[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 37 (Thursday, March 14, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H1407-H1415]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 803, SUPPORTING KNOWLEDGE AND
INVESTING IN LIFELONG SKILLS ACT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 113 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 113
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. 803) to reform and strengthen the workforce
investment system of the Nation to put Americans back to work
and make the United States more competitive in the 21st
century. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair 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.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce
now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as
an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-4. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that
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 amendment in the
nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 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 gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
{time} 1550
Ms. FOXX. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I
yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of
this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 113 provides for a structured rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 803, the Supporting Knowledge
and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act, also known simply as the SKILLS
Act.
Mr. Speaker, today, the House will consider the SKILLS Act, which
reauthorizes the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, of 1998. While these
programs have continued to receive funding through the appropriations
process, the WIA authorization expired in 2003.
WIA seeks to coordinate local employment services through a unified
workforce development service and a one-stop career center delivery
system. Reforming the Nation's workforce development system is
critical, and in these difficult economic times, when roughly 20
million Americans are struggling to find adequate work, we cannot
afford to delay action any longer. Delay is costly for those seeking to
find work. Today, many unemployed and underemployed Americans have
turned to Federal workforce education programs to develop the skills
they need to be competitive for jobs, but instead of an easy-to-
navigate, responsive system, many have found a complex bureaucracy
unresponsive to their needs and concerns.
In January 2011, the Government Accountability Office, the GAO,
identified 47 separate and distinct workforce development programs
across nine different Federal agencies that cost taxpayers
approximately $18 billion annually. The GAO report found that almost
all of these programs were duplicative and overlapping, that only five
of these programs had had any type of evaluation, and that those
evaluations had not been very effective ones.
Through the Education and the Workforce Committee's oversight of the
WIA system, even more programs have been identified, and the true
number of Federal workforce development programs is greater than 50. We
know this is a problem, and we all agree this needs to change.
President Obama recognized the challenge of the current bureaucratic
system in his 2012 State of the Union address. Let me quote the
President directly:
I want to cut through the maze of confusing training
programs so that, from now on, people have one program, one
place to go, for all the information and help that they need.
These are among the many reasons I introduced the SKILLS Act earlier
this year. This legislation streamlines 35 duplicative Federal
workforce development programs, and it creates a single workforce
investment fund to serve employers, workers, and job seekers.
The SKILLS Act establishes a dynamic, employer-driven workforce
development system by ensuring that two-thirds of the State and local
Workforce Investment Boards' members are employers, and it repeals 19
federally mandated board positions. This legislation expands
decisionmaking at State and local levels so that these individuals can
make the best decisions to meet the needs of their communities.
The bill also addresses the administrative bloat in Washington by
requiring the Office of Management and Budget to identify and reduce
the number of Federal staff working on employment workforce development
programs that will be consolidated under this bill. The SKILLS Act
holds these programs accountable for taxpayer dollars spent by
requiring annual performance evaluations and by establishing common
performance metrics.
The bill also allows States to determine eligible training providers,
simplifying the bureaucratic process that has forced many community
colleges and other providers out of the system, and it gives local
boards the flexibility to work directly with community colleges to
educate large groups of participants. Additionally, the SKILLS Act
encourages these programs to focus on in-demand jobs and industries so
that participants will be able to succeed in the workplace upon
completion, and it ensures that funds are spent directly on services
rather than on administration and bureaucrats. This bill improves
transparency by requiring States and local areas to report annually on
administrative costs.
[[Page H1408]]
Each day we delay is another day employers are not hiring the workers
they need, another day unemployed workers are not receiving the best
technical education and another day taxpayer dollars are wasted on red
tape and well-intentioned but broken programs. We have a responsibility
to move this process forward. The time to act is now.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the
underlying bill, the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong
Skills, or SKILLS Act.
For the last 40 years, the reauthorization of the Federal job
training legislation has had the support of Democrats and Republicans.
Members on both sides of the aisle know that the passage of this bill
is critical to our Nation's recovery and future competitiveness.
I served on the State Board of Education in Colorado from 2000 to
2006, and I recall the prior authorization of the Workforce Investment
Act that we're still operating under. It dates to 1998. It came up
after 5 years, which was in 2003, and I remember being on the State
board. In our State, like in many States, jurisdiction goes between
both the Department of Labor and the State Department of Education.
Under the State Department of Education, we have some of the
adult literacy components and adult education components of workforce
investment, and under the Department of Labor, we have other areas of
responsibility.
We said, well, hopefully, Congress will act. That was in 2003-2004,
but that Congress didn't act. We said, well, hopefully, Congress will
act in 2005-2006. We still need a reauthorization, so let's hope
Congress will act. Then I ran for Congress. I was in the next Congress
from 2009-2010 with a Democratic majority. It didn't pass. In 2011-
2012, with a Republican majority, there was no WIA reauthorization.
