[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3240-3291]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  JOB TRAINING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2005

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno).
  Mr. FORTUNO. Mr. Chairman, back in 1998, Congress enacted the 
Workforce Investment Act, which established a system for a one-stop 
career centers aimed at providing one convenient central location to 
offer job training and other employment-related services.
  While these reforms have largely been a success, the system is still 
hampered by inefficiency, duplication, and unnecessary bureaucracy. The 
bill that we are approving today aims to strengthen training services 
for job seekers accomplishes these goals in several ways: Particularly 
by streamlining bureaucracy and eliminating duplication; consolidating 
the three adult WIA training programs, giving States and local 
communities greater flexibility, and enabling more job seekers to be 
served with no reduction in services; removing arbitrary barriers that 
prevent individuals from accessing job

[[Page 3241]]

training services immediately; strengthening partnerships between local 
businesses, communities colleges and the local one-stop delivery 
system; enhancing vocational rehabilitation to help individuals with 
disabilities; and improving allocation and literacy for adults to 
ensure they gain the knowledge and skills necessary to find employment, 
including language proficiency.
  I want to thank the chairman on the committee for adopting two 
amendments I have introduced to enhance further employability of the 
limited English proficient calculation by providing necessary skills, 
training and English language instruction. I believe this will help 
tremendously, especially the Hispanic populations throughout the 
country.
  I believe that the backbone of a strong economy and a strong society 
is a well-trained and highly-skilled workforce. The bill on the floor 
today is an excellent source to achieve that goal. This bill includes a 
number of reforms aimed at strengthening our Nation's job training 
system and better engaging the business community to improve job 
training services.
  It accomplishes this by requiring State and local workforce 
investment boards to ensure the job training programs reflect the 
employment needs in local areas; also allowing training for currently 
employed workers so employers can upgrade workers' skills and avoid 
layoffs; encouraging the highest caliber providers, including community 
colleges, to offer training through the one-stop system; leveraging 
other public and private resources to increase training opportunities; 
and increasing connections to economic development programs.
  The bill reauthorizes the Rehabilitation Act of 1993, the primary 
Federal program designed to assist individuals with disabilities to 
prepare for, obtain and retain employment to live independently; and 
furthermore, it includes transition services for students with 
disabilities moving from secondary education into post-secondary 
activities that can only be determined as a possible alternative to 
address the needs of those in special needs.
  I am convinced that H.R. 27 is a valuable tool to achieve that goal 
we all have set our minds to. And that is none other than creating a 
better and strong economy and society that will be prepared to compete 
in a changing and demanding new world that rises as we speak.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join the chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner), in a colloquy on how certain provisions in this legislation 
might affect the governance of WIA funding in New York State.
  This legislation provides governors the authority to take a portion 
of funds provided through the authorizing statutes of mandatory partner 
programs to cover the infrastructure costs of one-stop centers. I am 
concerned that this may create a constitutional conflict between the 
Governor of New York and the Board of Regents.
  I offered an amendment to remedy this conflict in committee. The 
amendment I offered was language that is identical to language already 
included in S. 9. I would ask the chairman if he would commit to 
working with me and my New York colleagues in conference to resolve 
this issue.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. McCARTHY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding. I pledge to work with her and other interested members of the 
New York delegation during conference on this legislation to identify 
and remedy any governance problems which New York may have under this 
bill. However, it is not clear that the language that the gentlewoman 
offered in committee that is included in S. 9 fixes the problem in New 
York and could have other unintended consequences in New York and other 
States.
  So my goal is to ensure that the mandatory partners contribute to the 
cost of the one-stop infrastructure without causing constitutional 
problems for States. And as I suggested, I will continue to work with 
the gentlewoman to achieve this.
  Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for 
agreeing to work with us on this issue of importance to New York.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 27, the 
Reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act.
  The Workforce Investment Act was one of these pieces of legislation 
that actually helps people. It was passed back in 1998. Unfortunately, 
this is a step backward as it comes before us today. The bill now here 
would create block grants to fund the adult dislocated worker and 
employment service programs. And as we know, funding through nearly 
every past block grant program has led to decreases in funding in just 
about every education or labor program that was block granted.
  In addition, the proposal here would reduce and restrict services for 
in-school youths. It would fund one-stop infrastructure by siphoning 
off funds used to serve veterans and individuals with disabilities; and 
importantly, the legislation before us here would allow discrimination 
in hiring based on individuals's religious beliefs.
  Under current religious law, organizations are free to make 
employment decisions using religious criteria with their own money. Why 
should we allow organizations to discriminate with taxpayer dollars? It 
really would roll back 40 years of civil rights laws and decades of job 
training laws as we have heard here today.
  The Workforce Investment Act was intended to be about helping hard 
working Americans find jobs and help those who have a job receive 
training to improve their employment prospects. This is, I repeat, the 
kind of legislation that could actually help people. These one-stop 
centers have been a success. But this legislation does not provide 
adequate authorized funding for them and it changes many of the good 
features that have been part of the Workforce Investment Act.
  We could be closing the skills gap, but unfortunately, the bill does 
not do that. It is a step backward from the legislation that was passed 
in 1998.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) has 5 minutes.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In summary, I urge a no vote on this bill. In 1998, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon) who is a very good friend of mine, we will 
always remain friends, we have great respect for one another, we wrote 
a very good bill in 1998, WIA, and I hope we would do likewise this 
time; but I find myself unable to support this bill.
  The bill, among other things, I do not mean to be harsh, but among 
other things, encapsulates President Bush's response to the woman in 
Omaha who told him that she was presently working three jobs to ensure 
that she could provide for her family. And the President responded, 
``Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're 
doing that.''
  Mr. Chairman, we can do better than that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, what we have before us is the Reauthorization of the 
Workforce Investment Act. It was first passed in 1998. These one-stop 
centers that have been created all over the country to help the people 
gain skills and to increase their skills are a critical part of what we 
need to do if we are going to have a successful economy over the next 
10, 20 and even 50 years.
  What we have done in this reauthorization is tried to make these one-
stop centers work even better. We believe that by consolidating the 
three separate funding streams, three different

