[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 45 (Thursday, April 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: April 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
SCHOOL-TO-WORK OPPORTUNITIES ACT OF 1993--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
proceed to the conference report accompanying H.R. 2884, the school-to-
work bill, which the clerk will now state.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to 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; having met, after full and free
conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to
their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of
the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration
of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of April 19, 1994.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, the hour is late, but this is a measure
of enormous importance to the millions of young Americans enrolled in
the high schools of this country who may not be able to take advantage
of the opportunity to attend a four-year college but are looking for a
chance to develop skills and also achieve academically so as to permit
them to move ahead and be constructive and productive workers in a
highly competitive economy.
I will speak very briefly. I know there are other Members who want to
address this issue. As I understand it, we will move after this bill to
the consideration of the reauthorization of the Head Start Program.
Madam President, first of all, I express, as the chairman of the
Human Resource Committee, my admiration and friendship and also
acknowledge the leadership of our colleague from Illinois, Senator
Simon, who has really shepherded this legislation through the course of
our committee hearings, the floor debate and the conference as well.
I had a good opportunity a number of weeks ago to visit with Senator
Simon at a site in Illinois which illustrated just the kind of program
that this legislation encourages in his home community in Chicago. And
I know the Senate appreciates his leadership on this issue as well as
on other educational issues, and I want to acknowledge that, as well.
Second, I want to thank our colleague, Harris Wofford, who had spent
a great deal of time before coming to the U.S. Senate working with
industries to expand opportunity for workers, particularly young
workers, in his own State of Pennsylvania.
Senator Wofford, as well as Senator Durenberger, Senator Kassebaum
and Senator Thurmond were enormously helpful in moving this whole
process forward. We know that they had a number of concerns as this
legislation was initially introduced and during the entire process we
worked to address those concerns.
Now we are about to act on the conference report that has broad
bipartisan support, not only among the Members of the Senate but also
from representatives of workers in terms of organized labor, as well as
the Chamber of Commerce, and other business organizations.
So we are very, very grateful for all of the contributions that have
been made to bring us to this point this evening.
Madam President, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act addresses an
issue that has been identified in recent years as a serious challenge
to our economy and our country.
In 1988, the William T. Grant Foundation Commission on Work, Family
and Citizenship issued a report that vividly documented the plight of
the 20 million youth between the ages of 16 and 24 who were unlikely to
ever attend college.
Described in the report as the ``Forgotten Half,'' these 20 million
young men and women faced a job market in which the chance of finding a
good job with decent wages, that provided the opportunity to master new
skills and earn promotions, was rapidly shrinking.
In constant dollars the earnings of 20- to 24-year-old male high
school graduates had fallen nearly 30 percent from their 1973 level,
and the teenage unemployment rate was 15.8 percent. For these youth,
the report stated, ``their lives as adults start in the economic limbo
of unemployment, part-time jobs, and poverty wages. Many of them never
break free.''
And, as I mentioned, these statistics are just for male youth. At
that time, the fact of female youth and workers in this area were never
even calculated.
``Who are the Forgotten Half?'' the report asked.
In non-statistical terms, they are the young people who
build our homes, drive our buses, repair our automobiles, fix
our televisions, maintain and serve our offices, schools, and
hospitals, and keep the production lines of our mills and
factories moving. To a great extent, they determine how well
the American family, economy, and democracy function. They
are also the thousands of young men and women who aspire to
work productively but never quite ``make it'' to that kind of
employment.
As necessary first steps to a fair chance for these non-college bound
youth, the report recommended better opportunities for education, job
training, employment and community service, in order to achieve a
fairer chance for success.
A few years earlier, a similar landmark report, ``A Nation at Risk,''
had launched a far-reaching reform movement in all aspects of
education. The report on the ``Forgotten Half'' has now focused
national attention on the serious deficiencies in the way we prepare
young students for the world of work.
In 1990, the ``Forgotten Half'' report was followed by the
influential ``America's Choice'' report, issued by the bipartisan
National Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, which
identified the United States as the only major industrialized nation in
the world that lacks a comprehensive and effective school-to-work
transition system. Many more reports, conferences, and hearings
followed, and we have now achieved a strong bipartisan consensus for
action.
Today, the Senate is voting on legislation that for the first time
will put into place a national framework for the development and
expansion of programs to ensure that all students--especially those who
do not complete a 4-year college program--enter the work force equipped
with the basic academic and occupational skills needed in an
increasingly complex labor market. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act
is exactly what was recommended in the ``Forgotten Half'' report--a
``necessary first step to a fair chance'' for all of America's youth.
In a letter to President Clinton expressing his support for the bill,
Samuel Halperin, director of the commission that produced the report,
wrote that the School-to-Work Opportunities Act ``more than fulfills
the key recommendations'' of the commission. The legislation, he
writes,
will help the United States to be globally competitive and to
achieve higher living standards through high-wage, high-skill
jobs.
No less important, it offers the essential impetus to
transform American secondary education. . . . [T]he proposal
points the way to hands-on, active, experiential learning in
which students are motivated to achieve academically through
organic connections with employers and workplaces. Studies
will come alive when pathways to career advancement and
lifelong learning are seen as a seamless web. And the typical
isolation of schooling will fade when labor, employers and
community leaders come to better understand their stake in
developing genuine school-employment connections.
The conference report, which is the product of bipartisan cooperation
in both bodies, passed the House yesterday by a vote of 339 to 79, with
strong bipartisan support. It has broad support in the business
community, from organized labor, from educational groups, from State
and local government officials, and from a wide range of other advocacy
groups.
Senator Simon, as the principal sponsor of the legislation in the
Senate, has guided the bill effectively through the committee process
to the floor, and in conference. He has accommodated the interests of
our colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
The bill has also benefited greatly from the leadership of Senator
Wofford, Senator Durenberger, and Senator Jeffords, and we are also
very appreciative of the cooperation we have received from Senator
Kassebaum and Senator Thurmond.
One of the real strengths of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act is
that it does not impose a top-down, one-size-fits-all set of
requirements on States and local communities.