So here we are now in the 113th Congress, and, unfortunately, we have
a bill that lacks bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the Republicans
have departed from the long history of bipartisanship in common areas
of agreement, some of which were talked about by Dr. Foxx in her
opening remarks: streamlining programs; reducing the number of programs
that have been shown to be ineffective by the GAO; having a workforce
investment system that's more nimble and able to react to changes in
the economy, to changes in the employment sector, to changes in the
types of skills that people need to succeed in the 21st century
workforce. Unfortunately, we have a bill today which falls short in
that regard.
Even though this bill gives great authority to Governors, I have word
from my own home State's Department of Labor and Unemployment of its
opposition to this bill. We have statements from many other disability
advocates, youth groups, civil rights groups that are opposed to this
bill. Workers with disabilities, disadvantaged youth, returning
veterans, low-income adults, migrant workers, and minorities are all
underserved populations that a workforce investment system is designed
to serve, yet these are the very populations that stand to lose the
most under the current bill.
Instead of encouraging collaboration between these programs and
streamlining these programs and rewarding what works and stopping what
doesn't work, this bill forces effective programs to compete with one
another for State funding, putting an additional burden on State and
local budgets in the process. Instead of prioritizing incentives for
business, which could potentially leverage our Federal investment for
colleges and local governments and workforce organizations to
collaborate, this bill requires that only employers be represented on
Workforce Investment Boards, leaving many other stakeholders on the
sidelines.
Of course, meeting the needs of employers is the goal of the
Workforce Investment Act, but when you look at the stakeholders that
will deliver on that and match the people to the skills, you need to
include businesses, colleges, local governments, and others who work in
partnership with needs assessment, driven by the employment needs of
the private sector, to help determine the outputs that are important
for workforce training systems so that our economy can continue to grow
and succeed.
Mr. Speaker, this bill hands a blank check to Governors with a
message that says to go ahead and use Federal tax dollars however you
like, you can eliminate services for the underserved, and yet we, the
American taxpayers, are continuing to pay for it.
Look, we are custodians of taxpayer trust here in this body.
Frequently, this body doesn't do a very good job of that with the
deficits that we have, with the lack of any comprehensive way of
reining in Federal spending and even with regard to the sequester,
which, while it makes progress on reining in Federal spending, it does
so in a non-discriminate way rather than with a thoughtful approach
that would be in the interest of our country. Here we are just passing
out dollar bills, throwing dollar bills to the States. Here comes Uncle
Sam, ready to bail out Governors. They're playing the walnut game--
moving it over to this account and moving it to this account.
{time} 1600
This is essentially a slush fund for State Governors, as it's
currently constructed, at the expense of groups that traditionally have
high unemployment, including veterans who so capably served our
country, particularly during our two most recent wars--the Iraq War,
which has wound down, and the Afghanistan war, which we hope winds down
over the next couple of years--as well as the many veterans of prior
conflicts, including the first Gulf War and the Vietnam conflict, who
continue to suffer from unemployment at above average levels to this
day.
In addition, this bill decreases the WIA State set-aside funding that
facilitates targeted innovation and encourages interstate partnerships.
My home State of Colorado has used this funding for a State energy
sector partnership, provided scholarships to train over 20 Coloradans.
It led to full-time employment, even leading to the creation of a new
company.
This funding also allowed Colorado to form 10 strategy sector
partnerships, which have leveraged more than three-quarters of a
million in private financing and public financing towards incentives
that will train over 1,200 Colorado job seekers in high-demand
occupations. This vital funding would be slashed from 15 percent to 5
percent. I would add that, under the Democratic substitute, which we
are grateful that this rule allows for, WIA State set-aside would be
restored at the full 15 percent.
In addition, this bill would freeze authorized funding levels for WIA
over the next 7 years. This freeze comes on top of the fact that WIA
funding has already been cut in half since 2001. Let me say that again.
WIA funding has been cut in half since 2001, at the very time when the
changing needs of the global economy need to be matched so that
Americans can keep up with the skills they need to compete in the 21st
century economy. And while making a cut there could save a few dollars
now, if we fail to invest in the future of bringing Americans along to
ensure that they can have good jobs that our Nation depends on, this
would have a profound negative impact on our budget and economy over
time.
There are many ideas that a number of us have had to make this bill
better. Many of them are included in the Democratic substitute, which
is allowed under this rule and will be debated with extended debate
time and discussed. However, many of us would have preferred an open
rule. We proposed an open rule yesterday in the Rules Committee. Had an
open rule been offered, I would have loved to bring forth a number of
amendments, including one that is a bill I cosponsor with
Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut that would make it easier
for women to get training in jobs that they are capable of doing in
fields that they are traditionally underrepresented in. There are many
fields, while women have made great progress across the economy, where
women only have a 2 or 3 or 4 percent presence that are high-paying
jobs. We need to match women to the skills so they can fulfill those
opportunities.
