-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/e3130a3a625276fd54d6cf561cac1124.pdf
6d094974a0c4ac514f6a254e66ac4a60
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0469-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Michael Waldman
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
13658
FolderlD:
Folder Title:
[Reemployment Act] Reactions to Draft Employment and Training Bill
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
s
92
2
11
Position:
�EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
ROUTE SLIP
Take necessary action
•
•
Prepare reply
•
Discuss with me
•
For your information
•
See remarks below
*1
Approval or signature
Comment
TO
•
•
7^
FROM
/d",
DATE
REMARKS
•U.S. Government Printing Office: 1991 — 298-539
OMB FORM 4
Rev. Jul 91
�August 12, 1994
T > . ^ ^
Note for Steve Spinner
^ ' '
/
/
Attached please find a set of comments on the draft bill compiled from input from
the staffs of ED, DOL, HHS, OMB and the White House. We also had the benefit of
Tony Carnevale's comments to you. While we have a number of significant questions
and concerns expressed in this paper, all reviewers agree that the draft contains many
good ideas and provides an excellent starting point for serious discussions of the issues.
Wherever possible in this paper, we have suggested alternatives to the elements we
question.
In a few complex areas we indicate our desire for more extensive conversations,
and have not tried to explore in depth all the permutations of each notion here.
Once you have had a chance to go over this, we are prepared to engage in
specific discussion of each issue. We («:g., myself, Ricky and Leslie and other ED and
DOL staff, Paul Dimond) could meet as soon as late Friday (say 5:30), but if your
schedule permits, Monday would be easier on several of the group.
I've been asked to be a central point of contact for arranging further staff level
discussions. Please call me at 395-4532. My FAX is 395-4875. I should be back in the
office from meetings by 2 pm Friday. If I haven't heard by then, I'll call you.
We appreciate your efforts to date and all look forward to a close working
relationship.
7
Barry White
�REACTIONS TO DRAFT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL
August 12, 1994
These materials are a very positive beginning for the discussion of how to
advance the process of reform and streamlining of the national adult employment and
training system. We find a number of ideas to be very promising, striking the right tone
for the direction for the future. These include:
the concept of consolidation where appropriate to improve the quality of
services and outcomes and eliminate ineffective activities;
moving toward common reporting elements across comparable programs;
greatly enhancing the focus on accountability for outcomes, and proposing
new ways of acquiring the data to make the concept operational;
thinking about the issues from a systemic, rather than piecemeal, programby-program, approach;
use of the Administration's One-stop strategy.
At the outset, however, we must express our strong reservations about the draft's
proposed complex intergovernmental structures, plans, reports and grant approach. This
heavily process-oriented strategy, relying on State experimentation to devise the reformed
system, is not obviously the right way to go now. Further, it's multi-year process
(leading edge/planning grants) would constitute a very significant barrier to the important
substantive program and policy reforms the Administration is now working on for
presentation to the next Congress.
Developing our proposals for comprehensive reform with all the affected
Secretaries is of necessity, time-consuming and intensive. The President established a
NEC-DPC interagency working group on Employment, Training and Reemployment (ETR)
in March, 1994. The ETR Group is chaired by his National Economic and Domestic
Policy Advisors. It includes the Director of OMB and the Secretaries of ED, DOL, HHS,
and the Deputy Secretaries of Defense and Commerce. The Group is in the midst of an
extensive review process to enable us to develop options for comprehensive reform, and
to engage in appropriate consultations and collaborations with the Congress and with
outside groups and individuals to get needed input to the decision-making process.
We share with you the desire for a bill this session that will generate important
debate and can be enacted, but we want that bill to set the stage for reform proposals for
the next Congress, not forestall them.
Here's an example of the kind of issue we are exploring that cannot be resolved
now. We are looking at the use of voucher-like approaches (e.g., grants and loans under
title IV of HEA) to maximize individual choice and leverage in the system over the life of
an individual. In this context, income-contingent repayment, and its great mitigation of
the risk of investing in one's own education and training, changes traditional conceptions
about how to finance learning outside the workplace. It is important that the reform of
the employment and training system take these issues into account. Expanding the
�discussion to include these resources could well mean a very different system design
than could be possible under the draft's approach.