Instead, the legislation recognizes that no single approach is
appropriate for every community and that effective programs must be
built locally, based on a consensus of business, education, community
and labor leaders. Consistent with that principle, the act establishes
a broad Federal framework for action, and then provides Federal funds
to States and communities to use as seed money to build their own
school-to-work systems, using existing resources which incorporate
these nationally established standards.
Let me briefly summarize what the act provides:
Title I establishes the three core elements that every eligible
school-to-work program must include. These elements are:
School-based learning, including a program of study that integrates
academic and vocational learning;
Work-based learning that includes a planned program of job training,
paid work experience wherever possible, workplace mentoring, and
instruction in general workplace competencies; and
Connecting activities that match students with employers who can
provide work-based learning opportunities, coordinate the involvement
of employers, schools, parents and students, and help students who have
completed the program to find appropriate jobs or pursue further
education or training.
Title II of the act lays out the procedures for providing Federal
grants to States to develop and implement their own school-to-work
systems. Under this title, all States are eligible for modest
development grants based on the size of the State.
Development funds may be used for activities that help to establish a
statewide system, but not for local school-to-work programs.
Title II also describes the procedures that must be followed by
States that have completed the development process to apply for 5-year
implementation grants. These much larger grants of several million
dollars over a 5-year period are available on a competitive basis to
States that submit comprehensive plans for implementation of statewide
school-to-work systems.
Title III authorizes the Secretaries of Labor and Education to
provide competitive grants directly to local partnerships in order to
provide funding for communities that have built a sound planning and
development base and are ready to begin implementing their own school-
to-work programs, even though their State may not yet be prepared to
move forward in implementing a statewide school-to-work system. This
title also authorizes the Federal Government to award grants directly
to local partnerships in urban and rural areas of high priority.
Title IV authorizes the Secretaries to carry out a number of national
programs and reports. These include research and demonstration
projects, evaluation of State and local programs, dissemination of the
best practices, and reports to Congress.
Title V establishes a process for States to apply to the Secretaries
for waivers of particular statutory and regulatory provisions to enable
States to combine Federal resources for school-to-work activities in
creative ways.
Laws subject to waivers under this title include the Job Training
Partnership Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act.
The act authorizes an appropriation of $300 million for fiscal year
1995 and ``such sums as may be necessary'' in each of the succeeding 4
fiscal years through 1999. President Clinton has requested $300 million
for fiscal year 1996 in his budget.
The School-to-Work Opportunities Act is a significant step toward a
more coherent policy to meet the needs of the Nation's youth as they
prepare to enter the work force. It is an important part of our
economic recovery national investment policy, and I urge the Senate to
approve it.
Madam President, I welcome the opportunity to recommend this
legislation for action here this evening.
Madam President, over the period of recent weeks, this
administration, under President Clinton's leadership, has used
discretionary funds to help jump start the School-to-Work Program.
Today, there are more than 22 applications from States who want to
take advantage of this program pending before the Departments of
Education and Labor. The President has proposed some $300 million in
his budget to establish this framework. We believe that, once the
framework is established, the participation and involvement of the
Federal Government then will be very limited and effectively phased
out.
So this is one of the programs that are part of a continuum of the
efforts of this administration, from the Head Start Program, and
expanding those opportunities; the Chapter 1 reforms; the Chapter 2
training programs, in terms of advancing the opportunities for teachers
in our communities; National Service, which will involve students from
K to 12, as well as reaching out to those individuals who might have
dropped out of school; the direct loan programs; the tuition percentage
and repayment programs.
This is a continuum, Madam President. We do not have all the
resources to be able to achieve all that we would like to do. But this
legislation is a key part of that continuum that the administration has
established. In this instance, we are putting our young people first in
offering new opportunities for them to be involved in school-to-work
programs. I hope the Senate will approve this conference report
tonight.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I opposed the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act when it was considered by the Senate because it will
create yet another job training program at a time when we should be
reforming the 154 job training programs we already have. I will vote
against the conference report on this bill for the same reason.
Having said that, I do want to acknowledge particularly the efforts
of Senator Kennedy, Senator Thurmond, Senator Simon, and their staffs
in working on the conference bill. I appreciate the courtesy and
cooperation of everyone involved.
When this bill was debated in the Senate, supporters stated
repeatedly that it did not create a new program. Instead, they
contended the legislation would encourage coordination of existing
programs under the school-to-work umbrella.
I share the goal of creating a better integrated system to improve
the transition from school to work, and I wish this bill did that. But
it doesn't. The bill creates yet another stand-alone job training
program, with a separate authorization, a separate pool of funds, and a
separate string of eligibility requirements.
Despite my objections to this legislation, I do appreciate the
efforts of the conferees to retain provisions which I believe do offer
more flexibility to States and localities to integrate existing
programs. For example, there is not longer a mandatory requirement that
all programs must provide paid work opportunities to all students.
In addition, the bill breaks new ground by allowing States to combine
funds from similar programs for school-to-work activities, without
having to go through an elaborate and time-consuming waiver process. It
is my hope that this provision will be just the first step toward
serious integration and consolidation of job training efforts.
I believe we must act boldly to reform our existing job training
programs--not merely add new ones in the name of reform. Creating this
new program will only serve to complicate the real task before us. When
we already have a confusing patchwork of job training programs costing
the Federal Government over $25 billion per year, creating job training
program No. 155 simply is not the answer.
We must begin to dismantle the confusing array of job training
programs which hangs like an albatross around our neck. Our goal should
be a single, comprehensive system that works for everyone. I have
introduced legislation with bipartisan support that provides both the
mechanism and the strategy for overhauling the entire system.
It is no secret where the votes are on the conference report, but I
sincerely hope that this will be the last time we create another job
training program, and that we will proceed instead to consolidate and
streamline the existing system.
