable to
employees. The Secretary shall avoid inequities adverse to
employees that otherwise would arise from an unduly literal
interpretation of the language of this title.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE 29--UNITED STATES CODE
DISPLACED HOMEMAKERS SELF-SUFFICIENCY ASSISTANCE ACT
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2301. Findings; Statement of Purpose
[(a) Findings. The Congress finds that--
[(1) the Nation has a vested interest in building a
quality and productive workforce that will enable the United
States to compete effectively in the global marketplace;
[(2) two in every three new entrants to the workforce
during the 1990's will be women, and such women need
appropriate basic and occupational skills to fill jobs
requiring much higher skill levels than the jobs of
today;
[(3) there are approximately 15,600,000 displaced
homemakers in the United States, the majority of whom
are women not in the labor force, who live in poverty
and who require educational, vocational, training and
other services to obtain financial independence and
economic security; and
[(4) Federal, State, and local programs addressing
the training and employment needs of displaced
homemakers have been fragmented and insufficient to
serve displaced homemakers effectively.
[(b) Purpose. It is the purpose of this Act to provide
assistance to States to provide coordination and referral
services, support service assistance, and program and technical
assistance to displaced homemakers and displaced homemaker
service providers. Such assistance will enable public and
private entities to better meet the needs of displaced
homemakers and will expand the employment and self-sufficiency
options of displaced homemakers.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE 40--UNITED STATES CODE
APPALACHIAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 211. Uniform; at whose expense; Capitol Police
[The members of the Capitol police shall furnish, at their
own expense, each his own uniform, which shall be in exact
conformity to that required by regulation of the Sergeants-at-
Arms.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE 42--UNITED STATES CODE
STEWART B McKINNEY HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 11421. State literacy initiatives
[(a) General authority. The Secretary of Education shall
make grants to State educational agencies to enable such agency
to implement, either directly or through contracts and grants,
a program of literacy training and basic skills remediation for
adult homeless individuals within the State, which shall--
[(1) include a program of outreach activities; and
[(2) be coordinated with existing resources such as
community-based organizations, VISTA recipients, adult
basic education program recipients, and nonprofit
literacy-action organization.
[(b) Application. Each State educational agency desiring to
receive its allocation under this section shall submit to the
Secretary of Education an application at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may
reasonably require. Each such application shall include an
estimate of the number of homeless expected to be served.
[(c) Authorization of appropriations; allocation.
[(1) There is authorized to be appropriated
$10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1989 and 1990,
$13,700,000 for fiscal year 1991, and such sums as may
be necessary in each of the fiscal years 1992 and 1993,
for the adult literacy and basic skills remediation
programs authorized by this section.
[(2) The Secretary of Education shall, in making
grants under this section, give special consideration
to the estimates submitted in the application under
subsection (b) of this section.
[(d) Definition. As used in this section, the term
``State'' means each of the several States, the District
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.]
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 11441. Demonstration program authorized
[(a) General authority. The Secretary of Labor shall, from
funds appropriated pursuant to section 739, make grants for the
Federal share of job training demonstration projects for
homeless individuals in accordance with the provisions of this
subtitle
[(b) Contract authority. The Secretary is authorized to
enter into such contracts with State and local public agencies,
private nonprofit organizations, private businesses, and other
appropriate entities as may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of this subtitle]
* * * * * * *
TITLE 49--UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 5322. Human resource programs
[The Secretary of Transportation may undertake, or make
grants and contracts for, programs that address human resource
needs as they apply to mass transportation activities. A
program may include--
[(1) an employment training program;
[(2) an outreach program to increase minority and
female employment in mass transportation activities;
[(3) research on mass transportation personnel and
training needs; and
[(4) training and assistance for minority business
opportunities.]
* * * * * * *
[CHAPTER 421--LABOR-MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS
[Subchapter I--Employee Protection Program
[Sec. 42101. Definitions
[(a) General. In this subchapter
[(1) ``eligible protected employee'' means a
protected employee who is deprived of employment, or
who is adversely affected related to compensation,
because of a qualifying dislocation.
[(2) ``major contraction'' means a reduction (except
as provided in subsection (b) of this section) of at
least 7.5 percent in the number of full-time employees
of an air carrier within a 12-month period, except for
employees deprived of employment because of a strike or
whose employment is ended for cause.
[(3) ``protected employee'' means an individual who
on October 24, 1978, had been employed for at least 4
years by an air carrier that held a certificate under
section 401 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, but
does not include a director or officer of a
corporation.
[(4) ``qualifying dislocation'' means a bankruptcy or
major contraction of an air carrier holding a
certificate under section 41102 of this title when the
Secretary of Transportation finds the bankruptcy or
contraction occurred after December 31, 1978, and
before January 1, 1989, the major cause of which was
the change in regulatory structure provided by the
Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.
[(b) Major contraction. The Secretary may find a reduction
of less than 7.5 percent of the number of full-time employees
is part of a major contraction if the Secretary decides another
reduction is likely to occur within the 12-month period in
which the first reduction occurs that, when included with the
first reduction, will result in a total reduction of more than
7.5 percent.
[Sec. 42102. Payments to eligible protected employees
[(a) Authority to pay and applications for payments.
Subject to amounts provided in an appropriation law, the
Secretary of Labor shall make monthly assistance payments,
moving expense payments, and reimbursement payments as provided
under this section to an eligible protected employee whose
employment is not ended for cause. The employee must apply to
receive the payments and cooperate with the Secretary in
finding other employment.
[(b) Number and amount of payments.
[(1) Subject to amounts provided in an appropriation
law, an eligible protected employee shall receive 72
monthly assistance payments. However, an eligible
protected employee deprived of employment may not
receive a payment after obtaining other employment. For
each class or craft of protected employees, the
Secretary of Labor, after consulting with the Secretary
of Transportation, shall prescribe by regulation
guidelines for computing the amount of each monthly
assistance payment to be made to a member of the class
or craft and what percentage of salary that payment
represents.
[(2) The amount of a monthly payment payable under
paragraph (1) of this subsection to an eligible
protected employee shall be reduced--
[(A) by unemployment compensation the employee
receives; or
[(B) if the employee does not accept reasonably
comparable employment, to an amount the
employee would be entitled to receive if the
employee had accepted the employment.