[[Page 3242]]

sets of employees, three different sets of books, we can gain more 
flexibility for the local workforce boards and thereby freeing up more 
dollars to be used to actually train workers.
  We believe strongly that the youth services money here ought to be 
directed for the most part to out of school youth, a population that is 
vastly underserved and we do that in this bill. We also believe that 
faith-based providers, especially in large urban centers, can provide a 
very necessary outreach to help those who are really needy have an 
opportunity to get the kind of training and retraining they need to 
become productive members of our society.
  I think what we have here is a very good bill. And while my friends 
on the other side of the aisle have some disagreement, I think all of 
us understand that by and large, this is a good program, that the bill 
before us is worth the support of my colleagues and I would ask them to 
do that.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 27, the 
Workforce Investment Act Reauthorization.
  Today, there are nearly 8 million people who are unemployed and 
seeking work in this country. There are an additional 5 million workers 
who want a job but have given up their job search out of frustration. 
And about one in every five unemployed people--1.7 million Americans--
has been jobless for more than 26 weeks.
  These sad statistics make a clear point--access to job training 
services is critical for Americans across the country.
  Job training should be a bipartisan priority of this Congress, but 
this is the second Congress in a row that Republicans have brought to 
the floor a partisan bill that undermines our job training initiatives.
  This Republican bill puts the funding for job training services at 
risk by consolidating them into a block grant. This is at a time 
Republicans have already cut funding for job training initiatives under 
WIA by $750 million since 2002.
  The Republican bill eliminates targeted job training for workers who 
need it the most--those who have lost their jobs to outsourcing and the 
downturn in our economy.
  It allows the states to rob from Adult Education, Veterans' 
Reemployment, and job training programs for individuals with 
disabilities to fund more bureaucracy. This would severely jeopardize 
services to our most vulnerable populations.
  Most troubling, this bill sends the message that discrimination will 
be condoned in federal, taxpayer-funded job training programs.
  We all recognize and appreciate the work of faith-based organizations 
in their service to communities in need. But there is absolutely no 
evidence that the current law protections have hampered the full 
participation of faith-based organizations in providing job training 
services.
  This bill, however, would allow religious groups to discriminate on 
the basis of religion when hiring or firing staff for federally-funded 
job training initiatives.
  It would permit those seeking jobs funded by the federal government 
to be judged solely on the basis of their religious beliefs and 
practices, not on their qualifications or ability to do the job.
  Instead of promoting the good works of religious organizations, this 
bill unfairly tarnishes them with the specter of discrimination that 
they have nobly fought so hard against.
  The bill's constitutionally dubious provisions will introduce 
needless uncertainty and controversy. It will subject religious 
organizations to legally and morally untenable positions.
  That is why this bill is opposed by many religious and civil rights 
organizations.
  The Scott Amendment preserves current law, which permits these 
organizations to provide job training services with federal funds as 
long as they do not discriminate.
  We can support faith-based organizations without breaking faith with 
our fundamental American commitment to non-discrimination.
  And we can do so much more to support job training services for the 
millions of American workers who are struggling to find work.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Scott Amendment and oppose the 
Republican bill.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my 
opposition to this Job Training Improvement Act because it does nothing 
to improve job training in our country.
  Congress has an opportunity to take the reauthorization of the 
Workforce Investment Act and address the needs of millions of 
unemployed Americans. Instead, we are presented with a proposal that 
reduces the impact of job training programs by cutting funding to 
traditional job training providers such as the veteran's employment 
programs and Perkins Vocational Education Programs.
  This bill also consolidates the adult, dislocated worker and 
employment service programs and their funding while repealing the 
Wagner Peyser Act. Wager Peyser established the Federal performance and 
accountability standards that ensure our job training programs are 
quality programs that place able workers in appropriate positions in 
the workforce.
  Furthermore, this bill would allow federally funded job training 
organizations to question a candidate about their religious beliefs. 
I've been a Christian all my life. However, I do not feel it is the 
place of the Federal Government or anyone receiving Federal funds to 
question a job candidate about their religious beliefs.
  At this time, Congress needs to place more resources into workforce 
training, not reduce job training programs that are successful. The 
Houston area continues to have an unemployment rate higher than the 
national average, as does the State of Texas.
  This bill will slow down the ability of those who need workforce 
training from getting it, and right now this economy needs all the help 
it can get. H.R. 27 is bad public policy and will further slow our 
efforts to strengthen our economy.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 27, the 
Job Training Improvement Act. Through local and State workforce 
investment boards, this legislation will strengthen job training 
programs to meet the needs of local businesses, many of which rely 
heavily on information technology, IT.
  In the span of just two decades, information technology has become a 
commonplace part of our lives and has also created nearly 10 million 
jobs in the United States. Information technology is a factor in the 
productivity and success of many different sectors of our economy. 
Whether one is an auto mechanic, a dentist, or a farmer, IT skills are 
essential--and will be increasingly essential--to one's job performance 
and productivity. Simply put, the IT industry and its workforce are 
significant contributors to productivity, innovation and global 
competitiveness.
  It is for this reason, Mr. Chairman, that the Committee report 
encourages States to examine whether providers of training offer the 
opportunity to obtain an industry-developed and maintained 
certification or credential. This is important, in as much as it 
recognizes that the industries themselves are the most qualified to 
determine what skills their workforce will need to succeed and excel. 
This is especially true with respect to the constantly changing and 
ever-evolving IT industry.
  Through certification, individuals receive validation of a level of 
expertise. This, in turn, can increase an individual's ability to find 
and retain a good job that utilizes that training. Employers also 
benefit when certification assures a level of skill that an individual 
could bring to a job.
  The success of WIA in expanding the computer skills of Americans--
through training and certification--will improve the productivity of 
every sector of our economy. This in turn will make America more 
competitive globally and is an effective step toward creating good jobs 
right here in the United States.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by my colleague the Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Subcommittee on Crime, Mr. Scott along with Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Van 
Hollen, Mr. Frank, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Nadler, to the base bill, H.R. 
27. As I stated with respect to the rule, H. Res. 126, 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 deficiencies that lie within the provisions on the floor. 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.
  I support the Scott-Woolsey-VanHollen-Frank-Edwards-Nadler amendment 
to H.R. 27 to remove the provision allowing religious discrimination in 
employment from the underlying bill. A base bill purportedly designed 
to improve the opportunity to achieve adequate employment is no place 
to encourage discrimination. In fact, there is no place for religious 
discrimination in American law just as there should be no place in 
America for that kind of backwards thinking.
  H.R. 27, in its current state, erodes fundamental civil rights 
protections for the unemployed and the underemployed by exempting 
faith-based organizations from compliance with the current non-
discrimination law. Presently, under our country's existing laws, in 
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employing institutions using private 
funds were exempt

[[Page 3243]]

