[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 44 (Wednesday, April 20, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2884, SCHOOL-TO-WORK OPPORTUNITIES ACT OF
1994
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of
the House of Tuesday, April 20, 1994, I call up the conference report
on the bill (H.R. 2884) to establish a national framework for the
development of school-to-work opportunities systems in all States, and
for other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pomeroy). Pursuant to the order of the
House of Tuesday, April 19, 1994, the conference report is considered
as read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
April 19, 1994, at page H2452.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford] will
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Goodling] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ford].
(Mr. FORD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 2884,
the School-to-Work Opportunities Act.
Initially, I want to point out that we have had wonderful bipartisan
cooperation on this legislation. The cooperation of the committee's
ranking member [Mr. Goodling] as well as that of his fellow conferee
[Mr. Gunderson] was invaluable. Also, Mr. Kildee who chairs our
Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary and Vocational Education, and Mr.
Williams who chairs our Subcommittee on Labor-Management Relations,
made important contributions. I also want to thank the staff on both
sides, Omer Waddles, Jon Weintraub, Colleen McGinnis, Mary Gardner, and
Tom Kelly who worked long hours to complete this project.
The goal of this legislation is to expand career and education
options for the 75 percent of high school students who do not receive a
college degree. By providing flexibility in establishing school-to-work
systems, we expect that States and school districts will be able to
build on the many successful, innovative programs they already have
implemented.
Under the school-to-work concept, educators, employers, and labor
representatives develop partnerships in which high school juniors and
seniors attend school part-time and go to work part-time. Their school
course work complements their particular on-the-job experience,
enhancing their qualifications in the eyes of potential employers.
School-to-work participants receive not only a high school diploma, but
a certificate of competency in the set of skills necessary for their
chosen field. Alternatively, these young people go on to appropriate
postsecondary education or training. At the end, they will have a ready
answer for employers whose first question is always, ``Do you have any
experience?''
The bill would authorize the School-to-Work Program, to be
administered jointly by the Departments of Labor and Education, for 5
years, including $300 million in fiscal 1995 and such sums as may be
necessary in 1996 through 1999.
The Federal role in school-to-work is to provide grants to States and
localities to establish these partnerships, and to establish a flexible
framework to ensure that students receive the kind of training that
will launch them on successful careers.
The basic components, developed by States, include work-based and
school-based learning, and coordination of the two.
Under work-based learning, students would receive job training, paid
work experience, workplace mentoring and instruction in skills and in a
variety of elements of an industry. At school, students would explore
career opportunities with counselors. They would receive instruction in
a career major, selected no later than 11th grade. The study program's
academic and skill standards would be those contained in the
administration's recently passed school reform bill, H.R. 1804, the
Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Typically, their course work would
include at least 1 year of postsecondary education and periodic
evaluations to identify strengths and weaknesses.
The coordinating activities involve employers, schools, and students,
who together match the students with work opportunities. Teachers,
mentors, and counselors also will receive program instruction.
States' school-to-work plans, submitted for Federal implementation
grants, would have to detail how the State would meet program
requirements. They also would explain how the plans would extend the
opportunity to participate to poor, low-achieving and disabled students
and dropouts.
The conferees resolved several important differences between the
House and Senate bills. The final language assigns to Governors the
authority to apply for Federal school-to-work funds. But their
applications are to reflect cooperation and collaboration with the
State entities that actually administer the State's school-to-work
program. We would allow officials who disagree with a Governor's
application to include their concerns.
Another area of concern is whether school-to-work programs include
paid work for school-to-work participants. Under the conference
agreement, the Secretaries of Labor and Education would give preference
to applications that include paid work.
An important theme of this bill is its coordination with other
Federal training initiatives such as tech prep, cooperative education,
vocational education, and the just-enacted Goals 2000: Educate America
Act. The bill would require the Secretaries to disseminate information
on the model programs throughout the country using existing structures,
such as those established by the Job Training Partnership Act and the
Educational Resources Information Center Clearinghouse.
Ten percent of the funds authorized by the bill--$30 million in
1995--would be set aside for school-to-work programs in high-poverty
areas.
This bill is an important blueprint to help us build a high-skilled
work force for the 21st century. In line with other proposals developed
by the Clinton administration, it does not establish new Federal
bureaucracies but makes States and localities partners with the Federal
Government in achieving goals crucial to improving the lives of our
citizens.
Mr. Speaker, with the leadership of the President and his Cabinet,
and the hard work of the Department staffs and our committee staff, we
are ready to assist millions of young people get their fair shot at the
American dream--a good wage in return for skilled work that employers
need.
I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
(Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement on H.R.
2884, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994.