[(3) If accepting comparable employment to avoid a
reduction in the monthly assistance payment under
paragraph (2) of this subsection would force an
eligible protected employee to relocate, the employee
may decide not to relocate. Instead of the payment
provided under this section, the employee may receive
the lesser of 3 payments or the maximum number of
payments that remain to be paid under paragraph (1) of
this subsection.
[(c) Moving expenses and reimbursements.
[(1) Subject to amounts provided in an appropriation
law, an eligible protected employee who relocates shall
receive--
[(A) reasonable moving expense payments to
move the employee and the employee's immediate
family; and
[(B) reimbursement payments for a loss
incurred in selling the employee's principal
place of residence for less than fair market
value or in cancelling a lease on, or contract
to buy, the residence.
[(2) The Secretary of Labor shall decide on the
amount of the moving expenses and the fair market value
of the residence.]
[Sec. 42103. Duty to hire protected employees
[(a) Rehiring protected employees. A protected employee of
an air carrier regulated by the Secretary of Transportation who
was furloughed or whose employment was ended by the carrier
(except for cause) before October 23, 1988, is entitled to be
the first employed in the occupational specialty of the
employee, regardless of the employee's age, by any other air
carrier holding a certificate under section 41102 of this title
before October 24, 1978. However, the air carrier may recall
its furloughed employees before hiring a protected employee of
another air carrier regulated by the Secretary who was
furloughed or whose employment was ended by the other carrier
(except for cause) before October 23, 1988. An employee hired
by an air carrier under this section retains seniority and
recall rights with the air carrier that furloughed or ended the
employment of the employee.
[(b) Duties of Secretary of Labor. The Secretary of Labor--
[(1) shall establish and publish periodically a list
of jobs available with an air carrier holding a
certificate under section 41102 of this title that
includes necessary information and detail;
[(2) shall assist eligible employees to find other
employment;
[(3) shall encourage negotiations between air
carriers and representatives of the employees on
rehiring practices and seniority; and
[(4) may require an air carrier to file with the
Secretary information]
[Sec. 42104. Congressional review of regulations
[(a) Definition. In this section, ``legislative day'' means
a calendar day on which both Houses of Congress are in session.
[(b) Submission to Congress. The Secretary of Labor may not
prescribe a regulation under this subchapter until 30
legislative days after the regulation is submitted to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of
the House of Representatives.
[(c) Effectiveness of regulations. A proposed regulation
under this subchapter shall be submitted to Congress and
becomes effective only if, during the period of 60 legislative
days after the regulation is submitted to Congress, either
House does not pass a resolution disapproving the regulation.
However, if Congress adopts a resolution approving the
regulation during the 60-day period, the regulation is
effective on that date.]
[Sec. 42105. Airline Employees Protective Account
[The Department of Labor has an Airline Employees
Protective Account consisting of amounts appropriated to it. An
amount necessary to carry out this subchapter, including
administrative expenses, may be appropriated to the Account
annually.
[Sec. 42106. Ending effective date
[This subchapter is not effective after the last day the
Secretary of Labor must make a payment under this subchapter.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE 7--UNITED STATES CODE
FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1977
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2015 * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(4)(A) Not later than April 1, 1987, each State
agency shall implement an employment and training
program designed by the State agency and approved by
the Secretary for the purpose of assisting members of
households participating in the food stamp program in
gaining skills, training, or experience that will
increase their ability to obtain regular employment.
[(B) For purposes of this Act, an ``employment and
training program'' means a program that contains one or
more of the following components:
[(i) Job search programs with terms and
conditions comparable to those prescribed in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 402(a)(35)
of part A of title IV of the Social Security
Act, except that the state agency shall retain
the option to apply employment requirements
prescribed under this clause to program
applicants at the time of application.
[(ii) Job search training programs that
include, to the extent determined appropriate
by the State agency, reasonable job search
training and support activities that may
consist of jobs skills assessments, job finding
clubs, training in techniques for
employability, job placement services, or other
direct training or support activities,
including educational programs, determined by
the State agency to expand the job search
abilities or employability of those subject to
the program.
[(iii) Workfare programs operated under
section 20.
[(iv) Programs designed to improve the
employability of household members through
actual work experience or training, or both,
and to enable individuals employed or trained
under such programs to move promptly into
regular public or private employment. An
employment or training experience program
established under this clause shall--
[(I) limit employment experience
assignments to projects that serve a
useful public purpose in field such as
health, social services, environmental
protection, urban and rural development
and redevelopment, welfare, recreation,
public facilities, public safety, and
day care;
[(II) to the extent possible, use the
prior training, experience, and skills
of the participating member in making
appropriate employment or training
experience assignments;
[(III) not provide any work that has
the effect of replacing the employment
of an individual not participation in
the employment or training experience
program; and
[(IV) provide the same benefits and
working conditions that are provided at
the job site to employees performing
comparable work for comparable hours.
[(v) Educational programs or activities to
improve basic skills and literacy, or otherwise
improve employability, including educational
programs determined by the State agency to
expand the job search abilities or
employability of those subject to the program
under this paragraph.
[(vi) Programs designed to increase the self-
sufficiency of recipients through self-
employment, including programs that provide
instruction for self-employment ventures.
[(vii) As approved by the Secretary or the
State under regulations issued by the
Secretary, other employment, educational and
training programs, projects, and experiments,
such as a supported work program, aimed at
accomplishing the purpose of the employment and
training program.
[(C) The State agency may provide that participation
in an employment and training program may supplement or
supplant other employment-related requirements imposed
on those subject to the program.
[(D) (i) Each State agency may exempt from any
requirement for participation in any program under this
paragraph categories of household members to which the
application of such participation requirement is
impracticable as applied to such categories due to
factors such as the availability of work opportunities
and the cost-effectiveness of the employment
requirements. In making such a determination, the State
agency may designate a category consisting of all such
household members residing in a specific area of the
State. Each State may exempt, with the approval of the
Secretary, members of households that have participated
in the food stamp program 30 days or less.
[(ii) Each State agency may exempt from any
requirement for participation individual household
members not included in any category designated as
exempt under clause (i) but with respect to whom such
participation is impracticable because of personal
circumstances such as lack of job readiness and
employability, the remote location of work
opportunities, and unavailability of child care.
[(iii) Any exemption of a category or individual
under this subparagraph shall be periodically evaluated
to determine whether, on the basis of the factors used
to make a determination under clause (i) or (ii), the
exemption continues to be valid.Such evaluations shall
occur no less often than at each certification or
recertification in the case of exemptions under clause
(ii).