The National Workforce Development Board. The National Board structure responds to
the desire to get past bureaucratic barriers and interest group parochialism that arguably
have been part of the reason why more progress has not been made to date on system
reform. However, it effectively places Federal Government responsibilities - e.g., grant
making, approving agency plans - in the hands of non-Federal officials. Such provisions
will not pass constitutional review with respect to the appointments clause.
o
Note especially Buckley v. Valeo and subsequent Supreme Court decisions that
hold that there are core functions that must be carried out by Executive Branch
officials and cannot be carried out by entities that include members appointed by
Congress.
Even if the Constitutional concerns could somehow be dealt with, the Board's
powers would take away from the President and his Cabinet their essential
responsibilities to manage and evaluate programs and to set policies. No President can
accept that.
We do need a way - for example, through the NCEP - to get the benefits of
outside expertise, continual constructive criticism and new thinking brought to bear on
the whole system (rather than on programs one-by-one).
Action-forcing mechanisms. We accept the need for provisions that pressure the
Congress and the Executive Branch to take action. We see benefits from at least two
ideas:
o
Sunset provisions. There may be a way to accomodate the idea of sunset
provisions four or five years out for the basic authorizations (not just
authorizations of appropriations) of virtually all the programs (not just the big
ones) at issue. But there are two important caveats:
(1) the language must be crafted so that beneficiaries and their advocates do not
see this as leading to loss of benefits or diminution of Federal commitment to the
disadvantaged.
(2) it must in no way preclude proposals in the intervening period to restructure,
do away with, or redirect some or all of the programs. For example, the
Administration has already proposed radical reforms for welfare/JOBS. The sunset
needs to be a promise that action will be taken in the intervening period to
reform programs or otherwise consolidate or terminate them, not a bar to the
Government taking such actions.
�o
Call for a Proposal. The bill could call upon the President to submit to Congress
by a date certain (say March 3 1 , 1995) his legislative proposals for reform and
streamlining of the system, consistent with the purposes of the bill. We already
plan to send reform proposals.
The intergovernmental structure. The nested Federal, State and local structures, plans
and reports are extremely complex and bureaucratic sounding. They would take years to
develop well, as the "leading edge" State approach acknowledges. As noted above, this
is not necessarily the way to go.
We hope to devise clear outcome goals for all programs for all workers and
potential workers throughout their lives; firm methods and requirements for obtaining
positive results for the disadvantaged; an effective system of rewards and sanctions (with
technical assistance and other support); an appropriate mix of income support, grants and
loans; workable incentives for high quality in all aspects of the system; and greater
flexibility (e.g., waivers) for the States and for local labor market mechanisms.
If we can support and link this construct with a greatly improved capability to
know results and feed them back for continuing improvement - here, as the draft
correctly stresses, we need intensive work on the role of Ul and other data sources for
certain aspects, and data on longer term educational outcomes, jobs, career and earnings
trends - we can likely rely upon the States to figure out most of the particular processes.
The call to the President suggested above could emphasize the need for strong
roles within the system he proposes, for States, local communities, the private sector,
labor, education, and other appropriate groups.
Consolidation. We do not have a specific consolidation proposal to make right now, but
we are ready to open a discussion of options. We note that program streamlining
proposals made by the National Performance Review and affirmed in the 1995 Budget
are a good starting point.
The general concept of keeping "savings" generated by consolidations within the
employment and training arena has merit, although drafting language to accomplish this
will not be easy.
Waivers. We agree with the potential value of a waiver section, but want to see this
done in a way that does not preclude taking more direct action to reform, consolidate or
eliminate programs. That is, the opportunity for States and others to change programs
cannot become a reason to delay reform until they finish working through their waivered
program approaches. With this understanding, we are prepared to work cooperatively
with you to devise a broad waiver authority.
