[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 68 (Thursday, May 8, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H3767-H3776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1261, WORKFORCE REINVESTMENT AND
ADULT EDUCATION ACT OF 2003
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 221 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 221
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1261) to enhance the workforce investment
system of the Nation by strengthening one-stop career
centers, providing for more effective governance
arrangements, promoting access to a more comprehensive array
of employment, training, and related services, establishing a
targeted approach to serving youth, and improving performance
accountability, and for other purposes. The first reading of
the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider
as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the
five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce
now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. No
amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Pryce) is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 221 is a structured but fair rule
providing for
[[Page H3768]]
the consideration of H.R. 1261, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult
Education Act of 2003. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate
equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general debate, it will
be in order to consider only the amendments printed in the report
accompanying this resolution, by the Member designated and debatable
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by
a proponent and an opponent.
In total, this rule makes eight amendments in order, three offered by
Republican Members and five offered by Democrat Members.
Finally, the rule permits the minority a motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
{time} 1030
The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in
the report.
Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest experiences for a Member of Congress
is when we can acknowledge that a particular policy or plan that we
have passed has been successful. Today is one of those times as we
reauthorize the landmark 1998 Workforce Investment Act. In 1998,
Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act to reform the Nation's job
training system. At that time it was fragmented, duplicative and
ineffective to both job seekers and employers. The path from
unemployment to a job was long and winding and treacherous and often
led to a dead end. There were many areas for improvement and we found
them. What followed was a plan that consolidated and integrated
employment and training services at the local level in a more unified
work force development system. Today we can clearly see the positive
results.
For example, if we take a snapshot view of the program from 2000 to
2001 we see 1.1 million individuals receiving intensive training from
programs and services offered and millions more accessing self-service
job listings and placement assistance through the one-stop centers and
82 percent of unemployed workers finding a job, up from 76 percent the
previous year, increased employment rates for low-income adults rising
from 69 percent to 76 percent, and higher diploma attainment rate for
youth jumping from 35 percent to 54 percent. What a wonderful
accomplishment. Few can dispute this evidence of success. Few can
discount the millions of lives that have been changed with greater
independence and greater self-worth.
So today we will build upon these achievements and pass the Workforce
Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003.
First, in this plan Congress goes even further in streamlining
bureaucracy. Finding a new or better job is no small task, and workers
will welcome few barriers allowing them to take full advantage of the
employment assistance.
Second, the package strengthens essential components such as adult
education with vital reading and math skills. An adult education system
should focus on improving results for those most in need of help, those
who have already been left behind who have not attained the core skills
that they need. By improving adults' basic reading and math skills and
providing limited English proficiency lessons, this plan goes even
further in equipping workers with tools and training necessary to enter
the 21st century workforce.
This bill also enhances the landmark flexibility and local
involvement that Congress provided to States and communities in the
1998 law. More duplicative programs and services have been identified
and consolidated, saving money and precious resources. State and local
officials receive even more flexibility to target Federal resources
toward the unique needs of their own communities.
Finally, reauthorizing this plan helps strengthen America's economy
by helping more workers find better jobs. The One-Stop Career Center
system that provides job training and career information gives workers
a necessary bridge to rejoin the workforce or retraining for better
jobs. Such services are immeasurable and an investment into America's
workforce.
Tomorrow this body will consider a jobs and growth package aimed at
stimulating businesses and better jobs. Tomorrow we consider how to
create new jobs. But today we consider how to strengthen the worker,
how to equip the worker with the knowledge and the skills needed to
succeed in those new jobs. An unlimited supply of jobs would not do
America's economy any good without a qualified worker for each and
every one of them. Strengthening America's economy requires both good
jobs and good workers, and today I ask my colleagues to remember that
when considering this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the bill, and
let me say just when we think that the Republican leadership of this
House could not be any more out of touch with reality they bring this
bill to the floor today, and today's contribution is the so-called
Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003.
Let us review some of the basic facts of the failed economic policies
of this President and of this Congress. Those policies have led to a 6
percent unemployment rate, the highest in years. There are more
unemployed people in this country today than at any point since July of
1993. Of the 8.8 million people who are out of work in America, nearly
2 million have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. The average
length of unemployment is now approximately 20 weeks, the highest since
1984.
Mr. Speaker, the economy is ailing and Republican policies are
failing, and every day the people of America are the ones who are
suffering. And how does the majority propose to help the unemployed in
this country? First, by proposing a misguided tax scheme. The President
and the Republicans claim that their tax bill will create a million
jobs. No serious economist or no serious person believes that.
But even taking them at their word, each new job under their plan
would cost $550,000 in lost revenue, about 17 times the salary of the
average American worker. Talk about waste, fraud and abuse. On the
other hand, every dollar we spend on unemployment benefits will boost
the economy by $1.73. That is what is called growth, not that the
Republican majority knows anything about that.
The second part of their plan is to cut job training, disability, and
veteran employment, and adult learning programs to hurt the very people
we should be helping.
The Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003 we are
considering here today does nothing to help create jobs or to reduce
the number of unemployed people in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve much better. Contrary to
what we will hear from the majority, this bill actually makes it harder
for the unemployed to get employment and reemployment training.