[(E) Each State agency shall establish requirements
for participation by individuals not exempt under
subparagraph (D) in one or more employment and training
programs under this paragraph, including the extent to
which any individual is required to participate. Such
requirements may vary among participants. Through
September 30, 1995, two Stats may, on application to
and after approval by the Secretary give priority in
the provision of services to voluntary participants
(including both exempt and non-exempt participants),
except that this sentence shall not excuse a State from
compliance with the performance standards issued under
subparagraphs (K) and (L), and the Secretary may, at
the Secretary's discretion, approve additional States'
requests to give such priority if the Secretary reports
to Congress on the number and characteristics of
voluntary participants given priority under this
sentence and such other information as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
[(F) (i) The total hours of work in an employment and
training program carried out under this paragraph
required of members of a household, together with the
hours of work of such members in any program carried
out under section 20, in any month collectively may not
exceed a number of hours equal to the household's
allotment for such month divided by the higher of the
applicable State minimum wage or Federal minimum hourly
rate under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. (ii)
The total hours of participation in such program
required of any member of a household, individually, in
any month, together with any hours worked in another
program carried out under section and any hours worked
for compensation (in cash or in kind) in any other
capacity, shall not exceed one hundred and twenty hours
per month.
[(G) (i) The State agency may operate any program
component under this paragraph in which individuals
elect to participate.
[(ii) The State agency shall permit, to the extent it
determines practicable, individuals not subject to
requirements imposed under subparagraph (E) or who have
complied, or are in the process of complying, with such
requirements to participate in any program under this
paragraph.
[(H) (i) The Secretary shall issue regulations under
which each State agency shall establish a conciliation
procedure for the resolution of disputes involving the
participation of an individual in the program.
[(ii) Federal funds made available to a State agency
for purposes of the component authorized under
subparagraph (B)(v) shall not be used to supplant non-
Federal funds used for existing services and activities
that promote the purposes of this component.
[(I) (i) The State agency shall provide payments or
reimbursements to participants in programs carried out
under this paragraph, including individuals
participating under subparagraph (G), for--
[(I) the actual costs of transportation and
other actual costs (other than dependent care
costs), that are reasonably necessary and
directly related to participation in the
program, except that the State agency may limit
such reimbursement to each participant to $25
per month; and
[(II) the actual costs of such dependent care
expenses that are determined by the State
agency to be necessary for the participation of
an individual in the program (other than an
individual who is the caretaker relative of a
dependent in a family receiving benefits under
part A of title IV of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) in a local area where
an employment, training, or education program
under title IV of such Act is in operation, or
was in operation, on the date of enactment of
the Hunger Prevention Act of 1988 (enacted
Sept. 19, 1988) up to any limit set by the
State agency (which limit shall not be less
than the limit for the dependent care deduction
under section 5(e)), but in no event shall such
payment or reimbursements exceed the applicable
local market rate as determined by procedures
consistent with any such determination under
the Social Security Act. Individuals subject to
the program under this paragraph may not be
required to participate if dependent costs
exceed the limit established by the State
agency under this subclause or other actual
costs exceed any limit established under
subclause (I).
[(ii)) In lieu of providing reimbursements or
payments for dependent care expenses under clause (i),
a State agency may, at its option, arrange for
dependent care through providers by the use of purchase
of service contracts or vouchers or by providing
vouchers to the household.
[(iii) The value of any dependent care services
provided for or arranged under clause (ii), or any
amount received as a payment or reimbursement under
clause (i), shall--
[(I) not be treated as income for the
purposes of any other Federal or federally
assisted program that bases eligibility for, or
the amount of benefits on, need; and
[(II) not be claimed as an employment-related
expense for the purposes of the credit provided
under section 21 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986.
[(J) The Secretary shall promulgate guidelines that
(i) enable State agencies, to the maximum extent
practicable, to design and operate an employment and
training program that is compatible and consistent with
similar programs operated within the State, and (ii)
ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that
employment and training programs are provided for
Indians on reservations.
[(K) (i) For any fiscal year, the Secretary shall
establish performance standards for each State that, in
the case of persons who are subject to employment
requirements under this section and who are not exempt
under subparagraph (D), designate the minimum
percentages (not to exceed 10 percent in fiscal years
1992 and 1993, and 15 percent in fiscal years 1994 and
1995 of such persons that State agencies shall place in
programs under this paragraph. Such standards need not
be uniform for all the States, but may vary among the
several States. The Secretary shall consider the cost
to the States in setting performance standards and the
degree of participation in programs under this
paragraph by exempt persons. The Secretary shall not
require the plan of a State agency to provide for the
participation of a number of recipients greater than 10
percent in fiscal years 1992 and 1993, and 15 percent
in fiscal years 1994 and 1995, of the persons who are
subject to employment requirements under this section
and who are not exempt under subparagraph (D)
[(ii) In making any determination as to whether a
State agency has met a performance standard under
clause (i), the Secretary shall--
[(I) consider the extent to which persons
have elected to participate in programs under
this paragraph;
[(II) consider such factors as placement in
unsubsidized employment, increases in earnings,
and reduction in the number of persons
participating in the food stamp program; and
[(III) consider other factors determined by
the Secretary to be related to employment and
training.
[(iii) The Secretary shall vary the performance
standards established under clause (i) according to
differences in the characteristics of persons required
to participate and the type of program to which the
standard is applied.
[(iv) The Secretary may delay establishing
performance standards for up to 18 months after
national implementation of the provisions of this
paragraph, in order to base performance standards on
State agency experience in implementing this paragraph.
[(L) (i) The Secretary shall establish performance
standards and measures applicable to employment and
training programs carried out under this paragraph that
are based on employment outcomes, including increases
in earnings.
[(ii) Final performance standards and measures
referred to in clause (i) shall be published not later
than 12 months after the date that the final outcome-
based performance standards are published for job
opportunities and basic skills training programs under
part F of title IV of the Social Security Act.
[(iii) The standards shall encourage States to serve
those individuals who have greater barriers to
employment and shall take into account the extent to
which persons have elected to participate in employment
and training programs under this paragraph. The
standards shall require participants to make levels of
efforts comparable to those required under the
regulations set forth in section 273.7(f)(1) of title
7, Code of Federal Regulations in effect on January 1,
1991.
