WASHINGTON, D.C. —U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.VA.) today sent a letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting that GAO review the major federal government economic adjustment programs and identify options for a more comprehensive policy response.

"Over the last half century, the United States has established economic adjustment programs to respond to the needs of workers, companies, and communities impacted by specific external forces such as trade agreements, defense policy changes, or energy policy changes," said Senators Coons and Capito. "These targeted programs have widely varying eligibility, benefits, funding levels, and approaches to solve the specific problems identified...Most importantly, their narrow targeting excludes millions of Americans impacted by powerful economic forces such as emerging technologies and materials, disruptive business models, or globalization. The result is a patchwork system of fragmented programs and resources that do not adequately meet the needs of our rapidly and consistently changing economy.  We are interested in a comprehensive review of these programs...." 

In order to better understand the current situation, the Senators requested that GAO: identify lessons learned from existing programs; understand program effectiveness across the different programs; define options for more comprehensive coverage; and identify effective collaboration practices and incentives, gaps in services, and other policy improvements. 

Read the full text of the letter below:

March 28, 2017

The Honorable Gene Dodaro

Comptroller General

Government Accountability Office

441 G Street, NW

Washington, DC 20548

Dear Comptroller General Dodaro,

We write to request that GAO review the major federal government economic adjustment programs and identify options for a more comprehensive policy response.

Over the last half century, the United States has established economic adjustment programs to respond to the needs of workers, companies, and communities impacted by specific external forces such as trade agreements (Trade Adjustment Assistance); defense policy changes (Defense Industry Adjustment); or energy policy changes (the POWER Initiative for the coal industry). These targeted programs have widely varying eligibility, benefits, funding levels, and approaches to solve the specific problems identified. Consequently, policy and program responsibility falls across multiple federal agencies and multiple congressional committees. For the most part, these programs provide benefits available after the effects of economic disruption are felt (e.g., plant closings or spikes in unemployment), when options available for mitigating the effects are more limited.

Most importantly, their narrow targeting excludes millions of Americans impacted by powerful economic forces such as emerging technologies and materials (e.g., robotics, composites, 3-D printing), disruptive business models (autonomous vehicles), or globalization. The result is a patchwork system of fragmented programs and resources that do not adequately meet the needs of our rapidly and consistently changing economy.

We are interested in a comprehensive review of these programs that will assist policymakers in several ways: identify lessons learned from existing programs; understand program effectiveness across the different programs; define options for more comprehensive coverage; and identify effective collaboration practices and incentives, gaps in services, and other policy improvements.

To achieve those goals, we suggest that the review start with key questions such as:

  • What are the principal federally-funded programs that currently support economic adjustment, and how do they compare in terms of eligibility, benefits, services, focus (workers, companies, or communities), and numbers served?
  • What are the application processes for these programs, and how long does it take from application to certification of eligibility and then delivery of services?
  • To what extent are these programs authorized to proactively serve the eligible targets once deemed to be  “at risk” of economic disruption or dislocation? Is there evidence demonstrating what strategies are most effective, such as layoff aversion, direct management assistance for employers, or retraining? Are there circumstances under which some strategies work better than others? 
  • What types of workers, companies, and communities are not eligible or well-served by the identified programs, such as those impacted by changes in new technologies, business models, or globalization more generally? From the review, does GAO have insights about options for designing a more comprehensive program?

We look forward to your inquiry to inform this essential discussion.

Sincerely,

Christopher Coons, U.S. Senator

Shelley Moore Capito, U.S. Senator