[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 10 (Monday, February 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
WHITEWATER/MADISON COUNTDOWN
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I have come to the floor on a number of
occasions, and I have said to my colleagues--and I do not intend to
take a great deal of time--that I would continue to raise an issue that
I think must be raised until the American people get, and Congress
gets, satisfactory explanations and answers as it relates to how it is
that with only 21 days left until February 28, when the statute of
limitations runs out, or at least, the RTC has led us to believe that
this is the date, there is no perceptible movement at the RTC. Anyone
responsible for the loss of possibly millions of dollars will be immune
from civil action after the 28th; after the 28th, the American people
will lose their best chance to recoup the taxpayers' money poured into
the Madison bailout.
Since this is Monday, I will cross off not only Monday, but I will
cross off Saturday, Sunday, and today.
That gives us 21 days remaining in the countdown. When time runs out,
we will lose the opportunity of seeking civil remedies against those
people who may be responsible for the loss of possibly millions of
taxpayers' dollars put into Madison.
With only 21 days to go, we still have not seen any results of the
RTC investigation of potential civil violations at the Madison.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.
Mr. D'AMATO. Certainly.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the Senator is certain that February 28 is
the date the statute of limitations would run out with regard to
Madison Guaranty.
Mr. D'AMATO. I would have to answer my colleague that I am not
certain that is the date; that while the RTC has indicated in the
letter they sent to us that February 28 is the anniversary date, and
the RTC seems to be operating on the premise that an RTC suit to take
place to recover taxpayers' money would seem to have to be initiated by
February 28, they have not explicitly indicated that to us.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if I could pursue this, Mr. President. I
understand that the Senator from New York has sent letters on two
separate occasions to the RTC inquiring specifically as to the status
of the statute of limitations.
Mr. D'AMATO. That is correct. We have sent two letters. One reply was
received last week, and the response on this question as it relates to
explicitly the statute of limitations was at best evasive.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder if the Senator will yield further. I am
familiar with the letter that he placed in the Record. I have a copy of
that letter with me today.
I took a close look at the letter and the RTC only acknowledged the
impending February 28 anniversary date, but they do not indicate that
is absolutely the last date. Further, in the second paragraph of that
letter, with regard to claims existing, the RTC indicates they will
``vigorously pursue all appropriate remedies using standard procedures
in such cases which could include the seeking of agreements to extend
the toll on the statute of limitations.''
But I would emphasize they use the words ``which could.'' They do not
specifically state that they will.
I wonder if there is any explanation for that.
Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator has put his finger exactly on the point.
We talk about obfuscation. We cannot get and have not gotten--and it
is now close to a month--from the RTC an answer as to exactly when the
RTC can no longer bring civil litigation in this case. The RTC letter
talks about an anniversary date of February 28. That does not tell us
that is the date. We do not know specifically whether or not that is
the date. I share the Senator's curiosity as to what they mean when
they talk about that particular date.
Then they talk to us about procedures that have been used in the
past--the use of the tolling of statutes of limitations, entering into
agreements with people who face potential liability -- but they do not
indicate that they are seeking these tolling agreements. They do not
indicate that in lieu of getting a tolling agreement they will bring
civil action.
Here we have 21 days to go, and we have no indication other than they
understand that there is a procedure and this procedure has been used.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. With regard to that and the relevance of the
anniversary date to the RTC law enforcement responsibilities, one can
only assume it would relate to a determination that the RTC should make
with respect to entering into these tolling agreements, the stopping of
the running of the statute.
In their letter to you, the RTC says it will pursue all appropriate
remedies using standard procedures which they say could include seeking
arrangements to toll the statute of limitations.
I ask the Senator, is it correct that the RTC has made no commitments
to toll the statute of limitations with regard to Madison?
Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator is absolutely correct. They have not made
any commitments. They have only indicated that in the past this has
been standard procedure. What basically we are saying is, give us the
assurance that you are going to get this tolling agreement that stops
the statute of limitations from running out.
People should understand why they do this. Because, in lieu of
someone agreeing to give them sufficient time to explore all of the
facts, they then bring a broad-based suit against all potential people
who may be liable. In this way, they preserve the taxpayers' rights.
By the way, I might say that this goes back to an original letter of
January 11 when I and several of our colleagues wrote to the RTC
suggesting that tolling agreements should be sought in this matter, and
they have yet to inform us that they are going to take the time.
Now this is obfuscation. It only was after Senator Riegle loaned
himself to this that at least we got the answer that you read part of
in the letter of January 25.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wonder, in the case of where the RTC would fail to
enter into a tolling agreement before the 28th of February, are there
any other remedies available to the American taxpayer, assuming the RTC
fails to file a lawsuit?
Mr. D'AMATO. In the absence of a tolling agreement or lawsuit, the
RTC and the American people would lose the opportunity to recover
taxpayers' money that it might be entitled to in the Madison bailout.
And, I think it is fair to assume that would be a pretty bleak picture
to spell out to the American taxpayers, given that we are talking about
people in high positions that this might touch upon. It could even have
been said they have been given a free ride at the expense of the
American taxpayers.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Currently the taxpayers are subjected to about $47
million to the Madison bailout; is that generally the Senator's
understanding?
Mr. D'AMATO. That is approximately the bottom line; the Senator is
correct, $47 million, at the low end. It might be more.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. We have heard this is far from the largest S&L bailout
that the taxpayers have had to pay. As we know, we have had billion-
dollar savings and loan failures and we have large cases that are still
pending. But would you not expect that the RTC would enter into tolling
agreements in all cases, uniformly, whether they involve $10 million or
$100 million or a billion of taxpayers money?
Mr. D'AMATO. The Senator is absolutely correct. As a matter of fact,
Mr. Altman, while he says it is the standard procedure, refuses, and
does not indicate that they are undertaking this action or are they
contemplate taking it.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. This is what bothers the Senator from Alaska. Why
would not the RTC want to simply extend the tolling agreement so that
they could pursue the civil action and not run the risk of having the
statute of limitations expire on February 28? I mean, I do not
understand why, since they have evidently done it as a matter of
course, they would not do it in the case of Madison.
Mr. D'AMATO. Senator Murkowski, you are absolutely correct. And it
just seems to me that it is so basic. That is why, when we come to the
floor and raise this issue, I think some of our colleagues become
uncomfortable.
I have been asked: Why is it that you have not raised this about
other S&L's? Because I have not been aware of tolling agreements that
should have been and have not been sought.
As a matter of fact, I have had complaints from scores of bankers
around the country--and I know my colleagues have--who, as a result of
being directors, part-time directors on boards--who had no malfeasance
or misfeasance but were successful business entrepreneurs and therefore
served on some of these small bank boards and found themselves in
trouble when the real estate market collapsed--find themselves the
subject of lawsuits because they had so-called deep pockets.
In the past, the RTC has been be very rigorous going after people
that had absolutely no liability but did have some money. Here we
cannot even get an answer from the RTC as to what they are doing, what
they intend to do in this case. Yet the statute is running, the clock
is ticking. This may embarrass our friends, but we are going to
continue to call it to their attention.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator has heard the allegation that this is a
political witch hunt of some consequence with regard to the S&L because
of the delicate nature of those involved. But it would seem to me
responding to what my good friend from New York, Senator D'Amato, is
attempting to do is something that is done as a matter of course with
regard to the RTC extending the tolling. The Senator from New York has
written two letters to the RTC asking them to extend the tolling and
they have given us less than a complete answer from the standpoint of a
reference to them, perhaps including agreements. But, I just cannot
understand why they are reluctant to simply say we will extend the
tolling.
Mr. D'AMATO. Or attempt to.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Or attempt to, which would certainly seem to be
appropriate in relation to past practices.
I commend the Senator from New York. I do not think this is a
politically motivated action of any kind. It is simply an action to
recognize the reality that comes the 28th of this month, it very
possibly will be too late to pursue any civil action associated with
this case because the statute of limitations would have expired. Yet,
in many of the activities associated with the administration of the
RTC, they have automatically extended the statute through the voluntary
tolling agreements which are negotiated between the RTC and the
institution or its directors.
Mr. D'AMATO. Or those people who may have some liability, that is
correct; through their attorneys. That is, all we want, is impartial
but vigorous enforcement as has been undertaken in other cases. We just
want the uniform enforcement of the laws passed to protect taxpayers.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I hope that those that might question the motivation
here recognize the significance of what the Senator from New York has
pointed out. Indeed, by the 28th of this month, it may be too late to
pursue, on behalf of the taxpayers, the approximately $47 million that
has been charged off in the bailout of the Madison.
I wonder if the Senator from New York would allow me one more
question. Who is running RTC at this time?
Mr. D'AMATO. I am glad the Senator has raised this question. Because
this really is a situation that I think is very regrettable.
The RTC is being run on interim basis--when I say interim basis, that
interim basis now has gone on for almost a year--by the Deputy Treasury
Secretary, Roger Altman.
I have to tell my colleague, the RTC's failure I think to respond to
legitimate congressional inquiries has raised bureaucratic obfuscation
and nonresponsiveness to the level of an art form. The stonewalling
starts right at the top, and it includes Mr. Altman, who has sent us
two of these letters. Maybe we should call him Stonewall Altman. That
might be a new name.
He is not only stonewalling the Senate but I would indicate to my
friend and colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, that last week,
Congressman Jim Leach, my counterpart on the House Banking Committee,
raised some very significant and serious questions about Mr. Altman's
dual role. Here is Mr. Altman who is wearing two hats. He is the Deputy
Treasury Secretary, and that is a very responsible, time consuming
position. At the same time he is the interim head of the RTC. This may
place--I believe does place--conflicting demands on him. It is unfair
to Mr. Altman. It creates an unseemly appearance at the least, in the
eyes of the American people.
Mr. Altman has been the interim CEO of the RTC for almost a whole
year. Last year when we were considering a RTC funding bill we were
told that Mr. Altman would be out of the RTC as soon as the new CEO had
been selected and confirmed. Now it is almost a year later. The one
candidate for RTC chief that they had withdrawn, and Mr. Altman is
still the head.
That is only half the story. Because, you see, Mr. Altman, as a
ranking political appointment of the administration--and he is Deputy
Secretary of the Treasury--is the No. 2 person at Treasury. He is
appointed by the President of the United States. How can you ask a man
who is appointed by the President to undertake or to pursue a vigorous
civil investigation as that may touch upon the President, the First
Lady, and other people, or family members of such people, in the
administration? It is not fair to Mr. Altman.
I do not suggest any impropriety on his part. But I suggest he is
placed in an untenable position. We cannot have a political appointee
investigating the person who appointed him, who is responsible for his
appointment. That is basic Logic 101.
Because what this does at the very least, it creates a compromising
appearance. Let me tell you something, I know Roger Altman. He is a man
of integrity. He is a man of great ability. He is a man in a very
responsible position. He cannot be running the Treasury Department and
he cannot be supervising the RTC and this investigation without there
being questions raised as to how someone can possibly be looking into
bringing a civil lawsuit, or extending toll agreements when a statute
is running, that may relate to or touch upon a person who is
responsible for appointing him and/or people close to him or his
family. It is ridiculous.
It certainly raises the issue of his ability to run an independent
agency like the RTC in a completely independent fashion that the people
are entitled to. And it is wrong. No one should be placed in such an
untenable position where an obvious conflict exists.
Just consider the possibilities. A high ranking political appointee
with close ties to the White House who also holds an official position
that may require him to possibly pursue civil legal action involving
the person who appointed him. I do not care what administration that is
in, we understand it and that is why we allow in these situations the
appointment of a special counsel.
Through circumstances, Mr. Altman is in a difficult spot. His
personal predicament aside, the taxpayers may suffer the most. At the
same time, Mr. Altman is forced to perform this high wire act the RTC
is being evasive and cryptic and it is unclear what the RTC is doing to
enforce the law. It is also unclear whether the RTC will be able to
enforce the law, if need be, before the statute of limitations runs out
and the American taxpayer is left holding the bag.
An 11-month tenure in an interim position is too long. That is how
long Mr. Altman has been there. The Constitution requires the Senate to
advise and consent on top executive officials. This is a key part of
our checks and balance system. Mr. Altman's permanent interim role at
the RTC looks like an end-run around the Senate. Again, I am not
questioning Mr. Altman's character, dedication to public service, or
ability. Indeed, I have high regard for him. But what I am questioning
is the propriety of putting any public official in such an awkward
role. There is an absolute conflict in this dual role and it is just
not right.