The SEIU, in an open letter to every Member of this body, said that
``The primary task of the workforce development system must be to
connect unemployed or underemployed workers with family-sustaining jobs
that provide good wages and benefits and afford economic self-
sufficiency.'' They are right. But if they are a young person who needs
employment training while looking for their first job, this bill will
not help them. If they are an adult who needs reemployment training and
assistance as they look for a new job, this bill is not going to help
them.
Specifically, this bill block-grants adult, dislocated worker, and
employment service funding streams. It allows States to use funds from
the Disability and Veteran Employment and Adult Learning programs to
fund expenses at the Workforce Investment Act's centers. The result of
this provision will be more bureaucracy and less training for the
disabled and veterans.
Given all the rhetoric we hear in this place about veterans, this
provision is unacceptable. We should be doing everything we can to help
veterans find employment instead of slashing the Disability and Veteran
Employment and Adult Learning Programs.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the bill eliminates existing protections
and safeguards against low quality and potentially fraudulent job
training providers and permits States to allow
[[Page H3769]]
these providers to receive Federal funding. It caps the use of funds
for services for low-income youth, those considered most likely to drop
out of school at 30 percent.
Mr. Speaker, many Democrats offered several good amendments in the
Committee on Rules yesterday. Unfortunately the majority has decided to
stifle the debate on these important issues by denying these Members
the opportunity to offer most of these amendments here on the floor.
One of the amendments offered in committee and denied by the majority
was an extension of unemployment benefits for workers who have lost
their jobs. Unemployment benefits expire at the end of this month. Too
many unemployed workers simply cannot find work because the jobs are
not there. These people desperately need the unemployment benefits
traditionally supplied by the Federal Government in difficult times. It
is flat wrong that the majority refuses to allow a vote on the
extension of these important benefits. But if that were not bad enough,
this bill also attacks the Constitution by repealing civil rights
protections that are written in the current law.
Twenty-one years ago, then-Senator Dan Quayle sponsored legislation
that provided civil rights protections against employment
discrimination based on religion in programs that receive Federal
funding. President Reagan signed that bill into law. It is not every
day that a Democrat like me praises the good work of Dan Quayle, but
the nondiscrimination provision he offered is good policy that has
served us well.
And this provision received strong bipartisan support when the
Workforce Reinvestment Act was reauthorized in 1998. But the Workforce
Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003 before us today shreds
these protections by allowing religious organizations to receive
Federal funding under the bill for job training activities and social
services and then to discriminate in hiring based on religion. In other
words, this bill would allow a religious organization that
discriminates based on religion, like Bob Jones University, to get
taxpayer money for Federal job training programs.
This provision is unconstitutional, unacceptable and offensive. An
amendment to remove this provision was offered in the Committee on
Rules and, like other substantive amendments, was not made in order.
Mr. Speaker, this is a lousy bill. Yesterday the Committee on Rules
majority got into a debate over whose responsibility it is to deal with
the unemployment benefits issue. Some said the Committee on Education
and the Workforce, others said the Committee on Ways and Means. But I
would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, do they not
go home to their districts? Do they not listen to their constituents?
Do they not know that their constituents care more about jobs and a
strong economy than about jurisdictional cat fights? This is outrageous
and they know it.
Mr. Speaker, this is an unfair rule and it is a bad bill, and I urge
my colleague to think of the unemployed in their districts and ask
themselves does this bill help my constituents? The honest answer is
no. I urge this House to defeat the rule and vote against the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question of
the rule on this Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of
2003. This legislation before us today and the consideration tomorrow
of the Republicans' irresponsible tax bill tell the American people
everything they ever wanted to know about where the majority's
priorities lie. And lest anyone be mistaken, their priorities do not
lie with the workers and families who are suffering through the anxiety
and stress of joblessness, with more than 10 million American workers
now unemployed, with the loss of 2.7 million private sector jobs since
President Bush was inaugurated, and 500,000 in the last 3 months; and
with the unemployment rate at 6 percent, its highest level since 1994,
the majority would undercut local reemployment efforts and eliminate
services for job-seeking veterans, dislocated workers, and the
disabled.
This Act was authorized 4 years ago after a lengthy bipartisan
process. But today, today the majority turns it into a partisan vise
that will squeeze America's jobless. It gives governors unlimited
authority to divert funds from adult education, disability, and
veterans' services. And we will, like Pontius Pilate, wring our hands
and say it was not our responsibility, it was the governors'
responsibility. And it fails to restore the $440 million in cuts
imposed on job-training programs or protect against 265 million more in
proposed cuts for fiscal 2004.
Just imagine, just imagine, under Republican stewardship our economy
has shed millions of jobs and at the same time the GOP is undermining
job training programs. Republicans may call that compassion; Democrats
call it indifference. Adding insult to injury, the big tent GOP seeks
to change the original law to permit organizations that received Work
Investment Act funds to discriminate on religious grounds in hiring,
something that Dan Quayle said they should not do.
I commend my colleagues who fought to restore the current law. Their
amendment should have been made in order. Was there a lack of
conviction that the allowing of discrimination in this bill was an
appropriate policy and they could not hold their Members on their side
of the aisle for such discrimination?
Democrats believe this Congress must enact policies that jump-start
our economy and create jobs, and redoubling our job-training efforts is
a vital part of that.
