[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?

                          ____________________