I therefore call upon the administration to immediately put forward
Mr. Altman's name as the candidate to be the full-time chief executive
officer of the RTC, or submit another nomination. Mr. Altman's
continued presence at the helm of the RTC is absolutely not the right
thing to do.
It is unfair to him. It is absolutely unfair.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to again commend the
Senator from New York. I think, if you boil this dialog down to one
simple thing, it is simply asking Mr. Altman as interim CEO of the
Resolution Trust Corporation to come forward and simply extend the
tolling agreement on Madison, which would extend of course the statute
of limitations. Then the process that is underway can continue, it can
be resolved to the satisfaction of the American people, and in the
interests of the taxpayers who lost $47 million.
I think, again, the Senator's efforts are to bring this before this
body and the American public, by highlighting the reality that the time
is passing and there are very few days left before the statute expires.
We are going to have the Lincoln day recess. By the time we come back
there will only be a few days left. I hope this would not be the
objective of the RTC, to simply let the statute of limitations expire
because that would appear, obviously, to be contrary to the best
interests of our administrative oversight through the RTC. But one can
only draw a conclusion because, as Senator D'Amato pointed out, they
have the authority to extend it. The question that they are not
responding to, as the Senator cited in his letter, is why they do not
extend it. If they do not, one can only conclude they hope my colleague
and others will not raise this issue, and bring it before the American
public, to show the statute of limitations is about to expire. And when
it expires, the civil investigation basically goes away, as I
understand it.
So, in conclusion I commend my colleague for bringing this matter
before this body.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Murkowski for
raising these questions. And they are important.
I note, if you take a look at the calendar, it would appear there are
21 days between now and--if the tolling date turns out to be the 28th.
But that is not really true. If we were talking about working days we
will find that we only have 4 more working days that the Senate will be
in session and Congress will be in session this week: the 8th, 9th,
10th, and 11th.
We go out of session on the 11th. We will not be back in, until the
22nd. So that gives us 5, 6, 7--8 days. So, in essence, while there are
21 calendar days between now and the time the statute of limitations
runs out, there are 8 days in which the Congress will be in session to
raise this issue and to address it.
If I had not seen a stonewalling and obfuscation before, it is
certainly here. I think the Senator is absolutely right. The RTC is
playing this game: We will just make believe it does not exist and
maybe it will go away. Maybe whoever it is who brings this to our
attention will stop. I am not going to stop.
But let us understand, my colleagues, all of us, when and if this is
allowed to take place, these 4 working days the rest of this week and
the 4 the last week, we are all--we should all be held accountable and
responsible for allowing the RTC to allow the statute of limitations to
run. I have to tell you, if he wants to run it, fine, but I do not know
how he, Mr. Altman, can be in charge of this investigation. I just do
not know how it can be done. It is wrong for him. It is wrong to place
him in that position. I do not know how you get around it. He did not
take on this position to be placed in that position.
Yet, that is exactly where he is.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Senator might give some thought to
an 8-day calendar, in reality. That is what we have, as the Senator
pointed out, with the Lincoln Day recess.
Let there be no mistake about it, there is not much time. I hope the
Resolution Trust Corporation, under Mr. Altman, will reflect on--and
the directors and those involved--the necessity of a very simple
extension which would give the assurance to the public that there will
be adequate time to do the appropriate followup, should it be
necessary, with regard to Madison Guaranty.
I thank my friend from New York.
Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator. I will add I think that the
administration should consider how to manage Mr. Altman's dual duties
at the RTC or as Deputy Treasury Secretary. I would suggest that if he
is going to run the RTC, then the administration might want to consider
whether it is apppropriate, and consult with the relevant authorities
at Treasury, to consider his move from the Treasury and undertake his
responsibilities on a full-time basis; whether this or other measures
are appropriate to ensure that the public's confidence is maintained. I
believe he should discharge his responsibilities accordingly, but you
cannot ask him to wear both hats, particularly given the sensitivity of
this particular matter.
I have talked far enough, and I thank my Senators for being so
patient and for giving me the opportunity to express my thoughts on
this matter.
I yield the floor.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I came over here prepared to discuss the
school-to-work bill. I have to say I am not prepared to discuss the
matter that has been discussed by our colleagues from Alaska and New
York. Senator Pryor has really enmeshed himself in this, and I am sure
at an appropriate time he will want to respond.
I assure those who may be viewing this session that there is another
side to this, but I am not enmeshed in this enough to be able to
respond to that.
Mr. President, if no one seeks the floor, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Riegle). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Kassebaum
amendment be set aside so that Senator Thurmond can offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1428
(Purpose: To give priority for implementation grants to applicants that
describe systems that include programs that will provide paid high-
quality, work-based learning experiences)
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to S.
1361, The School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994. The amendment will
allow for the streamlining of States' vocational and education training
systems.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be
added as cosponsors to this amendment: Senator Chafee, Senator Coats,
Senator Durenberger, and Senator Gregg.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as you know, this legislation addresses
the issue of preparing our youth to meet the challenges of a highly
skilled, highly competitive workforce. It is intended to help students
make a successful transition from school to their first job by linking
academic instruction with on-the-job experiences.
S. 1361 will be jointly administered by the Secretary of Labor and
the Secretary of Education. It will provide grants and waivers of
Federal regulations to build a national framework for State school-to-
work systems.
Mr. President, the U.S. General Accounting Office recently cited over
150 existing job training and education programs on which the Federal
Government spends over $20 billion each year. This is unreasonable. We
must encourage our States to coordinate existing programs into
statewide school-to-work systems.
My amendment will do just that, by removing the paid work mandate
from this legislation. It will thereby remove the limitations of
requiring paid work, and allow businesses more opportunities to
participate.
Unquestionably, business is essential to the success of this
legislation. However, if the paid work mandate is not removed, many
businesses will be excluded from participating under this legislation.
I also believe that the ability of States and local partnerships to
consolidate existing programs will be limited if all students in the
school-to-work system must be paid for their work.
This amendment will allow a preference to State systems which do
provide paid work experiences. This does not mean that a student must
be paid for the entire time they participate in the program. It simply
means that when a student is on the job, producing a product or
providing a real service, they may be paid for their actual work.
For example, a program which trains students during the school year,
but pays them only for summer jobs completed through the program would
still meet the requirement of the paid work experiences.
The Secretary of Education, Secretary Riley, has written a letter to
me clarifying that under this legislation ``students do not need to be
paid for all work-related activities.''
Mr. President, this amendment will allow States the flexibility
needed to include elements of other programs or to be creative in
tailoring programs to address local needs and concerns. It will allow a
State to develop a system that consolidates or coordinates the best
aspects of other existing programs.
I would like to thank the chairman of the Labor and Human Resources
Committee, Senator Kennedy, and the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Employment and Productivity, Senator Simon, and their staffs for their
hard work in addressing a number of my concerns.
Again, I believe that my amendment will allow the consolidation of a
number of Federal training programs in a State system and possibly be
more cost effective in the long run. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to
support this worthy amendment.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with
the sponsor of S. 1361, Senator Simon, to clarify the intent of the
paid work provision contained in this bill. I believe most of my
concerns will be addressed by an amendment Senator Thurmond and I have
worked out with the administration, and which the managers are prepared
to accept, dealing with paid work.
Rhode Island has one of the most successful Tech-Prep Program's
operating in the country today. The program is a partnership that
includes the Community College of Rhode Island [CCRI], 32 secondary
high schools and vocational technical facilities, and representatives
from business and industry. Currently, more than 1,400 students are
participating in the program, according to the program director, Ms.
Judy Marmaras.
The program is divided into two parts: First, a secondary level,
aimed at academic skill development, and second, a postsecondary level,
focused on advanced technical skill development. The secondary program
offers no paid work opportunities for its students. However, the
postsecondary program does have some employer paid work participation.
I might add, Director Marmaras has indicated that very few employers in
our State have the inclination or wherewithal to offer paid work
opportunities to high school students.
With the adoption of the Thurmond-Chafee amendment, I understand the
paid work requirement will be deleted from this bill. However, in
reviewing grant applications, I understand it is still the intent of
the managers that preference be given to those programs with a paid
work component.
I want to make sure Rhode Island's Tech-Prep Program, which lacks
paid work at the secondary level, will not be disadvantaged by this
preference. I am hopeful that the existence of some paid work positions
at the postsecondary level will satisfy this preference, and that Rhode
Island's Tech-Prep Program will be on an equal footing with other
applicants vying for Federal funds under this legislation.
Mr. SIMON. The Senator from Rhode Island is quite correct. Rhode
Island's Tech-Prep Program will in no way be disadvantaged by the paid
work preference contained in this legislation. CCRI's Tech-Prep Program
does have some paid work participation. Therefore, it would more than
satisfy this preference.
Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is a practical compromise that we have
worked out. The bill calls for mandated paid work.
Both the business community and the labor community have indicated
they believe paid work in this kind of situation is helpful. There are
those who question that. So this amendment has been worked out between
Senator Thurmond and some of the Republican Senators, and Senator
Kennedy and myself, and our staffs. It encourages that we have paid,
high-quality work and it gives it priority, but it does not mandate
that.
It is a practical compromise that I think makes sense and it is
acceptable on this side of the aisle.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], for
himself, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Coats, Mr. Durenberger, and Mr.
Gregg proposes an amendment numbered 1428.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 7, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
(9) encourage the development and implementation of
programs that will provide paid high-quality, work-based
learning experiences;
On page 7, line 9, strike ``(9)'' and insert ``(10)''.
On page 7, line 16, strike ``(10)'' and insert ``(11)''.
On page 7, line 20, strike ``(11)'' and insert ``(12)''.
On page 17, line 14, strike ``paid''.
On page 31, between lines 18 and 19, insert the following:
(9) describe the extent to which the School-to-Work
Opportunities system will include programs that will provide
paid high-quality, work-based learning experiences;
On page 31, line 19, strike ``(9)'' and insert ``(10)''.
On page 31, line 23, strike ``(10)'' and insert ``(11)''.
On page 32, line 5, strike ``(11)'' and insert ``(12)''.
On page 32, line 10, strike ``(12)'' and insert ``(13)''.
On page 32, line 17, strike ``(13)'' and insert ``(14)''.
On page 32, line 23, strike ``(14)'' and insert ``(15)''.
On page 33, line 3, strike ``(15)'' and insert ``(16)''.
On page 33, line 7, strike ``(16)'' and insert ``(17)''.
On page 33, line 9, strike ``(17)'' and insert ``(18)''.
On page 34, line 21, strike ``and''.
On page 35, line 2, strike ``system;'' and insert ``system;
and''.
On page 35, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(4) give priority to applications that describe systems
that include programs that will provide paid high-quality,
work-based learning experiences;
On page 38, between lines 18 and (19), insert the
following:
(D) describes the extent to which the program will provide
paid high-quality, work-based learning experiences;
On page 38, line 19, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(E)''.
On page 38, line 23, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(F)''.
On page 39, line 1, strike ``(F)'' and insert ``(G)''.
On page 44, line 13, strike ``(10)'' and insert ``(11)''.
On page 46, line 20, strike ``(10)'' and insert ``(11)''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1428) was agreed to.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. THURMOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, again I thank the able Senator from
Illinois, Senator Simon, for his fine cooperation in this matter.
Mr. SIMON. I thank Senator Thurmond. It is a pleasure to work with
him.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reid). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. I also ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment
be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1429
(Purpose: To amend the Job Training Partnership Act to encourage the
placement of youths in private-sector jobs under the Summer Youth
Employment and Training Program)
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes an
amendment numbered 1429.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the Committee amendment, add
the following:
TITLE --JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT
SEC. 1. PRIORITY FOR PLACEMENT IN PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS UNDER
SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM OF
JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT.
(a) In General.--
(1) Placement and certification.--Section 253 of the Job
Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1632) is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
(B) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection:
``(d) Placement in Private Sector Jobs.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 141(k), in
providing on-the-job training, work experience programs, and
any other employment or job training activity under this
section, a service delivery area shall give priority to
placing participants in unsubsidized employment in the
private sector.
``(2) Subsidized employment.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 141(k), a
service delivery area may place participants in subsidized
employment in the private sector.