Before closing, I want to express my deep appreciation for the staff
work which went into this legislation. I particularly want to recognize
the efforts of Carla Widener of my staff, who devoted countless hours
at every step of the process of considering this legislation. I would
like to thank as well Todd Atwater with Senator Thurmond, the ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity. Other staff
members on our side of the aisle who made significant contributions to
this effort include Reg Jones and Pam Devitt with Senator Jeffords,
Alyssa Hamilton with Senator Gregg, and Dean Rosen with Senator
Durenberger. Finally, I want to acknowledge the tireless efforts of Liz
Aldridge of the Office of Senate Legislative Counsel in dealing with
the many drafts of and amendments to this legislation.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I also oppose this conference report.
Madam President, it is difficult to find something that 8 in 10
Americans agree upon. But, a poll released this week shows that 79
percent of the public believe government wastes a lot of the money they
pay in taxes. This poll was not taken by a conservative Republican, but
by the President's own pollster, Stanley Greenberg. Today, we have a
bill before us which says to the American people, ``we don't care about
fiscal restraint, and we don't care about your tax dollars.''
Why do I make this claim? Because a simple modicum of fiscal
restraint in the School-to-Work program, which is now before us, passed
the Senate and was stripped in conference.
In February we spent some time debating and amending President
Clinton's School-to-Work Program. I spoke in opposition to this
legislation at that time, and as the conference report comes before the
Senate today I rise to oppose it as well.
When the bill was originally reported, it gave a blank check for the
program by authorizing such sums as necessary. I was pleased that the
Senate accepted my amendment to remove this blank check and replace it
with authorization levels in the President's--I repeat, the
President's--fiscal year 1995 budget. My amendment authorized $1.65
billion over 5 years for the School-to-Work Program.
However, for reasons I cannot fathom my amendment was dropped from
the conference report we are considering here today. Instead of
authorizing this new Federal program at the levels requested by the
President in his budget, this conference report funds this new program
at $300 million for fiscal year 1995 and such sums as necessary, in
other words, a blank check, for the following 4 years. I think most of
my colleagues are aware if we authorize legislation in this blank check
manner, there is no limit to how much it will cost.
Let me make clear what has happened here. The Congress of the United
States is about to increase the authorization of a program above the
amount proposed by the President. Keep in mind that the President
didn't even ask for this extra money. And this is a program proposed by
the President himself for which he determined in his own budget that he
needed $1.65 billion over 5 years, not the blank check that is in this
bill.
Can this country afford such sums as necessary? The American people
are tired of the Federal Government spending beyond its means. I do not
oppose the concept of job training for non-college bound youth. But I
do believe this legislation will not achieve the goals its sponsors
claim and it will cost the American taxpayer untold sums.
The Federal Government currently runs 154 separate job training
programs at a cost of $25 billion per year to the U.S. taxpayers. With
the passage of this legislation that number will increase to 155.
I believe an overhaul of the current system should happen before
creating another billion dollar program. Simply, that is responsible
government. The American taxpayer is more than willing to support
programs that deliver what they promise. They do not support this
process whereby we layer over old, unworkable programs with new ones. I
think that is what we are doing today. In fact, the same poll I
referred to earlier says 70 percent of Americans say that we should
institute reforms to evaluate programs by the results achieved.
The School-to-Work Opportunities Act is a prime example of the
problems with our job training programs. Instead of figuring out
whether the existing 154 programs work, a new program with new
requirements and unlimited new funds is created.
This legislation seeks to help non-college bound youth. Similar
programs have already been enacted to assist this same group--high
school students. Congress established the similar tech-prep program as
part of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Reauthorization in
1990.
According to testimony given by the General Accounting Office before
the Senate Labor Appropriations Subcommittee in June of 1993, many of
the current job training programs serve the same target populations.
For example, there are 65 programs which serve the economically
disadvantaged, 48 programs are aimed at serving out-of-school youth
under 22 years of age, 90 programs provide career counseling and
assessments and 75 programs provide occupational training. GAO
concluded its testimony by making it clear that Congress must work
through existing programs instead of establishing new programs that
compete with those that already exist.
We cannot afford this legislation especially with the removal of my
amendment to cap the authorization at the level requested by the
President in his fiscal year 1995 budget. This is a brand-new,
bureaucratic, costly, Federal program.
I oppose this legislation not because I do not believe in improving
the transition from school to work. But because I believe before we
create another duplicative, costly job training program, we owe it to
the taxpayers to take a look at what we have already done to determine
if the existing programs work effectively. Unfortunately, I believe my
colleagues have the votes to pass it today. I am afraid we are just
making this program number 156.
Madam President, I will have printed in the Record the report done by
GAO that lists the number of programs that we have in job training. I
was surprised, I tell my friends and colleagues from Massachusetts,
Illinois, and West Virginia, to find in the Department of Education we
already have 60 programs. Before we had this program we already had 60
dealing with job training at a cost of $13 billion.
The Department of Labor--and this program is divided between
Department of Labor and Department of Education--in the Department of
Labor we currently have 36 programs, at a cost of $7.1 billion, for job
training. I could go on. The Department of Veterans Affairs has 12
programs, the Department of Health and Human Services has 14 programs,
the Department of Commerce has nine programs. There are a few other
miscellaneous programs. Small business has eight programs.
If we add all those together, there are 154 different job training
programs, many of which are duplicative. And I will say some of them
work and many of them do not work. Frankly, I hope the School-to-Work
program is one that works. But I think before we create a new one we
should have eliminated some that do not work so well. I cannot help but
think, spending $25 billion a year in 154 programs, we should be
eliminating a lot of these existing programs before we start new ones.
That is the reason why I rise in opposition today. That is the reason
why I think Senator Kassebaum opposed this legislation as well.