from employment discrimination protections. However, WIA programs are 
federally funded and as such do not fall under the jurisdiction of the 
Title VII statute. Simply put: Public funds are not allowed to be used 
to encourage religious discrimination in employment and that should not 
change.
  Each of my colleagues should understand that without this important 
amendment, we are advocating the notion that one's ability to provide 
employment to those who are in need is contingent on the religious 
institution to which the individual belongs. What if anything is 
accomplished by attempting to create religious hierarchies in the 
workplace? What benefit does that provide the employer? None. And thus 
the language allowing religious discrimination should be stricken from 
the bill. As should all language that does not add to the well being of 
job-seekers or employment services.
  The Founding Fathers of this country found it necessary to say that 
no one should be unfairly judged or discriminated against on the basis 
of their religion. This Congress should do no less. We should not 
create law that does harm. We should not encourage discrimination of 
any kind, religious or otherwise.
  Surely, this country prides itself on its diversity and its 
willingness to open its doors to people of different religions, races, 
and ethnic backgrounds. Yet on the floor of the people's House we are 
faced with an attempt by the Republicans to create a monolithic sub-
culture within our employment training programs. Despite the rhetoric 
on the other side of the aisle, H.R. 27 as it currently reads will not 
only result in the loss of jobs for applicants who do not identify with 
their prospective employer's religious beliefs but more importantly it 
will cause the loss of quality workers.
  The Scott-Woolsey-Van Hollen-Frank-Edwards-Nadler amendment will 
effectively retain civil rights protections for individuals who seek 
employment or employment training. This amendment simply retains their 
freedom of religious choice and their freedom not to be discriminated 
against due to their religion. This amendment adds nothing to the law 
rather it maintains current law. Without the addition of this proposal, 
however, the body elected to serve all of the people of this country 
will have endorsed employment discrimination with federal dollars. We 
simply cannot allow this to happen. We must do everything we can to 
preserve the fundamentals of Head Start. I urge my colleagues to vote 
to ensure that our job programs are not muddied and degraded by the 
promotion of religious discrimination. Therefore, I stand in full 
support of this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Job Training Improvement Act, because it will reduce important job 
training programs such as the veterans employment programs, Perkins 
Vocational Educational Program and the Vocational Rehabilitation 
Program.
  This measure consolidates the adult, dislocated worker and employment 
service programs and funding into a block grant, while also repealing 
the Wagner Peyser Act and removing many of the federal performance and 
accountability measurements that make the Workforce Investment Act such 
an important investment in our nation's workforce.
  With the unemployment rate at 5.2 percent, it is reprehensible that 
this legislation will repeal a dedicated funding stream for one-stop 
centers where job seekers can learn about job opportunities, apply for 
aid and receive counseling.
  We all know what is going to happen if Workforce Investment Act 
programs are block-granted.
  States are not going to spend that money where it is needed the most, 
which is to aid job seekers in this troubling economy. Instead, these 
funds may be used to cover infrastructure and administrative costs. 
This will go against the true intent of the Workforce Investment Act, 
which is to invest in our workforce.
  Even more troubling is the fact that H.R. 27 reduces preventive in-
school youth training programs which keep students from dropping out of 
school. President Bush has pledged to expand the No Child Left Behind 
law to high schools and require students to take annual tests in 
reading and mathematics through 11th grade.
  So the president wants to ensure that students and teachers are held 
accountable for learning standards, but he lacks support for programs 
that strive to keep kids in school?
  As we all know, these workforce investment programs are already 
critically underfunded. They strive to meet the increasing demands 
placed upon them in an environment of increasingly inadequate 
resources. To be effective, these programs cannot sustain these 
devastating cuts.
  Finally, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act would 