{time} 1045
This bill simply gives the cold shoulder to millions of jobless
Americans. I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question,
to vote against the rule, and to vote against this bad bill.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of
the Committee on Rules.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from the
Committee on Rules for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 221 is a structured rule that gives the House
the opportunity to consider eight amendments to the Workforce
Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003. The Committee on Rules
has attempted to be as fair as possible in crafting this rule and has
made in order five Democrat amendments, two Republican amendments, and
a manager's amendment. I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in
supporting this rule so we can move on to debate the underlying
legislation.
With respect to H.R. 1261, I wanted to commend the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner),
chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness and
chairman of the full Committee on Education and the Workforce
respectively, for all of the time and effort they have invested in
bringing this very important and well-crafted legislation to the House
floor today.
America's economy has been through a great deal in the last few
years. We experienced the shock of September 11, we have endured a
recession, and we faced the uncertainty of war. In spite of all this,
the American economy is growing fast, and growing faster than most of
the industrialized world. To ensure that our economy meets its full
potential, we must create the conditions for continued growth and
prosperity.
As the economy continues to recover, hundreds of thousands of
Americans are searching for good, stable jobs. We have an opportunity
here to assist those Americans in finding employment, and I believe
that H.R. 1261 is a positive step in the right direction.
H.R. 1261 amends the 1998 Workforce Investment Act, which authorized
the Federal Government's primary programs for helping our Nation's
workers gain the skills they need to succeed in today's rapidly
changing workforce. The 1998 act has helped unprecedented numbers of
American workers find employment by finding workforce investment
services and programs through
[[Page H3770]]
statewide and local One-Stop Career Center systems, but it could help
even more, and that is exactly what H.R. 1261 is designed to do.
H.R. 1261 aims to streamline work investment programs in order to
provide more efficient and results-oriented services. It will provide
also an opportunity to build on and improve the current system so that
it can respond quickly and effectively to the changing needs of both
workers and employers. In addition, it will eliminate duplication,
improve accountability, increase State flexibility, and strengthen
adult education programs.
To the credit of the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon), and the full committee chairman, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), I believe H.R. 1261, combined with President
Bush's jobs and growth tax relief initiative, will move us toward our
goal of creating more job opportunities for our citizens and ensuring
that out-of-work Americans have the access to the tools and resources
they need to rejoin the workforce or retrain for better jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may
proceed to debate the underlying legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), whose important amendment was denied
yesterday in the Committee on Rules.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
As a new Member of this House, I was appalled that one of the first
actions we took in the Committee on Education and the Workforce was to
adopt a provision that strikes at the heart of religious liberty in
this country. The underlying bill contains a provision that takes us
down a very dangerous road in this country, a road of religious bigotry
and intolerance; and even worse, it uses taxpayers' dollars to promote
that intolerance.
What am I talking about? Under current law, if you receive Federal
funds to run a job training program in this country, you are not
allowed to discriminate in your hiring based on religion. I think that
makes sense to all Americans. If you are receiving Federal dollars for
a program you are running, you should not be able to say to a
perspective job applicant, I am sorry, you are the wrong religion. But
that is what this does.
Here is a chart that shows what current law is. This was a law that
was language originally signed into law by President Reagan. It was
most recently adopted again by this body in 1988 as part of the last
reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. It has a prohibition
of discrimination language, and it prohibits discrimination in
employment based on religion, existing law.
But what this underlying bill does is it takes a big red X mark and
crosses out ``religion.'' It is a green light in this country to allow
organizations that receive Federal funds to say no, to give you the
religion test.
Imagine if you were to open up your local newspaper and see a help
wanted ad for a job training program, and it said Christians only need
apply, Jews only need apply, or Muslims only need apply. In fact, it
can say Baptists only, or Methodists only. We would be appalled. But
even worse, we would be appalled if we saw that that ad in that
newspaper was paid for with U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Imagine as an American citizen responding to an ad for a job with a
job training program, and you are qualified and you go to the
interview, and they say, Gee, you know, you are really qualified, in
fact you provided job training services in the past, but, golly, you
are just the wrong religion. You are not a Christian, or a Jew, or You
are not a Muslim.
Or you could be the right religion, but they are allowed to
interrogate you. They can ask you questions. How many times did you go
to church? Or synagogue? What are your charitable contributions? Let's
talk about your marriage and family life. They are allowed under this
provision to probe into your personal life to determine whether you
meet their ``religious test.'' And they can do it all with your
taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Speaker, that is not the America I know. I do not think that is
the America most Americans know. It strikes at the heart of our
constitutional protections for liberty.
I would just say I think the full House deserves an opportunity to at
least debate this, so that all 435 members have an opportunity to vote
``yes'' or ``no'' on whether they want to use taxpayer dollars to
discriminate.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, what is really disturbing in debates is how
to counter misinformation when it is repeated on a constant basis on
the floor of this House.
The constitutional protection for religious liberty also extends to
churches and it extends to organizations that reflect faith. That
applies in the Tax Code. I presume a previous speaker, based on that
logic, would not want to give a tax deduction to a church or a
religious organization that discriminates in their hiring practices.
For example, you would not have a Christian as the head of a synagogue,
or you would not have a Muslim preaching at a Christian church. The
charitable deduction is shaped that way; tax deductions are shaped that
way.
We have all sorts of court-approved guidelines, for example, in the
sense of they have ruled in some of the schools you can fund a
computer, but you cannot fund the software, if you look at it that way.