``(B) Educational services.--Any employer that places
participants in subsidized employment in the private sector
shall establish a work schedule for the participants that
accommodates the needs of the participants to receive
educational services identified in the service strategy of
the participants under section 253(c)(2).
``(3) Assurance.--An employer who desires to place
participants in employment in the private sector through a
program carried out under this part within a service delivery
area shall provide an assurance to the administrative entity
serving the area that the employer--
``(A) will employ the participants for the duration of the
program carried out under this part; and
``(B) will not terminate the employment of such
participants prior to the end of such program, other than for
cause.
``(4) Special rule.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to require a service delivery area to place
participants in subsidized employment in the private sector.
``(5) Wages.--In making funds available under this part to
private for-profit employers to pay for the wages of
participants placed in subsidized employment by such
employers under this part, no service delivery area may use
funds made available under this part to contribute more than
an amount equal to the product of--
``(A) 40 percent of the applicable minimum wage under
section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 206);
and
``(B) the number of such participants, toward such
wages.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Paragraphs (37) and (39) of
section 4 of the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C.
1503) are amended by striking ``section 253(d)'' and
inserting ``section 253(e)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections (a)
and (b) shall take effect as if included in the Job Training
Reform Amendments of 1992.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, over the course of the last 20 or 25
years, this Nation and each administration has made significant
investments in more than 150 Federal job training programs. Each of
these programs to a greater or lesser extent, have attempted to prepare
America's young people for work, primarily, though of course not
exclusively, in the private sector.
This School-to-Work Opportunities Act is another in this series. Its
goals, of course, are overwhelmingly worthy in that connection. But
like most of those which have preceded it, it is primarily focused at
finding jobs for young people about to leave school, or just having
left school, in the private sector of our economy.
The proposed amendment that I have at the desk at the present time
deals with one of these other 150 programs which are already on the
books. The Summer Youth Employment and Training Program also attempts
to get young people prepared for a job in the real world, a job after
they have completed their schools. Every summer, provides jobs for
young people all across the United States of America.
However, this Summer Youth Employment and Training Program is
oriented exclusively at this point to the nonprofit and public sectors.
The jobs in that program are funded entirely by the Federal Government,
and they are jobs or positions in the public sector or in the private,
not-for-profit sector. According to Family Circle magazine, a young
Bill Clinton once had a job in a similar Government program. After a
few weeks of what he called make work, he sent his paycheck back to the
Government. Like thousands of other young people employed in Government
programs every summer, he did not feel that he had earned his money
just by showing up, just by hanging out at a job site. This has been a
current dissatisfaction and criticism about the Summer Youth Employment
and Training Program almost from its inception.
The amendment which I have before the desk attempts to make that
summer youth program more consistent with the very program which is
before us at the present time by changing at least some of the emphasis
on the summer youth jobs program from the public and nonprofit sector
to the private sector. After all, when the great majority of the young
people of the United States ultimately reach a full-time job, they are
at work for the private sector.
In this case, what we should do is to expand the authority of the
very hardworking men and women who manage each of the local service
delivery areas, or SDA's, who run this summer program, and to allow
them and encourage them to reach out far more to the private sector to
find summer positions for the young people that their program is
designed to help.
I have a letter here dated last May in response to the original bill
on which this amendment is based, from the Bridge Program for Youth and
Community in my own home city of Seattle, WA, which asks for exactly
that kind of increased authority.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the
Record at this point.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
The Bridge Program,
Seattle, WA, May 26, 1993.
Hon. Slade Gorton,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Gorton: I take this opportunity to wish you
much luck and success in passing the Youth Job Opportunities
through Business (JOBS) Act which will amend the summer youth
employment and training program to give priority to placing
participants in private sector jobs. This timely amendment is
extremely important for the youth of America. In these
changing and unsettling times for youth, it is refreshing to
see your foresight and vision for this often under-
represented population.
The creation of a system that will give priority to placing
youths in private sector jobs where private-industry trade,
skills and knowledge can be learned, modeled, and integrated
into the community and the ability to service more youth
because the private sector has been opened up and creates new
job opportunities, will enable America's youth to dream again
and reach for higher goals.
The Youth Job Opportunities through Business (JOBS) Act,
when applied properly, will eliminate virtual makeshift and
dead-end positions that have offered little to no success or
positive outcomes for youth whom we are caregivers of in our
communities.
I applaud you for taking a stance on behalf of the Youth of
America.
Sincerely,
F. Edwin Woodley,
Executive Director.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, in order to get the private sector into
this summer youth jobs program, it seems to us to be very, very
important that there be an encouragement for them to do so. After all,
the private sector can and does employ young people at summer jobs
without any intervention from the Federal Government. When it begins to
deal with the Federal program, many private-sector employers, rightly
or wrongly--rightly, in the view of this Senator--feel they are simply
involved in another bureaucratic exercise. What we would like to have
them do, however, is to provide more employment to more young people.
So in addition to expanding the proposal from the public and
nonprofit sectors to the profitmaking private sector, the gist of this
amendment is to allow each service delivery area's officials to make a
determination as to whether or not to provide a subsidy out of the
amount of money appropriated to it, out of its share of the overall
pot, to subsidize private-sector employment.
We put a cap of 40 percent on that subsidy. But even if every dollar
in a particular service delivery area were to be devoted to private-
sector, subsidized employment, we would have a situation in which only
40 percent of the salaries would be paid by the service delivery area
and 60 percent by the private sector itself. In other words, we could
probably supply 2 to 2\1/2\ times more summer employment for youth than
the summer youth program does at the present time.
It is highly doubtful that the officials of any service delivery area
would go to that extreme. But it seems to me, Mr. President, that we
should be able to trust the very people to whom we have entrusted the
management of these Federal dollars to determine how they can maximize
summer youth employment by providing some degree of subsidy to private
employers who agree to take part in exactly that summer youth
employment.
If we believe in the genius of our people, if we believe in the
goodwill of both the professional employees and the volunteers from
both the public and private sector who attempt to improve the condition
and the training of our young people, we should certainly be willing to
trust them with the ability to provide this type of subsidy.
Yes, of course, there will be some employers who will use subsidized
employment in the place of unsubsidized employment which they provide
at the present time. But by its very definition, by the limitation on
this employment subsidy, there is little question but that it will end
up with greater total employment of youths, that more young people will
actually be employed in this summer youth program if we expand it to
the private sector in this fashion than is the case with that very
program at the present time.
Mr. President, equally important, perhaps more important, is the fact
that the experience that young people will get in the private sector,
where 60 percent of their salaries are going to be paid by the private
sector, will be a far more meaningful work experience than will be one
in which they are paid entirely by the Government, where they are free,
for example, to a nonprofit organization or free to a Government entity
to whom they are assigned.
I wish to repeat, Mr. President, the work experience will be an
infinitely more realistic and better one. It will be infinitely more
likely to produce a permanent full-time job after the particular youth
who has done a good job has finished his or her schooling. Even when it
does not, it will have been a job in the sector and under the
discipline in which the great majority of these young people will
eventually find themselves--the private sector.
As a consequence, Mr. President, I find it, I suppose, understandable
but somewhat frustrating that this kind of expansion of the summer
youth jobs program is not welcomed.
What we want to do is to see to it, first, that more young people
have this kind of summer employment and, second, that a very
significant number of them have it in the private sector in a job which
they would otherwise not have taken.
This amendment, while to a different program than the one that we are
discussing here, is directly and completely consistent with it because
the idea of the very discussion that we are having right here now is to
prepare young people for the transition from school to work. Nothing
can prepare them better than to have a private sector job at some point
or another during their school career.
This transforms a program which at the present time is aimed away
from the private sector to one in which the private sector is one,
though not the only alternative.
I commend the idea of the kind of discipline and real-world
opportunity which this amendment will create to my colleagues.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an
article entitled ``Better Life Lies Across `Bridge'.''
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Better Life Lies Across ``Bridge''
(By Michael Paulson)
Saying that most alternative schools are failing to help
teen-agers face life after graduation, a group of community
activists today is unveiling a new program aimed at getting
troubled teen-agers past school and into the work force.
Founders of The Bridge Program, a private, nonprofit,
alternative school supported by the Seattle School District,
argue that a degree is no longer enough of an incentive to
keep some teen-agers off the streets and away from the drug
trade.
So their program is supplementing academics with what it
calls socialization, a crash course on how to behave in the
world of decent-paying jobs
``This is a curriculum that empowers people with the skills
to survive society,'' says the program's founder, Edwin
Woodley. ``You can't entice anybody to quit selling drugs to
get a $4.25-an-hour job.''
The program opened with three students at the Rotary Boys
and Girls Club six weeks ago.
Today, as leaders prepare to move the school and its 120
students to the Columbia City area, the program will be
described at a luncheon for political and business leaders.
The Bridge Program is voluntary, and recruiters promote the
program to teen-agers who have fallen through the school
system's cracks.
Of the program's 120 enrolled students, 60 to 70 show up
most days.
``The system has forgotten these kids. They have been
labeled failures,'' says program assistant Kurt von Fuchs.
``The fact that we have 60 kids showing up shows we can
succeed.''
The program's $1.3 million budget this year is being
supported by the Seattle School District, the state offices
of Income Assistance and Support Enforcement, and private
contributors.
It is one of 11 programs supported by the school district's
Interagency Program department, which serves high-risk
students who have or are likely to drop out or get kicked out
of school.
No one is sure how many school-age youngsters are on the
streets of Seattle, but estimates run as high as 5,000.
``It makes good economic sense for government to pay us to
socialize these kids, rather than keeping them in the cycle
of poverty and dependence,'' von Fuchs says, ``We teach
personal responsibility, and the state in the long run is
saving a lot of money.''
The program, intended to last six to 18 months per student,
will attempt to steer 13- to 16-year old students back to
school. Older students, ages 17 to 25, will work toward a
general equivalency degree and a job.
To program will offer work-ships on resume writing and job
seeking. Eligible students will be given job-training
internships and paired with a mentor. Ultimately, the program
plans to help students find work.
In addition to its three teachers, the program employs 10
``facilitators'' who work on socializing the students.
Topics discussed with the students range from the cost of
having a baby to working one's way through the welfare
system, and include more mundane things like controlling
anger and using appropriate language, according to
facilitator Kim Gordon.
Students sign a no-weapons, no-drugs pledge and are
forbidden from displaying any gang symbols in schools.
``We teach them that they have to make it in the work
system or the welfare system or the penal system,'' says
Kevin Preston-Curvey, deputy program director.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, my friend, the distinguished Senator from
Illinois, had roughly five reasons which he outlined with some
eloquence on which he based his opposition to this amendment.
I would simply like to explain, both for him and for Members not
present as they read the Record and before they vote on these
amendments, that each of these objections is one that we have
considered and one which we do not feel to be valid enough to cause the
rejection of the amendment itself.
It is, of course, true, and it is a strength of the bill which is
before us, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, that it is
concentrated on finding opportunities for young people in
apprenticeship-type or like opportunities in private sector employment.
That is a strength of the bill which is before us at the present time.
It is also true that it is supported by a very significant number of
large businesses. The Senator from Illinois mentioned Sears. I think he
mentioned two or three other large businesses which had endorsed his
proposal. That would seem to me to strengthen the argument that we make
the summer youth employment and training program more like the program
that the Senator from Illinois has expounded upon with such eloquence;
that we shift the priorities in the summer youth employment and
training program away from the public and nonprofit sector to having a
priority--though not an exclusive dedication--toward finding
opportunities in the private sector itself. That will make it more like
but not identical to the very subject of the bill which is before us.
This is a summer youth program. It is not something which is going to
lead immediately to an instant job opportunity. It is something which
has a social value, in giving something of importance to young people
while they are on summer vacations. And we want these experiences, as
frequently as is reasonably possible, to be in the private sector
itself. It is much more aimed, not at the Sears and the U.S. Wests of
this world. Offhand I do not know why the officials of the service
delivery area would want to subsidize jobs with huge corporations like
that. No, this is aimed at the corner mechanic, or the individual small
drug store or pharmacy, the small neighborhood book store, the very
small employer who is most likely to go through the summer without
hiring that teenager or that high school student.
This is where we think the focus of the service delivery area
officials should be. It is in this area that the incentive of a modest
subsidy is most likely to work.