eliminate the civil rights protections of Americans, by exempting 
religious organizations from anti-discrimination requirements.
  The message that we are sending to the millions of Americans who are 
unemployed, who are veterans and those who are in need of economic 
assistance is that we do not care about keeping them from falling 
further into an economic crisis.
  This bill fails as a reinvestment in our workforce and fails to aid 
the millions of jobless Americans who need it the most.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of the Scott Amendment 
which will protect current civil rights protections for employees and 
job applicants of faith-based organizations.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 27, the Job 
Training Improvement Act, which will reauthorize the Workforce 
Investment Act (WIA)--programs which provide job training for youths, 
veterans, and seasonal and migrant workers.
  For the past six years WIA has offered a ``one-stop delivery system'' 
through which job-seekers have access to labor market information, job 
counseling, and job training. In addition, they have access to numerous 
other federal programs that provide services for job seekers. With 
facilities in Wilmington, Newark, Dover and Georgetown, the ``one-stop 
delivery system'' in Delaware has proved to be an efficient tool in 
training individuals for the workforce.
  For example, in Delaware all of our centers are fully equipped with: 
Internet ready computers, interactive CD-Rom tutorials, fax machine to 
send resume and cover letters to perspective employers, copy machine, 
telephone resource center with career manuals including reference 
books. Delaware also runs an internet site where applicants can post 
resumes, as well as to search a comprehensive database of job openings. 
Applicants can also allow Job Scout to search the system for you 
automatically track wages and trends, training locations and funding 
available. It also offers bus schedules, links to newspaper classified 
ads, child care and related information through the family and 
workplace connection.
  The purpose of highlighting the program in Delaware is to provide a 
real life example of useful it is to have services in one central 
place. The bill before us today builds on the efficiency of the ``one-
stop delivery'' model by streamlining unnecessary bureaucracy, 
eliminating duplication, strengthening resource allocation, and 
improving accountability. I am pleased that we are able to make reforms 
that build upon successes, and that will ultimately enhance the ability 
of adults to access services that lead to employment.
  I would also like to briefly touch upon the services that are 
provided for youth under this bill. Under this legislation youth 
between the ages of 16 and 24 are eligible for a variety of services 
geared toward graduating high school or gaining the skills necessary 
for employment. The importance of these services cannot be overstated 
to these young adults.
  With that, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), and urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 27.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, there are towns and 
neighborhoods across America that have tough problems, social crises, 
that desperately need to be addressed. Fortunately, there are many 
organizations in those communities that want to help, and they offer 
unique and innovative solutions to some of our most challenging needs. 
We must open doors for them and help them help our neighbors. That 
begins by removing the barriers that unnecessarily stand in their way.
  It is essential that we recognize the importance of government 
working with faith-based providers to help society. These organizations 
are a central part of the fabric of communities across America and we 
need to ensure that we are removing any obstacles that stand in the way 
of their ability to help.
  Faith-based organizations have a federally-protected right to 
maintain their religious nature and character through those they hire. 
Organizations willing to serve their communities by participating in 
federal programs should not be forced to give up that right. We must 
pass this legislation with a clear message from Congress to our faith-
based leaders: we need your service and we want to assist you in 
delivering for us and for the most vulnerable in our society.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against any amendment that would remove 
the important religious freedom protections these organizations need 
and deserve.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, the policies Congress has implemented over 
the last four years have provided a solid foundation for American 
workers and businesses to build a strong economy.