In other words, busing programs and other things can even be funded
directly by the government.
But what is debated here is indirect funding. That is vouchers. We
have numerous programs that have passed overwhelmingly in this House
that have said when there is a choice, when no one is forced into it,
why should people not be able to choose a job training program, an
after-school program, a literacy program or other such type of thing
that would enable them to be better prepared for the workplace?
If there is a secular choice and if there are multiple choices in job
training, why can one of those choices not be in an inner-city
neighborhood, where the churches are often the cultural organizing
institution? Why can one of those choices not be, like the black
churches in my district or some of the Hispanic outreach programs run
through the Catholic Church, or some of the charismatic programs run in
some of the immigrant Hispanic communities, where they are doing the
job training, where we can leverage the dollars and have people
committed as much as possible?
We know that regardless of who controls this House and the State
houses, there will never be enough money to meet all the needs of those
who are trying to find work, who are trying to secure health care, who
are people with AIDS and so on; and unless we can engage the private
sector that is faith-based, we will be overwhelmed with these problems.
This bill is one small step, and we should not practice religious
bigotry and say everyone can be involved except for people of faith
unless they give up their faith. That is just not right when there is
choice.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is a fundamental American principle that
no citizen should have to pass someone else's religious test to qualify
for a tax-funded job. The vast majority of American citizens agree with
that principle, and yet this bill would violate that principle, that
constitutional provision in the first amendment.
In my 12 years in the House, I have never been more deeply offended
by the action of the Committee on Rules than with this rule. To deny
the Members of the House of Representatives to debate the issue of
religious freedom, to be able to apply for a federally funded job
without having a religious test given to you by another citizen, to
deny us even the right to debate that principle, an issue that Madison
and Jefferson thought important enough to embed into the first 16 words
of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, I find deeply offensive,
not only to the Members of this House and this institution, but to the
American people who agree
[[Page H3771]]
with the principle that you should not be able to discriminate against
people based on religion in order to obtain a federally funded job.
I think we lose our moral authority in preaching to the Iraqi
citizens about religious freedom and democracy if we, this week, this
day in this House of Representatives, in America, vote to say an
American citizen can be denied a job for which they are fully
qualified, a job funded by their taxes, simply because they were
Christian or they were Muslim or they were Jewish.
It is not right that an organization associated with Bob Jones
University could get a $2 million job training program and put out a
sign that says no Jews or no Catholics need apply here for a federally
funded job.
If the Republican leadership of this House wants to defend the
position that subsidizing religious discrimination in Federal job
hiring is a good idea, then, okay. I will not defend that idea, but, if
you do, I respect your right to try to debate that idea. But you have
denied us even the opportunity to debate whether that idea is right or
wrong, and that is deeply offensive.
We should vote against this rule and allow the House to debate this
important American principle.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the
chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee
on 21st Century Competitiveness and the man who has earned the nickname
of the Father of One-Stop Career Centers.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on H.R. 1261, the
Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003. This important
bill will reauthorize the Nation's job training programs.
In 1998, under the Committee on Education and the Workforce's
leadership, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act to reform the
Nation's job training system that formerly was fragmented, contained
overlapping programs, and did not serve either job seekers nor
employers well. WIA consolidated and integrated employment and training
services at the local level in a more unified workforce development
system.
The act created three funding streams to provide for adult employment
and training services, dislocated workers' employment and training
services, and youth development services. These services are directed
by the local business-led workforce investment boards.
One of the hallmarks of the new system is that, in order to encourage
the development of comprehensive systems that improve services to both
employers and job seekers, local services are provided through a one-
stop delivery system. At the one-stop centers, the system ranges from
core services such as job surge and placement assistance, access to job
listings, and an initial assessment of skills and needs, intensive
services, such as comprehensive assessments and case management, and,
if needed, occupational skills training.
In addition, to further promote a seamless system of services for job
seekers and employers, numerous other Federal programs also must make
their services available through the one-stop system.
The WIA system contains the Federal Government's primary programs for
investment in our Nation's workforce preparation.
{time} 1100
Even though the system is still maturing since its full
implementation in July of 2000, States and local areas have created
comprehensive services and effective one-stop delivery systems.
The system is serving the needs of unemployed workers seeking new
jobs in this time of economic recovery. In addition, the training
services provided through WIA are invaluable in helping employers find
the workers they need in areas of the country facing skill shortages.
Nonetheless, there have been challenges with the system. For example,
we have heard of the need to create to increase the financial
contribution of the mandatory partners in the One-Stop Career Centers
while, at the same time, increasing the service integration among the
partner programs. This includes serving through the one-stop system
special populations that have unique needs.
We have heard that we need to simplify the local and State governance
processes and to strengthen the private sector's role. In addition, we
have heard about the need to increase training opportunities and
improve performance accountability.
Solutions to these challenges have been included in H.R. 1261.
They will enhance the system so that it will continue to meet the
training and employment needs of the information-based, highly-schooled
21st century workforce.
As many Members have talked about already, the Nation's economic
recovery has been slow at best. Between March and April, job cuts
jumped 71 percent. U.S. employers wiped out over 146,000 jobs last
month, compared with a little more than 85,000 in March.
My home State of California experienced the biggest loss, with a loss
of 32,891 jobs.