This legislation is designed to bring together partnerships of
employers, educators, workers, and others for the purpose of building a
high quality school-to-work transition system in the United States.
Such a system will prepare this Nation's youth for careers in high-
skill, high-wage jobs.
It has become an all too well-known statistic in recent years, that
only about 50 percent, or approximately 1.4 million of this Nation's
youth enter some form of postsecondary education the fall after they
graduate from high school. Of these, only about half successfully
complete a baccalaureate degree. For the reminder, representing three
out of four U.S. youth, a rough and often painful transition to a
career begins.
Yet our U.S. educational system continues to be disproportionately
geared to meeting the needs of college-bound youth. There is simply no
mechanism in most of our schools to link young people to employers.
While not identical, the conference agreement we are considering
today, shares many of the key components of legislation that my
colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Gunderson and I introduced last year, to
create a system of school-to-work transition and youth apprenticeship
programs in the United States.
Both measures provide considerable flexibility at the State and local
levels, allowing communities to develop programs that meet their
individual economic and labor market needs.
Both are built around partnerships at the local level, that bring
employers, schools, teachers, workers, students, and the community
together to design the system.
Both require the integration of school-based and work-based learning.
Both are designed so that the successful completion of a School-to-
Work Program will lead to a high school diploma, a portable certificate
of competency in an occupation, a certificate or diploma from a
postsecondary institution--if appropriate--and employment in a high-
skill, high-paying job.
And both are built on successful efforts in progressive States and
communities--such as programs found both in the York Youth
Apprenticeship Program, and in Project Connections--undertaken by
involved employers and the school district of the city of York--where
young students are provided with challenging academic curricula and at
the same time engaged in related career development opportunities.
Under this conference agreement, we were successful in increasing the
emphasis on serving youth through career awareness, exploration, and
counseling programs in the middle school years, and even earlier where
possible.
We also increased the strong role that employers must play in the
development and implementation of this system.
While concern continues to exist that this legislation will result in
just one more new program--the conference agreement addresses this
concern by adding a sunset to the legislation specifying that this
program will end in the year 2001.
Probably one of the greatest strengths of this legislation is that
while it does not eliminate any existing job training or education
programs--it will serve as a coordinating mechanism by which existing
education and training programs will be integrated at the State and
local levels.
States and local partnerships are allowed to receive only one 5-year
implementation grant--or venture capital--to be used to leverage change
in existing education and training programs. And they must show how
these new moneys will be integrated with existing programs.
Further, a broad use of waivers under the legislation will result in
linkages between programs, never before possible.
Mr. Speaker, I truly feel that this is an innovative and very
important piece of legislation, that will result in positive change in
how we educate our youth and prepare them for the world of work.
I am proud to have a part of its very bipartisan development. This
adds to Chairman Ford's Tech Prep Program which has been working very
well for several years in my district.
Mr. Speaker, I, therefore, urge my colleagues to join me in support
of its passage.
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
conference agreement on H.R. 2884, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act
of 1994.
Similar to legislation that my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Goodling and I introduced last year, this bill is designed to establish
high quality, work-based learning programs throughout the United
States, that train youth for skilled, high wage careers which do not
require a 4-year college degree.
Establishment of such a school-to-work transition system in this
country, would address a serious inadequacy in this Nation's
educational system, as well as significantly improve the quality of the
U.S. work force--enabling the United States to better compete in the
global marketplace.
Demographic trends, technological change, increased international
competition, a changing workplace, and inadequacy of our U.S. education
and training systems have resulted in shortages of skilled workers, and
an excess of unskilled, hard-to-employ individuals.
A significant proportion of U.S. youth graduate from high school with
inadequate basic skills and totally lacking in work-readiness
competencies.
Yet the United States is the only major industrial nation lacking
formal system for helping youth make the transition from school to
work.
Very little attention is paid in our U.S. educational system to
preparing youth for the workplace.
Like our earlier legislation, the conference agreement we are
considering today has the goal of expanding the range of education and
career options for the 70 to 75 percent of American youth who will not
complete a 4-year B.A. degree.
By providing a broad degree of flexibility in establishment of
school-to-work systems in States and localities, the legislation builds
on successful efforts already undertaken by innovative States and
communities--such as those efforts in Wisconsin--while providing
Federal guidance on the establishment of a national school-to-work
policy.
This legislation would provide development grants to all States for
the early planning and development of State-wide school-to-work
efforts.
The bill further provides one-time, 5-year implementation grants to
States who are further along in their school-to-work efforts--to aid in
the actual establishment and expansion of State and local school-to-
work programs.
The implementation grants, expected to go out to States in waves--
have been aptly described as venture capital--a one-time infusion of
Federal assistance that will leverage change in existing programs--
ultimately resulting in broad-based change in the way we teach and
prepare our youth for the world of work.