[[Page 3244]]

  With steady job growth over the last 20 months putting over 2.7 
million Americans back to work, it is clear that Congress has the right 
priorities: Working Americans and their families.
  American workers need access to job-training in order that they may 
obtain the skills to perform the jobs of the 21st century.
  Americans want more than a job--they want jobs with higher pay and 
that provide them with meaning and personal satisfaction. They also 
want a career, a future, and financial independence in retirement.
  As our economy shifts from production to service related jobs, and 
from low-tech to high-tech occupations, Americans need access to 
education and job training that provides them with the skills they need 
to perform.
  Mr. Chairman, when enacted, this plan will pair workers with the 
employers who need the skills they offer, and vice versa.
  In a dynamic and changing world economy, many Americans are faced 
with the reality that they might have to change careers multiple times. 
This plan will strengthen the ties between job training programs, adult 
education and vocational rehabilitation programs and the people they 
serve so they can continue to grow in their careers.
  Of particular importance to me and my colleagues who support this 
plan is provision I proposed that is reflected in the bill we're voting 
on today.
  The provision paves the way for added support for disabled veterans 
who need help finding meaningful work as they transition to the 
civilian sector after their dedicated service to our nation.
  The men and women of our Armed Forces who have given of themselves 
should not only be honored, but aided as much as possible in starting 
life again upon their return.
  The Job Training Improvement Act is a crucial step in taking the 
American workforce into the 21st Century, and I encourage my colleagues 
to support its passage.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 27, the Job 
Training Improvement Act. This bill fails to improve the Workforce 
Investment Act and falls short of the promises our government made to 
provide training and career opportunities for the unemployed.
  H.R. 27 is fatally flawed and undermines our current national 
workforce policy.
  It eliminates various worker-training programs, rolls back protection 
against religious discrimination, and potentially damages the stability 
of important social programs.
  We cannot neglect the unemployed, underemployed and dislocated 
workers of America who need ample and widespread funding for federal 
job training services.
  Despite a suffering economy and high unemployment, this bill 
undercuts the ability of our government to provide for these vital 
workers and erodes Congressional authority and accountability over 
workforce funds.
  Under the provisions of H.R. 27, funding will be shifted from WIA 
partner programs to pay for the WIA infrastructure and core services 
costs.
  This transfer will weaken vital programs such as TANF, adult 
education, unemployment insurance, child support enforcement, and 
veterans employment programs.
  Why would we threaten these vital social programs by passing a flawed 
bill that does not even assure more training would result from the 
transfer of funds?
  H.R. 27 also contains explicit discriminatory provisions.
  By repealing long-standing civil rights protections that were signed 
into law by President Reagan, this bill allows job-training providers 
to discriminate on the basis of religion.
  Since 1982, these provisions have been included in the bill and 
received bipartisan support.
  We cannot allow this gross inequity to tear at the fabric of a 
fundamental American principle--the inalienable right to fair and equal 
treatment under the law.
  This is why I strongly support Congressman Scott's amendment that 
will restore these basic civil rights and my faith in our legislative 
process.
  We cannot allow ourselves to drastically depart from previous 
workforce policy by eliminating worker training programs, destabilizing 
essential social programs, and writing discriminatory provisions into 
law.
  This so-called Workforce Investment Act is not an acceptable or 
responsible proposal to provide needed services to our nation's 
unemployed.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on final passage.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 27, the 
so-called Job Training Improvement Act of 2005.
  Today's bill has nothing to do with improving job training for our 
workforce--far from it. Instead, this bill actually weakens worker 
protections, opens the door to hiring discrimination, and dismantles 