I ask unanimous consent that this table be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS: FUNDING LEVELS BY AGENCY--
FISCAL YEAR 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1994--
-----------------------------------
Federal Agency Funding
Number of Levels (in Percent of
Programs millions) total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION.............................. 3 $100.9 0.41
Department of Agriculture........... 1 162.7 0.66
Appalachian Regional Commission..... 1 11.2 0.05
Department of Commerce.............. 9 220.5 0.89
Department of Defense............... 2 72.0 0.29
Department of Education............. 60 13,031.4 52.47
Department of Health and Human
Services........................... 14 2,203.5 8.87
Department of Housing and Urban
Development........................ 4 303.4 1.22
Department of Interior.............. 2 20.9 0.08
Department of Labor................. 36 7,141.5 28.75
Office of Personnel Management...... 1 \1\ N/A
Small Business Administration....... 8 157.4 0.63
Department of Transportation........ 1 1.5 0.01
Department of Veterans Affairs...... 12 1,410.0 5.68
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 154 24,837.7 100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Program coordinated by OPM. but carried out by numerous federal
agencies.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, if the Senator will check carefully,
the Senator will find that the GAO study he refers to was requested by
the Democratic members of the Labor Committee to try to find ways we
can bring about consolidation of programs many of which were enacted
during the last 12 years of Republican administrations and signed into
law by the Republican President. So the Senator is not going to find
any dispute from me about the need to consolidate programs, since it
was basically myself as chairman and the ranking member of our
committee who requested these reports.
I find it interesting that the Chamber of Commerce, which is not
known as an organization that generally supports frivolous spending by
the Federal Government, has strongly supported this legislation. The
National Association of Manufacturers, not known as a great liberal
group that is out there supporting frivolous Government spending, has
placed a priority addressing the needs of those young people of America
who do not receive the billions of dollars in Pell grants and Stafford
loans that are given out to students attending college. Those
organizations think that the sons and daughters of working families,
whose real income over the period of the last 15 years has dropped
significantly, ought to be able to have some help and support, which in
this case is the equivalent of the cost of one C-17.
So, Madam President, I respect the arguments that are made by my
friend. I do think, frankly, that it is we who will be taking the lead
in reviewing all of the various authorizations of our committee to
determine how much is utilized for administration and how much actually
gets out to benefit the people. We are in the process of doing that. I
hope the committees that he is on will engage in those kinds of efforts
as well.
I give my colleague the assurance that as we do those reviews and we
work to consolidate those programs--which Secretary Reich, Secretary
Riley, and Secretary Shalala have agreed must be done--that we will be
able to count on his support.
But I must say again, Madam President, that I really am surprised at
opposition to this very modest program which is intended to give some
help and assistance to the millions of young men and women who are
going through that year, the second-to-last year, of high school and
who are facing so many difficulties in making career choices. We do not
want to simply say to them: Your choice when you leave school is a job
at the Pizza Hut; your choice is to work at McDonald's.
Hopefully, we are going to be able to bring the best of American
business, which has endorsed this program; the best in terms of
educators, who have endorsed this program; the best in terms of other
community-based groups, which have endorsed this program, and say to
these young people: You are valuable in our society. And in a $1.5
trillion budget we can afford $300 million for those kids.
Madam President, I am proud of this program and the work that has
been done on this program and the strong bipartisan support,
overwhelming support; better than 4 to 1, Republicans and Democrats
alike, in the House of Representatives.
I hope that the young people of America feel that this is a small
downpayment for those Americans who perhaps have not had all of the
kinds of opportunities that we have had as Members of the U.S. Senate,
but who are the backbone of this country and the ones who make our
economy really work.
I, quite frankly, am surprised, in a $1.5 trillion budget, that there
are Members out here tonight saying, ``We can't afford those $300
million'' for those young people when this is a program that has had
strong bipartisan support.
I respect my colleague and friend, but I hope that his view will not
be persuasive.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator give me 1 minute?
Mr. SIMON. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from
Illinois, and I appreciate the comments made by the Senator from
Massachusetts. I will just tell the Senator from Massachusetts, again,
this Senator hopes that you will move toward consolidation of 154
programs. I cannot help but think a lot of them do not work. I do not
know that we need 155 job training programs. I do not know that the
Department of Education needs 60 job training programs; or the
Department of Labor needs 40-some. I handed that chart in.
So I hope the authorizing committee, on which I had the pleasure of
serving with the Senator for several years, will work toward that
consolidation, so we would make these $25 billion-plus that we are now
spending on job training more effective, more efficient, to help more
people, not to help more bureaucracy. That is the intent. That is why
31 Senators opposed this bill when it passed.
I am not asking for a rollcall vote because I know the Senator has
the votes and the hour is late. We will allow this to be adopted. I did
want to raise the objections of several, because we do not see this as
reinventing Government. We see this as an expansion of Government
without consolidating or fixing some of the programs that, frankly, are
not working very well.
Again, I thank my colleague from Illinois, and I yield the floor.
Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I believe the President pro tempore would
like a word or two in here. I am pleased to yield to him.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank my friend from Illinois. I
congratulate the chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee,
Mr. Kennedy, on his leadership in connection with the conference report
and the bill which preceded it. I admire and congratulate him because
of his political acumen, his legislative skill and, as I say, his
leadership in connection with not only this measure but in many, many
other measures that have passed this Senate during the time that I was
leader of the Democratic Party, both as majority leader and minority
leader.
However, in this particular instance, I voted against the bill when
it passed the Senate. I do not believe that I stated my reasons for
objecting to it on that occasion. Therefore, I am opposed to the
conference report. There will be no rollcall vote, of course, in which
case I would have established for the Record my vote against the
report.
Mr. President, the Senate passed the school-to-work transition bill
on February 8, 1994. Although I believe a program for school-to-work
transition is one that is long overdue, I cast my vote against that
measure to make a particular point. This Nation cannot afford to fund
new programs while at the same time maintaining that existing programs
cannot be cut.
Over the years, we have gotten into the practice of authorizing one
new program after another without regard to cost. Some of these
programs, like the school-to-work transition program, are designed to
change the direction that we are taking in preparing our young people
for the work force. That is good. Change is necessary. However, we in
Congress must first change the way in which we do business. What
concerns me greatly is that while we continue to create new programs,
old programs just never seem to die. This cannot continue. We do not
have the money to continue existing programs as well as pay for new
ones. If we create new programs which better suit our needs, we should
eliminate the old out-dated ones. This seems never to happen. It must
begin to happen or we will never be able to finance the new programs we
need.
