[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 22 (Wednesday, March 2, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H859-H866]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 27, JOB TRAINING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF
2005
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 126 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 126
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. 27) 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 such 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. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. 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
purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 126 is a structured rule providing for
1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the
Committee on Rules report, and for the time specified in the report.
And finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in strong
support of this rule and support of the underlying resolution
legislation, H.R. 27, the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005. The
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from
California (Subcommittee Chairman McKeon) and the committee members
from both sides of the aisle are to be commended for their diligence
and hard work in putting together a comprehensive measure reauthorizing
vital job training programs while, at the same time, providing for
improvements of those programs aimed at providing greater flexibility,
accountability, targeting Federal dollars where they will be most
effective and where there is the highest demonstrated need.
Mr. Speaker, my favorite movie of all time has always been ``Inherit
the Wind.'' I still think it is Spencer Tracy's greatest role. But in
that he, playing the character of Henry Drummond, talks about the other
main character, Matthew Harrison Brady, who was a well intentioned, yet
flawed, character. And in talking about his death, Drummond says of
Brady, a giant once lived in that body. But Matt Brady got lost because
he was looking for God too high and up too far away.
Federal Government is a lot like Matt Brady. We are well intentioned,
the greatest of desire to serve; but we oftentimes get lost and allow
too many people to fall through cracks and harm people because we try
to solve problems from too high up and administer programs from too far
away.
From this isolated Hall, we often concoct specific standards that
fail people who have the needs but do not fit our preconceived
standards. Last Wednesday in my district at a town meeting, I met a
young lady by the name of Micaela, who offered me also this five-page
letter of her efforts and her concerns. She is in need of vocational
rehabilitation services, but does not quite fit our standards we have
designed.
In her letter she said in her years of trying to receive services
that she was told she had too many disabilities, too few disabilities.
You could not visually see her disability. She was too young, too old,
and too rare of a circumstance. You name it, she had heard it. And she
has also been basically told that I am not worth helping, hiring, or
even listening to.
Oftentimes the Federal Government, in fact, not oftentimes. The
Federal Government's only advantage is that of uniformity. By
definition we can deal with people only as objects on a factory
conveyor belt designed to meet the Federal factory specifications.
But if we truly believe that people are each individuals, that they
have a spark of divinity, that individual needs are there that require
individualized
[[Page H860]]
help, then we do not need uniformity. What we need is creativity,
efficiency, and caring; and that can only be done effectively on the
State levels, which is why this particular bill has gone from several
years ago, 63 programs, has now taken three funding streams and tried
to bring it into one so they could help individual people by trying to
apply 70 percent of the funding that has been given to students to
those who have been unserved and out of school, to create a
demonstration project for personal reemployment accounts to meet
individual needs to be addressed by that individual, and to present the
President's community college program and tie them all together to give
local governments the ability to work with individuals so that Micaela
here does not slip through the crack by definition.
Prior to coming to Congress, I had the opportunity, like many of you,
of serving in the State legislature, and I was a teacher for a long
time. In that position, or those positions, I witnessed firsthand the
years of oftentimes Federal programs and mandates shoved on States, on
local school districts, on local units of governments with this one-
size-fits-all uniform approach. What was often, too often, left out
were, quite frankly, the bona fide local needs. A uniform Federal
approach stifles innovation with the heavy hand of Federal regulations
and professionalism.
The philosophy behind H.R. 27, therefore, is to give Governors as the
chief political officer of the States the flexibility over job training
programs to promote economic development and jobs based upon local
needs, and that way, the States become responsive to employment and to
job markets.
Recently, I attended a community college, a community technical
college in my district. And I was amazed at the benefits I saw of
partnerships with local private industry, government contractors, and
local employers coming together. In their diesel program, to find the
kinds of materials that were provided by the industry, they have to get
hands-on experience for first-rate technicians. And in program after
program in that particular college, I saw, through innovation and hard
work, the community college has been able to leverage the State and
Federal dollars and to attract private contributions for equipment and
training that met the need of training qualified workers in the high-
tech future.
Vocational rehabilitation services in State after State does the same
thing. But these type partnerships are not just allowed in this bill.
They are encouraged under this legislation, which is vital in helping
provide workers for the competition of the 21st century.
H.R. 27 is strongly supported by a coalition of community colleges
which authorizes $250 million for community-based job training grants
to strengthen the role of those communities' colleges and to promote
the United States' full workforce potential.
We face a 21st-century challenge in an ever-changing technology and
the aging American workforce. We must provide States, local workforce
boards, Governors flexibility to fit real people with real skills for
real jobs. And they vary in need from State to State. We must allow
them the opportunity to work together as they see fit to help people
like Micaela.
I further support H.R. 27 because it targets Federal funds to groups
of youths who are presently underserved, because it provides for
individual self-help efforts.
I would like to point out also that H.R. 27 builds upon legislation
passed in the 108th Congress, namely H.R. 1261, the Workforce
Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003, which was passed by this
House.
There may be some who would oppose this bill because it respects both
the letter and the spirit of existing law. If there is a problem with
existing law, this is not the proper venue for that discussion.