The distinguished Senator from Illinois was just saying these
subsidies should not be given to large corporations. My response is it
is very difficult for me to imagine the officials in a service delivery
area doing so. This is for that small business opportunity, which in
all probability is going to be the most frequent employer of these
young people when they get out of school, in any event. Of course the
large corporations of the world should deal in issues like this on an
unsubsidized basis. But if we can get more bang for our buck if a small
subsidy will hire two or three people where the full subsidy to the
nonprofit or the Government agency will hire only one, should we not
take advantage of that? And should we not finally be willing to trust
the people we ask to administer these programs? Are they just
horrendously irresponsible? If we tell them they can provide this
modest subsidy, are they automatically going to misuse it? No, that
just, simply is not the case.
The second objection of the Senator from Illinois, this is like the
targeted jobs tax credit which may very well be repealed at some time
in the near future. Again, I think it has two profound distinctions.
One is the targeted jobs credit was after the fact. It was something
you got after you had already hired a new employee, probably on a more
or less permanent basis. This is prospective; this is a subsidy which
is only going to be given by local officials in a local service
delivery area when they think it will actually add to the job
experience of the young people with whom it is concerned. And,
obviously, it is only for a very short period of time because it is
just simply a summer jobs program itself. It is aimed at the smaller
employers, and it is prospective rather than retrospective.
Equity? It seems to me there is an overwhelming degree of equity in a
program which is locally administered and in which each case, each
attempt to find a job or each attempt to subsidize a job is going to be
determined on its own merit. Will there be, if a million youths or 2
million youths are benefited in a given summer, will there be some
handful of those who may displace someone who would have had a
nonsubsidized job? Of course there will, in a handful of cases.
But as I have already said, at the maximum, a 40 percent subsidy
would produce 2\1/2\ jobs for every 100 percent subsidy which we are
providing right now--right now to government agencies, to park
districts, to nonprofits. We are providing a 100 percent subsidy.
Do they not displace some jobs which would otherwise be given by
those nonprofits in the summer? Of course they do. But this way we get
more young people hired and we will get more young people far more--
perhaps numbered in the millions--hired if we allow this modest and
discretionary subsidy. It is not required. No service delivery area
whose officials think it will not work in their service delivery area
has to give it at all. It is simply trusting in the officials in each
one of these to do it and to do it right.
I quoted one from Seattle which would love to have this opportunity,
which feels this opportunity would provide not only a good experience
but would provide that experience to more.
Finally, we are told there have been no hearings on this proposal.
This Senator introduced the proposal almost a year ago. It has not had
the priority in the committee. I am not criticizing the committee for
that myself. But we did discuss it here last year in connection with
the budget debate. Why not take a chance? If we should pass it as a
part of this bill, it will be scrutinized with great care between now
and the time at which a conference committee comes back with a final
version. There will be plenty of time to hold hearings on this idea.
But when we have come up with something that one, I think the people in
the field, who deal day in and day out with youth employment are
concerned with, and would like to utilize; and second, brings the
summer youth program to a point at which it is more consistent with the
very bill we are dealing with here today; then, I think we are offering
greater numbers of our young people a more realistic experience. An
experience much more likely to lead to permanent jobs. One which works
very well in the small business sector with the bill itself. And, one
which almost by its very nature is largely going to affect the big
business sector.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like at this point to address the
amendment offered by my friend from Washington, who is a solid
substantial Member of this body. But once in a while he can go astray,
just like once in a while Paul Simon can go astray, or even Senators
from Vermont or Nevada or other places can go astray.
First of all, I agree with the Senator from Washington that we have
had too many programs. The 154 figure he used includes the guaranteed
student loan programs and a lot of others that I do not think really
fit into this measure. But I join Senator Kennedy. The two of us asked
for a GAO report on this very question. We received a report the last
day of January and we will hold hearings next month on this question.
I might add that in the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, on which
he and I serve, I introduced an amendment that permits, on Indian
reservations, a consolidation of this program as of October 1. That is
now the law. We will have at least the opportunity for some
experimentation in consolidation of some of the programs.
But there are serious flaws in this amendment. First of all, it
undercuts the ability to have unsubsidized employment programs under
this.
It is very interesting, the chamber of commerce supports this bill
right now as does the National Manufacturers Association. They are not
asking for this subsidy. I do not think we ought to provide it.
Second, while $300 million as an authorization sounds like a lot of
money, when you start spreading it out over the Nation it starts
getting pretty, pretty thin, and this thins it out some more. I think
it does not make sense.
It would supplant funds that the private sector is now using, and we
have had testimony on this where they are very enthusiastic. We have
heard from the Chicago Tribune and Sears, and I do not know how many
companies who are saying this kind of a program really makes sense.
It is almost like the targeted jobs tax credit. Interestingly, the
inspector general of the Department of Labor has recommended that we do
away with that, that it is really not producing jobs.
It also raises serious questions of equity. Which company do we give
this subsidy to and which company do we not give this subsidy to?
As long as this is a program where we encourage all companies, all
businesses and labor unions to work together with schools to provide
this opportunity, we can go ahead. But as soon as the Federal
Government, through the States and other governmental entities, start
picking, ``This company will get a subsidy; that company will not get a
subsidy,'' we are getting on very, very thin ice.
Two other points. One is, this language does not prohibit
displacements. I think that is a major flaw in this amendment. I am not
suggesting there would be massive displacements, but I think that is a
flaw.
And, finally--and this is something we are guilty of on this floor
day after day after day, and I have been guilty of it too--too often we
come up with amendments on which there have been no hearings
whatsoever. We have a good idea, and sometimes these good ideas are
worthy without having hearings, without studying carefully, but too
often they are flawed.
My colleague from Washington comes up with many good ideas. This time
he has come up with a flawed idea. I will have to resist this
amendment.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order previously entered, the vote
will be held tomorrow.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1430
(Purpose: To limit the amount of funds authorized to be appropriated to
carry out School-to-Work Opportunities programs)
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an
amendment numbered 1430.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Beginning in page 67, line 6 strike ``such sums as may be
necessary for each of the 7 succeeding fiscal years to carry
out this Act.'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$308,000,000 for
fiscal year 1996; $316,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
$324,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and $341,000,000 for
fiscal year 1999.''
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple, and I wish
to thank my friend and colleague from Illinois for allowing me to
introduce it prior to the 6 o'clock deadline. I also wish to compliment
my friend, Senator Gorton, for his speech and for his amendment as
well. I will be very brief, and my amendment is very plain.
Mr. President, the legislation that we have before us authorizes $300
million in the first fiscal year 1995 and then such sums as necessary
for the outyears.
My amendment conforms to the same amount that CBO has scored the
bill. They have scored the bill as $300 million but increasing each
year with inflation.
That is exactly what my amendment would do. It would replace such
sums as necessary for the second, third, fourth, and fifth years of the
program with specific amounts that limit the authorization to $300
million plus inflation for the fourth through the fifth years.
We would eliminate such sums as necessary, because I think most of my
colleagues are aware if we authorize legislation in that blank check
manner there is no limit to how much it might cost.
Again, I wish to place a cap or limit so we will know how much this
program might cost over the next several years. I have used the CBO
scoring as they have estimated how much this cost would be, and I hope
that my colleagues would occur.
I thank my friend and colleague from Illinois for his consideration
in permitting me to offer this amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who now yields time?
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I yield myself time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Nickles
amendment be temporarily set aside so that I may offer an amendment in
behalf of Senator Kennedy and myself. I believe it is noncontroversial.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The prior amendment is set aside.
Amendment No. 1431
(Purpose: To encourage grants to partnerships serving high poverty
areas)
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], for Mr. Kennedy, for
himself and Mr. Simon, proposes an amendment numbered 1431.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 45, line 9, after the word ``authorized'', insert
the following: ``and encouraged''.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set that
amendment aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1427, as Modified
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I offer on behalf of Senator Pressler, a
modification of his earlier amendment that was adopted. I believe there
was no controversy on that. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
So the amendment (No. 1427), as modified, is as follows:
At the end of section 202, add the following:
(d) Grants to Consortia.--
(1) In general.--The Secretaries may make grants under
subsection (a) to consortia of congressional districts with
low population densities, to enable each such consortium to
complete development of comprehensive, consortiawide School-
to-Work Opportunities systems. Each such system shall be
implemented by individuals selected by the States in which
the system is located. Each such system shall meet the
requirements of this Act for such a system, except as
otherwise provided in this subsection.
(2) Amount.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, the amount of a development grant under this
subtitle to a consortium shall be in such amount as the
Secretaries may determine to be appropriate.
(3) Application.--For purposes of the application of this
subtitle to a consortium:
(A) Governor.--References to a Governor shall be deemed to
be references to an official designated by the consortium to
carry out the duties of a Governor under this subtitle.
(B) State.--References to a State shall be deemed to be
references to the consortium.
(C) Official.--References to an official of a State shall
be deemed to be references to such an official of any of the
States in which the consortium is located.
(4) Ability of state to carry out program.--Nothing in this
subsection shall limit the ability of a State to carry out a
statewide School-to-Work Opportunities system in the State,
even if a congressional district located in the State
participates in a consortium under paragraph (1).
(5) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term
``consortia of congressional districts with low population
densities'' means a consortia of congressional districts,
each congressional district of which has an average
population density of less than 20.00 persons per square
mile, based on 1993 data from the Bureau of the Census.
At the end of section 212, add the following:
(i) Grants to Consortia.--
(1) In general.--The Secretaries may make grants under
subsection (a) to consortia of congressional districts with
low population densities, to enable each such consortium to
implement comprehensive, consortiawide School-to-Work
Opportunities systems. Each such system shall be implemented
by individuals selected by the States in which the system is
located. Each such system shall meet the requirements of this
Act for such a system, except as otherwise provided in this
subsection.
(2) Amount.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, the amount of an implementation grant under this
subtitle to a consortium shall be in such amount as the
Secretaries may determine to be appropriate.
(3) Application.--For purposes of the application of this
subtitle to a consortium:
(A) Governor.--References to a Governor shall be deemed to
be references to an official designated by the consortium to
carry out the duties of a Governor under this subtitle.
(B) State.--References to a State shall be deemed to be
references to the consortium.
(C) Official.--References to an official of a State shall
be deemed to be references to such an official of any of the
States in which the consortium is located.
(4) Waivers.--In order for a consortium that receives a
grant under this section to receive a waiver under title V
with respect to a congressional district located within a
State, the State and officials of the State shall comply with
the applicable requirements of title V for such a waiver.
(5) Ability of state to carry out program.--Nothing in this
subsection shall limit the ability of a State to carry out a
statewide School-to-Work Opportunities system in the State,
even if a congressional district located in the State
participates in a consortium under paragraph (1).
(6) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term
``consortia of congressional districts with low population
densities'' means a consortia of congressional district, each
congressional district of which has an average population
density of less than 20.00 persons per square mile, based on
1993 data from the Bureau of the Census.
In section 301(2), insert ``, and to implement such
programs in congressional districts with low population
densities,'' after ``in high poverty areas of urban and rural
communities''.
In section 301(2), insert ``or in congressional districts
with low population densities'' after ``designated high
poverty areas''.
In section 303, strike the title and insert the following:
``SEC. 303. SCHOOL-TO-WORK OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM GRANTS IN
HIGH POVERTY AREAS AND IN CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICTS WITH LOW POPULATION DENSITIES.''
In section 303(a)(1), insert ``and to partnerships to
implement such programs in congressional districts with low
population densities'' after ``in high poverty areas''.
In section 303(a)(2), strike ``Definition.--'' and insert
``High poverty area.--''.
At the end of section 303(a), add the following:
``(3) Congressional district with a low population
density.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
`congressional district with a low population density' means
a congressional district with an average population density
of less than 20.00 persons per square mile, based on 1993
data from the Bureau of the Census.''.
In section 507(b), strike ``High Poverty Areas.--'' and
insert ``High Poverty Areas and Congressional Districts With
Low Population Densities.--''.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Kennedy,
I, and I am not sure who all may be involved--Senator Jeffords and
others may be involved--but we are trying to negotiate and get the
Nickles amendment worked out. I hope by tomorrow we can have such an
agreement. We will try.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Amendment No. 1432
(Purpose: To forbid appropriations under this Act for school-to-work
opportunities programs until the deficit increase resulting from fiscal
year 1994 emergency spending is eliminated)
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of Senator Coverdell and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator ask to have the amendment
pending set aside?