I also would like to see, if there had been an open process here on
the floor
[[Page H1409]]
of the House of Representatives, a requirement that State and local
workforce organizations both give some of their time and effort on
promoting training to empower people to start their own companies
through entrepreneurship and innovation. In addition to creating access
to entrepreneurship training, we can focus on reducing the skills gap
in computer science and information technology, fast-growing
occupations, by providing education and training for the jobs of their
future.
Democrats have introduced their own workforce reauthorization bill,
the Workforce Investment Act of 2013, which would streamline programs,
maintain strong protections for veterans and other vulnerable
populations, and create stronger accountability for employment outcomes
while recognizing and expanding the central role community colleges
play in job training.
Again, I'm pleased that this rule makes the Democratic substitute in
order. I wish that it was an open rule that allowed for a full
discussion of the many ideas that come from the entire body of
membership.
It will take both sides working together on this bill, with Dr.
Foxx's effort, Ranking Member Miller's effort, Chairman Kline's effort,
Ranking Member Hinojosa's effort, to create a reauthorization that will
stand the test of time, replacing the 1998 law that we all continue to
operate under in a world that has changed significantly since then.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Colorado, as he's on
the Education Committee. And I certainly wish that he and his
colleagues had stayed in the Education Committee markup on this bill
and offered the many ideas he said that they had to make it better;
but, unfortunately, they walked out and did not take the opportunity to
offer those amendments in the committee.
I would now like to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague
from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to show my support in favor
of the workforce initiative bill presented by the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
This bill is not restrictive to any group, be it gender or race, but
is for all Americans. This bill will allow people to find gainful
employment in the marketplace. This is what America is in dire need of
right now, and that is jobs.
By helping people acquire the skills needed to find employment, we
also give them the ability to help themselves in their ability to
change their lifestyle as they pursue their American Dream.
The SKILLS Act will help the economy in several ways:
One, by creating a more qualified workforce to fill the needs of
today's industries. Thus, it will bring more certainty to the
marketplace. Therefore, employers, knowing that there is a more readily
available trained workforce, will be more likely to expand their
business.
Another way is it will create higher paying jobs.
A third way is it reduces the number of administrative agencies that
oversee and run these programs by more than half, thereby causing
government to be more streamlined, operate more efficiently, and save
the taxpayers money.
The end result, we help people get back to work sooner; and by doing
so, we make a stronger America. So many of our policies of the past,
although well-intentioned, have held people back and kept them out of
the workforce by not promoting the learning or the advanced job skills
needed in today's work environment. I believe we all would prefer to
see people independent and self-sufficient versus dependent upon
government.
America is known as a generous country, and let's work to keep her
that way; but America is also known as the land of opportunity for
those that choose to seize that opportunity. This SKILLS Act will help
ensure people acquire the skills, and if they desire to take advantage
of the opportunity, to succeed in America. Again, everyone wins and
America is stronger.
For these reasons, we should move forward with this legislation; and
I urge my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to vote in favor
of the rule.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts, a colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr.
McGovern.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the ongoing problem with this Republican
majority is their insistence on partisan political ploys at the expense
of sound policy. It's their way or the highway, and this is a good
example. This bill should be a bipartisan bill. This bill should have
brought both sides together for the common goal of putting people back
to work.
The bill we are considering today, the so-called SKILLS Act, doesn't
in any way, shape, or form reflect bipartisanship. Instead of bringing
a bill to the floor that will help our economy prosper and grow jobs,
instead of bringing a bill to the floor where there's bipartisanship,
this majority has given us a bill that, quite frankly, will gut job
training programs.
This is not a good bill. In fact, it does real harm to job training
programs that will help put Americans back to work. And I'm
particularly alarmed by the bill's egregious cuts to the SNAP Education
and Training program.
The SKILLS Act would destroy the SNAP Education and Training program
as we know it. It would kill a program that provides low-income
individuals with the training they need to get jobs, jobs that pay
enough to get them off of public assistance. And here is the deal: the
SNAP Education and Training program works; it actually works.
The author of this bill, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Dr.
Foxx, does not take a meat-ax to this program but, instead, cleverly
reworks it in a way so that, while it will exist in name, it will not
be able to carry out its mission. Rather than going directly at the
program and reducing or zeroing out the program funding, the bill
instead eliminates the role of the SNAP agency in determining what
kinds of services are provided to SNAP participants.
Under its SKILLS Act, the WIA board is authorized to serve ``eligible
SNAP participants.'' The way this would appear to work is that the
State SNAP agency would still assign some group of participants to SNAP
Education and Training programs, but only to those programs as provided
through WIA.
{time} 1610
And here's the concern: the concern is that a good number of States,
including my home State of Massachusetts, have found the WIA services
to be inappropriate for SNAP recipients.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, childless, unemployed adults generally
cannot participate in SNAP for more than 3 months out of every 3 years
unless they are enrolled in certain types of training programs for 20
hours per week.