{time} 1415
Let us not, in the debate over the rule or the bill, lose focus and
lose sight of our goal, which is to help the Micaelas of this Nation
who need services, which are and will continue to be distributed fairly
without precondition.
It is significant that we not confuse services rendered with the
desire of some to sanitize and regulate legally diverse practices,
reaffirmed in a rare moment of sanity by the courts, which do not
impact the rendering of those employment services. Others beside
sanctioned-government programs care and help and are effective, and we
ought to forget the old pattern of confrontation and pointless attacks
on groups that we see as different; we should join for the common goal
of helping people.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule, supporting a bill that has been
discussed and amended in committee through regular order. The rule
allows for three specific amendments to focus discussion on key
elements of the proposal. I am looking forward to riveting debate on
this bill, with the realization our goal is to help the Micaelas of
this world who have been hurt because there have been programs which
are too high, too far away, and forgot our purpose of helping real
people. I urge adoption of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Bishop) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The 109th Congress convened 2 months
ago. The Committee on Rules has reported eight rules, including the one
we are considering today. None of these rules, not a single one, has
been open. The Republican majority is zero for eight on open rules. It
is an abysmal record and just continues to prove how out of touch with
America, and with the democratic process, this leadership really is.
I oppose this rule and I oppose this bill. The Republican leadership
seems to think that the job picture in this country is rosy, but they
could not be more wrong. They seem to think jobs are popping out of the
woodwork, but it is clear our workers need job training assistance in
order to compete in the 21st century workplace.
When we think that the Republican leadership cannot be any more out
of touch with the challenges facing working Americans, they bring the
Job Training Improvement Act of 2005 to the floor today.
Let us look at the facts. Every day over 85,000 people in this
country lose their jobs. Under this administration's watch, the Nation
has lost 2.8 million jobs, and 4.3 million formerly middle class
Americans have been pushed into poverty. President Bush's failed
economic policies have produced a 5.2 percent unemployment rate.
Let us be clear. This slightly lower unemployment rate does not
signal a rebounding labor market. In addition to the 8 million
Americans who are currently unemployed, there are 5 million unemployed
workers who want to work but have given up looking for jobs simply
because there are no jobs out there for them. Beyond that, there are
4.5 million people who have accepted low-wage, part-time work simply
because they cannot find full-time employment in this weak economy. The
real unemployment rate would skyrocket to 9.3 percent by merely
including these workers.
And not only are millions of American workers looking for jobs, but
the long-term unemployment rate, workers who have been jobless for 6
months or more, is the highest in more than 20 years. Despite these
startling statistics, this administration has continued to resist
efforts to extend unemployment benefits for the 3.5 million workers who
have exhausted their coverage.
The Republicans have mismanaged this economy, and American workers
are paying the price through lower pay, reduced benefits, and in too
many cases job loss. As if this were not enough, the Republican
leadership is trying to enact broad, sweeping changes to the Workforce
Investment Act. This bill will do nothing to create new jobs, reduce
the number of unemployed people in this country, or sufficiently
training workers for jobs. Frankly, this bill is a slap in the face to
American workers. Contrary to what we will hear from the Republican
leadership, the Job Training Improvement Act will actually make it
harder for the unemployed to obtain employment and reemployment
training.
[[Page H861]]
Specifically, H.R. 27 would eliminate the employment services system,
a program which provides critical job assistance to those unemployed
workers hardest hit with the job loss of recent years. In my home State
of Massachusetts, this program provides services to nearly 165,000
jobseekers each year, and it has successfully helped 75 percent of them
retain employment in less than 6 months.
In addition, this bill block grants adult and dislocated worker
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 of the rhetoric that we hear about supporting our troops
and providing for our veterans, we should find this provision
particularly disturbing. 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, the bill eliminates existing protections and safeguards
against low quality and potentially fraudulent job training providers
and permits States to allow these providers to receive Federal funding.
It caps at 30 percent the use of funds for services targeting low-
income youth, those considered most likely to drop out of school.
If that were not bad enough, this bill also abandons a core principle
of our Constitution by repealing civil rights protections written into
current law.
Twenty-one years ago, then-Senator Dan Quayle sponsored legislation
that provided civil rights protections against religious-based
employment discrimination in programs that receive Federal funding.
These protections were extended to secular as well as religious
organizations. President Reagan signed that bill into law. It is not
every day that I praise Dan Quayle, but the nondiscrimination provision
he offered is good policy which has served us well. This provision
received strong bipartisan support when the Workforce Reinvestment Act
was reauthorized in 1998.
However, the Job Training Investment Act shreds these protections by
allowing religious organizations to receive Federal funding for job-
training activities and social services while also employing religious-
based discriminatory practices. In other words, this bill would allow a
religious organization that discriminates based on religion, like a Bob
Jones University, to get taxpayer money and use that Federal funding to
legally discriminate on religious grounds when hiring staff to carry
out the job training programs and services in this bill.