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be
temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] for Mr. Coverdell
proposes an amendment numbered 1432.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in title V, insert the following
new section:
SEC. . DELAY OF SPENDING FOR SCHOOL-TO-WORK OPPORTUNITIES
PROGRAMS UNTIL FISCAL YEAR 1994 EMERGENCY
DEFICIT INCREASE IS ELIMINATED.
(a) Prohibition on Appropriations.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this Act, Congress shall not appropriate
funds under section 507 until the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget certifies that the total amount of
deficit increase for fiscal year 1994 resulting from budget
authority contained in supplemental appropriations Acts and
declared to be emergency spending under section
251(b)(2)(D)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(D)(i)) has been
eliminated through rescissions and transfers of funds.
(b) Prohibition on Obligation.--Nothwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, no funds that were appropriated for a
program under this Act prior to the date of enactment of this
Act shall be obligated for the program until the date of the
certification described in subsection (a).
(c) Enforcement.--
(1) Point of order.--Prior to the date of the certification
described in subsection (a), it shall not be in order in the
Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment,
motion, or conference report providing appropriations under
section 507.
(2) Waiver or suspension.--Paragraph (1) may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of
three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. It is my understanding that the Senator from Georgia
is working with the majority leadership on this amendment and he will
withdraw this amendment if his concerns are worked out. But since we do
face a 6 o'clock deadline, I thought it was very important that the
amendment be offered.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, that is my understanding, too. I thought
for a moment we were trying to move ahead without getting something
worked out. But I am pleased that we are moving ahead on this basis.
Amendment No. 1433
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding a limitation on
the amount of funds appropriated to carry out School-to-Work
Opportunities programs)
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be set aside and I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of Senator Dole and Senator Nickles.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendment is set aside.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] for Mr. Dole, for
herself, and Mr. Nickles, proposes an amendment No. 1433.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in title V, insert the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE.
It is the sense of the Senate that the Congress should fund
programs under this Act, for fiscal years 1996 through 2002,
solely from the savings resulting from efforts of the
Department of Labor, the Department of Education, and other
Federal agencies, to eliminate, consolidate, or streamline,
duplicative or ineffective education or job training programs
in existence on the date of enactment of this Act.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. This is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution regarding
job training funds.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, again, negotiations are taking place on
this amendment. I think we are going to get something worked out, but
we are not ready at this point to accept it on this side.
amendment no. 1424, as modified
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify
amendment No. 1424. This is my own amendment. I send the modification
to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 1424), as modified, reads as follows:
Insert after section 504 the following new section:
SEC. 504A. COMBINATION OF FEDERAL FUNDS BY STATES.
(a) In General.--
(1) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are--
(A) to integrate activities under this Act with State
school-to-work transition activities carried out under other
programs; and
(B) to maximize the effective use of resources.
(2) Combination of funds.--To carry out such purposes, a
State that receives assistance under title II may carry out
activities necessary to develop and implement a statewide
School-to-Work Opportunities system with funds obtained by
combining--
(A) Federal funds under this Act; and
(B) other Federal funds made available from among programs
under--
(i) the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
Act, section 201; and
(ii) the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.).
(b) Use of Funds.--A State may use (or ``the State portion
of'') the Federal funds combined under subsection (a) under
the requirements of this Act, except that the provisions
relating to the matters specified in section 502(c), and
section 503(c), 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.
(c) Additional Information in Application.--A State seeking
to combine funds under subsection (a) shall include in the
application of the State under title II--
(1) a description of the funds the State proposes to
combine under the requirements of this Act;
(2) the activities to be carried out with such funds;
(3) the specific outcomes expected of participants in
school-to-work activities;
(4) such other information as the Secretaries may require;
(5) evidence of support for the waiver request by the State
agencies or officials with jurisdiction over the funds that
would be combined; and
(6) a State's authority to combine funds under this section
shall not exceed a period of 5 years, except that the
Secretaries may extend such period if the Secretaries
determine that such authority would further the purposes of
this Act.
In section 510, in the section heading, strike ``SEC.
510.'' and insert ``SEC. 511.''.
In section 509, in the section heading, strike ``SEC.
509.'' and insert ``SEC. 510.''.
In section 508, in the section heading, strike ``SEC.
508.'' and insert ``SEC. 509.''.
In section 507, in the section heading, strike ``SEC.
507.'' and insert ``SEC. 508.''.
In section 506, in the section heading, strike ``SEC.
506.'' and insert ``SEC. 507.''.
In section 505, in the section heading, strike ``SEC.
505.'' and insert ``SEC. 506.''.
In section 504A, strike ``504A'' and insert ``505''.
In section 303(a)(1), strike ``507(b)'' and insert
``508(b)''.
In section 401(a), strike ``507(c)'' and insert ``508(c)''.
In section 401(b), strike ``507(c)'' and insert ``508(c)''.
In section 402(a), strike ``507(c)'' and insert ``508(c)''.
In section 402(b), strike ``507(c)'' and insert ``508(c)''.
In section 402(d), strike ``507(c)'' and insert ``508(c)''.
In section 403(b), strike ``507(c)'' and insert ``508(c)''.
In section 403(c), strike ``507(c)'' and insert ``508(c)''.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, point of inquiry. Are we on the Kassebaum
substitute now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was unanimous consent that her
modification be accepted. It was accepted. We are now back on the
Kassebaum amendment.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Kassebaum amendment be set aside for further amendment.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I do not want to set aside an amendment we
can get rid of right away by accepting. It has been worked out.
If the Senator wants to move ahead, it is acceptable on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on amendment No.
1424, as modified, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1424), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1430, As Modified
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to send a
modification to my previous amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 1430), as modified, reads as follows:
Beginning on page 67, line 6 strike ``such sums as may be
necessary for each of the 7 succeeding fiscal years to carry
out this Act.'' and insert in lieu thereof ``$400,000,000 for
fiscal year 1996; $400,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
$330,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and $220,000,000 for
fiscal year 1999.''
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I had earlier told my friend and
colleague from Illinois that when we were negotiating caps what the
level would be. The figure that I had in my original amendment was CBO
projections, which was just $300 million adjusted for inflation. The
modification that I have sent to the desk inserts the President's
figures which he has in his budget for each of the next 5 years.
The total in my original amendment was, over the 5 years, $1.589
billion. The figure that was in the President's budget for the 5 years
is $1.650 billion, or a difference of about $61 million over the 5
years.
I thought I might as well put in the President's figures because it
was my guess that the Senator from Illinois or someone else would use
the President's figures. I thought maybe this would save some time and
hopefully would increase the likelihood that the amendment would be
accepted.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ford). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. The Senator from Oklahoma has a right to modify his
amendment. We are not ready at this point to accept that amendment. I
hope something can be negotiated in the course of the evening, but that
is where we stand right now.
Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague.
Mr. SIMON. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Chair will inform the Chamber, the Gorton amendment is before the
Senate. It has 2 hours debating time.
Who yields time?
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like about 7 minutes if anybody
would yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Gorton and Senator Simon will be
controlling the time on the Gorton amendment. Senator Gorton just used
9 minutes and 6 seconds of his time.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is not my feeling--I do not know about
Senator Simon but I do not need a great deal more time on my own
amendment. If the Senator from Vermont speaking on a different subject
wants to use some of it, I am happy to yield it to him. Or if the
Senator from Illinois wants to yield back all of our time on the
amendment I am willing do that.
Mr. SIMON. I would be willing to let the Senator from Vermont speak
and then both of us yield back all of our time?
Mr. GORTON. Since this Senator has to yield the floor, he will do
that prospectively and authorizes the Senator from Illinois to yield
the Senator from Washington's time.
Mr. SIMON. I yield to the Senator from Vermont and we will take it
from there.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized for
whatever time necessary.
Mr. JEFFORDS. I request 10 minutes, Mr. President. I want to speak
mainly on the bill.
Mr. President, the figures are well known. They come as no surprise.
Half of American high school students never go to college. A mere one-
quarter of our youngsters obtain post-secondary degrees.
However, unlike most other industrialized nations, we do not have a
comprehensive system to prepare this majority of our young Americans to
move from high school into high-skilled, well-paid jobs that hold the
best hope for our collective future. The sporadic and individualized
efforts that are made at this simply are not enough. The result is that
high school dropouts and even high school graduates tend to drift from
one entry-level and minimum-wage job to the next, until several years
after graduation, they begin to acquire the training needed to qualify
them for a trade or vocation.
In Germany, Japan and most other industrialized countries, students
begin to learn in high school those skills they will need to be
successful in the job market. They compete to qualify for prestigious
apprenticeship programs. They study, both on the job and in school
settings, the theories, skills and other knowledge necessary to advance
in their fields.
The simple truth is that the countries which are our major
competitors for export markets and jobs are well ahead of us in this
area. Their systems for moving the non-university-bound students from
school to productive work are far better organized, and function
without the years of unproductive drift that so many American
youngsters experience.
Mr. President, this is my 20th year in the Congress of the United
States. During that time, I have been on the committees dealing with
education in the House and Senate. It is sad, as I look back, to see
that we have progressed very little in trying to handle this problem.
In fact, we have probably gone backward.
First of all, we have found that a lot of the education which we used
to give--vocational education--has now proved to be irrelevant, yet the
ability to change those curriculums or to get the schools to provide
the kind of education that is necessary in the modern world just has
not occurred. We have gone from training program to training program
and, over time, we have created more and more model training programs.
Yet, this is the first time that we have begun to sit down and to take
a look at what we must do in order to coordinate and collect these
programs together to do the job.
It is unfortunate that we are here because it is another example of
the failure of our educational system. We should not be here. We should
not have to do this today. If our educational system was working, we
would already have the kind of educational programs which would prepare
our young people for work.
So it is sad that we have to be here, but we must. That is what Goals
2000 is all about; it is to reform our educational system so that this
program would be unnecessary.
Let me give an example of how really sad the situation is out there.
I am on the board of the directors of Jobs for American Graduates. It
came about from an experiment in Delaware where they had a program of
Jobs for Delaware Graduates. What is sad about it is almost all that
program is just teaching young people how to interview for a job. It is
not much more than that. It allows them to understand how the system
works and how jobs are created, how they are available. But the main
thrust of it--and it is a very successful program--is to teach them how
to conduct themselves at an interview.
It is sad when you think that our school system not only does not
provide the skills necessary to get a high-paying job and the skills
necessary in that job, but not even the skills of how to ask for a job.
The School-to-Work Opportunities Act is a bold stroke designed to
spur development of such systems throughout the United States that will
succeed in teaching those skills, as well as the skills of how to ask
for a job. This act will establish a national framework for local
partnerships to develop school-to-work programs and make them available
to all students. Such programs will combine classroom learning with
real world work experience. It will train students in job readiness
skills as well as industry-specific occupation skills.
The benefit to young people is clear: In our ever-shrinking world,
the need to prepare our future generations to compete and win in the
global marketplace is imperative for our continued prominence in world
markets. To do so, we must develop and utilize the talents of all our
young people far more effectively than we have. For the same reasons,
the benefits for American business are no less obvious. Only if they
continue to have the best skilled and most capable workers in the world
will their corporate futures be secure.
The School-to-Work Opportunities Act will help high schools and
community colleges create programs in cooperation with business to
develop the academic skills and attitudes toward work that many of our
youngsters lack today. Through a set of grants and waivers of certain
Federal program requirements, the act would establish a national
framework for the development of school-to-work systems, to help youth
in all States make the transition from school to the workplace. States
and communities would use Federal funds as venture capital to spark the
formation of school-to-work programs dedicated to linking the worlds of
school and work. Secondary and postsecondary institutions, private and
public employers, labor organizations, government, community groups,
parents, and students would work together on the programs.
The act would afford States and localities substantial discretion in
establishing and implementing comprehensive statewide school-to-work
systems. Business partners would have a significant input in crafting
and directing these efforts to better reflect their work force, needs,
and future trends.
The School-to-Work Opportunities Act has strong bipartisan support.
It will encourage States and communities to build meaningful
connections between the world of school and the world of work. Just as
schools need to change to meet the demands of businesses that are
competing in the global economy, our business culture also needs to
change to create incentives for students to stay in school and make
smooth and productive transitions from school to work.
The future of our youth and of our businesses and, ultimately, of our
standard of living depends on developing and utilizing the talents of
our non-college-bound young people far more effectively than we have to
date.