[(iv) the performance standards in effect under
subparagraph (K) shall remain in effect during the
period beginning on October 1, 1988, and ending on the
date the Secretary implements the outcome-based
performance standards described in this subparagraph.
[(v) A State agency shall be considered in compliance
with applicable performance standards under
subparagraph (K) if the State agency operates an
employment and training program in a manner consistent
with its approved plan and if the program requires
participants to make levels of effort comparable to
those required under the regulations set forth in
section 273.7(f)(1) of title 7, Code of Federal
Regulations in effect on January 1, 1991.
[(M) (i) The Secretary shall ensure that State
agencies comply with the requirements of this paragraph
and section 11(e)(22).
[(ii) If the Secretary determines that a State agency
has failed, without good cause, to comply with such a
requirement, including any failure to meet a
performance standard under subparagraph (J), the
Secretary may withhold from such State, in accordance
with section 16(a), (c), and (h), such funds as the
Secretary determines to be appropriate, subject to
administrative and judicial review under section 14.
[(N) The facilities of the State public employment
offices and agencies operating programs under the Job
Training Partnership Act may be used to find employment
and training opportunities for household members under
the programs under this paragraph.
[(e) Students. No individual who is a member of a household
otherwise eligible to participate in the food stamp program
under this section shall be eligible to participate in the food
stamp program as a member of that or any other household if the
individual is enrolled at least half-time in an institution of
higher education, unless the individual--
[(1) is under 18 or is age 50 or older;
[(2) is not physically or mentally fit;
[(3) is assigned to or placed in an institution of
higher education through or in compliance with the
requirements of--
[(A) a program under the Job Training
Partnership Act;
[(B) an employment and training program under
this section;
[(C) a program under section 236 of the Trade
Act of 1974; or
[(D) another program for the purpose of
employment and training operated by a State or
local government, as determined to be
appropriate by the Secretary;
[(4) is employed a minimum of 20 hours per week or
participating in a State or federally financed work
study program during the regular school year;
[(5) is--
[(A) a parent with responsibility for the
care of a dependent child under age 6; or
[(B) a parent with responsibility for the
care of a dependent child above the age of 5
and under the age of 12 for whom adequate child
care is not available to enable the individual
to attend class and satisfy the requirements of
paragraph (4);
[(6) is receiving aid to families with dependent
children under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act;
[(7) is so enrolled as a result of participation in
the work incentive program under title IV of the Social
Security Act or its successor programs; or
[(8) is enrolled full-time in an institution of
higher education, as determined by the institution, and
is a single parent with responsibility for the care of
a dependent child under age 12.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE 8--UNITED STATES CODE
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1522. * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Project grants and controls for services for refugees.
[(1) (A) The Director is authorized to make grants
to, and enter into contracts with, public or private
nonprofit agencies for projects specifically
designated--
[(i) to assist refuges in obtaining the
skills which are necessary for economic self-
sufficiency, including projects for job
training, employment services, day care,
professional refresher training, and other
recertification services;
[(ii) to provide training in English where
necessary (regularless of whether the refugees
are employed or receiving cash or other
assistance); and
[(iii) to provide where specific needs have
been shown and recognized by the Director,
health (including mental health) services,
social services, educational and other
services.
[(B) The funds available for a fiscal year for grants
and contracts under Subparagraph (A) shall be allocated
among the States based on the total number of refugees
(including children and adults) who arrived in the
United States not more than 36 months before the
beginning of such fiscal year and who are actually
residing in each State (taking into account secondary
migration) as of the beginning of the fiscal year.
[(C) Any limitation which the Director establishes on
the proportion of funds allocated to a State under this
paragraph that the State may use for services other
than those described in subsection (a)(1)(B)(ii) shall
not apply if the Director receives a plan (established
by or in consultation with local governments) and
determines that the plan provides for the maximum
appropriate provision of employment-related services
for, and the maximum placement of, employable refugees
consistent with performance standards established under
section 106 of the Job Training Partnership Act.
[(2) (A) The Director is authorized to make grants to
States for assistance to counties and similar areas in
the States where, because of factors such as unusually
large refugee populations (including secondary
migration), high refugee concentrations, and high use
of public assistance by refugees, there exists and can
be demonstrated a specific need for supplementation of
available resources for services to refugees.
[(B) Grants shall be made available under this
paragraph--
[(i) primarily for the purpose of
facilitating refugee employment and Achievement
of self-sufficiency,
[(ii) in a manner that does not supplant
other refugee program funds and that assures
that not less than 95 percent of the amount of
the grant award is made available to the county
or other local entity.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 19--UNITED STATES CODE
TRADE ACT OF 1974
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2295. Employment services
[The Secretary shall make every reasonable effort to secure
for adversely affected workers covered by a certification under
subchapter A of this chapter counseling, testing, and placement
services, and supportive and other services, provided for under
any other Federal law. The Secretary shall, whenever
appropriate, procure such services through agreements with the
States.]
[Sec. 2296. Training
[(a) Approval of training; limitation on expenditures;
reasonable expectation of employment; payment of costs;
approved training programs; nonduplication of payments from
other sources; disapproval of certain programs; exhaustion of
unemployment benefits; promulgation of regulations.
[(1) If the Secretary determines that--
[(a) there is no suitable employment (which
may include technical and professional
employment) available for an adversely affected
worker,
[(b) the worker would benefit from
appropriate training.
[(c) there is a reasonable expectation of
employment following completion of such
training,
[(d) training approved by the Secretary is
reasonably available to the worker from either
governmental agencies or private sources (which
may include area vocational education schools,
as defined in section 195(2) of the Vocational
Education Act of 1963, and employers),
[(e) the worker is qualified to undertake and
complete such training, and
[(f) such training is suitable for the worker
and available at a reasonable cost, the
Secretary shall approve such training for the
worker. Upon such approval, the worker shall be
entitled to have payment of the costs of such
(subject to the limitations imposed by this
section) training paid on his behalf by the
Secretary directly or through a voucher system.
Insofar as possible, the Secretary shall
provide or assure the provision of such
training on the job, which shall include
related education necessary for the acquisition
of skills needed for a position within a
particular occupation.
[(2) (A) The total amount of payments that may be
made under paragraph (1) for any fiscal year shall not
exceed $80,000,000, except that for fiscal year 1997,
the total amount of payments made under paragraph (1)
shall not exceed $70,000,000.