But let me be clear, the right of churches, synagogues, mosques and
other religious organizations to remain free from government
intervention has long been protected under the law, and I am sure my
colleagues join me in support of this protection. Congress has always
exempted faith-based organizations from antidiscrimination provisions
in programs funded by their own money, and we are not proposing that a
church or synagogue or mosque be forbidden from using religious
criteria in deciding who to hire as a minister or rabbi or imam.
However, that same church, synagogue or mosque should not be
permitted to apply for and receive Federal funding for job training and
then, as written in this bill, be exempted from Federal civil rights
protections. Faith-based institutions should be required, like all
other recipients of Federal funds, to adhere to basic civil rights
laws, and I cannot even begin to count the number of institutions that
have contacted my office in the last few days asking to be held to
those same standards.
Last night in the Committee on Rules, I heard my colleagues, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) talk about a return to discrimination practices that forced
these men and millions of other African Americans to drink from
separate drinking fountains and eat at separate lunch counters from
white Americans.
How can anyone justify abandoning one of our Nation's most
fundamental principles? How can Members believe this is the right
position for Congress to advocate? How can Members believe this
provision is moral? I certainly cannot find it in myself to do so. This
provision is offensive, it is ugly, it is wrong, it is unacceptable.
But beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is unconstitutional and
unAmerican.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) will offer an amendment to
strike this offensive provision from the bill. I hope that my
colleagues will join me in voting for the Scott amendment. It is
important that we oppose discrimination at every turn, and this is an
important vote.
Mr. Speaker, many Democrats offered several high-quality amendments
in the Committee on Rules yesterday. Unfortunately, the majority has
continued to stifle the democratic process by denying common sense
amendments to this bill.
Just because the Republican leadership allowed the Scott amendment to
be considered on the floor today does not make this a good rule. Once
again, let me remind my colleagues and the American people watching at
home that the Republicans have not reported one single open rule this
year.
Mr. Speaker, this is an unfair rule, poor policy-making and a bad
bill. It is truly a tragedy when a Nation that prides itself on
democracy and equality considers and will most likely pass a bill that
would permit employment discrimination in federally-funded programs. It
is a slippery slope from here on out, and I fear this may just be the
beginning. I urge this House to defeat the rule and vote against the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Chairman Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Bishop) as a new member of the Committee on Rules for his work today on
his first rule that he is bringing to the floor of the House.
Today we are considering a rule that would allow for consideration of
the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. The Workforce
Investment Act, enacted in 1998, brought together some 60 Federal job-
training and retraining programs, and put them together and we created
these one-stop shops all across America. They are intended to be able
to provide training and retraining for American workers who are out of
work or workers who simply want to improve their skills so they can
move up the economic ladder.
By and large, these one-stop shops have worked very well, but as we
reauthorize this law, it is our obligation to take a look at what is
working, what could work better, and as we bring this reauthorization
forward, there are some important changes that we are bringing to the
floor with it.
Mr. Speaker, we want to provide more flexibility for the local
workforce boards to do their work by consolidating the funding stream.
We want to ensure that more of the funding that is available for this
Act goes down to the local county boards, or, in some cases, multiple
county jurisdictions. In this bill, we also renew the vocational
programs for those who have disabilities, an important part of our
workforce.
I think all of us know if we are going to be successful in the 21st
century, that America has to do a better job of training and retraining
our workforce. The days of going to work for one employer and being
there for most of your career are, by and large, over. People are going
to change jobs multiple times during their career, and we have to have
available to them the kinds of services where they can improve their
skills to take that new job of tomorrow.
The reauthorization program that we have today, I think is a good
one. There is one amendment that we will debate that we have had
considerable debate on over the last several years in this Congress and
considered in the committee twice during the markup of this bill. It is
on the faith-based language. Members are going to hear an awful lot
about it today, but let me give the parameters.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act, the landmark legislation which prevented
discrimination in America, allowed for one exception in hiring and that
exception was granted to religious organizations where we grant them an
exemption if they wished to only hire people
[[Page H862]]
of their own faith. That is the law. It has been the law since 1964.
We believe that faith-based providers who may want to offer services,
job training services or retraining services, ought not to be denied
their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act just because they want to
help the neediest of the needy and help the poor improve their skills
and get a job.
This is a great debate which has gone on for several years. We allow
faith-based providers in this bill to provide services without giving
up their protections in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Some believe, and it
is certainly their right to have a different opinion, believe that
faith-based organizations, even though they have this right, ought to
be forced to give it up in order to take Federal funds to help the
poorest of the poor.
Now I would argue those who really do believe that is the case ought
to go back and amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act, title 7, and not try to
do it in this bill. But this provision, and again, we will have ample
time to debate it later, I think this provision helps organizations who
want to go out and help the needy in their community. It gives them the
tools to do it without having to set up a new organization, or denies
them the ability and the rights that they have under the 1964 Civil
Rights Act.
{time} 1430
I think that we have a fair rule before us. I think it will provide
for a very meaningful debate today on this reauthorization. I would
urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just reiterate that what we believe is that taxpayer money
should not be used by faith-based organizations to discriminate against
people based on religion. What we feel is that this provision in this
bill is offensive and it turns the clock backwards on civil rights.