�Accountability and program quality. The draft's stress on accountability is very
valuable. Our experience to date in accountability systems is mixed at best. We are
exploring more effective performance standards than we have in JTPA, better ways to
make performance standards operational than appears to be happening in Perkins,
improvements in institutional gatekeeping promised by implementation of the HEA title
IV Part H program integrity system, and better ways to build quality improvement into
the system.
Perhaps most importantly, we need to include in these discussions the role of
consumer choice, the methods by which the system might screen individuals into
programs and screen institutions out, establishing meaningful program outcome goals
and ways of ensuring that the success of programs is judged by the success of individuals
against those goals. Overall, we strongly agree that we need much better, more timely
information, and the imperative to act on what it tells us about performance at all levels.
REA offers some important provisions in this matter, including requirements to
replace poor performers through a competitive process. The Welfare Reform bill also
proposes a new system of performance standards for JOBS.
LMI and the role of BLS. We agree with the need for a more effective LMI system at all
levels but we are not ready to come down on a specific statutory approach to LMI
improvements. It is not clear to us that the most important factor here is more national
level or even State data on general job openings and trends, though those are important
components.
We need to improve local job development, through the One-stop system and by
other institutional players. We need to get into the hands of individuals the key data
they need to make intelligent choices. DOL has important work underway on LMI
improvements that needs to be understood by each agency and will be shared with you.
BLS is a statistical agency, not a program oversight or management agency. Many
of the roles assigned to it in the draft are not appropriate and could not be carried out
effectively by BLS. They need to be assigned to the Departments whose program success
is tied to effective information systems.
The private sector. We have not yet seen provisions on private sector incentives or
participation. We are exploring such options, especially through examination of the
work of Commerce's business assistance centers and the research on high performance
workplaces. We need to recognize the role of learning on the job, which can be more
important than formalized classroom training. Increasingly, the "work" at jobs is
becoming a process of continuous learning.
For example, one idea that has surfaced in a variety of places is to augment, or
create a parallel to, the Baldridge award that would spotlight firms whose
�competitiveness is based on such continuous learning, and firms that use high quality
employee development strategies to advance their market success. We may also want to
find ways to help more businesses learn how to take advantage of proven approaches to
successful employee training and embedding of continuous learning in their work.
Data collection. We support the use of common reporting elements wherever
appropriate. However, it is not clear that extensive universal longitudinal reporting on
all the elements identified in the draft is necessary at all levels, nor that its burden and
costs are fully understood. We want to explore more use of survey approaches and to
be sensitive to privacy concerns. The NCEP, ED and DOL are exploring ways of using
Ul data that may provide a useful approach here to some of the issues.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Michael Waldman
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Waldman was Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting from 1995-1999. His responsibilities were writing and editing nearly 2,000 speeches, which included four State of the Union speeches and two Inaugural Addresses. From 1993 -1995 he served as Special Assistant to the President for Policy Coordination.</p>
<p>The collection generally consists of copies of speeches and speech drafts, talking points, memoranda, background material, correspondence, reports, handwritten notes, articles, clippings, and presidential schedules. A large volume of this collection was for the State of the Union speeches. Many of the speech drafts are heavily annotated with additions or deletions. There are a lot of articles and clippings in this collection.</p>
<p>Due to the size of this collection it has been divided into two segments. Use links below for access to the individual segments:<br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+1">Segment One</a><br /><a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/browse?advanced%5B0%5D%5Belement_id%5D=43&advanced%5B0%5D%5Btype%5D=is+exactly&advanced%5B0%5D%5Bterms%5D=2006-0469-F+Segment+2">Segment Two</a></p>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Michael Waldman
Office of Speechwriting
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-1999
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
Segment One contains 1071 folders in 72 boxes.
Segment Two contains 868 folders in 66 boxes.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
[Reemployment Act] Reactions to Draft Employment and Training Bill
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
Michael Waldman
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 32
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36403"> Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763296">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0469-F Segment 1
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Preservation-Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
6/3/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
7763296
42-t-7763296-20060469F-Seg1-032-017-2015