We are operating under a freeze in discretionary spending over a
five-year period. By fiscal year 1998, discretionary outlays will fall
$180.3 billion short of meeting inflation and $14.9 billion below a
hard freeze. The mathematics is simple. We are in a budgetary situation
where we cannot add without subtracting. We need to take a broader look
at new programs being created and get rid of our tunnel vision. If we
want to take a new direction, then we should do so--but, we should also
be looking at existing programs that are not working, that have
outlived their usefulness or are duplicative, and we should begin to
eliminate those programs.
I have no quarrel with the school-to-work transition program. It will
benefit my own State of West Virginia. However, I cannot with good
conscience vote to support this legislation, raise expectations, and
lead people to believe that we can do it all--that money is no problem,
that passing these new wonderful ideas is a cost-free endeavor. That
just is not the case, and I cannot vote as if it were.
I, again, thank my friend, Mr. Simon, for his kindness and generosity
in yielding.
Mr. SIMON. Madam President, first I respect the sincerity of the
President pro tempore and his careful work in this body. I also respect
my friend from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles.
Let me point out, to just reinforce what Senator Kennedy had to say,
that it is those of us on this side of the aisle who have asked for a
review by the GAO.
When you talk about 154 job training plans, that includes the Pell
grants; that includes Stafford guaranteed student loans. It includes a
lot of things that really are not job training programs. They took the
extreme on this.
Let me add that Secretary Bob Reich is proposing some programs to
consolidate, and I think we are going to develop an improvement.
I want to particularly thank Senator Kennedy. Senator Byrd, in
referring to Senator Kennedy, used the word ``leadership.'' He really
is a leader. We heard, in response to Senator Nickles, these are not
just pieces of paper for him; he believes in these things. I really
appreciate that leadership.
I also want to thank Senator Wofford and Senator Durenberger, both of
whom played important roles in developing this, as well as Congressman
Ford and Congressman Goodling.
As has been said, three-fourths of the young people who go to our
high schools do not get bachelors' degrees. We have to help them. This
is a higher education bill, as I said earlier today, but it is higher
education spelled h-i-r-e, so that young people can learn on the job.
Senator Kennedy and I visited a high school in Chicago, and we saw
these young people there working on metal crafting, helping businesses,
but also learning that the math they were being taught in school has
some meaning, the English they were learning in school has meaning, and
doing the kinds of things that are learned by doing. It is the most
effective way of learning.
I hope, Madam President, that we will not only adopt this, but will
follow through in other ways to help these young people who are not
going on to college.
Twenty-six percent of the people in the State of Illinois, adult
citizens of our State, are not high-school graduates. I do not know
what the percentage is in California, Madam President, but it would be
a similar percentage.
One of the great things about the School-to-Work Program is it
encourages people to come back to school. I hope we can move ahead.
I am very pleased to join my colleague, Senator Kennedy, in support
of this legislation. I hope we can at this point adopt this by voice
vote.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, I rise today in support of the
conference report for the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993.
I am an original cosponsor of this legislation which is designed to
prepare all Americans for high-skill, high-wage careers.
Numerous studies have found that there is an urgent need in this
country for comprehensive school-to-work systems that can effectively
prepare our children to compete in the emerging global economy.
The General Accounting Office, for example, concluded in its report--
Transition From School-to-Work--that we are failing to provide our
young people with the high skills they need to make an effective
transition from school to work.
More specifically, GAO found that 30 percent of youth aged 16 to 24
lack the skills necessary for entry-level employment.
The General Accounting Office also reported that the United States is
lagging behind some of its primary international economic competitors--
including Japan and Germany--in providing its young people with the
academic and technical skills that employers need.
In Japan, for example, high school seniors get jobs almost
exclusively through school/employer linkages, with employers basing
their hiring decisions on school recommendations.
In West Germany, roughly two-thirds of all youth participate in
apprenticeship programs that teach them important academic and
occupational-related skills.
The secondary education system in the United States, however,
has evolved into a multitrack system that often fails to meet the needs
of students who do not plan to attend traditional 4 year colleges.
Although American high schools direct most of their resources toward
preparing students for college, only about 15 percent of high school
freshmen graduate from high school and then obtain a 4 year college
degree within 6 years of high school graduation. A substantial number
of the remaining 85 percent of America's young people wander between
different educational and employment experiences.
Madam President, the Congressional Research Service also cites
several studies in its report--Educating New American Workers:
Improving the Transition From School to Work--which find that too many
Americans are stuck in low wage jobs due to limited career guidance,
inadequate workplace experiences, and other impediments to effective
school-to-work transitions.
For example, CRS cites the report--``The Forgotten Half''--which
found that men aged 20-24 with a high school diploma experienced a 28
percent decline in real earnings between 1973 and 1986 while high
school dropouts experienced a 42 percent decline during this same
period.
CRS also highlights a recent Census Bureau study which found that
21.6 percent of all full-time workers with high school diplomas had low
earnings in 1990--up from 12 percent in 1974.
In short, both the General Accounting Office and the Congressional
Research Service conclude that too many Americans are stuck in low
skill, low wage jobs.
Mr. President, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act addresses this
problem by authorizing the Secretaries of Education and Labor to help
states develop and implement comprehensive school-to-work transition
systems that combine school-based learning and work-based learning.
More specifically, this legislation supports tech prep programs,
career academies, apprenticeship programs, and cooperative education
programs that offer:
A program of study designed to meet academic standards established by
the State for all students;
Regularly scheduled evaluations designed to identify academic
strengths and weaknesses;
Career exploration and counseling;
Paid work experience leading to the award of a skill certificate; and
Workplace mentoring.
In effect, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act supports successful
school-to-work opportunities programs like the Career Cooperative Tech
Prep Program at William Rainey Harper College in Palatine, IL.
Madam President, Tech Prep Program at Harper College was one of only
four education and training programs in the United States to win the
Labor Department's Investing for Tomorrow Award in 1992 for its
``outstanding contribution to workforce quality.''
The Tech Prep Program at Harper College brings 10 public high schools
and over 90 businesses together to provide students in northwest
suburban Cook County with academic training, technical training, and
important worksite learning experiences.
This program begins in the middle school years when students are
invited to attend a 4-week summer program which allows them to explore
different career opportunities.