[(b) If, during any fiscal year, the Secretary estimates,
that the amount of funds necessary to pay the costs of training
approved under this section will exceed the amount of the
limitation imposed under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall
decide how the portion of such limitation that has not been
expended at the time of such estimate is to be apportioned
among the States for the remainder of such fiscal year.
[(3) For purposes of applying paragraph (1)(C), a
reasonable expectation of employment does not require
that employment opportunities for a worker be
available, or offered, immediately upon the completion
of training approved under this paragraph (1).
[(4) (A) If the costs of training an adversely
affected worker are paid by the Secretary under
paragraph (1), no other payment for such costs may be
made under any other provision of Federal law.
[(b) No payment may be made under paragraph (1) of the
costs of training an adversely affected worker if such costs--
[(i) have already been paid under any other provision
of Federal law, or
[(ii) are reimbursable under any other provision of
Federal law and a portion of such costs have already
been paid under such other provision of Federal law.
[(c) The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to,
or take into account, any funds provided under any other
provision of Federal law which are used for any purpose other
than the direct payment of the costs incurred in training a
particular adversely affected worker, even if such use has the
effect of indirectly paying or reducing any portion of the
costs involved in training the adversely affected worker.
[(5) The training programs that may be approved under
paragraph (1) include, but are not limited to--
[(a) on-the-job training,
[(b) any training program provided by a State
pursuant to section 303 of the Job Training
Partnership Act,
[(c) any training program approved by a
private industry council established under
section 102 of such Act,
[(d) any program of remedial education,
[(e) any training program (other than a
training program described in paragraph (7))
for which all, or any portion, of the costs of
training the worker are paid--
[(i) under any Federal or State
program other than this chapter, or
[(ii) from any source other than this
section, and
[(f) any other training program approved by
the Secretary.
[(6) (A) The Secretary is not required under
paragraph (1) to pay the costs of any training approved
under paragraph (1) to the extent that such costs are
paid--
[(i) under any Federal or State program other
than this chapter, or
[(ii) from any source other than this
section.
[(b) Before approving any training to which
subparagraph (A) may apply, the Secretary may require
that the adversely affected worker enter into an
agreement with the Secretary under which the Secretary
will not be required to pay under this section the
portion of the costs of such training that the worker
has reason to believe will be paid under the program,
or by the source, described in clause (i) or (ii) of
subparagraph (A).
[(7) The Secretary shall not approve a training
program if--
[(a) all or a portion of the costs of such
training program are paid under any
nongovernmental plan or program,
[(b) the adversely affected worker has a
right to obtain training or funds for training
under such plan or program, and
[(c) such plan or program requires the worker
to reimburse the plan or program from funds
provided under this chapter, or from wages paid
under such training program, for any portion of
the costs of such training program paid under
the plan or program.
[(8) The Secretary may approve training for any
adversely affected worker who is a member of a group
certified under subchapter A at any time after the date
on which the group is certified under subchapter A,
without regard to whether such worker has exhausted all
rights to any unemployment insurance to which the
worker is entitled
[(9) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations which
set forth the criteria under each of the subparagraphs
of paragraph (1) that will be used as the basis for
making determinations under paragraph (1).
[(b) Supplemental assistance. The Secretary
may, where appropriate, authorize supplemental
assistance necessary to defray reasonable
transportation and subsistence expenses for
separate maintenance when training is provided
in facilities which are not within commuting
distance of a worker's regular place of
residence. The Secretary may not authorize--
[(1) payments for subsistence that
exceed whichever is the lesser of (A)
the actual per diem expenses for
subsistence, or (B) payment at 50
percent of the prevailing per diem
allowance rate authorized under the
Federal travel regulations, or
[(2) payments for travel expenses
exceeding the prevailing mileage rate
authorized under the Federal travel
regulations.
[(c) Payment of costs of on-the-job training.
The Secretary shall pay the costs of any on-
the-job training of an adversely affected
worker that is approved under subsection (a)(1)
in equal monthly installments, but the
Secretary may pay such costs, notwithstanding
any other provision of this section, only if--
[(1) no currently employed worker is
displaced by such adversely affected
worker (including partial displacement
such as a reduction in the hours of
nonovertime work, wages, or employment
benefits),
[(2) such training does not impair
existing contracts for services or
collective bargaining agreements,
[(3) in the case of training which
would be inconsistent with the terms of
a collective bargaining agreement, the
written concurrence of the labor
organization concerned has been
obtained,
[(4) no other individual is on layoff
from the same, or any substantially
equivalent, job for which such
adversely affected worker is being
trained,
[(5) the employer has not terminated
the employment of any regular employee
or otherwise reduced the workforce of
the employer with the intention of
filling the vacancy so created by
hiring such adversely affected worker,
[(6) the job for which such adversely
affected worker is being trained is not
being created in a promotional line
that will infringe in any way upon the
promotional opportunities of currently
employed individuals,
[(7) such training is not for the
same occupation from which the worker
was separated and with respect to which
such worker's group was certified
pursuant to section 222,
[(8) the employer certifies to the
Secretary that the employer will
continue to employ such worker for at
least 26 weeks after completion of such
training if the worker desires to
continue such employment and the
employer does not have due cause to
terminate such employment,
[(9) the employer has not received
payment under subsection (a)(1) with
respect to any other on-the-job
training provided by such employer
which failed to meet the requirements
of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5),
and (6), and
[(10) the employer has not taken, at
any time, any action which violated the
terms of any certification described in
paragraph (8) made by such employer
with respect to any other on-the-job
training provided by such employer for
which the Secretary has made a payment
under subsection (a)(1).
[(d) Eligibility for unemployment insurance. A worker may
not be determined to be ineligible or disqualified for
unemployment insurance or program benefits under this
subchapter because the individual is in training approved under
subsection (a), because of leaving work which is not suitable
employment to enter such training, or because of the
application to any such week in training of provisions of State
law or Federal unemployment insurance law relating to
availability for work, active search for work, or refusal to
accept work. The Secretary shall submit to the Congress a
quarterly report regarding the amount of funds expended during
the quarter concerned to provide training under subsection (a)
and the anticipated demand for such funds for any remaining
quarters in the fiscal year concerned.
[(e) ``Suitable employment'' defined.
