[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.

                          ____________________