This Congress cannot sit idly by while more and more Americans are
added to the unemployment rolls. We must act now and pass legislation
that will help Americans search for good and stable jobs.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and allow us to
move forward in bringing H.R. 1261 to the floor for a vote.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time each side
has?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 16 minutes remaining, and the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, because of our sorry history of
bigotry in this Nation, for decades it has been illegal to discriminate
in employment and make decisions, job decisions based on race or
religion. The only exception is churches and religious organizations
can discriminate with their own money, but not with Federal money.
So let us be clear. If this rule passes, we will vaporize civil
rights protections that have been in effect for decades. It is not
going to make it easier for Federal organizations to get contracts;
they still need to apply, compete, and are subject to audit. But any
program that can get funded under this bill can get funded anyway; just
do not discriminate in employment. And under those rules, Catholic
organizations, Jewish, Lutheran, Baptist organizations get hundreds of
millions of dollars today. And, Mr. Speaker, if we allow religious
discrimination, we will be allowing racial discrimination, because many
organizations are 100 percent African American or 100 percent white.
Now, Mr. Speaker, employment discrimination is ugly. You can put
lipstick on a pig, but you cannot pass it off as a beauty queen. And
you cannot dress up discrimination with poll-tested semantics and
euphemisms and pass it off as anything other than ugly discrimination.
Let us defeat this rule and allow an amendment to maintain basic
traditional civil rights protections.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my
colleagues on this side of the aisle who are rejecting this legislation
because of its embracing of religious bigotry. As was pointed out, the
language that is in the current law was authored by Dan Quayle, it was
signed into law by Ronald Reagan. I guess that was when the Republican
Party was a more tolerant party.
But this Republican Party today, for the first time, will repeal a
major civil rights piece of legislation that outlaws discrimination
based upon religion. To do so is to embrace the ugly, ugly form of
religious bigotry. There is no other explanation for that. The people
will be rejected in the pursuit of their employment, and it comes in a
bill that is designed to get people more employment. They can be
qualified for the job, they can be ready to go to work, they can
provide value-added to their employer, and they can be rejected because
of their religion and for no other reason.
[[Page H3772]]
That is bigotry. That is what the Republican Party is embracing here.
Yes, today religions can reject this with their private money and
their private donations and collections. They can do that. But if they
take Federal money, they cannot do it.
This is not about whether or not religious organizations participate
in work employment programs, work training programs. One of the most
effective programs in my district is run by North Richmond Missionary
Baptist Church. It came out of welfare reform. It has done a tremendous
job of getting people trained and into employment. But they do not
discriminate against people, because the law does not allow that. But
hundreds of thousands of dollars are run through that program to try to
help people be employed. But this law will say for the first time that
a religious organization with Federal money, with a position paid by
the Federal Government, can discriminate against individuals because of
their religion.
My colleagues are right. We should reject this. And it is an insult,
and it goes to the level of the corruption of the democratic
institution of the House of Representatives that we would not be
allowed to have an amendment where we could debate and vote on this
measure. This is fundamental to the freedoms of this country, it is
fundamental to the right of free speech in this institution, it is
fundamental to the democracy of the people's House. But this process
has been so corrupted in the Committee on Rules, so corrupted by the
Republican leadership that we will not be allowed a vote on the matter
of whether or not people should be allowed to discriminate with Federal
dollars, whether organizations should be able to engage in religious
bigotry. Members will not be able to have an up or down vote. You talk
about a corrupt process.
We spilled blood to bring democracy and freedom in Iraq and we see it
being closed down in the House of Representatives. We see the
underlying basic tenets of the democratic foundation of this House, the
right to debate, the right to vote, the right to express our
differences being corrupted by the Republican leadership and the
Republican Committee on Rules.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Ohio
(Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about the reauthorization of the
Workforce Reinvestment Act and we will get into a broader debate about
that once we pass this very fair rule that we have before us. But as we
can see, the debate is coming down over an issue of whether faith-based
organizations can maintain, maintain their Title VII religious
exemption.
When we wrote the civil rights laws in this Congress back in the
1960s, we made it clear that religious organizations could, in fact,
discriminate in hiring for their church and church-related services,
and the only thing that we do in this bill is to allow those
organizations to continue to be faith-based organizations. They can
provide services in terms of providing job training or retraining, and
they can maintain, they can maintain their Title VII exemption.
Now, we are hearing all of this noise about this is the first time
and this is such an abridgement. Let me just point out for my
colleagues that there are a number of programs that allow organizations
to accept Federal dollars and to maintain their religious identity.
They are the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers, Title V of the abstinence education grants,
Older Americans Act, the job opportunities for low-income individuals,
abandoned infants grants, child abuse and neglect discretionary grants,
runaway and homeless youth basic center programs, religious
organizations can take Federal money and keep their Title VII
exemptions which allow them to hire whom they want to hire within their
organizations.
Now, if this is not enough, how about the four bills that President
Bill Clinton signed into law that allow these same organizations to
take Federal dollars and continue to maintain their Title VII
exemption. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration Act, the Community Services Block Grant Act, the
Personal Responsibility of Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act, and
the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act all allow organizations to take
Federal money and to maintain their Title VII exemption.