In this legislation, workforce investment boards are not required to
provide work slots that meet these conditions, and State SNAP agencies
are no longer able to provide additional services. As a result, if jobs
are not available, some poor individuals who are willing to work could
lose their SNAP benefits. They could lose their food benefits.
According to the Government Accountability Office:
Many SNAP participants are not ready for many program
services such as training classes offered by programs at the
WIA one-stops because they lack basic skills, such as reading
and computer literacy, that would allow them to use their
services successfully.
At best, Mr. Speaker, low-income individuals on SNAP who are lacking
job skills that will help them get off public assistance will be denied
access to job-training programs. But here's the kicker: at worst, low-
income individuals who rely on SNAP to put food on their table will
either see part or all of their benefit cut.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, just when you think things couldn't get worse for
poor people in this country, this new legislation could actually make
hunger worse.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill that does nothing to help the
American economy or the unemployed or the untrained in this country. We
should be focusing on jobs, not partisan legislation.
[[Page H1410]]
This is an area where we should be able to come together, as my
colleague, Mr. Polis, said. This is yet another attack on poor people.
We should be working to end hunger now and not passing bills that make
hunger worse.
I'll conclude as I began, Mr. Speaker, by saying that this is one of
those opportunities that I think the American people believe that we
could come together. Unfortunately, this has become a partisan ploy,
another partisan press release.
This bill is going nowhere, and I regret that very much because
unemployed people need help.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am used to hyperbole on this floor. I'm used
to hyperbole from my colleague from Massachusetts, but I really think
this one was a little over the top.
This bill does not kill the employment program with SNAP, and only
6.8 percent of the recipients of food stamps even participate in that
program. So to say that this bill is going to create additional hunger
in this country is really over the top a little bit.
The best way we can help people who are hungry in this country is to
help them get a good-paying job, and that's what we need to be doing.
With that, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the gentlewoman from
North Carolina for yielding, as well as her sponsorship of this
important bill.
You know, job creation and getting Americans back to work is the
number one priority facing this country. And in talking to people from
my district, talking to people who are unemployed, people who are
underemployed, they tell me that they need skills to get back to work.
We need workforce development programs that work. We need to train
people for jobs that are here today and jobs that are going to be here
tomorrow.
One step we can take is to reform our workforce development program.
Our system currently isn't flexible. It has too much red tape, and we
need to make sure it works for people who are looking for jobs and
connects people who are looking for jobs with employers that have open
positions.
We need a nimble system that can respond to our changing economy, and
we have to streamline our current system. Today we have at least 47
duplicative or ineffective programs. We need a simpler, more
comprehensive system, a system that employers and job seekers can
navigate and successfully complete.
The SKILLS Act will address these issues and set up a workforce
development program that will train people looking for jobs to get them
back to work. That's why I look forward to voting in favor of the
SKILLS Act.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado, and I rise in
opposition to the rule and the underlying bill of the so-called SKILLS
Act.
Fifteen years ago, before I was in Congress, I watched with great
interest as Congress, House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, worked
on worker training and produced the Workforce Investment Act. I was
impressed. This was the kind of thing that Congress should be doing. It
was the kind of thing that made me look forward to the prospect of
maybe going to Congress some day.
I remember David Broder, then the dean of Washington journalists,
wrote a column saying this is exactly the kind of thing that Congress
should be doing--and they were doing it in a bipartisan way.
And here we are today, 15 years later, with an ideological, partisan
dead end.
Now, let me make it clear: workforce investment is what Congress
needs to do. The government plays an important role in training and
fostering a strong and capable workforce.
The so-called SKILLS Act does not invest in the workforce. Rather, it
seeks to combine and reduce vital programs that workers need.
As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I, along
with others, sought to help to develop and update an efficient, fair
program that would help eager workers get the right training and get
the right jobs. We had some good ideas to contribute. Some of them had
been tested in my home State of New Jersey.
We had some strong evidence that some of the programs that
Representative Foxx's version had canceled, or sought to cancel, should
be improved and retained. We had good legislative language for the
majority party to consider, and we were rebuffed. Our efforts were in
vain.
American workers are now caught in the middle of this partisan,
ideological effort. Individuals with disabilities, the disadvantaged,
high-risk youth, veterans cannot afford to be abandoned by the majority
party's proposal.
It was interesting that the author of this bill said, well, only 6.8
percent of the SNAP participants use the workforce training. Oh, so 3
million people we can forget about. Is that the implication of that?
No, I think the implication should be we should expand it to even
more. We need to work together to provide our Nation's job seekers with
the resources and the training they need to obtain and maintain quality
employment. The underlying partisan ``consolidate it and then cut it
bill'' will keep people out of work, not put them back to work.