the employment service program that helps unemployed workers find jobs.
  Apparently the Republicans haven't monitored the weak job market 
numbers. How else can you explain being so cruel and unfair as to pull 
the rug out on our nation's unemployed?
  Let me remind my Republican colleagues that there are still fewer 
jobs available in America than when President Bush came to office. 
Inflation is still growing faster than the average earnings of 
workers--a fact that is particularly true for low-skilled and low-
income workers.
  Confronted with such evidence, this Congress should be doing 
everything we can to bolster workforce investment. Yet, this Republican 
bill cuts employment and re-employment services at the time they are 
needed most. It underfunds the Employment Service, Adult, and 
Dislocated Worker programs by consolidating them into a single block 
grant. This puts a greater financial burden directly on the states, 
exacerbating their budget deficits and perversely triggering layoffs 
among the very state employees who administer these programs. Yet, much 
worse, it forces unemployed workers and welfare recipients to fight it 
out for a share of these limited funds.
  To add insult to injury, the Republicans give states the right to 
waive basic worker protections that allow employees to seek redress 
when they've been treated unfairly. They even allow religious 
organizations to engage in hiring discrimination in an unholy attempt 
to turn back a half-century of progress in preventing workplace 
discrimination.
  Current law prohibits employers participating in federal job training 
programs from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, 
national origin, age disability, or political affiliation or belief. 
The Republican bill would allow the taxpayer dollars that pay for these 
job-training programs to go to religious organizations that blatantly 
discriminate in hiring based on religious beliefs. What next? Will the 
next Bush initiative include allowing discrimination based on race, 
sexual orientation or political affiliation?
  The vital civil rights provision barring federally-funded religious 
discrimination has never been controversial and has never been a 
partisan issue. In fact, the provision was first included in the 
federal job training legislation that former Senator Dan Quayle 
sponsored. It passed through a committee chaired by Senator Orrin Hatch 
and was signed by President Ronald Reagan.
  Throughout its 23-year history, this civil rights provision has not 
been an obstacle to the participation of religiously affiliated 
organizations in federal job training programs. Currently, many 
religious organizations participate in the federal programs and comply 
with the same civil rights protections that apply to other employers.
  But suddenly, under the leadership of the White House, we are being 
asked to forget the principle of equal opportunity on which our country 
was founded.
  Now is not the time to be rolling back civil rights protections and 
it certainly isn't the time to be short-changing the unemployed.
  Congress ought to be creating solutions to make it easier for folks 
to find jobs, not more difficult. This Republican bill is clearly not a 
solution.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 27.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following 
information regarding H.R. 27 for the Record.

                                                    March 2, 2005.

            The Real Democratic Record on Charitable Choice,

       Dear Colleague: I wanted to be sure you had a copy of the 
     Real Democratic Record on Charitable Choice. I hope this is 
     helpful as we debate H.R. 27, containing a vast expansion of 
     Charitable Choice to federally-funded job training programs 
     for the first time since 1965.


                      the 2004 democratic platform

       ``We honor the central place of faith in the lives of our 
     people. Like our Founders, we believe that our nation, our 
     communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and 
     richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy 
     it inspires. We will strengthen the role of faith-based 
     organizations in meeting challenges like homelessness, youth 
     violence, and other social problems. At the same time, we 
     will honor First Amendment protections and not allow public 
     funds to be used to proselytize or discriminate. Throughout 
     history, communities of faith have brought comfort to the 
     afflicted and shaped great movements for justice. We know 
     they will continue to do so, and we will always protect all 
     Americans' freedom to worship.''