This program then organizes career nights and helps students develop
their own academic and technical training plans throughout their high
school years.
After graduating from high school, tech prep students particiapte in
an 8-week summer internship program designed to prepare them for entry
level positions in their chosen fields while simultaneously earning
college credit.
Once career cooperative tech prep students complete their summer
internships, they are then encouraged to enroll in an associate of
applied science degree program at William Rainey Harper College where
they complement their academic training with important work-site
experiences.
Finally, after earning their A.A.S. degree, tech prep students are
given hiring preferences for fulltime positions with their program's
sponsors.
Madam President, I would like to quote Amanda Clark, a member of the
Schaumburg High School graduating class of 1991, on the benefits of
school-to-work programs:
As a high school senior, I knew I wanted to continue my
education, but was not sure I could afford a four-year
college. I also knew I wanted to pursue a career in business,
but I was not sure in which area. I enrolled in the tech prep
program. After an internship at household retail services in
Wooddale, I decided that I definitely want to major in
finance. From tech prep, I gained the career direction I was
lacking and earned good money while attending Harper College.
Eventually, I will have an affordable means of obtaining a
bachelor's degree, thanks to tech prep. I could not ask for
anything more.
Madam President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the
conference report to the School-to-Work Opportunities Act.
Mr. COATS. Madam President, school-to-work transition is a concept
that I have strongly endorsed on several occasions. As most of us have
heard in committee testimony and during visits to our home States, many
of our youth will not go to college, and many who do go to college will
not earn a degree. We need to provide meaningful opportunities for
these students--and we need to provide them as early as possible.
School to work is a principle which endeavors to address this issue
in a way which requires collaboration, public/private partnerships, and
mentorship--all very important concepts that are crucial for an
effective program.
I voted against the Senate version of the school-to-work proposal
earlier this year for several reasons--one of which was the mandated
paid work requirement.
I am pleased that the conference committee has deleted that
requirement and in its place, retained an amendment offered by Senator
Thurmond which gives a priority to States which include a paid work
component in their State plans.
This was an important change in the legislation and I congratulate
Senator Thurmond for its inclusion.
I supported the Thurmond amendment because I was concerned that a
paid training requirement would significantly limit the opportunities
for valuable work experiences--which would have been particularly true
for small businesses.
However, even with this important change in the legislation, I must
still oppose H.R. 2884.
What continues to be of concern to me is the fact that this new
initiative represents yet another categorical job training program.
According to the Government Accounting Office, we are presently
funding over 150 job training programs at an estimated cost of $20
billion. The school-to-work bill adds another job training proposal to
this already costly mix. And perhaps more important is the fact that it
duplicates efforts already authorized to be provided to this same
group--kids not bound for college.
As a matter of fact, the State of Indiana, as well as 23 other
States, has already received grants for the development of school-to-
work programs. Some might ask how this was possible since this bill has
not yet been signed into law.
Using existing authority under JTPA and the Carl Perkins Act--the
Departments of Labor and Education have already provided funds to
States for the development of school-to-work initiatives. So we see
that school-to-work initiatives are not only possible, but are already
being supported by Federal funds, so why is this bill needed?
That is a good question--and the principle reason why I am opposing
this legislation.
Madam President, I want to reiterate that the concept of school-to-
work transition is an important one, and one that deserves our close
attention. However, I strongly believe that we should consider it in
the context of a broader job training reform package that will be
considered later this year.
Mr. WOFFORD. Madam President, we are about to vote on the School-to-
Work Opportunities Act, S. 1361. The House passed it yesterday so now
its our chance to act in a strong bipartisan way to give young people
the training and resources they need to be good workers and good
citizens. The vote count was 339 to 79 with more Republicans voting in
favor of this education reform measure than against. We originally
passed S. 1361 on February 8, 62 to 31.
So today, we in this body will once again have the chance to join
together to show the American people that we can get past party and
past the divisions of left and right to invest in our collective
future.
School-to-Work and Youth Apprenticeship Programs are built on a
simple truth--people learn best by doing. It is like the old Chinese
proverb: ``What I hear, I forget. What I see, I remember. What I do, I
understand.''
The point is to empower young people to be active, not passive, in
learning the skills needed to qualify for good jobs and be productive
workers. Real learning requires more than textbooks, you have to get
your hands dirty.
The United States lags way behind our competitors in Europe and Asia
in preparing young people, especially those who choose not to go to
college, for the world of work. Germany and Japan have developed
extensive, integrated youth education and job training programs to
succeed in the high-technology, global economy of the 21st century.
As we have all learned over and over again, when we do not invest
today in opportunities for young people to learn the skills,
discipline, and sense of personal responsibility to be productive
workers and law abiding citizens, we end up paying tomorrow in the
costs of unemployment, welfare, drugs, and prison.
Coupled with Goals 2000, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act
represents a significant first step in an aggressive agenda that we
must undertake this year to reinvent our schools and our job training
systems. This agenda includes turning our unemployment system into a
reemployment system, welfare reform, and the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Act. This agenda will encourage lifelong
learning, improve our competitiveness, and create jobs.
The School to Work Opportunities Act will help create a diverse,
national system of apprenticeship-style programs from the ``grassroots
up'' and in so doing increase the competitiveness and productivity of
our young people, our schools, our businesses and our workforce.
Through a competitive grants process jointly administered by the
Secretary Robert Reich and Secretary Riley the bill invests ``seed
capital'' in partnerships and in what is working on the State and local
level--igniting and replicating these small but bright pilots into a
national, coordinated system.
The bill is premised on the notion that real change in our job
training programs and our system of education will only come about when
the people closest to the problems are empowered to change them. The
bill does not create a new Federal bureaucracy. The programs aren't run
by bureaucrats in Washington but rather by schools, businesses,
communities, parents, teachers, and students at the local level, by our
constituents.
I would especially note that the conference report includes an
innovative set of waivers that will allow States and localities
flexibility in implementing their programs and will encourage them to
cut through red tape and the myriad of Federal regulations to develop
comprehensive, integrated programs. I was particularly involved with
the consolidation amendments that are a part of this act that will
allow for the combination of Federal funds for high poverty schools and
the combination of Federal funds by States for school to work
activities, Sections 504 and 505. I am also pleased at the retention of
the paid work experience component and the industrial extension center
technology language since both are hallmarks of our efforts in
Pennsylvania.