I urge the defeat of the rule so that we can have something more
bipartisan, and I urge defeat of the bill.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of a line from ``The Canterbury
Tales'': The gentleman doth protest too much.
We're told that this is a partisan bill, that the efforts of the
other side were in vain.
Well, let me remind my colleague, he's one of the members of the
committee that walked out of the committee meeting. When there was the
opportunity for the Democrats to offer amendments, they did not do it.
However, some amendments were offered before the Rules Committee, and
we have all of the amendments that were submitted by the Democrats and
not withdrawn that are going to be considered today.
The Democrat substitute amendment was made in order, and I appreciate
Mr. Polis acknowledging that. And we've given them extended debate
time. So it's not exactly as though we are shutting them out of this
process.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished
colleague from North Carolina, Congresswoman Ellmers.
Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, thank you to my distinguished colleague
from North Carolina, whose passion and longstanding experience in this
area have brought this great piece of legislation for us to be able to
vote on today.
And I would just like to rise and say that I am in support of the
rule and the underlying bill to the SKILLS Act.
{time} 1620
Here in Congress we frequently hear from our constituents back home
that we need to work with the President on many issues, and this is a
perfect example of a piece of legislation that we are working on with
President Barack Obama. The SKILLS Act directly addresses what the
President recently called ``a maze of confusing training programs.''
This is our chance to come together and create meaningful,
commonsense reform that will help struggling Americans pull themselves
up out of unemployment and empower them to better provide for their
families. It would also create a single Workforce Investment Fund. It
basically streamlines numerous ineffective, redundant programs, and it
allows for every American to better themselves.
I can only think of whom this bill actually helps. I can think of the
single mother who is working every day and wants to better help her
family and have the flexibility to go back to school to our good
community colleges in this country, to our technical schools. This bill
cuts the red tape that our community colleges and our technical schools
now face. And now we can help them. There are so many out there that
need this help.
Mr. Speaker, this idea is not Republican and it is not Democrat. It
is common sense. In fact, this bill is largely the same bill that came
out of the Education and Workforce Committee last Congress, and most of
the Democratic provisions have been retained.
I am also hearing from constituents back home. For instance, Dr.
Larry Keen, president of Fayetteville Technical Community College,
recently told my office:
[[Page H1411]]
I am in favor of the SKILLS Act and the purposes for which
it was created. Anything that contributes to the
simplification of a very complex system is of value.
Again, I rise today in support of this. I agree with Dr. Keen. I am
here to say that I am calling on my colleagues to step away from this
partisan attack and help us pass this bill. Additionally, I hope the
Senate will do the same.
Mr. POLIS. I have to take a moment to correct the gentlelady from
North Carolina, my colleague, Dr. Foxx, who quoted, ``The lady doth
protest too much,'' saying it was from Canterbury Tales. It is actually
from Shakespeare's Hamlet. I'm sure the gentlelady, upon further
reflection, will concur.
I will add this bill, like Hamlet, is indeed a tragedy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the
underlying bill, H.R. 803, the SKILLS Act.
Mr. Speaker, this is the time to be investing in workforce
development programs, not slashing them. I especially want to point out
that unemployment in Rhode Island remains unacceptably high, yet the
skills gap is an employment obstacle we can overcome with the right
resources. Workers need proper training to succeed in a global economy,
and the Workforce Investment Act programs have helped to do just that.
So it saddens me that the bill before us today cuts so many vital
programs just when we need them the most. It freezes investments in job
training. It cuts or consolidates 35 critical programs and limits
access to services for youth, minorities, older workers, people with
disabilities, and veterans--the vulnerable populations that this law
was designed to serve.
This bill could also imperil the efforts of organizations making
positive strides also in my home State. A prime example of this is the
Genesis Adult Education Center in Providence, which receives 20 percent
of its total budget from WIA sources and helps some of the most
disadvantaged people in our State through job training, child care, and
support services. Under the SKILLS Act, the Genesis Center could face a
reduction of funding and would be forced to serve fewer Rhode
Islanders.
At the Job Corps centers nationwide, enrollment of new students has
been suspended, and this bill does nothing to address this problem. For
almost 3 years, the Job Corps center in Rhode Island has been unable to
enroll new students in job training classes. We should be considering
legislation that addresses this challenge and invests in job creation,
and this bill falls far short on both counts.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and reject this bill so that
we can come together in a bipartisan manner that properly addresses our
workforce issues.
Ms. FOXX. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
Mr. HURT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I thank her for
her leadership on this very, very important issue.
As I travel across Virginia's Fifth District, it is clear that years
of failed policies--like the President's health care law, higher taxes,
and stimulus spending--have impacted the people that I represent. Main
Streets all across our rural district have seen our small businesses
struggle. Families across our district have felt the pain as neighbors,
friends, and family members have lost their jobs and tried to find
work.