         The Clinton Administration Record on Charitable Choice

       1996--The Clinton Administration submitted amendments as 
     part of its technical

[[Page 3245]]

     corrections package to Congress regarding concerns over the 
     constitutionality of Charitable Choice provisions contained 
     in welfare reform. They filed the following comments with the 
     amendment: ``[P]rovisions of sec. 104 and its legislative 
     history could be read to be inconsistent with the 
     constitutional limits. . . . We recommend amending sec. 104 
     to clarify that it does not compel or allow States to provide 
     TANF benefits through pervasively sectarian organizations, 
     either directly or through vouchers redeemable with these 
     organizations.'' Congress did not act on those amendments.
       1998--The Clinton Administration issued a signing statement 
     placing limitations on the Charitable Choice provisions 
     contained in the Community Services Block Grant: ``The 
     Department of Justice advises, however, that the provision 
     that allows religiously affiliated organizations to be 
     providers under CSBG would be unconstitutional if and to the 
     extent it were construed to permit governmental funding of 
     ``pervasively sectarian'' organizations, as that term has 
     been defined by the courts. Accordingly, I construe the Act 
     as forbidding the funding of pervasively sectarian 
     organizations and as permitting Federal, State, and local 
     governments involved in disbursing CSBG funds to take into 
     account the structure and operations of a religious 
     organization in determining whether such an organization is 
     pervasively sectarian.''
       2000--The Clinton Administration issued a signing statement 
     placing limitations on the Charitable Choice provisions 
     contained in the reauthorization of the Substance Abuse 
     Mental Health Services Act (SAMHSA): ``The Department of 
     Justice advises, however, that this provision would be 
     unconstitutional to the extent that it were construed to 
     permit governmental funding of organizations that do not or 
     cannot separate their religious activities from their 
     substance abuse treatment and prevention activities that are 
     supported by SAMHSA aid. Accordingly, I construe the Act as 
     forbidding the funding of such organizations and as 
     permitting Federal, State, and local governments involved in 
     disbursing SAMHSA funds to take into account the structure 
     and operations of a religious organization in determining 
     whether such an organization is constitutionally and 
     statutorily eligible to receive funding.''
           Very truly yours,
                                        Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

                                                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) 
     demonstrations 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 longterm 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.

[[Page 3246]]

       American RehabACTion Network.
       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 Trainman.
       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.
       9to5, National Association of Working Women.
                                  ____



                                American Humanist Association,

                                Washington, DC, February 25, 2005.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Humanist 
     Association, the oldest and largest Humanist organization in 
     the nation, I write in opposition to the Job Training 
     Improvement Act (H.R. 27). The Act is included in legislation 
     reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, the main 
     job training program in the United States.
       The Job Training Improvement Act eliminates the protection 
     against employment discrimination in federally funded job 
     training programs. If passed the measure would erode civil 
     rights protections in these programs that have been in place 
     since President Ronald Reagan signed the Job Training 
     Partnership Act into law in 1982.
       While the AHA supports job training, we urge you to oppose 
     this Act because it would further entrench a constitutionally 
     questionable faith-based initiative and would legally 
     sanction discrimination.
       An amendment to reinstate civil rights protections will be 
     offered on the floor by Representative Bobby Scott. We ask 
     you to support this amendment because it would alleviate the 
     civil rights rollback included in the bill.
       As Humanists we strive for religious freedom and equal 
     treatment regardless of one's beliefs or lack thereof. As 
     it's written, this legislation gives the freedom for faith-
     based organizations funded with taxpayer dollars to hire on 
     the basis of religious beliefs, opening the door to religious 
     and ideological employment criteria. Along with other 
     religious, civil rights, labor, education, health, and 
     advocacy organizations, the American Humanist Association 
     opposes H.R. 27.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Tony Hileman,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                The American Jewish Committee,