Now, this is a debate that has been going on in this Congress over
the last several years since President Bush made the case that faith-
based organizations, which are integral in many of our inner city
communities, that we ought to allow these organizations to provide
services. And the big debate that we have here is that people want to
say, well, yes, we want them to provide services, but if they take one
Federal dollar in providing their services, they ought to give up all
of their civil rights protections. Hogwash. These organizations are
doing wonderful things in many communities in America and we should not
deny them the civil rights protections that were granted to them in
1965 just because they take a Federal dollar in the pursuit of their
mission of trying to help people in their own communities.
So I would ask my colleagues and urge my colleagues to support the
rule today and support this bill and to support allowing faith-based
organizations to do the job they are doing in many of our communities.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman's right to support
this bill as written. In my opinion, it would discriminate against
American citizens in job-hiring simply based on their religious faith.
I think that is wrong.
But what I think is doubly wrong is that the Republican leadership in
the House denied us the right to even have this honest debate on which
the gentleman from Ohio and I would agree is a fundamentally important
issue.
I would like to ask the gentleman, did he support shutting down our
right to debate this issue?
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the Congress in 1965
when they wrote the civil rights laws decided to allow these
organizations to maintain their right to hire whom they please. All we
are trying to do with this bill today is to allow that to continue.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for this
misguided reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act, a bill that
fails to create job opportunities or extend unemployment benefits, that
places the burden of increasing rising unemployment costs, that places
the coping with that issue on our already financially crippled cities
and States.
We are at a time in our history when record numbers of people are
being laid off, when unemployment benefits are going to expire at the
end of this month, and what is our response? Curtailing the services
these workers depend on to find new employment, and doing so when these
services are already underfunded and straining to meet the increasing
demand.
The President's budget called for rescinding $300 million in funding
in addition to the more than $700 million in cuts to job training
programs for this year and next. This bill block grants adult
dislocated worker and employment service funding and helps workers find
jobs. It cuts summer employment opportunities mentoring and job
counseling. At a time when men and women in our military are returning
from combat, it takes money from disability and veteran employment and
adult learning programs.
My Republican colleagues would like to tell us that what they are
doing is providing flexibility to the States to deal with these issues.
The only flexibility that they provide to these States is what
populations to jettison, what programs to cut. Our States are not going
to be capable of handling what the Federal Government and what this
Bush administration and the Republican House leadership want to foist
on them.
I tried to offer a modest amendment to provide assistance to women to
help move into nontraditional jobs, like
[[Page H3773]]
carpentry, manufacturing, where women comprise less than 25 percent of
the workforce. Jobs would provide long-term employment, they generate
pay between $14 and $35 an hour, provide medical care, retirement
benefits. To do that, all we would have had to do was to give governors
the flexibility to direct resources to train one-stop employment center
employees, help them to be trained so that they can help women find
these jobs and others find these jobs. The Republican majority
response? No.
The simple truth is that this bill abandons workers. It does nothing
to stop these families from falling through the cracks.
Turn aside the rule. Let us pass a workforce bill that prepares our
workforce and gives them the tools for economic security for themselves
and for their families.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has 12
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern)
has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. It is interesting that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Boehner) was asked the question. Maybe the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Pryce) can answer it. Why not let us bring up the amendment on the
issue they were discussing?
And another issue that is not being brought up today that should have
been is the unemployment situation in this country: 341,000 people lost
their jobs in April, almost 9 million people out of work.
This Congress, this House, this majority sits idly by. There is going
to be the expiration of unemployment benefits, the extended benefits
the end of this month. And there is over $20 billion in the trust fund
that could be applied to help these people. Oh, it is said the answer
is get a job. These unemployed people are looking for a job.
A recent survey indicated that the average unemployed worker has
applied for 29 jobs without finding work, and you sit idly by and do
nothing. It also shows the average unemployed worker over 45 has
applied for 42 jobs without finding work. Stop sitting and act on this
issue.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time.
Right now Oregon has 7.6 percent unemployment, the highest in the
Nation. In March of this year food and transportation lost
manufacturing jobs, 800 jobs. These hardworking men and women are not
statistics. They are real people with real lives and families, and
right now they are facing the prospects of not having enough money to
put food on the table, and they lost their jobs through no fault of
their own.
We should not cut the very initiatives that help them retain these
new jobs that will pay them decent wages and offer them health
benefits.
The Dislocated Worker Program of the Workforce Investment Act is
critical to making sure our States have the resources to keep
dislocated workers from falling through the cracks, and it is
imperative that we make sure it remains a separate program because it
is a training program and its needs are very different from the other
two programs with which it is being combined.
I have put forth an amendment with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Payne) that would have addressed this issue and ensure that those who
are laid off can get the assistance they need to get back into the
workforce. Yet the Committee on Rules refused to give the Members a
chance to vote on this amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if there is any issue in Congress that
should rise above partisanship, it should be the principle of religious
freedom. I hope every Republican and Democrat in the House before
voting on this rule asks his or herself this question: Is it right that
an American citizen be denied a federally funded job simply because of
his or her religious faith?
If you think that is right, then you should vote for this rule
because that is what this bill does. It denies American citizens
publicly funded jobs simply because of their choice of religious faith.
If you agree with the vast majority of Americans that it is wrong to
subsidize religious discrimination with federal tax dollars, vote
``no'' on this rule.