[For purposes of this section the term ``suitable
employment'' means, with respect to a worker, work of a
substantially equal or higher skill level than the worker's
past adversely affected employment, and wages for such work at
not less than 80 percent of the worker's average weekly wage.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2331 * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) * * *
[(1) Employment services described in section 235.
[(2) Training described in section 236, except that
notwithstanding the provisions of section 236(a)(2)(A)
the total amount of payments for training under this
subchapter for any fiscal year shall not exceed
$30,000,000.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE 20--UNITED STATES CODE
ADULT EDUCATION ACT
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1201. Statement of purpose
[It is the purpose of this title to assist the States to
improve educational opportunities for adults who lack the level
of literacy skills requisite to effective citizenship and
productive employment, to expand and improve the current system
for delivering adult education services including delivery of
such services to education any disadvantaged adults, and to
encourage the establishment of adult education programs that
will--
[(1) enable these adults to acquire the basic
educational skills necessary for literate functioning;
[(2) provide these adults with sufficient basic
education to enable them to benefit from job training
and retraining programs and obtain and retain
productive employment so that they might more fully
enjoy the benefits and responsibilities of citizenship;
and
[(3) enable adults who so desire to continue their
education to at least the level of completion of
secondary school.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE 20--UNITED STATES CODE
CARL D. PERKINS VOCATIONAL AND APPLIED TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION ACT
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2301. Statement of purpose
[It is the purpose of this Act to make the United States
more competitive in the world economy by developing more fully
the academic and occupational skills of all segments of the
population. This purpose will principally be achieved through
concentrating resoruces on improving educational programs
leading to academic and occupational skill competencies needed
to work in a technologically advanced society.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE 20--UNITED STATES CODE
SCHOOL-TO-WORK OPPORTUNITIES ACT OF 1994
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 6101 Findings.
[Congress finds that
[(1) three-fourths of high school students in the
United States enter the workforce without baccalaureate
degrees, and many do not possess the academic and
entry-level occupational skills necessary to succeed in
the changing United States workplace;
[(2) a substantial number of youths in the United
States, especially disadvantaged students, students of
diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds, and
students with disabilities, do not complete high
school;
[(3) unemployment among youths in the United States
is intolerably high, and earnings of high school
graduates have been falling relative to earnings of
individuals with more education;
[(4) the workplace in the United States is changing
in response to heightened international competition and
new technologies, and such forces, which are ultimately
beneficial to the Nation, are shrinking the demand for
and undermining the earning power of unskilled labor,
[(5) The United States lacks a comprehensive and
coherent system to help its youths acquire the
knowledge, skills, abilities, and information about and
access to the labor market necessary to make an
effective transition from school to career-oriented
work or to further education and training;
[(6) students in the United States can achieve high
academic and occupational standards, and many learn
better and retain more when the students learn in
context, rather than in the abstract;
[(7) while many students in the United States have
part-time jobs, there is infrequent linkage
[(a) such jobs; and
[(b) the career planning or exploration, or the
school-based learning, of such students;
[(8) the work-based learning approach, which is
modeled after the time-honored apprenticeship concept,
integrates theoretical instruction with structured on-
the-job training, and this approach, combined with
school-based learning, can be very effective in
engaging student interest, enhancing skill acquisition,
developing positive work attitudes, and preparing
youths for high-skill, high-wage careers;
[(9) Federal resources currently fund a series of
categorical, work-related education and training
programs, many of which serve disadvantaged youths,
that are not administered as a coherent whole; and
[(10) in 1992 approximately 3,400,000 individuals in
the United States age 16 through 24 had not completed
high school and were not currently enrolled in school,
a number representing approximately 11 percent of all
individuals in this age group, which indicates that
these young persons are particularly unprepared for the
demands of a 21st century workforce.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE 29--UNITED STATES CODE
WAGNER-PEYSER ACT
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 49. United States Employment Service established
[In order to promote the establishment and maintenance of a
national system of public employment offices, the United States
Employment Service shall be established and maintained within
the Department of Labor.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE 29--UNITED STATES CODE
JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1501. Statement of purpose
[It is the purpose of this Act to establish programs to
prepare youth and adults facing serious barriers to employment
for participation in the labor force by providing job training
and other services that will result in increased employment and
earnings, increased educational and occupational skills, and
decreased welfare dependency, thereby improving the quality of
the work force and enhancing the productivity and
competitiveness of the Nation]
* * * * * * *
TITLE 42--UNITED STATES CODE
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 681. Purpose and definitions
[(a) Purpose. It is the purpose of this part to assure that
needy families with children obtain the education, training,
and employment that will help them avoid long-term welfare
dependence.
[(b) Meaning of terms. Except to the extent otherwise
specifically indicated, terms used in this part shall have the
meanings given them in or under part A.]
* * * * * * *
TITLE 42--UNITED STATES CODE
OLDER AMERICANS ACT
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 3056. Older American Community Service Employment Program
[(a) Employment. In order to foster and promote useful
part-time opportunities in community service activities for
unemployed low-income persons who are fifty-five years old or
older and who have poor employment prospects, the Secretary of
Labor (hereinafter in this title referred to as the
``Secretary'') is authorized to establish an older American
community service employment program.
[(b) Authority of Secretary; execution of agreements with
terms and conditions for furthering purposes and goals of
program; regulations for execution of provisions of 42 USCS
3056 et seq.
[(1) in order to carry out the provisions of this
title, the Secretary is authorized to enter into
agreements with public or private nonprofit agencies or
organizations, including national organizations,
agencies of a State government or a political
subdivision of a State (having elected or duly
appointed governing officials), or a combination of
such political subdivisions, or tribal organizations in
order to further the purposes and goals of the program.