Mr. Speaker, I include for printing in the Record a letter opposing
this bill signed by 67 religious organizations and civil rights
organizations that have great concerns not only with the provision on
religious-based employment discrimination but on a whole series of
other provisions.
February 28, 2005.
Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations are
writing to urge you to vote against H.R. 27, the Job Training
Improvement Act, unless it is modified to address the
concerns outlined in this letter; and to oppose any effort to
expand the block grant authority in the bill along the lines
of the Administration's ``WIA Plus'' proposal.
H.R. 27 fails to make meaningful improvements to the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) that would enhance the
training and career opportunities of unemployed workers.
Instead, the legislation would eliminate the dislocated
worker training program, undermine state rapid response
systems, end the federal-state labor exchange system, roll
back protections against religious discrimination in hiring
by job training providers, and potentially undermine the
stability of other important programs.
In particular, we are concerned about the following
provisions in H.R. 27:
New Block Grant
H.R. 27 consolidates into a single block grant the WIA
adult and dislocated worker programs with the Wagner-Peyser
employment service program and reemployment services for
unemployment insurance recipients. In doing so, it will
eliminate job training assistance specifically targeted to
workers dislocated by off shoring and other economic changes,
pit different types of workers against each other, and lead
to future funding reductions. The block grant also eliminates
the statewide job service, which provides a uniform statewide
system for matching employers and jobseekers, replacing it
with a multiplicity of localized programs that would have no
incentive or ability to cooperate and function as a
comprehensive labor exchange system. Eliminating the
employment service, which is financed with revenue from the
unemployment insurance (UI) trust fund, breaks the connection
between the unemployment insurance program and undermines the
UI ``work test,'' which ensures that UI recipients return to
work as quickly as possible.
Infrastructure and Core Services Funding
A principal criticism of WIA has been the substantial
decline in actual training compared to its predecessor, the
Job Training Partnership Act. While there are various reasons
for the reduction in training, including the sequence of
services requirement in current law, the use of WIA resources
by local boards and operators to build new one-stop
facilities and bureaucracies, without any limitation, has
contributed substantially to the decline in training. This is
despite the fact that many WIA partner programs also
contribute operating funds to one-stop operations.
H.R. 27 gives governors even broader discretion to transfer
additional resources from the WIA partner programs to pay for
WIA infrastructure and core services costs--without any
assurance that more training would result. These programs
include the vocational rehabilitation program, veterans
employment programs, adult education, the Perkins post
secondary career and technical education programs,
unemployment insurance, trade adjustment assistance,
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and, if they
are partners, employment and training programs under the food
stamp and housing programs, programs for individuals with
disabilities carried out by state agencies, including state
Medicaid agencies, and even child support enforcement. By
relying on funding transfers from these programs to
guarantee resources for WIA infrastructure and core
services, H.R. 27 will disrupt and weaken services
provided by these non-WIA programs, which also will face
substantial pressures for funding reductions in the next
few years.
The infrastructure and related provisions start the
commingling of funds from these non-WIA programs. In doing
so, they transform the original one-stop idea of a better-
coordinated workforce system into a mechanism for reducing
resources for and block granting these programs in the
future. A more effective and simple solution to ensuring
adequate training services would be to require that a certain
percentage of WIA funds be used for training as provided in
previous job training programs and to create a separate WIA
funding stream for one-stop operations, if necessary.
Personal Reemployment Accounts
H.R. 27 includes permanent and unlimited authority for the
Secretary to conduct ``personal reemployment account'' (PRA)
demonstratious even though the Department of Labor recently
initiated a PRA demonstration without strong interest among
the states. Although nine states could have participated,
only seven are doing so.
Since this demonstration already is in process, we see no
justification for this provision and can only surmise that it
is an attempt to implement PRAs more broadly, despite a lack
of Congressional support for a full-scale program in the
past.
Unlike current WIA training programs, the PRAs would limit
the cost of training that an unemployment insurance recipient
can receive and would bar that individual from WIA training
services for a year after the PRA account is established.
This is the wrong way to go. With long-term unemployment at
historically high levels, there is a much greater need for
continued unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed
who have found it so difficult to become reemployed.
Religious-Based Employment Discrimination
H.R. 27 repeals longstanding civil rights protections that
prohibit religious-based employment discrimination by job
training providers. These protections have been included in
job training programs, which received bipartisan support,
since 1982. At no time have the civil rights provisions
prohibited religious organizations from effective
participation in federal job training programs. This rollback
of civil rights protections is especially incongruous in a
program designed to provide employment and career
opportunities in an evenhanded manner and should be rejected.
WIA Plus Proposal
The Administration has proposed giving Governors authority
to merge five additional programs into the WIA block grant.