Madam President, I would like to take a few more moments to speak
about our efforts in Pennsylvania.
In April 1991, the Pennsylvania Economic Development Partnership, a
bipartisan group of educators, business leaders, union officials, and
Government leaders from across the Commonwealth, released ``A State
Prepared: Developing Pennsylvania's Work Force.'' Chaired by Dr. Peter
Likins the report called for the dramatic improvement of school-to-work
transition programs in Pennsylvania. The partnership suggested that
both employers and new workers need a better level of coordination
between education and the workplace and that secondary school systems
need to do a better job of relating education and training experiences
in the world of work. Three years later the essence of this report is
reflected in the School to Work Act.
As I have mentioned on other occasions, before coming to the Senate,
I was honored to serve as the head of the Department of Labor and
Industry in Pennsylvania. In that role, I had considerable hands-on
experience developing initiatives that integrated school- and work-
based learning. I helped Governor Casey devise and launch the
Pennsylvania Youth Apprenticeship Program in 1990.
Loosely adapted from Germany's system, our Pennsylvania Youth
Apprenticeship Program is a small but rapidly growing statewide effort
that serves as a model for the rest of the Nation and offers the best
working framework on which to build a rigorous and comprehensive
national system to help young people make the transition from school to
work.
There are over 450 student apprentices participating in
Pennsylvania's 14 sites around the Commonwealth in the career fields of
metalworking, manufacturing, electronics, and health care. The students
go to school 3 days a week and to the work site 2 days a week. This
rigorous, 4-year program that starts in the 11th grade allows students
to earn a high school diploma, skilled worker status, up to 2 years of
post-secondary credits transferable to 4-year colleges in Pennsylvania
and usually a modest stipend. Avoiding tracking, this program keeps
students options open. Over 150 businesses--many of them small
businesses--that have stepped forward to be partners in this education
reform initiative.
We also have a rich tradition of vocational education and career
academies in Pennsylvania. In Philadelphia, the academy system of
schools within schools is engaging over 4,300 students in active
learning.
With the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, our Commonwealth can build
on its successful examples and other States, schools and communities
across the Nation can begin to follow our lead. We can empower citizens
and schools, communities and companies to help each other, not with
more government, but with direct support for education that works. For
job training that gives young people--especially those millions of
young people who don't go to college--the chance to turn their diplomas
into productive lives.
During the course of the debate on national service, I was pleased to
point often to our experience in Pennsylvania with PENNSERVE. Now with
the debate on the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, we see another
example of the Nation trying to replicate another demonstrated success
of Pennsylvania.
We have already seen the future of a national system of
apprenticeship-style programs in Pennsylvania. And if, with the passage
of this Act, the Nation's experience is anything like our own, then the
future is indeed quite bright.
Let me close by offering my thanks:
To Governor Casey and Secretaries Carroll, Foley, and Greenberg who
have given tremendous leadership to our efforts in linking school and
work in Pennsylvania. The lessons and experiences of Pennsylvania have
informed our bill and arguably helped lead to the bill in the first
place.
To Jean Wolfe, the director of our Pennsylvania Youth Apprenticeship
Program who testified on this legislation early on and helped us make
this a better bill. And to her predecessor any my good friend Bob Coy
who is acting to create systems of school to work in Delaware. To Jean
Berdick, Ray Christman, Tom Paternostro, Theresa Lemme, Natalie Allen,
and the many others who have been on the frontlines in Pennsylvania,
including all of the students.
And a special note of thanks to three of my friends and advisers who
represent the best in the business in the policy area of
apprenticeships: Richard Kazis, Hillary Pennington, and Sam Halperin.
From drafting Career Pathways to debating this measure they've been
instrumental.
Thanks to Secretaries Reich and Riley and their fine staffs for their
excellent work, in particular Sally Sachar and Leslie Loble.
Finally, a special note of thanks to my colleagues.
From the other side of the aisle, Senators Durenberger, Hatfield,
Bond, and Jeffords who have helped craft this bill and worked for its
passage.
Thanks to Senator Simon for his stewardship of this bill through the
legislative process. From our work on Career Pathways to this point,
Senator Simon has been an effective and eloquent champion of the
importance of integrating school- and work-based learning. And it goes
without saying Chairman Kennedy's leadership has been instrumental on
this and so many other important domestic initiatives. Both have been a
delight to work with and their staff--Sara Fox, Luis Castro, and Brian
Kennedy--have repeatedly demonstrated their abilities and good judgment
in the course of moving this bill so quickly.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Madam President, I opposed the School-to-Work
Opportunities Act when it was considered by the Senate because it will
create yet another job training program at a time when we should be
reforming the 154 job training programs we already have. I will vote
against the conference report on this bill for the same reason.
Having said that, I do want to acknowledge particularly the efforts
of Senator Kennedy, Senator Thurmond, Senator Simon, and their staffs
in working on the conference bill. I appreciate the courtesy and
cooperation of everyone involved.
When this bill was debated in the Senate, supporters stated
repeatedly that it did not create a new program. Instead, they
contended the legislation would encourage coordination of existing
programs under the school-to-work umbrella.
I share the goal of creating a better integrated system to improve
the transition from school to work, and I wish this bill did that. But
it doesn't. The bill creates yet another stand-alone job training
program, with a separate authorization, a separate pool of funds, and a
separate string of eligibility requirements.
Despite my objections to this legislation, I do appreciate the
efforts of the conferees to retain provisions which I believe do offer
more flexibility to States and localities to integrate existing
programs. For example, there is no longer a mandatory requirement that
all programs must provide paid work opportunities to all students.
In addition, the bill breaks new ground by allowing States to combine
funds from similar programs for school-to-work activities, without
having to go through an elaborate and time-consuming waiver process. It
is my hope that this provision will be just the first step toward
serious integration and consolidation of job training efforts.