As our economy struggles, ensuring our unemployed and underemployed
have access to the skills training that they need to improve their
careers is as important as ever. However, the Federal Government
workforce training programs, while well intended, are cluttered with
bureaucracy, waste, and inefficiency. They're not helping those they
were intended to help. Americans will not benefit from these programs
until we ensure that they are both efficient and effective.
At a time when the national debt is skyrocketing, a 2011 study from
the GAO found that taxpayers are spending $18 billion on 47 duplicative
job training programs across nine Federal agencies. Our top priority in
the House of Representatives over the last 2 years has been getting
Americans out of the unemployment lines and into good-paying jobs. And
today we are standing up to make those critical reforms.
By adopting the SKILLS Act, Congress will put words into action and
take a critical step toward getting our communities back to work. This
legislation will eliminate red tape that prevents workers from
accessing job training, and it will ensure that support is tailored to
the specific needs of individual workers.
A strong workforce is critical to this Nation. I remain committed to
getting Virginia's Fifth District back to work. I urge my colleagues to
support me in supporting the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague from California for yielding.
I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. At a
time when more and more people are starting their own businesses, we
should be doing everything we can to encourage entrepreneurship.
Unfortunately, current rules make it difficult for Workforce Investment
Boards, or WIBs as we call them, to provide entrepreneurial training
services or to count the successes of those programs in their outcome
measures, the very thing that we ought to be doing through these
Workforce Investment Boards. As a result, very few WIBs even offer
these programs, depriving aspiring entrepreneurs of valuable resources
to help them thrive.
That's why in the last Congress I introduced legislation to fix the
guidelines for self-employment training. Our goal would make it easier
for Workforce Investment Boards to offer these programs in the local
community and expand access to training for aspiring entrepreneurs.
I would like to thank Mr. Tierney, Mr. Hinojosa, and Mr. Miller for
including my legislation in their amendment that will be considered
tomorrow. Job training and reemployment issues always have been, and
always should be, bipartisan. So it's very sad that this rule and the
underlying bill have come to the floor under a strictly partisan
process and that they will actually harm the very programs that they're
designed to support.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Ms. FOXX. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Indiana, a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, Mrs.
Brooks.
Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. I would first like to thank the leadership of
Congresswoman Foxx.
I stand here today not just as a Member of Congress but as a former
community college administrator. As senior vice president and general
counsel for Indiana's largest public college system, I led statewide
workforce education and training efforts aimed at putting thousands of
Hoosiers back to work. I also served on Indiana's State Workforce
Board, which administers the funds set forth in the SKILLS Act.
My experience in the workforce development arena taught me a very
important lesson: Americans of all ages and backgrounds have the
ability to be anything they want to be, but they need a flexible
support system that prioritizes people and not bureaucracy.
This is bureaucracy and this is what our current system looks like.
That's why Congress must pass the SKILLS Act. We have a chance to
empower millions of individuals to lead more fulfilling lives by
finding meaningful work, and we must take that chance now. This is the
time to choose people over paperwork and workers over waste.
{time} 1630
My own district is home to several global manufacturing and life
science leaders. I recently sat down with employees from Dow
AgroSciences, headquartered in Zionsville, Indiana. One by one, its
employees told me we have to make better, smarter investment decisions
in workforce development and education for our Nation to succeed and
for our companies to succeed.
How can we be a Nation that spends over $18 billion a year on job
training
[[Page H1412]]
programs--over 47 job training programs--and yet have almost 3.6
million jobs going unfilled? So we have jobs that are unfilled because
we have a system that doesn't work. This isn't good enough for America.
We can do better, and the SKILLS Act can take us on that path.
The SKILLS Act can and will put people back to work. It is leaner. It
provides a roadmap for success that can fuel a 21st century workforce.
It removes roadblocks that prevent workers from receiving in-demand
training, and it gives local leaders the flexibility to provide more
funding to high-performing programs. Every step of the way, it ensures
more of every dollar we spend goes to training people rather than to
the government bureaucracy administering all of the 47 different
programs today.
House Republicans are ready to show we can put skilled American
workers over government bureaucracy by passing the SKILLS Act. I
support passage of this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. POLIS. I'd like to inquire of the gentlelady from North Carolina
if she has any remaining speakers.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we do have additional speakers.
Mr. POLIS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to now yield 3 minutes to another
distinguished colleague from Indiana (Mr. Messer).
Mr. MESSER. I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina. Thank you for
your hard work on this very important bill.
I rise today in support of the rule to H.R. 803, the SKILLS Act. This
critically important legislation, introduced by Dr. Foxx, will reform
and strengthen our Nation's workforce investment system.
Back where I come from in Indiana's Sixth Congressional District, the
number one issue is jobs. Though there are 12 million Americans looking
for work, most folks would be surprised to know that 3.6 million jobs
are unfilled simply because prospective employees lack the necessary
knowledge and training needed for that job. The SKILLS Act works to
address this problem.