The proposal would eliminate specialized assistance to
unemployed, disabled and homeless veterans, critical job
training services for workers under the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Act whose jobs have been outsourced or lost to
foreign competition, and specialized counseling and
customized help for people with disabilities through state
vocational rehabilitation agencies. These individuals would
have to compete with each other for a declining share of
resources without the protections and requirements under
current law. Furthermore, the proposal abrogates
accountability for the expenditure of federal taxpayer
dollars by eliminating program reporting requirements. We
strongly urge you to oppose any effort to adopt this
misguided plan.
In summary, H.R. 27 strays far from the appropriate mission
for federal job training programs of enhancing training
opportunities for workers and providing skilled workers for
employers. We strongly urge you to oppose this legislation
unless amendments are adopted to delete the block grant, PRA
demonstration and religious-based discrimination provisions
and to modify the infrastructure provisions as recommended.
American Association of People with Disabilities.
American Civil Liberties Union.
American Counseling Association.
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE).
American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO).
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME).
American Federation of Teachers (AFT).
American Humanist Association.
American Jewish Congress.
American Psychological Association.
American RehabACTion Network.
[[Page H863]]
Americans for Democratic Action (ADA).
Americans for Religious Liberty.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU).
Association for Career and Technical Education.
Baptist Joint Committee.
Brain Injury Association of America.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Training.
Campaign for America's Future.
Center for Community Change.
Communications Workers of America (CWA).
Council of State Administrators for Vocational
Rehabilitation (CSAVR).
Easter Seals.
Equal Partners in Faith.
Goodwill Industries.
Institute for America's Future.
Interfaith Alliance.
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades.
National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good
Shepherd.
National Alliance For Partnerships in Equity.
National Association of State Directors of Career Technical
Education Consortium.
National Association of State Head Injury Administrators.
National Council of Jewish Women.
National Education Association.
National Employment Law Project.
National Head Start Association.
National Immigration Law Center.
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.
National League of Cities.
National Organization for Women.
National Rehabilitation Association (NRA).
National WIC Association.
National Women's Law Center.
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
OMB Watch.
Paralyzed Veterans of America.
Patient Alliance for Neuroendocrineimmune Disorders;
Organization for Research and Advocacy.
Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Union.
Professional Employees Department, AFL-CIO.
Protestants for the Common Good.
Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
The Arc of the U.S..
United Cerebral Palsy.
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee.
United Auto Workers (UAW).
United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries.
United Mineworkers of America.
United Steelworkers of America.
USAction.
Welfare Law Center.
Wider Opportunities for Women.
Women Employed.
Women Work! The National Network for Women's Employment.
YWCA USA.
9 to 5, National Association of Working Women.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding me this time, and I rise to oppose this rule to H.R. 27, the
Workforce Investment Act. The gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of the
committee on which I serve, is correct. The Workforce Investment Act
has been successful. The renewal that is proposed to us today, however,
is a step backwards; and we will hear a great deal about that.
There were amendments that were proposed that have not been made in
order. These amendments would have created a separate authorization for
infrastructure funding for one-stop centers, would have struck the
provisions regarding personal reemployment accounts. There was an
amendment that would have struck the provisions to consolidate the
funding of adult, dislocated worker and employment service; and an
amendment that I would like to address at this moment that I offered
that would have increased the authorization by $750 million for job
training programs under the Workforce Investment Act.
Between fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2006, Mr. Speaker, funding
for the Workforce Investment Act has been reduced by three-quarters of
a billion dollars. This is for a program that works. But the funding
has been reduced. My amendment would have restored this funding.
However, the Committee on Rules did not see fit to accept the
amendment. At a time when there are 7.7 million people unemployed, not
counting those who have fallen off the rolls, 4.5 million working part-
time because they cannot find a full-time job that they need, we should
be doing more. Through the one-stop delivery system, job seekers have
access to labor market information, job counseling, and job training to
help them get back on their feet.
Back in 1998 when this bill, this program, was first passed, David
Broder wrote an article. He said: When Senator Paul Wellstone walked
off the floor arm in arm with Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio, bipartisan I
should point out, Paul Wellstone said, ``Mike, this may not be the lead
story on the network news, but it's a good piece of work.'' Well,
indeed it was not the lead story on the network news.
David Broder reports, It was hard to find a trace of their bill. The
news at that time was overwhelmed, overtaken by scandals. But as says
Broder, In communities less consumed by scandal than Washington, the
impact of the measure that DeWine and Wellstone and others had
fashioned may be felt in real lives long after the memories of the
scandals have faded. In a dynamic economy where technological changes
and market shifts are forcing layoffs of some people even as other jobs
are being created, the key is to equip workers with needed skills and
then link them efficiently to the vacancies.
That is what this legislation is intended to do. It should be
authorized at a greater amount. Said Broder back then, The workers will
never know the names of the legislators, but they are in their debt.
Unfortunately, the workers who do not get to take advantage of this
program because it is underfunded will never know what they have
missed, and we have let them down. We should oppose this rule, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I urge the body to adopt this rule and to pass the bill.
I will be addressing just one particular topic which has been
controversial in committee discussions and will be the subject of an
amendment later on, and that is turning the clock back on the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and changing what it says. Those who are opposed to
this bill on that ground believe that somehow it is wrong to allow
religious institutions to receive Federal funds for programs that
benefit the public at large, are not restricted to people of particular
faith but are operated by organizations that are religiously based.