Twenty-three national groups have endorsed this legislation,
including major business groups--the Business Roundtable, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the
National Alliance of Business--the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, the National Education Association, the American Federation of
Teachers, and the National Governors' Association.
In addition, the business community not only actively supports the
legislation, many national forms are committing to participate in its
programs, including BellSouth, Ford, Kodak, and McDonald's. Countless
smaller business also are prepared to join in on this effort.
Mr. President, like many of the legislative items that pass through
this body, this one is not perfect. But with the benefit of extensive
bipartisan input, as well as the cooperation of labor, business,
education, and community leaders, its merits certainly far outweigh any
shortcomings that remain. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, and I
support it heartily. The House of Representatives completed action on
this measure in near record time. I encourage my Senate colleagues to
do so as well.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I appreciate the statement by the Senator
from Vermont. I appreciate his cosponsorship of this legislation and
his efforts. I might add, he fits in the tradition of Senator Aiken
from Vermont and Senator Stafford from Vermont as a valued Member of
this body.
Mr. President, a point of inquiry. Before Senator Gorton left, he
indicated he would yield back his time, but I do not recall that he
actually did. If he did yield back his time, I will yield back mine and
make the motion in behalf of Senator Kennedy and myself to table. If he
did not yield back the time, we will wait on the motion to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Chair's judgment that the Senator
from Washington was willing to yield back his time, subject to the
completion of the statement of the Senator from Vermont. So it is now
in order for all time to have been yielded back.
Mr. SIMON. Then, Mr. President, in behalf of myself and Senator
Kennedy, I make the motion to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back on
the Gorton amendment. The Chair informs the Senate that we are now on
amendment 1433, the Kassebaum-Dole amendment.
Mr. SIMON. On the previous motion to table, I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside so that we may consider the Nickles amendment
that was offered about 1 hour or 45 minutes ago. We have checked that
out. It is acceptable now on both sides.
Amendment No. 1430, As Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, amendment No. 1433 is set
aside and the Nickles amendment No. 1430 is the pending amendment.
Mr. SIMON. I urge its adoption.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I second that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
The amendment (No. 1430), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1425, As Modified
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the Gorton amendment and modify amendment 1425, which is another one of
my amendments. For the benefit of those who are listening, I have
agreed to a 5-year authorization to the school-to-work bill.
Originally, it was an 8-year authorization in the bill. I am very
pleased this amendment now will be accepted by making a correction to 5
years. I ask for the consideration of that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator needs to ask unanimous consent
since we have an agreement on the legislation.
Is there objection to the Senator modifying her amendment? Without
objection, it is so modified.
The amendment, with its modification, is as follows:
In section 507(a), strike ``7'' and insert ``4''.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, it is acceptable. We have had some
discussion. I am pleased to join in support of this amendment.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? The question is on
agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
The amendment (No. 1425), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Dorgan be added as an original cosponsor to amendment No. 1427, the
Pressler amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, our situation now is that we have two
amendments that are still being worked on.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senate that we are back
on amendment No. 1433, the Kassebaum-Dole amendment.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be
set aside temporarily.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1431
Mr. SIMON. I ask unanimous consent that the Kennedy-Simon amendment
No. 1431 be accepted at this point. It is agreeable to everyone.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 1431) was agreed to.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, we are still negotiating on two amendments,
the Coverdell amendment and the Dole amendment. We will have a vote on
the Gorton amendment. My colleague from Kansas may correct me, but I
think we are down to one vote for sure on an amendment and possibly two
others.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, it is my understanding--we are just
trying to check it out--that there also would be a vote required on the
Coverdell amendment and possibly on the Dole-Nickles sense-of-the-
Senate amendment.
At this point, perhaps it would be in order to ask for the yeas and
nays on those two amendments.
Mr. SIMON. If that is necessary to do tonight, we can do that. They
are offered. We are negotiating on both. I hope they can be worked out.
Senator Byrd is negotiating with Senator Coverdell. The other one is
also being negotiated.
My understanding is that we do not have to ask for the yeas and nays
tonight. May I ask the Chair? Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not required.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I suggest it is better to wait. If it
can be worked out, that would be just fine. The only vote that I know
of which is ordered is on the Gorton amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SIMON. I have been advised that we can go ahead and ask for the
yeas and nays and then vitiate them if there is an agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have to have unanimous consent to do it
under a time agreement. Do you want to ask unanimous consent to do it,
or do you prefer to wait? It is up to the Senator.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I think we have taken care of this measure
as much as we can this evening.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act. I would like to commend Senator Simon for his work
on this bill and thank him for working with me on several issues
related to the legislation.
Most American employers feel recent high school graduates are not
adequately prepared for the current workplace. Further, a recent study
found that 90 million Americans are functionally illiterate--that means
they do not possess the higher literacy skills needed for the more
challenging and technologically related jobs of the future. It is clear
that we need to do a better job preparing all students for work.
At the present time, the United States is the only industrialized
Nation that does not have a comprehensive school to work transition
program. This legislation before us remedies this situation by
establishing a national system to assure an effective transition from
school to work. The future of our country depends on our ability to
compete in the international marketplace and this legislation is vital
to ensuring our place in the world.
There is tremendous diversity across the United States and one
program will not effectively meet the needs of all students and
communities. Therefore, this legislation allows individual States and
communities to tailor programs to meet their specific needs and
situations. This is especially important to meet the unique needs of
rural areas. The legislation makes it clear that school-based
enterprises, internships, job shadowing, and academic credit are
allowed. This clarification is important for rural schools.
The legislation also recognizes the special difficulties that
confront low-income communities and will make special grants for high-
poverty areas. The Senate bill lowered the threshold for eligibility to
20 percent. This change will allow 9 low-income Iowa counties to apply
for these special grants. These rural counties have unique needs that
could be assisted by these special competitive grants.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Disability Policy I would also
like to comment on the implications of this legislation for students
and youth with disabilities. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act seeks
to provide opportunities to earn credentials and pursue careers for all
students, and this certainly includes students with disabilities.
On July 26, 1993, we celebrated the third anniversary of the
Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA], an historic civil rights bill
which for the first time granted Americans with disabilities equal
access to the American dream.
ADA is important because it includes fundamental principles for the
development of national policy. ADA is about breaking down attitudinal
or artificial barriers that prevent people with disabilities from
participating in the mainstream of American life. ADA means that
persons must be judged based on abilities and qualifications, not on
the basis of fear, ignorance, or prejudice.
The ADA has provided the Nation with the impetus to reexamine how it
is treating individuals with disabilities in all aspects of American
life, including during the important transition between school and
work. At the same time we are now in the process of reassessing our
educational systems for all students. Congress fully recognizes
students with disabilities as one part of a larger student population,
and has clearly included them in educational reform. It is also
critical to include students with disabilities in our nationwide effort
to develop systems to provide school-to-work opportunities for American
youth.
The School-to-Work Opportunities Act is fully consistent with the ADA
and implements the values and precepts of the ADA in the context of
school-to-work opportunities. Also, this legislation is fully
consistent with and complements the spirit and intent of part B of the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, including section 504.
The School-to-Work Opportunities Act will serve as an important
vehicle for making the promise of ADA a reality for all students with
disabilities. Under this legislation, students with the full range of
disabilities must be an integral part of all aspects of the school-to-
work systems, including career counseling and selection of a career
major, planned programs of study and job training that lead to the
award of a skill certificate, and data collection and analysis
regarding the postprogram outcomes of all students.
In addition, students with disabilities are entitled to the same high
expectations, treatment, and leadership offered to their nondisabled
peers, including the adoption of effective strategies that provide
mechanisms and appropriate paths to the work force and to postsecondary
education; an expectation that all students across a broad range of
performance will be held to high standards if they are to realize their
full potential; an effective and meaningful opportunity to participate
in a broad and challenging curriculum and to have access to resources
sufficient to address other education and training needs; and the use
of assessments or systems of assessments that are used for a purpose
for which they are valid, reliable, fair, and free of discrimination--
including adaptations and accommodations necessary to permit such
participation.
Furthermore, plans developed, reports prepared, and partnerships,
panels or councils established must address the needs of students and
youth with disabilities and must include information and data on such
individuals.
In summary, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act is an important bill
which will help all students, including students with disabilities, in
completing their high school programs, accessing postsecondary
education programs, and entering meaningful employment. This
legislation has broad-based support from business, labor, and
education. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.
In closing, I would like to commend the chairman of the Labor
Committee, Senator Kennedy and the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Employment and Productivity, Senator Simon for their work on this bill,
especially their efforts to assure that students with disabilities are
fully included.
At this time, I ask for the attention of the Senator from Illinois
for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.
Mr. President, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the
distinguished Senator from Illinois, the chair of the Subcommittee on
Employment and Productivity, and the chief sponsor of the School-to-
Work Opportunities Act of 1994, Senator Simon. I would like to commend
Senator Simon for his strong leadership on the bill and especially for
his commitment to people with disabilities. I appreciate the
willingness of Senator Simon and his staff to work with me and my staff
to develop an analysis explaining how the School-to-Work Opportunities
Act of 1994 applies to individuals with disabilities. I would like to
ask unanimous consent to include this analysis at the end of this
colloquy.
Is it the understanding of the Senator from Illinois that this
analysis reflects congressional intent regarding the meaning and
application of this legislation to students with disabilities.
Mr. SIMON. Absolutely. And I would like to commend the Senator from
Iowa [Mr. Harkin] for his effective leadership on disability policy
issues. I have reviewed the analysis of this bill as it applies to
people with disabilities and it reflects our intent to assure that
students with disabilities are included in all aspects of school-to-
work systems.
There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Analysis Regarding the Application of the School-to-Work Opportunities
Act of 1944 to Individuals With Disabilities
On July 26, 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
was signed into law. The ADA is an omnibus civil rights law
that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by,
among others, employers, and entities providing public and
private secondary and postsecondary education.
The ADA is premised on a system of values that forms the
basis for our national disability policy. Under the ADA,
disability is recognized as a natural part of the human
experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals
to live independently, enjoy self-determination, make
choices, contribute to society, pursue meaningful careers,
and enjoy full inclusion and integration into all aspects of
society.
In short, the ADA establishes the basis for a national
policy that focuses on the inclusion, independence and
empowerment of individuals with disabilities.
The ADA has provided the nation with the impetus to
reexamine how it is treating individuals with disabilities in
all aspects of American life, including during the
important transition between school and work. At the same
time we are now in the process of reassessing our
educational systems for all students. Congress fully
recognizes students with disabilities as one part of a
larger student population, and has clearly included them
in educational reform. It is also critical to include
students with disabilities in our nationwide effort to
develop systems to provide school-to-work opportunities
for American youth.
Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) extends to students with disabilities the right to a
free appropriate public education based on the unique needs
of the student. This Act mandates that, to the maximum extent
appropriate, students with disabilities must be educated with
students who are not disabled and special classes, separate
schooling, or other removal of students with disabilities
from regular education environments occurs only when the
nature or severity of the disability is such that education
in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and
services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
Part B of IDEA requires an Individualized Educational
Program (IEP) for each student. IDEA specifies that ``the IEP
for each student, beginning no later than age 16 (and at a
younger age if appropriate) must include a statement of
needed transition services. . . .'' Transition services means
a coordinated set of activities that includes instruction,
community experiences, the development of employment and
other post-school adult living objectives. Students and
parents are encouraged to actively participate in the
development of transition goals and objectives. These
requirements are designed to ensure that all areas essential
to successful postschool adult living for individual students
are addressed within their IEP.
The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 are intended to
ensure that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is consistent with
the precepts of ADA. Provisions were added to ensure that all
students who require vocational rehabilitation services
receive those services in a timely manner. There should be no
gap in services between the education system and the
vocational rehabilitation system. During the transition
years, the role of the rehabilitation system is to work
collaboratively with the educational system and to plan for
the student's years after leaving school.
Congress wishes to send a clear and unequivocal message
that the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 is fully
consistent with the ADA and implements the values and
precepts of the ADA in the context of school-to-work
opportunities. Congress also wishes to send the message that
this legislation is fully consistent with and complements the
spirit and intent of Part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, including Section 504.
Congress believes that the transition service requirements
in IDEA and in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provide an
appropriate framework for assuring that students with
disabilities and their families successfully access and fully
participate in all program components of the Act. Further,
the Job Training Partnership Act and the Carl D. Perkins
Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act include
specific provisions to ensure the participation of youth with
disabilities in the training and employment programs
authorized under these Acts.
