[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.

                          ____________________