Folks in my district are tired of the failed Obama economy. Too many
times parents have had to come home and tell their children that
they've lost their job and they don't know how they're going to pay
their bills, or send them to college, or get their car fixed. Too many
times in recent years young people have been unable to find a job--or
at least find a good-paying job that lets them start their journey of
life.
Unfortunately, our Nation's job-training system has been failing
these hardworking taxpayers. The more than 50 separate programs offered
under the current system costs taxpayers $18 billion annually. Most of
these programs are duplicative and not as effective as they should be.
This has led to taxpayer dollars being wasted, employers being unable
to hire adequately trained workers, and workers not getting the skills
they need to succeed.
We must do better. The SKILLS Act will eliminate and streamline 35
ineffective and redundant programs to ensure workers are getting the
skills they need to fill available jobs. The SKILLS Act will eliminate
wasteful duplication and empower State leaders, local elected
officials, and job creators to make the necessary decisions to ensure
workers receive training for jobs in high demand. This bill will
guarantee job creators a stronger role in workforce development
decisions and ensure taxpayer dollars aren't wasted on broken
bureaucracies. Most importantly, these changes will help workers find
good-paying jobs.
Mr. Speaker, the SKILLS Act strengthens our workforce investment
system, provides smart stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and gives us
the opportunity to do better right now. I urge my colleagues to support
this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. POLIS. I'd like to inquire of the gentlelady from North Carolina
if she has any remaining speakers.
Ms. FOXX. Yes, we do, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. POLIS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have continued to malign what they call a ``political process.''
Regular order, Mr. Speaker, is not political process.
The SKILLS Act has been posted online for nearly a month. The Higher
Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee held a legislative
hearing on this bill on February 26, and a full committee markup last
Thursday. Unfortunately, the Democrats opposed the open transparent
process of markup and instead requested that members of the committee
hold closed-door negotiations. During the markup, the Democrats
ultimately walked out and refused even to offer amendments. This is not
what the American people asked for in the 2012 elections. They asked us
to work together in a transparent, bipartisan way to address our
country's challenges, and we gave our colleagues that opportunity. They
refused it.
Last year, the committee accepted four Democrat amendments during
consideration of the Workforce Investment Improvement Act, the
predecessor of the SKILLS Act. These four amendments are retained in
the base text of the SKILLS Act, hardly a partisan approach.
My Republican colleagues and I on the Education Committee have shown
we're willing and ready to work with our Democrat colleagues, and it's
unfortunate that they instead chose a partisan walkout.
In contrast, under Democrat control in the 110th and 111th
Congresses, the House considered 66 bills that were referred to the
Education and Workforce Committee, but received no committee
consideration before being brought to the House floor.
The SKILLS Act has gone through an open and transparent process, and
it is unfortunate that Democrats have been unwilling to participate in
regular committee process.
Additionally, the rule before us today provides consideration of six
amendments, including all amendments submitted to the Rules Committee
by Democrats that were not withdrawn before the Rules Committee
hearing. As I stated before, the Democrat substitute amendment was made
in order with extended debate time. This exceedingly fair rule is a
culmination of a transparent, regular order which allows my colleagues
across the aisle multiple opportunities to argue for their approach.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Again, I'd like to inquire of the gentlelady if she has
any remaining speakers.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it appears now that we do not have any
additional speakers, and if the gentleman from Colorado is prepared to
close, I will also be prepared.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, particularly at a time of economic stagnation, recovery
from a recession, skills are a more important piece than ever to ensure
that Americans can compete in the 21st century workforce.
We all know that many of the jobs that helped Americans earn a solid
place in the middle class in the 20th century are not necessarily going
to be the same jobs that will allow Americans to live in upwardly
mobile middle class lifestyle in the 21st century. There are new growth
sectors, new opportunities, and yes, new challenges as well.
One of the keys to both our prosperity as a Nation as well as the
prosperity and growth of the middle class is to make sure that
Americans have the skills they need to compete in the 21st century
economy. When we match those skills to the people who need to have them
to support their families, we're talking about all American families.
We're talking about veterans. We're talking about the disabled. We're
talking about those who don't have a high school diploma. We're talking
about immigrants.
{time} 1640
We need to make sure that each of these groups that traditionally has
had and does have a higher unemployment rate than Americans as a whole
can receive the type of training, education, and skills that they need
to support their families and give back to the rest of us--a hand up,
rather than a hand out. That is what workforce investment is all about.
Both Democrats and Republicans agree it's long overdue for us to
update and strengthen the Workforce Investment Act. It was written in
1998. The world was different in 1998. I don't
[[Page H1413]]
think any of us saw the degree with which the economy would change.
We've, since 1998, had many new technology jobs, the Internet has grown
to a mainstream phenomenon, we've had a banking crisis, we've had two
wars, and we're on our third President since 1998. Things have changed
a lot. Things have changed a lot.