It is the expectation of Congress that the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act of 1994 will serve as an important vehicle
for making the promise of ADA a reality for all students with
disabilities. Therefore, under this legislation, students
with the full range of disabilities must be an integral part
of all aspects of the School-to-Work systems, including
career exploration and counseling, planned programs of study
and job training that lead to the award of a skill
certificate, and data collection and analysis regarding the
post-program outcomes of all students.
Congress intends that the exclusion of individuals with
disabilities from any aspect of State or local school-to-work
systems is unacceptable. This means that students with
disabilities are entitled to the same high expectations,
treatment, and leadership offered to their nondisabled peers,
including:
The adoption of effective strategies that provide
mechanisms and appropriate paths to the workforce and to
postsecondary education;
An expectation that all students across a broad range of
performance will be held to high standards if they are to
realize their full potential;
Recognition that involvement and leadership by teachers,
related-services personnel, rehabilitation personnel,
employers, parents, and students is critical;
An effective and meaningful opportunity to participate in a
broad and challenging curriculum and to have access to
resources sufficient to address other education and training
needs;
The appropriate and innovative use of technology; and
The use of assessments or systems of assessments that are
used for a purpose for which they are valid, reliable, fair,
and free of discrimination (including adaptations and
accommodations necessary to permit such participation).
Furthermore, all students, including students
with disabilities, must be part of the system of
performance measures and the national evaluation, and that
data from students with disabilities must be included in
any performance outcome and evaluation system and reports.
Set out below is a more detailed explanation of how
specific provisions of S. 1361 apply to youth with
disabilities.
Findings
Section 2 of S. 1361 sets out Congressional findings
regarding the need for a comprehensive and coherent system of
School-to-work opportunities. Section 2(2) states the ``a
substantial number of American youth, especially
disadvantaged students, students of diverse racial, ethnic,
and cultural backgrounds, and students with disabilities, do
not complete school.'' Section 2(3) states that
``unemployment among American youth is intolerably high * *
*''
Congress notes that youth with disabilities are
experiencing substantial difficulties in completing their
high school programs, accessing postsecondary education
programs, and entering meaningful employment. The National
Longitudinal Transition Study, funded by the U.S. Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, and conducted
by Standard Research Institute in California investigated the
post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. This
study found that: students with disabilities had a higher
drop out rate (36%) than for any other group of young people;
fewer than 17% of youth with disabilities had gained access
to postsecondary vocational programs three to five years
following high school completion; approximately 43% of youth
with disabilities remained unemployed three to five years
following high school, and of those who are employed, many
work only part-time, are receiving low wages, and the vast
majority are not receiving medical insurance coverage or
other fringe benefits; and for many youth with disabilities,
the transition from school has meant sitting idly at home,
dependent on family members for support into adulthood. These
findings illustrate the lack of a comprehensive system to
help youth with disabilities transition to productive adult
lives.
With regard to another Congressional finding (6) that
``American students can achieve to high standards * * *,''
Congress notes that youth with disabilities can, and
increasingly do participate in postsecondary education
programs, employment, and all other aspects of community
living. Research and demonstration projects over the last
several years have shown that students with disabilities can
be successful when appropriate opportunities, supports and
services are available. Transition services which promote
movement from school to post-school activities, including
post-secondary education, vocational training, integrated
employment (including support employment) continuing and
adult education, adult services, independent living, or
community participation, are often critical to achieving
successful post-school outcomes for students with
disabilities. Effective transition services require a high
level of coordination and partnership among educators,
rehabilitation and human service professionals, students
and family members, and employers.
purposes and congressional intent
Section 3 sets out the Purposes and Congressional Intent of
the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. Congress wishes to
emphasize that the purposes and intent of this act are of
particular relevance to fulfilling, at a minimum, the right
to a free appropriate public education for students with
disabilities guaranteed by part B of IDEA. this Act can play
a significant role for students with disabilities to help
them realize the promise of an effective transition from
school to work and to productive adult roles.
Section 3(a)(6) specifies that one purpose of the Act is to
``help all students attain high academic and occupational
standards.'' Congress believes that high expectations are
needed for all students, including students with
disabilities. However, Congress recognizes that a range of
individual performance will result even when students achieve
the high expectations set for them. A method is needed for
some students with disabilities that recognizes these
students' functional differences, but still provides high
expectations.
The majority of students with disabilities are capable,
with supports and adaptations, of mastering the standards
expected for other students. However, a limited number of
students with the most severe cognitive disabilities, may not
master all of the high standards, despite specialized
instruction, related services, and assistive technology. For
these students, the IEP is designed to enable the student to
master the standards to the maximum extent possible, and to
provide a rigorous and meaningful educational program.
definitions
Section 4(2) defines the terms ``all students'' to include
students with disabilities. Congress intends that all efforts
supported under this legislation include students and youth
with disabilities, including the full range of disabilities.
Section 4(4) defines the term ``career major'' as a
``sequence of courses or field of study that prepares a
student for a first job and that--* * * typically includes at
least 2 years of secondary education and at least 1 or 2
years of postsecondary education * * *''. Congress notes that
while ``1 or 2 years of postsecondary education'' may be
``typically'' included in a sequence of courses or a field of
study, for some youth with disabilities adult training
programs or supported employment programs may be more
appropriate than formal postsecondary education programs.
The definition of ``career major'' also states that the
courses or fields of study should result in the ``award of a
high school diploma or its equivalent, such as--(I) a general
equivalency diploma; or (II) an alternative diploma or
certificate for students with disabilities for whom such
alternative diploma or certificate is appropriate); . . .''.
Congress understands that the great majority of students with
disabilities can attain a regular high school diploma with
reasonable accommodations. For those particular students with
disabilities for whom a regular diploma cannot be attained
with reasonable accommodations (as determined by their IEP),
an alternative diploma or a certificate is given in lieu of a
diploma.
Section 4(8) provides a definition of ``partnership'' which
lists a number of examples of entities which may be included
in the local entity responsible for local School-to-Work
Opportunities programs. Congress intends that local
partnerships include in their membership individuals who are
knowledgeable about education services, transition services
and/or vocational rehabilitation services for students and
youth with disabilities, such as special educators,
rehabilitation counselors, related services personnel,
parents, representatives of community-based programs,
community members and other experts with knowledge and
expertise related to individuals with disabilities.
Section 4(20) provides a definition of ``workplace mentor''
to include ``an employee or other individual approved by the
employer . . .'' For students with disabilities, a workplace
mentor may include a co-worker, or other individual such as a
job coach, employment facilitator, work-study coordinator,
special educator, vocational rehabilitation professional, and
other individuals who provide specialized training and
support to students with disabilities at the worksite. Such
supports are readily acknowledged by employers as an
effective means of assuring that students with disabilities
learn and acquire job skills.
Title I, School-to-Work Opportunities Basic Program Components
Section 102 sets forth the basic requirements of the work-
based learning component of the School-to-Work Opportunities
program. Section 102(a)(1) requires that ``paid work
experience'' be included as a basic requirement of the work-
based learning component. Congress intends that the terms
``work'' and ``employment'', as used in this bill include
supported employment (as defined in the Rehabilitation Act of
1973) for those youth with disabilities who can benefit from
such employment. Supported employment services or extended
services have been successful as a means of providing
individuals with disabilities, including individuals with
the most significant disabilities, meaningful paid
employment opportunities.
Section 102(a)(4) states that ``instruction in general
workplace competencies'' is one of the requirements of the
work-based learning component. Congress believes that the
notion of ``general workplace competencies'' includes not
only job-specific skills development, but also includes the
development of social and other related competencies that are
essential to successful workforce participation. Instruction
in general workplace competencies includes instruction that
focuses on social, interpersonal, and communication skills
(including instruction in the use of augmentative
communication for students who require such instruction),
which will enable an individual to successfully interact with
co-workers and respond to everyday demands and expectations.
Section 103(1) states that one of the requirements of the
school-based learning component is ``career exploration and
counseling . . . in order to help students who may be
interested to identify, select or reconsider, their
interests, goals and career majors.'' This requirement is an
important aspect of the program for all students, including
students with disabilities. Congress notes the importance of
identifying and considering the preferences and interests of
the student. When students are given the opportunity to
experience different work and career opportunities and to
choose the one they want to pursue, the chances of achieving
positive outcomes increases.
Congress also wishes to note that students with
disabilities should be able to explore and select the same
career majors as other students and may not be denied access
based solely on their disability. Counselors assisting
students with disabilities should be aware of the possible
adaptations and accommodations, including environmental
accommodations, job accommodations, and assistive technology
devices that can increase, maintain or improve the functional
capabilities of the student, and make it possible for the
student to succeed.
Section 103(2) addresses another aspect of the school-based
learning component that requires that an initial selection of
a career major must occur ``not later than the beginning of
the 11th grade.'' Congress notes that some students with
disabilities participate in ``ungraded'' educational
programs. In these cases, the initial selection of a career
major must occur not later than the equivalent of 11th grade.
This is consistent with Part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which requires that a
student's individualized education program include a
statement of the needed transition services for students with
disabilities beginning no later than age 16 and when
appropriate, beginning at age 14 or younger. Congress notes
that age 16 may be too late for many students, particularly
those at risk of dropping out and those with the most
significant disabilities. Beginning school-to-work
transition services at age 14 or even younger could have a
significant positive effect on the employment and
independent living outcomes for many of those students.
Section 103(4) specifies that regularly scheduled
evaluations must be conducted to identify the strengths and
weaknesses of the students and to identify the need for
additional learning opportunities. Congress notes that this
is consistent with the provisions of part B of IDEA which
require that the IEP include ``appropriate objective criteria
and evaluation procedures and schedules for determining . . .
whether instructional objectives are being achieved.'' For
students with disabilities, the evaluations should be based
on the objectives included in the IEP.
Section 104(7) specifies the requirement that information
regarding post-program outcomes must be collected and
analyzed. The systems developed under this Act for collecting
and analyzing information regarding post-program outcomes
must include information obtained from participants with
disabilities. Congress wishes to emphasize the importance of
including students with disabilities in these data collection
and analysis efforts and notes with great concern the
evidence of considerable exclusion of these students from
various national and State data collection programs.
Title II, System Development and Implementation
Sections 202(b)(2) and 212(b)(3) include the requirement
that the application for a development grant and a State plan
must contain a description of how State officials will
collaborate in the planning and development of the School-to-
Work System. The Act recognizes that development of School-
to-Work systems has begun in many States under other federal
legislation. Congress notes that over 30 States have begun
``systems change'' projects, funded under IDEA and focused on
the development of systems to support the transition from
school to work for students with disabilities. Congress
intends that these projects will be included in States'
planning, development and implementation efforts. Congress
also encourages States to include among those other
appropriate officials, State officials who are responsible
for special education services, transition services,
vocational rehabilitation services, and other human service
agencies and community-based organizations that serve
students and youth with disabilities.
Sections 202(b)(3) and 212(b)(4) include parents and
students as examples of the types of individuals that should
be involved in the planning, development and implementation
of the Statewide School-to-Work System. Congress notes the
importance of involving parents and students in all aspects
of the system, and strongly encourages the involvement of
individuals with disabilities and their parents.
Community-based organizations are also listed in these
sections, and include groups and organizations
representing, or providing services for, individuals with
disabilities. Congress understands that the extent of
involvement of these groups and organizations can have a
major effect on the number of individuals with
disabilities identified and served.
The Act provides other examples of participants in the
planning, development and implementation of the Statewide
School-to-Work System, including ``related services
personnel.'' Related services personnel include
rehabilitation counselors who are responsible for the
coordination of the transition provisions in the IEPs under
Part B of IDEA. They provide critical services and must be
included in the school-to-work process if students with
disabilities are going to participate in these programs.
Other related services personnel include school counselors,
psychologists, speech/language pathologists, audiologists,
and social workers.
Also included as possible participants in the planning,
development and implementation of the Statewide School-to-
Work System are ``human service agencies.'' Human service
agencies often provide services that are critical to the
successful employment of youth, particularly youth with
disabilities. These services might include supported
employment, independent living, service coordination,
counseling, and transportation.
Sections 202(c)(2), 202(c)(6), and 212(b)(15) require that
the State School-to-Work System identify local school-to-work
transition programs and describe how the local programs can
be coordinated with the State system. Congress expects that
the State systems will identify and coordinate with secondary
and postsecondary school-to-work programs serving students
and youth with disabilities.