I have listened carefully to the debate in the committee. We have had
this same debate several times in committee. I have yet to understand
precisely what the objections are, but it seems that opponents are
afraid of two things: one, that this provision in the bill somehow will
allow these organizations to discriminate on other grounds in their
hiring, which is, first, contrary to the Civil Rights Act, and second,
I would say religious organizations are the least likely to
discriminate on the basis of race or any of the other forbidden
categories.
The other objection appears to be that somehow these churches are
going to use this Federal money to try to proselytize, to get people in
these programs and then they will say, okay, now isn't this wonderful,
you should join this church.
I would like to say, that is also not true. It just does not happen.
I can speak from my personal experience. When my wife and I moved to
Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1966 to take on a new position, we looked
for a church. In fact, we spent 3 months trying out different churches,
looking, trying to find a certain something: we wanted a church in the
inner city because we wanted to be able to contribute to solving the
problems of the city of Grand Rapids, particularly in the inner city.
And so we joined Eastern Avenue Christian Reformed Church because of
its location and because of the attitude of its people. They worked
very hard in the community. As an example, they established a community
center. There was none at that time either federally funded, State
funded, or city funded. The church stepped in and started it. It was on
the top story of a ramshackle building which housed a small convenience
store in the lower floor. It grew slowly at first, but then took off.
Today it is a large community center, one of the best, if not the best,
in the city. They purchased a school which was being abandoned, filled
up that
[[Page H864]]
school, and they now have just successfully completed a $2.5 million
capital drive to add on to their facilities and improve them.
Our church started that. We did have and still largely do have
religious restrictions on the hiring of individuals, but the facility
serves all people in that community. It has brought in medical care
workers of all faiths to work and provide medical care and dental care
for the recipients in that community.
We started a housing program which turned into the Inner City
Christian Federation, and we spun off this organization as well as
Baxter Community Center, but they are still largely faith-based
organizations. ICCF, the Inner City Christian Federation, developed
housing programs, and they had built many houses before Habitat for
Humanity started in our community; but ICCF has built and remodeled
more houses than almost any organization within the city that I am
aware of. Again, it is faith-based. The employees are hired partially
on the basis of their faith and their commitment to serving in the
inner city and often work for less pay than they could get elsewhere.
Our church, not our individual congregation, but our denomination
started a mental health institution, Pine Rest, years ago because the
people of our church and of our community were not getting adequate
mental care. Today it is one of the largest mental health hospitals in
our Nation. It serves many people of different faiths and of no faith,
but it is a faith-based institution because their treatment modalities
are based, to a large extent, on our beliefs about the nature of people
and their interaction with each other. It has been very successful. It
has received millions upon millions of dollars of aid from the Federal
Government, from the State through community mental health funds and
from the local community.
No one has ever said a word about this, that using Federal money for
this is improper. The reason is simply that Pine Rest provides services
that really are unequaled anywhere else. And so they have received
Federal dollars through Medicaid and through Medicare, and State
dollars through community mental health. It is an outstanding
operation.
Then, finally, something we have ongoing in our church right now.
Every Saturday, I wish you could visit our church; you would see people
of all races, all colors, all faiths walking in the church basement
which we have stocked with food that we have collected from different
stores, warehouses and so forth: produce, baked goods, and many
different types of perishable food.
We have purchased a truck to go around and collect this on Fridays.
And Saturday morning anyone from that city can walk in with no test of
their faith, no means test, they can just walk in and say, I need some
groceries, and they go through the line. We charge them roughly 10
cents on the dollar because we think it is a good thing for them to
feel they have bought something; but a family of four can buy a week's
worth of groceries for about $10. That is a good deal. It is staffed by
people from our church and from other churches, and it is a very
successful operation. If we adopt the Scott amendment, which we will be
discussing later, we simply could not do that.
There is one other factor here as well, and that is every church that
I am aware of does not have a surplus of money. The people that they
hire have to do many different jobs. That is true in our church as
well. We have hired individuals who work in the church. Those
individuals not only operate programs such as the food program, or
getting community centers started, but they also have duties within the
church and by necessity, and clearly within the intent of the Civil
Rights Act, they are performing religious duties. A church cannot go
out and afford to hire a different person to run each different
program. You have to be multifaceted to be on the staff of a church,
and that is precisely what we have in our church.
For these reasons, and many others I could enumerate, I urge the
Congress to pass this rule and this bill, and to defeat the Scott
amendment, so that churches and faith-based organizations of other
sorts can continue to do their good work for the people of this country
without fear of their programs being damaged because they would have to
hire additional personnel who do not have a faith compatible with the
organization.