I'm amazed, Mr. Speaker, when I meet people now that were born in the
1990s and they're in the workforce. It's absolutely incredible to think
about. And, yet, we're still operating under a law that doesn't reflect
the changing needs of the American workforce. It is time for Democrats
and Republicans to work together--to work together--to reauthorize the
Workforce Investment Act.
The President has stated that he doesn't support this bill, he
wouldn't sign this bill. We need to work together, Democrats and
Republicans, to come up with a framework that works. Yes, we all know
that a committee markup process is part of that process; but so, too,
is establishing the base bill, a process from which Democrats were
excluded.
Former Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Buck McKeon said
that he ``would like to see us work in that same mode where we really
try to work together. I don't think it is the Republican bill or the
Democratic bill, but it should be all of our bill.''
Unfortunately, with regards to where this bill is today, Republicans
did not choose to regard this wise advice of the former chairman in how
this bill was formed and brought to the floor. Now, again, while
neither House Democrats or committee Democrats or the President support
the underlying bill, I'm hopeful that the Republican leadership's
desire to move this bill to the floor indicates the start of a process
to finally reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act.
It's not an issue of left or right. It's an issue of updating the
Workforce Investment Act to reflect the changing needs of our economy
and the changing set of skills that Americans need to support
themselves.
I'm hopeful that with the continued work of Dr. Foxx, Chairman Kline,
Ranking Member Miller, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and other esteemed
Members of this body that Republicans and Democrats will work together
both making concessions to improve the Nation's workforce investment
system and improve the route to the middle class for working families
across our country.
Workforce investment and training to address the skills gap are
critical to this economy as a whole. We have a long way to go to
strengthen and, yes, streamline our workforce training and investment
programs. There are some good ideas with regards to streamlining
workforce investment that are contained in this bill that can form a
basis for bipartisan support, but we still have a long way to go. We
need to work across the aisle to invest in our future and take care of
fellow citizens to make sure that they have the ability to support
themselves.
I look forward to continuing this process with Members on both sides
of the aisle, with members of the committee and Members of the House at
large. Yet the process and bill before us currently is flawed.
Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The world has changed greatly since 1998 when this legislation was
first authorized and even since 2003 when this legislation was last
reauthorized.
I'm very concerned that my colleague has said that this legislation
is flawed and that we did not participate or provide a bipartisan
process. This is an example of Democrats blaming Republicans for what
they themselves do. We gave our colleagues every opportunity to come
help fix the flaws in this legislation through regular order. They
chose not to do it.
The President said in his 2012 State of the Union Address:
It is time to turn our employment system into a
reemployment system that puts people to work.
With 12 million Americans looking for work, the SKILLS Act makes
commonsense reforms to a broken workforce development system to remove
inefficiencies and ensure that individuals are able to get the
education skills they need to find a job.
Now the President is saying that he will veto this legislation, and
yet it does exactly what he asked us to do. This is another example of
the President saying one thing and doing another.
The SKILLS Act takes a crucial step forward in the fight to eliminate
red tape and create a more effective system to better serve and prepare
Americans to compete in the 21st-century workforce. I hope the
legislation will see swift approval in the House and Senate and the
SKILLS Act will be on the President's desk in the coming weeks to see
if he, indeed, will veto the bill that he asked for.
Mr. Speaker, the SKILLS Act will build a more dynamic and responsive
workforce development system, give priority to well-paying, in-demand
industries, expand opportunities at community colleges, and--most
importantly--treat all job seekers as individuals. These changes are
critical at a time when the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that
more than 3.6 million open jobs are going unfilled because there aren't
enough skilled candidates. Let's reform these programs to serve
employers and individuals in an effective and efficient manner.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying
bill. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous
question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of the resolution, if ordered;
and approval of the Journal, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 191, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 70]
YEAS--225
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Williams
[[Page H1414]]
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--191
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Bilirakis
Broun (GA)
Castor (FL)
Conyers
Costa
Culberson
Gardner
Hanna
Himes
Lynch
Markey
McHenry
Napolitano
Smith (WA)
Westmoreland
{time} 1712
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 14, 2013, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 70 due to being sick. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on ordering the previous question
on H. Res. 113--``Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 803) to
reform and strengthen the workforce investment system of the Nation to
put Americans back to work and make the United States more competitive
in the 21st century.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226,
noes 191, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 71]
AYES--226
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--191
Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--14
Broun (GA)
Castor (FL)
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Culberson
Gardner
Hanna
Himes
Lynch
McHenry
Napolitano
Smith (WA)
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1719
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 14, 2013, I was
absent during rollcall vote No. 71 due to being sick. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 113--``Providing for
consideration of the bill (H.R. 803) to reform and strengthen the
workforce investment system of the Nation to put
[[Page H1415]]
Americans back to work and make the United States more competitive in
the 21st century.''
____________________