Section 202(c)(11) includes as a development activity,
``designing challenging curricula . . . that take into
account the diverse learning needs and abilities of the
student population . . .'' Congress believes that a
challenging curriculum with high expectations is needed for
all students, including students with disabilities. Congress
recognizes that a range of individual performance will
result, even when students successfully complete the
curriculum. A method is needed for some students with
disabilities that recognizes these students' diverse learning
needs and abilities, but still provides a challenging
curriculum.
Congress believes that youth with disabilities must be
meaningfully engaged in a challenging curriculum that will
assist them in developing competencies to adapt to emerging
new technologies, work methods and training programs. Also,
teachers and employment specialists must be trained in the
unique and diverse competencies and learning needs of
students with disabilities, with a broad understanding of
continually emerging technology, adaptations, and other
supports that are necessary for many students to meet with
success at school and work.
Section 202(c)(13) states that activities undertaken to
develop a school-to-work system may include analyzing post-
high school employment experiences of recent high school
graduates and drop-outs. Congress notes the importance of
including students with disabilities, and that follow-up
should include not only graduates and drop-outs, but students
who may be awarded other types of completion certificates.
Section 212(b) describes the information required to be
included in the State plan for a School-to-Work system.
Section 212(b)(9) specifies that the State Plan must include
a description of the how the State will ensure effective and
meaningful opportunities for all students to participate in
the School-to-Work Program. The provision of effective and
meaningful opportunities requires the program to take the
necessary steps to ensure that students with disabilities
have equal access to the School-to-Work Program.
Section 212(b)(11) specifies that the State Plan must
contain a description of how the State will ensure
opportunities for low achieving students, students with
disabilities, and former students who have dropped out of
school. Congress urges States to make use of research with
respect to the successful demonstration projects, funded by
the U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services (OSERS), on school-to-work transition services for
students with disabilities. Information on existing
demonstration projects is available from the Regional
Resource Centers and other OSERS-funded information
clearinghouses.
Section 212(b)(12) states that the plan must include a
description of ``the State's process for assessing the skills
and knowledge required in career majors, and awarding skill
certificates that take into account the work of the National
Skill Standards Board and the criteria established under
Goals 2000: Educate America Act.'' Congress wishes to
emphasize that the assessments or system of assessments must
provide for the participation of students with diverse
learning needs and for the adaptions and accommodations
necessary to permit such participation. For some students
with disabilities, accommodations may be required such as
extended time limits, testing a student in a separate room,
large print or braille versions of assessments, or use of a
reader, scribe, sign language interpreter, or assistive
technology. Generally a student should be provided with the
same accommodations in assessment that are provided in
instruction. For example if a student learns to perform a
task in class with a reader, such accommodation should be
provided in assessment.
Section 212(c) describes the requirement for a peer review
process for State plans. Congress wishes to ensure that the
peer review process includes representation of individuals
knowledgeable about issues concerning access, eligibility,
and accommodation that enable students with disabilities to
fully participate in programs authorized under this Act.
Section 212(f)(2) specifies that the State implementation
activities may include conducting outreach activities to
support and promote collaboration in School-to-Work
opportunities programs by businesses, labor organizations,
and other organizations. For some students with disabilities,
other organizations might include human services agencies and
community-based organizations that could support students'
participation in school-to-work programs. Congress recognizes
that the often multiple problems of youth and their families
must be addressed through collaborative efforts with
community agencies and programs. Programs to be implemented
through the State's school-to-work opportunities plan will
need to reach out and collaborate with the larger network of
community service agencies to address the multiple needs of
students effectively. Collaboration will require education
and community service agencies to establish joint goals and
actions, and to pool resources to effectively serve young
people and their families.
Section 212 includes the design or adaptation of model
curricula as an allowable State implementation activity in
section 212(f)(5), and as an allowable activity under State
subgrants to partnerships in section 212(h)(2)(D). These
curricula must address the needs of all students. As stated
earlier, a challenging curriculum with high expectations is
needed for all students, including students with
disabilities, but a method is needed for some students with
disabilities that recognizes these students' diverse learning
needs and abilities.
Title IV, National Programs
Section 402 directs the Secretaries of Education and Labor,
in collaboration with the States, to establish a system of
performance measures for assessing State and local programs,
through grants, contracts or otherwise. This section also
directs the Secretaries to conduct a national evaluation of
the School-to-Work program and requires States to provide
periodic reports. Congress notes that all students, including
students with disabilities, must be part of the system of
performance measures and the national evaluation, and that
data from students with disabilities must be included in any
performance outcome and evaluation reports. Congress
emphasizes the inclusion of students with disabilities
because of the evidence of exclusion of these students from
National and State data programs.
The System must facilitate and in no way impede
the accomplishment of the goals and objectives of this
legislation, the ADA, part B of IDEA, and section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For example, the system of
performance measures must encourage, not discourage, local
educational officials, principals, teachers, and employers
to include, not exclude youth with disabilities.
Congress encourages the Secretaries to establish a system
of performance measures that collects and reports separate
data on students with specific characteristics. This will
allow the national evaluation to determine the effectiveness
of the School-to-Work program for all students. Congress
expects that the report will separately report data
applicable to students with disabilities to the extent that
separate data are reported for other groups with specific
characteristics.
With respect to outcome data for students, Congress notes
that it may be worthwhile to consider a broad array of post-
school outcomes, beyond the traditional information on
employment rates and postsecondary training. An array of
outcomes that may be important to consider have been derived
through a broad-based consensus process by the National
Center for Educational Outcomes at the University of
Minnesota.
Section 403(d) authorizes the establishment of a
Clearinghouse and Capacity Building Network, referred to as
the Clearinghouse. Section 403(d)(3) specifies that the
Secretaries ``shall coordinate the activities of the
Clearinghouse with other similar entities to avoid
duplication and enhance the sharing of relevant
information.'' Congress intends that the activities of the
network will be coordinated with the related clearinghouses
and technical assistance centers authorized under IDEA,
including the clearinghouse on postsecondary education for
individuals with disabilities, the clearinghouse on children
and youth with disabilities, the Federal and Regional
Resource Centers, and the project to evaluate the State
systems change projects in the area of transition services,
under section 626 of IDEA.
Title V, General Provisions
With respect to waivers authorized under sections 502 and
503 of the Act, Congress wishes to make it clear that neither
the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Labor, nor a
State agency is authorized under this section to waive any
statutory or regulatory requirement under section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the ADA, or Part B of IDEA.
Section 505 addresses the safeguards that apply to the
School-to-Work Program. Congress notes that nothing in this
Act shall be construed to modify or affect the Fair Labor
Standards Act. In an effort to stimulate state and local
implementation of school-to-work programming for students
with disabilities, the U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, has
developed working agreements with the Social Security
Administration to ensure greater use of employment
incentives, and the U.S. Department of Labor to provide
guidance to educational agencies to ensure that programs are
operated in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1361, the
School-to-Work Opportunities Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. With
this legislation, the United States will begin to benefit from a
national network of school-to-work transition programs, which many
other industrialized countries have used for decades.
the problem
My State of California is quickly moving toward a high-skill, high-
wage economy, creating a tremendous need for improved school-to-work
programs.
In California, it has become increasingly difficult for students
without strong work skills or advanced degrees to find good jobs. And
yet, most high school curricula and Federal programs are still geared
toward college-bound youth; high schools have not been encouraged to
engage the interests or address the needs of students who are at risk
of dropping out or who are not interested in working toward a
bachelor's degree. Instead, these young people typically float from
low-wage job to low-wage job, sometimes not gaining full-time
employment with full benefits for a number of years.
As the skills demanded in many California workplaces have increased
in complexity, employers have been forced to hire workers from other
countries or provide their own in-house training programs, because
there are so few young people who are prepared to enter these jobs in
the computer industry, health care, graphics and printing, and tourism.
school-to-work programs in california
In California, education programs designed for students who are not
planning to go on for a 4-year college degree have enjoyed a much-
needed resurgence:
First, businesses have become more and more involved in helping
schools prepare their future employees;
Second, secondary schools are cooperating closely with community
colleges in new ways; and,
Third, experience-based learning is joining traditional classroom
teaching as a potent way to engage the interest of at-risk students.
With this new emphasis on job skills, a variety of school-to-work
programs help move students from early career awareness activities such
as field trips, through internships, summer employment, and structured
part-time work experiences during school--all coordinated with
classroom learning.
In many areas, these programs have been shown to lower dropout rates,
improve academic achievement, increase post-matriculation rates.
Diverse Programs in California
Using State and local funds and competitive grant funding from the
Council of Chief State School Officers and the U.S. Department of
Labor, California has developed all four of the different school-to-
work models that are part of this national legislation.
Career academies: Over 60 career academies, also called career
partnerships, provide the foundation on which school-to-work programs
are being built in California. Operating as small schools-within-
schools of around 100 students, career academies link classroom
learning to occupations such as printing, tourism, and health, so that
students have work experience and related training before they even
graduate from high school. Forging strong links with local employers,
many academies include mentoring programs in addition to work
experience components.
Tech-Prep: In California, there are also roughly 80 Tech-Prep
programs, which link job-related training during the last 2 years of
high school education to an associate degree at a local community
college. Following the Tech-Prep model, almost all of the State's 107
community colleges have entered into collaboration with over 400 high
schools, in order to better coordinate curricula and help smooth the
transition from high school to community college.
Youth apprenticeship: Several new youth apprenticeship programs have
begun around the State. In youth apprenticeship programs, students work
as apprentices in traditional fields such as carpentry and in
occupations such as banking that are new to the apprenticeship system
in the United States. At the same time, students take related
coursework at a high school or technical trade school.
Cooperative education: With the support of regional occupational
program career centers, there are roughly 200,000 students
participating in cooperative education, which is an established
vocational education model that helps students coordinated part time
paid and unpaid work during high school.
Model California Programs
Within the State, there are several school-to-work demonstration
projects that have been recognized for their excellence and innovation
in Oakland, Fresno, East San Gabriel, and Pasadena.
The Health and Biosciences Academy at Oakland Technical High School
is a demonstration project for the California Partnership Academies.
The program was developed through employer interest in the
biosciences program in Oakland was originated by the local school
district and targets at-risk students in a school-within-a-school
setting.
There is a strong emphasis on integrating academic and technical
skills, and the curriculum includes both classroom and practical
applications.
The East San Gabriel apparel and accessories marketing program is a
cooperative education project that recruits high-risk students and
makes use of the Federal targeted job tax credit to encourage employers
to offer job placements to young people in the program.
The program includes classroom learning, internships, job shadowing
opportunities, and part-time work.
The program is coordinated with courses offered at nearby trade and
technical schools, and has been shown to reduce dropout rates.
The program has been designated a school-to-work demonstration site
and was given an outstanding vocational-technical education project
award by the U.S. Secretary of Education in 1990.
The Pasadena Health Academy was the first of seven academies and
three preacademies established by Pasadena Unified School District.
Like other academies, the Health Academy teaches the basic academic
subjects while incorporating skills and activities related to the
professional theme in each lesson.
One day a week, Health Academy students volunteer at local hospitals,
and many of them also take class at Pasadena Community College.
Conclusion
The need for improved school-to-work transition programs is great.
California has developed extensive and innovative programs to fill this
need, but thus far Federal funds and programmatic leadership have been
insufficient. Funds authorized under this bill will go toward bringing
school-to-work programs up to scale in several States. Because of its
previous achievements, I feel that California will be a strong
contender for one of these grants.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the enactment of the
School-to-Work Opportunities Act.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, Senator Simon and I have agreed to
correct an error included in the committee report on S. 1361, the
School-to-Work Opportunities Act. The error concerns the entities
eligible to administer the school-to-work program. As adopted by the
Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, S. 1361 makes clear that
only members of the local partnership may administer the school-to-work
program. The report filed by the committee erroneously implies that
entities outside of the local partnership may administer the program. I
have asked Senator Simon to make sure that this language is corrected
in conference and he has assured me that the final bill and report
language will reflect our agreement that only local partnership
entities may administer the school-to-work program.
Mr. SIMON. Senator Metzenbaum and I both agree that the committee
report language was in error and that the final conference version of
the bill should properly reflect the intention of the committee.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I thank my good friend and colleague for his
assistance and support.
____________________