Such agreements may include provisions for the payment
of costs, as provided in subsection (c), of projects
developed by such organizations and agencies in
cooperation with the Secretary in order to make the
program effective or to supplement the program. No
payment shall be made by the Secretary toward the cost
of any project established or administered by any such
organization or agency unless the Secretary determines
that such project--
[(A) will provide employment only for
eligible individuals, except for necessary
technical, administrative, and supervisory
personnel, but such personnel shall, to the
fullest extent possible, be recruited from
among eligible individuals;
[(B) will provide employment for eligible
individuals in the community in which such
individuals reside, or in nearby communities;
[(C) will employ eligible individuals in
services related to publicly owned and operated
facilities and projects, or projects sponsored
by organizations, other than political parties,
exempt from taxation under the provisions of
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, except projects involving the
construction, operation, or maintenance of any
facility used or to be used as a place for
sectarian religious instruction or worship;
[(D) will contribute to the general welfare
of the community;
[(E) will provide employment for eligible
individuals;
[(F) (i) will result in an increase in
employment opportunities over those
opportunities which would otherwise be
available, (ii) will not result in the
displacement of currently employed workers
(including partial displacement, such as a
reduction in the hours of nonovertime work or
wages or employment benefits), and (iii) will
not impair existing contracts or result in the
substitution of Federal funds for other funds
in connection with work that would otherwise be
performed;
[(G) will not employ or continue to employ any eligible
individual to perform work the same or substantially the same
as that performed by any other person who is on layoff;
[(H) will utilize methods of recruitment and
selection (including listing of job vacancies
with the employment agency operated by any
State or political subdivision thereof) which
will assure that the maximum number of eligible
individuals will have an opportunity to
participate in the project;
[(I) will include such training as may be
necessary to make the most effective use of the
skills and talents of those individuals who are
participating, and will provide for the payment
of the reasonable expenses of individuals being
trained, including a reasonable subsistence
allowance;
[(J) will assure that safe and healthy
conditions of work will be provided, and will
assure that individuals employed in community
service jobs assisted under this title shall be
paid wages which shall not be lower than
whichever is the highest of (i) the minimum
wage which would be applicable to the employee
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, if
section 6(a)(1) of such Act applied to the
participant and if the participant were not
exempt under section 13 thereof, (ii) the State
or local minimum wage for the most nearly
comparable covered employment, or (iii) the
prevailing rates of pay for individuals
employed in similar public occupations by the
same employer,
[(K) will be established or administered with
the advice of persons competent in the field of
service in which employment is being provided,
and of persons who are knowledgeable with
regard to the needs of older persons;
[(L) will authorize pay for necessary
transportation costs of eligible individuals
which may be incurred in employment in any
project funded under this title, in accordance
with regulations promulgated by the Secretary;
[(M) will assure, that to the extent
feasible, such project will serve the needs of
minority, limited English-speaking, and Indian
eligible individuals, and eligible individuals
who have greatest economic need, at least in
proportion to their numbers in the State and
take into consideration their rates of poverty
and unemployment;
[(N) (i) will prepare an assessment of--
[(I) the participants' skills and
talents;
[(II) their need for supportive
services; and
[(III) their physical capabilities;
except to the extent such project has, for the
particular participant involved, an assessment
of such skills and talents, such need, or such
capabilities prepared recently pursuant to
another employment or training program (such as
a program under the Job Training Partnership
Act (29 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) or the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.));
[(ii) will provide to eligible individuals
training and employment counseling based on
strategies that identify appropriate employment
objectives and the need for supportive
services, developed as a result of the
assessment provided for in clause (i); and
[(iii) will provide counseling to
participants on their progress in meeting such
objectives and satisfying their need for
supportive services;
[(O) will authorize funds to be used, to the
extent feasible, to include individuals
participating in such project under any State
unemployment insurance plan; and
[(P) will post in such project workplace a
notice, and will make available to each person
associated with such project a written
explanation, clarifying the law with respect to
allowable and unallowable political activities
under chapter 15 of title 5, United States
Code, applicable to the project and to each
category of individuals associated with such
project and containing the address and
telephone number of the Inspector General of
the Department of Labor, to whom questions
regarding the application of such chapter may
be addressed.
[(2) The Secretary is authorized to establish, issue,
and amend such regulations as may be necessary to
effectively carry out the provisions of this title.
[(3) The Secretary shall develop alternatives for
innovative work modes and provide technical assistance
in creating job opportunities through work sharing and
other experimental methods to prime sponsors, labor
organizations, groups representing business and
industry and workers as well as to individual
employers, where appropriate.
[(4) The Secretary may enter into an agreement with
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to establish a Senior Environmental Employment
Corps.
[(c) Costs; non-Federal share.
[(1) The Secretary is authorized to pay not to exceed
90 percent of the cost of any project which is the
subject of an agreement entered into under subsection
(b), except that the Secretary is authorized to pay all
of the costs of any such project which is (A) an
emergency or disaster project, or (B) a project located
in an economically depressed area, as determined by the
Secretary in consultation with the Secretary of
Commerce and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services.
[(2) The non-Federal share shall be in cash or in
kind. In determining the amount of the non-Federal
share, the Secretary is authorized to attribute fair
market value to services and facilities contributed
from non-Federal sources.
[(3) Of the amount for any project to be paid by the
Secretary under this subsection, not more than 13.5
percent for fiscal year 1987 and each fiscal year
thereafter shall be available for paying the costs of
administration for such project, except that--
[(A) whenever the Secretary determines that
it is necessary to carry out the project
assisted under this title, based on information
submitted by the public or private nonprofit
agency or organization with which the Secretary
has an agreement under subsection (b), the
Secretary may increase the amount available for
paying the cost of administration to an amount
not more than 15 percent of the cost of such
project; and
[(B) whenever the public or private nonprofit
agency or organization with which the Secretary
has an agreement under subsection (b)
demonstrates to the Secretary that--
[(i) major administrative cost
increases are being incurred in
necessary program components, including
liability insurance, payments for
workers' compensation, costs associated
with achieving unsubsidized placement
goals, and other operation requirements
imposed by the Secretary;
[(ii) the number of employment
positions in the project or the number
of minority eligible individuals
participating in the project will
decline if the amount available for
paying the cost of administration is
not increased; or
[(iii) the size of the project is so
small that the amount of administrative
expenses incurred to carry out the
project necessarily exceed 13.5 percent
of the amount for such project; the
Secretary shall increase the amount
available for the fiscal year for
paying the cost of administration to an
amount not more than 15 percent of the
cost of such project.
[(d) Project and program distribution review; notice and
opportunity for hearing.
[(1) Whenever a national organization or other
program sponsor conducts a project within a planning
and service area in a State such organization or
program sponsor shall conduct such project in
consultation with the area agency on aging of the
planning and service area and shall submit to the State
agency and the area agency on aging a description of
such project to be conducted in the State, including
the location of the project, 30 days prior to
undertaking the project, for review and comment
according to guidelines the Secretary shall issue to
assure efficient and effective coordination of programs
under this title.