I believe we must act boldly to reform our existing job training
programs--not merely add new ones in the name of reform. Creating this
new program will only serve to complicate the real task before us. When
we already have a confusing patchwork of job training programs costing
the Federal Government over $25 billion per year, creating job training
program No. 155 simply is not the answer.
We must begin to dismantle the confusing array of job training
programs which hangs like an albatross around our neck. Our goal should
be a single, comprehensive system that works for everyone. I have
introduced legislation with bipartisan support that provides both the
mechanism and the strategy for overhauling the entire system.
It is no secret where the votes are on the conference report, but I
sincerely hope that this will be the last time we create another job
training program, and that we will proceed instead to consolidate and
streamline the existing system.
Before closing, I want to express my deep appreciation for the staff
work which went into this legislation. I particularly want to recognize
the efforts of Carla Widener of my staff, who devoted countless hours
at every step of the process of considering this legislation. I would
like to thank as well Todd Atwater with Senator Thurmond, the ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity. Other staff
members on our side of the aisle who made significant contributions to
this effort include Reg Jones and Pam Devitt with Senator Jeffords,
Alyssa Hamilton with Senator Gregg, and Dean Rosen with Senator
Durenberger. Finally, I want to acknowledge the tireless efforts of Liz
Aldridge of the Office of Senate Legislative Counsel in dealing with
the many drafts of and amendments to this legislation.
Mr. PELL. Madam President, as an original cosponsor of this critical
school-to-work legislation, I am very pleased that we are voting today
on a final version of H.R. 2884, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act
of 1994.
In developing this legislation, President Clinton is keeping his
commitment to establish a comprehensive system to help ease the
transition from school to a changing American workplace that,
increasingly, demands high-skilled and well-educated workers.
Unlike most of our competitors in the global marketplace, we do not
have a cohesive, comprehensive school-to-work system. This legislation
would build on successful programs such as tech-prep and cooperative
education, while allowing for flexibility so that programs can best
address the needs of each individual community to better serve our
noncollege-bound youth. It is a critical first step in the process of
creating a system of life-long learning.
Madam President, I especially wish to congratulate the chairman of
the full committee, Senator Kennedy, and the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Employment and Productivity, Senator Simon, for their
successful efforts to move this legislation another significant step
closer to enactment.
Madam President, I believe that this is an excellent conference
agreement and that it merits strong bipartisan support. I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of this very important legislation.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
go on record indicating my strong support for the conference report for
a bill that I cosponsored, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act.
This legislation addresses a group of students that has traditionally
been forgotten when we consider elementary and secondary education and
yet it encompasses three-quarters of all the high school students in
America. These are the young Americans who do not go on to receive a
college education after graduating from high school but move directly
into the work force.
I have always been a strong supporter of education issues. The
education a youngster receives is a gift that will remain with him for
the rest of his life. It is the foundation for all of his future
endeavors. That future may lead to higher education, where a student
can expand his horizons even further. However, for millions of high
school graduates, that future leads immediately to the workforce and
today these young Americans are entering the labor market completely
unprepared. They are unaware of the skills needed to be effective
workers, causing their employers to have to spend valuable hours and
resources on employee training and retraining.
Other industrialized nations like Germany and Japan have a tracked
educational system. They separate college bound from noncollege-bound
students early in their educational careers and prepare their
noncollege-bound students to enter the labor market. Our educational
system in America is different--we don't place as much emphasis on
tracking--but that doesn't mean we can continue to allow our high
school graduates to enter the work force with no idea of what is
expected of them.
The School-to-Work Opportunities Act seeks to remedy the situation
that exists for non college-bound students. Through work-based
learning, school-based learning, and connecting activities, non
college-bound high school students will be given the skills they need
to enter the work force before they graduate and they will be entering
the work force prepared, saving their employers time and money.
Work-based learning gives students the practical experience they need
by providing paid work experience and instruction in employment skills.
Such hands-on training means that a high school graduate will know
exactly what is expected of him when he enters the labor market and can
prepare himself for that time. In addition, it teachers him valuable
life-lessons about the responsibilities that come with earning a
paycheck and managing one's money.
School-based learning provides students with career exploration and
counseling no later than the 11th grade. Thus, students can start
thinking about jobs that interest them and cultivate the skills needed
to perform those jobs before they leave high school. Such programs may
enable students to discover new interests or talents they didn't know
they had.
Finally, connecting activities help match students with potential
employers so that students can move immediately from school to the
workplace.
Madam President, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act is urgently
needed to help repair the gap that exists today between high school and
college graduates. It is time to invest our efforts in the majority of
students whose schooling ends when they receive their high school
diploma and to see to it that those students enter the labor force
prepared and ready to work. I urge my colleagues to join with me in
supporting this important legislation by voting for the conference
report on the School-to-Work Opportunities Act.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Madam President, I would like to ask whether my
understanding of sections 101(5) and 601(5) is correct. Section 601(5)
states, in part, that ``nothing in this Act shall be construed * * * to
modify or affect any right to enforcement of this Act that may exist
under other Federal laws, except as expressly provided by this Act.''
It is my understanding, then, that nothing in this Act, including
section 101(5), precludes enforcement of the requirements of this Act
under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Is that correct?
Mr. SIMON. Yes, it is. If any such right currently exists under 42
U.S.C. section 1983, this Act does nothing to preclude such an action.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Section 101(5) requires that programs provide all
students with equal access to the full range of program components and
related activities, except that, and I quote, ``nothing in this Act
shall be construed to provide any individual with an entitlement to
services under this Act.'' My understanding is that the term
``entitlement'' is used here in a very specific manner. It refers to
the type of programs where, once an individual meets the eligibility
criteria set forth in the Act, that individual thereby has a right to
receive services or benefits, such as Pell grants, Medicare, or the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Is that understanding
correct?
Mr. SIMON. Yes, it is.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Then this section serves to clarify that the School-
to-Work Opportunities Act does not create such an entitlement, whereby
services would have to be provided to any and all eligible individuals?
Mr. SIMON. That is right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the conference report was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, what is the matter before the Senate?
____________________