I believe the system as we have it now, and have had it since the
1964 Civil Rights Act, has worked, it has worked well, and I urge that
we keep it that way and not adopt the Scott amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just say to the gentleman who just spoke that we believe that
there are many religious organizations, many faith-based organizations
that do incredible work, and they will still be able to do incredible
work. What we object to, quite frankly, is the use of taxpayers' money
to basically subsidize discrimination. It is not just a concern that
those of us who are speaking here have; I submitted a list of close to
70 civil rights and religious organizations that have objections to
this provision, including the African American Ministers in Action;
American Jewish Committee; the American Jewish Congress; Americans for
Religious Liberty; the Anti-Defamation League; the Baptist Joint
Committee; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Episcopal Church,
USA; the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist
Church; the National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good
Shepherd; National Council of Jewish Women; NETWORK, a national
Catholic social justice lobby; Presbyterian Church USA; Protestants For
the Common Good; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Texas Faith
Network; the Interfaith Alliance; Union for Reform Judaism; United
Universalist Association of Congregations; United Church of Christ
Justice & Witness Ministries. They go on and on and on. This is a
concern that many of the faith-based organizations all across this
country share with us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the amendment I will be
offering. I will be offering it in conjunction with the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van
Hollen), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edwards), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler)
in order to preserve and maintain civil rights protections as they
currently appear in the job training laws. Current law prohibits
sponsors of job training programs from discriminating based on race or
religion, and that policy goes back decades. For decades, our country
has prohibited discrimination in hiring with Federal funds.
In 1941, President Roosevelt ordered a prohibition against
discrimination in all defense contracts. In other words, since 1941,
our national policy has been that even if you can build better and
cheaper rifles, the Army will not buy them from you if you discriminate
in employment. The Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, and it prohibited
discrimination; but it included an exception for religious
organizations, but that exception was limited to the context of the
religious organizations using their own money. In 1965, President
Johnson banned discrimination in all government contracts without
exception.
{time} 1445
In job training programs specifically, this Congress passed in 1982
the Job Training Partnership Act with bipartisan support. In that Act,
Congress included a nondiscrimination clause without exception, and
that remains the statutory requirement in job training requirement
programs today. That policy will change and discrimination will be
allowed if my amendment is not adopted.
So let us be clear. This is not a debate about religious
organizations having the right to participate in job training programs.
They already do. As the current law stands, and my amendment would keep
that law intact, Catholic, Jewish, Lutheran, Baptist, and other
religious organizations already get hundreds of millions dollars today
to run job training and other federally funded programs. Religious
organizations do not need Section 129 in the
[[Page H865]]
bill to sponsor federally funded job training programs. They need that
section in order to discriminate in hiring with Federal dollars. My
amendment would delete Section 129 and maintain the law against
discrimination.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, when the government refuses to prohibit
discrimination based on religion, it cannot effectively enforce laws
against discrimination based on race or national origin. Many churches
are all virtually white; others virtually all black. So if they
restrict hiring based on their religious organization, they can
effectively discriminate based on race. And if we do not enforce
discrimination laws in Federal contracts with secular programs, where
is our moral authority to tell private employers who may be devoutly
religious that they cannot discriminate with their private money?
Mr. Speaker, for 40 years, if an employer had a problem hiring the
best qualified applicant because of discrimination based on race or
religion, that employer had a problem because the weight of the Federal
Government was behind the victim of discrimination. The underlying,
without my amendment, proposes to shift the weight of the Federal
Government from supporting the victim of discrimination to supporting
some so-called right to discriminate with Federal funds. That is a
profound change in civil rights protection.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard the majority try to defend the
discrimination with misleading and poll-tested rhetoric. For example, I
read in a Dear Colleague that the bill is one that would ``restore
hiring protections for faith-based organizations participating in
federal job training programs.'' Mr. Speaker, Section 129 does not
restore anything. People have not been able to discriminate in Federal
contracts since 1965 and specifically not in any job training program
since 1982. If anything is being restored, it is the ugly practice of
discrimination that existed before the 1960s.
The Dear Colleague went on to say that Congress needs to ``continue
to uphold the basic civil right of America's religious organizations to
hire the staff they judge to be best qualified to carry out their
programs and missions when they provide job training assistance.'' Mr.
Speaker, the language fails to say that they can hire whoever they want
to promote their religious missions with the church money. But with the
Federal money, they have got to hire the best qualified for the Federal
mission the tax dollars were appropriated to promote without
discrimination. Funds appropriated under this bill are not gifts or
grants to churches. They are contracts for government services, and we
should honor the tradition begun in 1941, which prohibits
discrimination.
And, finally, Mr. Speaker, Dear Colleague talks about barriers that
exist to prevent faith-based organizations from fully participating in
government-sponsored programs, but it does not say what the barrier is.
In fact, the only barrier is one cannot discriminate. Any program that
can get funded under the underlying bill could be funded without
Section 129 if the sponsoring organization would agree not to
discriminate in employment. As a representative said during the debate
on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he said, ``Stop the discrimination,
get the money; continue the discrimination, do not get the money.''
Employment discrimination is ugly. We can put lipstick on a pick, but
we cannot pass it off as a beauty queen, and we cannot dress up ``we do
not hire Catholics and Jews'' with poll-tested semantics and euphemisms
and pass it off as anything other than ugly discrimination.