This is more important than sticking to the sacred alter of
partisanship. The issue of religious freedom should rise above that
alter of partisanship. And I hope my Republican colleagues will join
with Democrats and all of us today to say we are going to stand up for
religious freedom during the week we are preaching it to the Iraqi
citizens.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, from listening to the other side, you
would think that this was something that was run-of-the-mill, that we
took away these protections every day and have in the past. That is
just not true.
This is the first time this Congress will eliminate, delete language
in our statutes, in our laws that expressly prohibits discrimination in
these programs based on religion. It is the first time we will remove a
protection that this body has decided is important and fundamental to
American principles of operation of church and State.
As has been stated, this language was first signed into law in 1982
by Ronald Reagan. It was readopted in 1998 by this House of
Representatives. And it continues to make sense to every American out
there that their tax dollars should not go to discriminate when it
comes to federal programs that are secular in nature.
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed that this full House is not
given the opportunity to debate this full issue and vote up and down.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how many more speakers the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we do not have any other speakers on
the floor. There may be more coming; but if the gentleman is prepared,
we can close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if people want a dictionary
illustration of adding insult to injury, the Republicans are providing
it. They do great injury today to the principle of nondiscrimination,
and they have added to that the insult of not allowing this House to
debate it.
As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) made clear, this is
the first time we will be removing from the statute books an existing
antidiscrimination provision, one that says you cannot take Federal
money and then discriminate against some of the people who paid the
taxes. If you are a particular organization, you can say, I do not care
if you are Jewish and pay taxes or Catholic and pay taxes. I do not
care if you are a Protestant and pay taxes, if you believe in abortion.
I do not care if you are a Methodist and pay taxes, if you agree on
evolution. We will exclude you.
It is appalling to me that they are going to be able to engineer this
enormous regression in the principle of nondiscrimination without there
even being a separate vote and debate. It is a tribute to the
Republican majority, the most submissive body of elected officials
gathered since the dissolution of the Supreme Soviet that they will
ratify this decision to roll back a fundamental constitutional
provision, a fundamental antidiscrimination public policy provision,
and they will all march down and vote not to allow it to be debated.
The gentleman from Ohio is right. In 1965 there was an exemption for
religion organizations, and it was expanded in 1972. A Senator said at
the time, ``This is to keep the hands of Caesar off of the place of
God.''
Now we are talking about the hands of Caesar coming to the religious
institutions bearing money. And we were
[[Page H3774]]
saying this, if you as a religious institution want to preserve your
autonomy, hire only whom you want, that is your right. But do not tell
Americans of all religions to pay taxes and then take those tax dollars
and say, but you are the wrong religion. You are the right religion but
the wrong doctrine. And that is what this does.
It removes it from the statute books. The law now says you cannot
discriminate based on religion. People have said, well, we need this so
that religious organizations are not denied funds because of their
name. Well, in the first place, that is up to the current
administration. What is George Bush saying? Stop me before I
discriminate again? If he does not want to discriminate, he has a good
way to stop discriminating.
You know the person who went to the doctor and he said, Doctor, it
hurts when I go like this. The doctor said, Do not go like this.
Mr. President, do not go like this. Do not discriminate. But do not
take people's tax dollars and say you can only hire your own.
The question is two fold: Do we maintain the principle that if you
take Federal money, if you are a religious organization and to be
autonomous, that is fine? By the way, for secular purposes, remember by
definition the religious group can only take Federal money for secular
purposes. It would be unconstitutional as everyone acknowledges to give
tax dollars to a religion for religious purposes. So the question is
can a religious organization take money for secular purposes and
discriminate? And we are told, well, wait, it is important for them to
hold together.
It seems to me the worst thing being said about religious
organizations are the people who say, you know what, if you want
Baptist or Jews or Mormons or Catholics to help other people, you
better not make them associate with nonbelievers. They can only help
people find jobs, they can only give job training as long as they are
free from the spiritual pollution of having to teach these jobs
alongside nonbelievers. That is a condemnation of religion that I hope
this House will not engage in, compounded by a denial of democracy on
the floor of the House. To bring forward such an important issue and
use your submissive majority to prevent debate is contemptible.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
(Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in
support of the underlying legislation, and I would like to add a few
comments to the topic that seems to have drawn heated debate here.
I think it is a confusing topic and one that is important that we are
discussing in this debate right now and one that I believe will come up
in the debate that goes forward and will no doubt be addressed in the
motion to recommit which the minority will be allowed to offer.
The argument here is that the language added to this legislation
somehow is inconsistent with our civil rights laws and is somehow
inappropriate. I would like to address and dissect that argument.
I want to make it clear that our Nation's Constitution and our
existing civil rights laws make it very clear and have since the day of
their enactment that religious organizations in their hiring of their
own staff can, in fact, discriminate based on religion. That is a
provision that has been scrutinized by the United States Supreme Court
and upheld by a unanimous United States Supreme Court, so that, if a
Christian church wants to say that in hiring its minister it chooses to
hire a Christian minister, it can do that. And the Supreme Court has
said it may do so.
In those civil rights laws there is no mention of Federal money. The
reason we have those laws extended into all sectors of employment is
not just where there is Federal money involved, but we have our
discrimination laws extended through commerce. If it is interstate
commerce, then those civil rights laws apply and they should. But I
want to make very clear that all nonprofits that have a mission are
entitled to discriminate based on that mission. That is to say, if a
particular group that supports abortion and is involved in that
activity wants to, it can choose not to hire someone who is rabidly
pro-life. A group that supports the environment and cleaning up the
environment can choose not to hire on to its staff someone who is
rabidly against cleaning up the environment. That is a privilege
enjoyed by all nonprofits under our current law.