At the heat of this system are local partnerships of employers,
educators, workers, students, and the community--who will build local
school-to-work programs to meet the economic and educational needs of
their individual communities.
The active and vital role of employers in the development and
implementation of this system is stressed throughout the legislation--
and was further strengthened in the conference agreement.
Under the proposal, school-based and work-based learning must be
integrated, with students participating in school-to-work programs
gaining valuable work experience, under the guidance of a workplace
mentor.
Under the conference agreement, career awareness, exploration, and
counseling opportunities are encouraged for all students--beginning as
early as possible, but no later than in the middle school years--in
order that all youth have a sense of the opportunities that lay ahead
combined with the right education.
Finally, and most importantly, student completing this program would
receive a high school diploma, a certificate of competency in an
occupation, entry into appropriate postsecondary education--where
appropriate--and/or entry into a skilled, high-paying job with career
potential.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the legislation before us today moves us in
the right direction in meeting the needs of noncollege bound youth--
whose needs have been so inadequately met in recent years.
I feel it strikes the right balance: involving all the necessary
players--at every level; providing maximum flexibility to States and
particularly to local programs to craft programs that meet individual
community needs; and leveraging change in existing programs through the
one-time infusion of new money, and through waivers of regulatory and
statutory provisions in existing Federal education and training
programs.
This is not business as usual, and as a result, I support passage of
the conference agreement on H.R. 2884, and urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference
report on the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994.
In today's highly competitive global economy, business performance is
increasingly reliant upon the knowledge and skills of its workers.
Changes in business structures and increased use of technology in the
workplace require that today's entrants into the workforce be better
education and more highly skilled.
Mr. Speaker, I have some exciting school-to-work programs operating
in my district which are successfully preparing high school students
for the workplace.
A joint partnership among General Motors, the UAW and Flint schools
prepares students to enter skilled trades through a program that offers
challenging academic and work-based components.
Students in the manufacturing training partnership are learning
skills that will lead to high-skilled, high-wage jobs.
Other students from the Flint area are able to gain skills through a
cooperative effort between Hurley Hospital and the Genesee Area Skills
Center.
Mr. Speaker, these programs are not only having a positive effect on
the Students involved in them, they are having a positive effect on the
community at large.
In fact, school-to-work programs in Flint are considered an integral
part of local economic development.
I am pleased to support this legislation because I have seen the
difference school-to-work programs make in students' lives.
The School-to-Work Opportunities Act will enable high school students
to enter the workplace better prepared by establishing, for the first
time, a national framework for a school-to-work system.
Programs created under this system through broad-based partnerships
in States and communities will enable all students to participate in
education and training programs that will:
Better prepare them for a first job;
Enable them to earn portable credentials; and
Increase their opportunities for meaningful secondary and
postsecondary education.
Mr. Speaker, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act will help
communities develop and implement school-to-work programs that will
increase opportunities for all students to enter the workplace ready to
perform.
I urge support of the conference agreement.
{time} 1110
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pomeroy). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FORD of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 339,
nays 79, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 128]
YEAS--339
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Andrews (TX)
Applegate
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Barca
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentley
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blackwell
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brooks
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Buyer
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Castle
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Fingerhut
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Ford (TN)
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Glickman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamburg
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hobson
Hochbrueckner
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Huffington
Hughes
Hutto
Hyde
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
Kleczka
Klein
Klink
Kolbe
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lancaster
Lantos
LaRocco
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lehman
Levin
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lloyd
Long
Lowey
Machtley
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McCrery
McCurdy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McMillan
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Michel
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murphy
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pickle
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Ravenel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Santorum
Sarpalius
Sawyer
Saxton
Schenk
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sharp
Shays
Shepherd
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Slaughter
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Studds
Stupak
Sundquist
Swett
Synar
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Upton
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weldon
Wheat
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NAYS--79
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Boehner
Bunning
Burton
Callahan
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crapo
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Gekas
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Grams
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hefley
Herger
Hoke
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson, Sam
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kyl
Lewis (FL)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McInnis
Mica
Moorhead
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Porter
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Royce
Schaefer
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shuster
Solomon
Stearns
Stump
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Walker
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--14
Bacchus (FL)
Clay
Engel
Fish
Gallo
Grandy
Kaptur
McDade
McNulty
Ridge
Rowland
Swift
Washington
Whitten
{time} 1134
Mr. HERGER, Mrs. FOWLER, Mr. LIVINGSTON, and Mr. TAYLOR of
Mississippi changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. HUGHES, Mrs. VUCANOVICH, Mr. QUILLEN, and Mr. ZELIFF changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________