Mr. Speaker, religious organizations actively supported the Civil
Rights Act 40 years ago. Today they support the nondiscrimination
provision in the Workforce Investment Act the way it is and they oppose
Section 129.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill unless
traditional civil rights protections are included.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) will control the time of the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).
MR. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 27, the administration's job training
reauthorization bill, would, among other misguided actions, harm
veterans' employment programs and critical vocational rehabilitation
services.
Specifically, this bill would permit States to siphon off Federal
resources from already underfunded veterans' employment programs that
operate under State ``one-stop'' centers. Veterans and disabled job
seekers do not deserve this.
Mr. Speaker, in the 107th Congress, we passed in a bipartisan manner
the Jobs for Veterans Act, legislation to reorganize, update, and
improve these very same veterans' employment and training programs. Now
is not the time for this bipartisan effort to be unraveled. While our
troops are actively engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and many others
suffering from severe injuries and permanent disabilities, now is not
the time to reduce the resources for these critical job training
programs. Indeed, we need to give these programs the chance to be
effective.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that States are facing tremendous fiscal
challenges due to the harsh economic times, but clearly taking
resources from one chronologically underfunded program is not the
answer. The responsible thing for the administration to do, the right
thing, would be to adequately support job seekers, especially disabled
veterans, as well as to assist the States with infrastructure costs.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not responsible and permits already
modest resources intended for the Nation's disabled veterans, all who
have served our country, to be further diminished.
I oppose this legislation and urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying
legislation. And as a former Marine, I have benefitted from many
programs that help veterans with education and training. As a
continuation of those efforts, we must not let these people fall
through the cracks that we have in our employment laws.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
May I respond simply to the arguments about our veterans because they
are so important to us. Let me reiterate that H.R. 27 does not harm
worker-retaining programs for veterans. Not one dollar from this
account comes that is meant to help veterans with their training. The
programs that we already have in place, specifically the Disabled
Veterans' Outreach Program, the Local Veterans Employment
Representative Program, the Vocational Rehabilitation Program, already
are required to contribute to the infrastructure of these one-stop
career center programs. Any money that would come to the one-stop
center would be coming out of their administrative funds, not from the
money going directly to the training of veterans. That is an area that
was specifically covered in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
In closing, my friends on the other side have had numerous objections
to provisions in H.R. 27. They have a right to do so and I expect it
will be warmly discussed in the ensuing discussion of the bill itself.
I believe strongly in the ability of our States, Governors, local
boards, workforce boards, to be creative and innovative. There is no
omniscient power that we have here. People can think for themselves in
other parts of this country. And the essence of our government demands
that we give them the opportunity to succeed without the benevolent
help of the Federal Government.
Our job, might I remind my colleagues, is to make sure the Micaelas
of the world never slip through the cracks. I believe, and I have
confidence in the ability of local governments to be creative and
effective, and I think so does H.R. 27. What we have today is a
confusing patchwork of employment, training services. The duplication
of those reduces the amount of money we get to use to help Micaelas.
Many amendments that we will be discussing
[[Page H866]]
on the floor have also been discussed in committee. A lot of other
amendments were heard in the committee. This was fully discussed in
committee and voted upon.
May I just, in closing, ask us not to lose sight that the goal is
service and how to provide training for people which is given without
any precondition. Hiring practices that are protected by existing law
are that, protected by existing law. If we feel there is a problem with
that, then we should attack the existing law, and there are venues to
do that. This is not the venue in this particular bill. Faith-based
institutions out there, which are not rich, are still nevertheless
effective. They care. They have the same goal as we do. Our goal should
be to try to join hands to help all the Micaelas in the world solve the
problem of employment, retraining, and servicing, not to try to change
our friends in other particular ways but to join together on a common
front, in a common effort, to help people, not to harm people.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge adoption of the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
structured rule that has been reported out of the Committee on Rules
for this debate. The party-line vote of 220-204 that we saw in the
108th Congress on the debate of the then H.R. 1261 should evidence the
need for the most open debate over the issues. The need for debate
arises from disagreement. As representatives of the United States
Congress, we all have a duty to fully debate the issues on behalf of
our constituents. A restricted rule precludes that opportunity.
Nevertheless, I am pleased that the amendments of my colleagues from
Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia respectively have been ruled in
order.
Passage of these three important amendments will bring H.R. 27 one
step closer to providing more jobs and better opportunities for
American workers to receive training for these jobs. Without them and
many other suggestions that have been made by our colleagues, this bill
fails as to both initiatives. In the short term, extending unemployment
benefits, coupled with the assistance that unemployed workers can
receive through one-stop service centers, will provide workers with the
means to achieve high paying jobs.
We must address the needs of our unemployed now and in a manner that
respects the rights of individuals regardless of their faith, while
they are struggling to pay their mortgages and to put food on the table
for their families. The base bill will fail to address these concerns
and squander resources better used to provide immediate help to our
unemployed workers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject a restrictive rule or to
support the amendments offered by Mr. Tierney, Ms. Velazquez, and Mr.
Scott.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
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.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________