What this bill does, and it is important to understand this, and I
have a letter here from the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of
America that makes this explanation very clear: what this bill does is
say a very narrow exception for religious organizations to give them
the same right that all other non-religious organizations have when
they are performing services. Currently, we do not say to Planned
Parenthood, if you take money from the Federal Government you must hire
someone who is pro-life. But we do say under the current version of
this law, if you are a faith-based organization and you want to
provide, for example, job training services, then you must hire all-
comers, people who even disagree with your fundamental beliefs.
The reality is this is about discrimination, but it is about the
discrimination that exists in current law. Current laws prohibit
religious organizations and only religious organizations from saying
they have the right to choose to hire people who happen to share their
values. We do not deny that right to Planned Parenthood. We do not deny
that right to the Sierra Club. We do not deny that right to any other
group, and we ought not to deny that right to a faith-based
organization providing its services.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if I had an indefensible
point I would not yield either, despite all the time they have.
If, in fact, a religious organization get money for job training,
they have a right to refuse to hire someone who does not believe in job
training. If they have hired because they are going to try and fight
drug addiction, they do not have to hire someone who is for drug
addiction.
If the gentleman thinks I am going to yield him after he refused to
yield to me when he has all the time and I do not, let him get some
more time from his side which has the extra time and is sitting on it,
and I will debate him.
The fact is that any organization has the right to deny people a job
if they disagree with the job for which they are being hired. So, no,
you do not have to hire someone who disagrees with what you are being
hired for. That is totally not the case. And by the way, this law about
discrimination does apply across the board.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Pryce) would like to yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Shadegg) so the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) can continue this dialogue.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we are reserving our time.
{time} 1130
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, I will urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an
amendment to the rule that will make in order the Van Hollen amendment
that was offered in the Committee on Rules last night and defeated on a
party-line vote.
This very worthy amendment restores current law, which prohibits the
use of Federal funds to discriminate in hiring based on religion. It
will do this by striking the offending language from the bill.
Mr. Speaker, it is astounding to me that in the 21st century we would
turn back the clock and allow American taxpayer dollars to be used to
discriminate against our own citizens based on their religious beliefs.
This is 2003. I had hoped that we had moved beyond refusing to hire
someone because they are Catholic or Jewish or Muslim or Presbyterian
or whatever. This bill returns us to the bad old days.
The Van Hollen amendment would strike this offensive provision, and
it deserves a vote by this House. This bill
[[Page H3775]]
is supposed to be about helping our unemployed workers, not about
giving taxpayer money to organizations that discriminate. It is
absolutely critical that we put aside partisan differences and give
Members the chance to delete this language.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can take up this vital
amendment. I want to point out that a ``no'' vote will not stop us from
considering this legislation. However, a ``yes'' vote will deny us the
opportunity to vote on this terrible language. This is the only
opportunity that the House will have to strike this provision from the
bill.
Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials in the Record immediately prior to
the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
In conclusion, this is a fair rule which allows us to move on to the
task at hand, strengthening the workforce and equipping the worker with
the knowledge and skills needed to succeed.
As I said earlier, an unlimited supply of jobs would not do our
economy much good without workers to fill those positions.
Strengthening America's economy requires both good jobs and good
workers; and today, we are focused on the worker.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would pick this apart
and stand in the way of progress for America's workers. Nothing new. We
see it today, we will see it tomorrow, but I ask my colleagues to put
America's workers first, support this rule, and pass the Workforce
Reinvestment and Adult Education Act.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision in this
resolution it shall be in order to consider the further
amendment printed in Sec. 3 of this resolution, if offered by
Representative Van Hollen of Maryland or a designee, which
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order,
shall be considered as read, and shall be separately
debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent;''
Sec. 3. Page 91, strike lines 9 through page 92, line 3
(and renumber subsequent sections and conform the table of
contents accordingly).
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on ordering the previous question on House Resolution
221 will be followed by a 5-minute vote, if ordered, on the question of
adopting the resolution and by two additional 5-minute votes on the
remaining motions to suspend the rules that were debated yesterday.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 199, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 170]
YEAS--222
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--199
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--13
Andrews
Clyburn
Combest
DeLay
Dingell
Feeney
Fletcher
Gephardt
Gibbons
Hyde
Miller, Gary
Moran (VA)
Schrock
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain to vote.
{time} 1152
Messrs. BOUCHER, MCINTYRE, CASE, CROWLEY and Ms.
[[Page H3776]]
VELAZQUEZ changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX, the
vote on the question of adopting the resolution will be followed by one
additional 5-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass
H.R. 874 that was debated yesterday.
The remaining suspension on House Resolution 213 will be taken later
today.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221,
noes 196, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 171]
AYES--221
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--17
Andrews
Clyburn
Combest
Cox
DeLay
Dingell
Feeney
Fletcher
Gephardt
Gibbons
Hyde
Miller, Gary
Ortiz
Reyes
Rodriguez
Schrock
Stark
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain to vote.
{time} 1200
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________