[(2) The Secretary shall review on his own initiative
or at the request of any public or private nonprofit
agency or organization, or an agency of the State
government, the distribution of programs under this
title within the State including the distribution
between urban and rural areas within the State. For
each proposed reallocation of programs within a State,
the Secretary shall give notice and opportunity for a
hearing on the record by all interested individuals and
make a written determination of his findings and
decision.
[(e) Experimental projects; agreements; evaluation; reports
to President and Congress; ``eligible individual''.
[(1) The Secretary, in addition to any other
authority contained in this title, shall conduct
experimental projects designed to assure second career
training and the placement of eligible individuals in
employment opportunities with private business
concerns. The Secretary shall enter into such
agreements with States, public agencies, nonprofit
private organizations and private business concerns as
may be necessary to conduct the experimental projects
authorized by this subsection. The Secretary, from
amounts reserved under section 506(a)(2)(A) in any
fiscal year, may pay all of the costs of any agreements
entered into under the provisions of this subsection.
The Secretary shall, to the extent feasible, assure
equitable geographic distribution of projects
authorized by this subsection.
[(2) The Secretary shall issue, and amend from time
to time, criteria designed to assure that agreements
entered into under paragraph (1) of this subsection--
[(A) will involve different kinds of work
modes, such as flex-time, job sharing, and
other arrangements relating to reduced physical
exertion;
[(B) will emphasize projects involving second
careers and job placement and give
consideration to placement in growth industries
and in jobs reflecting new technological
skills; and
[(C) require the coordination of projects
carried out under such agreements, with the
programs carried out under section 124 of the
Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1534).
[(3)(A) The Secretary shall carry out an evaluation
of the second career training and job placement
projects authorized by this subsection.
[(B) The evaluation shall include but not be limited
to the projects described in paragraph (2).
[(C) The Secretary shall prepare and submit, not
later than one year after the enactment of the Older
Americans Act Amendments of 1981 (enacted Dec. 29,
1981), to the Congress an interim report describing the
agreements entered into under paragraph (1) and the
design for the evaluation required by this paragraph.
The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the President
and the Congress a final report on the evaluation
required by this paragraph not later than February 1,
1984, together with his findings and such
recommendations, including recommendations for
additional legislation, as the Secretary deems
appropriate.
[(D) The Secretary shall make the final report
submitted under subparagraph (C) available to
interested private business concerns.
[(4) For the purpose of this subsection, ``eligible
individual'' means any individual who is 55 years of
age or older and who has an income equal to or less
than the intermediate level retired couples budget as
determined annually by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.]
* * * * * * *
APPENDIX
National Governors Association,
June 9, 1995.
Hon. Nancy Landon Kassebaum,
Chair, Labor and Human Resources Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Kassebaum: Thank you for the opportunity to
review the draft of your Workforce Development Act of 1995.
While we have some suggestions for improving it, we are
encouraged by the direction of the bill and support your
efforts to provide a strong foundation on which a coherent
workforce development system can be created to replace the
fragmented programs we have today.
As you know, Governors have sought in recent years to
create unified workforce development systems through such
mechanisms as Human Resource Investment Councils, unified
performance management systems, and ``one-stop'' or ``no wrong
door'' service delivery. Federal laws and regulations, however,
have frequently stood in the way of these efforts by
fragmenting authority for workforce programs and creating
conflicting program goals, eligibility, and reporting
requirements.
We believe that the Workforce Development Act as currently
drafted would give an enormous boost to state efforts in this
area by dramatically streamlining federal workforce development
aid. Governors especially support the bill's emphasis on
accountability for outcomes, rather than process; private
sector involvement; and state flexibility to design the state
system and set goals for it. We also commend you for including
in your proposal vocational and adult education funds. The
School-to-Work Act has enabled states to start integrating this
program more closely with the rest of the workforce development
system and your bill would allow us to take these efforts one
step further.
While we are pleased with many aspects of the draft bill,
we do have two key recommendations that we believe should be
included to permit states to successfully implement this
program.
Provide adequate funding that can be spent flexibly. The
Governors believe that consolidation of the federal employment
and training programs should be an opportunity to provide
states with needed flexibility and not as a primary means to
reduce the federal deficit. We urge you to recognize that
current programs serve only a small fraction of their target
populations. While an integrated system will result in more
efficient delivery of services, those administrative savings
should not be overstated. The task of integration itself, as
you know, entails significant up-front costs to retrain and
relocate staff and retool computer systems. With these concerns
in mind, we also urge you to consider designating a portion of
national reserve funds for transitional assistance for states
that have not yet implemented statewide school-to-work and one-
stop systems.
In the context of reduced funding, it is imperative that
states have the flexibility to design and deliver services and
to determine how best to allocate funds. Your draft bill
generally gives states this flexibility.
The bill would also give states the flexibility to use
vouchers to deliver services and permits states to design one-
stop systems. We particularly appreciate the latitude your bill
gives to states to determine substate funding allocations and
funding for specific populations. We believe that this
flexibility is critical to creating successful systems and hope
that you will resist efforts to make the bill more prescriptive
as it moves forward.
Finally, with respect to the inclusion of FUTA funds in
your proposal, we support the continued dedication of these
funds to labor exchange and labor market information
activities. We also suggest that the bill explicitly link these
FUTA-funded activities to the unemployment insurance systems.
We also agree with your decision to leave the existing
vocational rehabilitation system intact at the federal level
while enacting needed reforms to it.
Create a single state system through a single, integrated
plan. Governors believe that the best way to achieve an
integrated system is through a single, integrated state plan
for workforce development and a single funding stream. We are
strongly opposed to the 25 percent set-aside in the bill and
look forward to working with you to address this issue. This
plan should be written by a state workforce development
partnership that includes the private sector, key state
agencies, and local representation, as your bill proposes for
the ``flex account'' funds. The plan should be submitted by the
Governor. Your bill recognizes the importance of a single
entity having oversight responsibilities at the federal level;
we believe this is equally important at the state level.
We thank you for the opportunity to review the bill and
look forward to working with you to preserve its essential
components of state flexibility and clear accountability. We
appreciate your many years of leadership on this issue and look
forward to working with you on the legislation.
Sincerely,
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.,
Chair.
Governor Tommy G. Thompson,
Vice Chair.
Governor Mel Carnahan,
Chair, Human Resources
Committee.
Governor Arne H. Carlson,
Vice Chair, Human Resources
Committee.