                                Washington, DC, February 25, 2005.
       Dear Representative: I write on behalf of the American 
     Jewish Committee, the nation's oldest human relations 
     organization; with more than 150,000 members and supporters 
     represented by 33 chapters nationwide, to urge you to 
     support, if offered, the Scott-Van Hollen-Woolsey amendment 
     to H.R. 27, the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005. We 
     further urge that, absent the amendment, you vote to oppose 
     H.R. 27; without the amendment, the bill would repeal 
     longstanding civil rights protections designed to protect 
     workers in federally-funded job training programs from 
     religious discrimination.
       Beginning with the inception of the federal job-training 
     programs encompassed by the Job Training Partnership Act of 
     1982, religion-based employment discrimination has been 
     prohibited in federally funded job-training programs, 
     including programs operated by religious institutions. The 
     bipartisan Job Training Partnership Act, which included the 
     provision prohibiting religious discrimination that H.R. 27 
     would now make inapplicable to religious organizations, was 
     originally sponsored by Senator Dan Quayle (R-IN), reported 
     out of the Senate HELP Committee under Chairman Orrin Hatch 
     (R-UT) and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. In 
     1998, the provision once again received strong bipartisan 
     support in both the House and the Senate when the Workforce 
     Investment Act combined earlier job-training programs and 
     recodified the original nondiscrimination provision included 
     in the 1982 law.
       The nondiscrimination provision that the Scott-Van Hollen-
     Woolsey amendment would reinstate has, over the past 23 
     years, allowed religious organizations to participate in 
     federally funded job-training programs while protecting 
     religious liberty and maintaining fundamental civil rights 
     standards. We are committed to maintaining and respecting the 
     autonomy of religious organizations, including their right to 
     look to religious standards when making employment decisions 
     for positions funded with private resources. But preserving 
     the autonomy of those institutions must not entail the 
     wholesale repeal of longstanding civil rights safeguards that 
     protect workers from religious discrimination in federally-
     funded positions.
           Respectfully,
                                                Richard T. Foltin,
     Legislative Director and Counsel.
                                  ____



                             National Council of Jewish Women,

                                Washington, DC, February 23, 2005.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 90,000 members and 
     supporters of the National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), I 
     am writing to you regarding the Job Training and Improvement 
     Act (H.R. 27) introduced by Rep. Howard McKeon (R-CA). This 
     legislation includes dangerous language that would repeal 
     longstanding civil rights protections designed to protect 
     against religious discrimination in employment in federally 
     funded job training programs. I urge you to support an 
     amendment that would strike this provision, or oppose the 
     bill if such an amendment is not included.
       Current federal law prohibits discrimination based on 
     religion in federally funded programs. This twenty-three year 
     old provision has worked well, allowing religious 
     organizations to provide essential government services while 
     maintaining their own sectarian identity and America's core 
     commitment to protecting both civil rights and religious 
     liberties. The language in H.R. 27 would remove these 
     existing civil rights protections and allow faith-based 
     groups to discriminate based on religion in their hiring 
     practices. While such discrimination may be appropriate in 
     some situations, such as hiring a rabbi, priest or imam, it 
     has no place in the hiring of providers of secular services 
     funded by taxpayer dollars. Faith-based organizations 
     receiving government funding must be held to the same civil 
     rights standards as other social service providers and doing 
     so has not prevented these groups from partnering with the 
     government to provide important services.
       NCJW joins scores of religious leaders, denominational 
     offices, and faith-based organizations in opposition to this 
     divisive and unnecessary legislation. I urge you to oppose 
     the Job Training and Improvement Act and uphold our nation's 
     commitment to eradicating employment discrimination.
       For over a century, NCJW has been at the forefront of 
     social change, raising its voice on important issues of 
     public policy. Inspired by our Jewish values, NCJW has been, 
     and continues to be, an advocate for the needs of women, 
     children, and families and a strong supporter of equal rights 
     and protections for everyone.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Marsha Atkind,
     President.
                                  ____



                                                    OMB Watch,

                                Washington, DC, February 25, 2005.

   Vote ``NO'' on WIA Reauthorization Unless Scott Amendment Passes! 
  Protect Civil Rights--Stop Federally Funded Religious Discrimination

     Re Scott Amendment to H.R. 27, the Jobs Training Improvement 
         Act.

       Dear Representative: OMB Watch strongly urges you to 
     support the Scott Amendment to H.R. 27, the Jobs Training 
     Improvement Act of 2005. The Scott Amendment will

[[Page 3247]]

     restore civil rights protections to people wishing to be 
     employed by religious organizations participating in 
     federally funded programs.
       The need for the Scott Amendment is underscored by a 
     decision made by the Supreme Court in Chief Justice 
     Rehnquist's majority opinion in Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 
     589 (1988). The Court stated that although the Constitution 
     does not bar religious organizations from participating in 
     federal programs, it requires (1) that no one participating 
     in a federal program can ``discriminate on the basis of 
     religion'' and (2) that all federal programs must be carried 
     out in a ``lawful, secular manner.'' Id. at 609, 612.
       H.R. 27 seeks to codify discrimination in hiring for 
     federally funded positions by religious organizations. The 
     bill repeals longstanding civil rights protections designed 
     to protect workers against this kind of religious 
     discrimination. Since their inception in 1982, these job 
     training programs have included important civil rights 
     protections against employment discrimination based on 
     religious beliefs in programs that receive federal funding.
       The Scott Amendment will make H.R. 27 consistent with Bowen 
     v. Kendrick and President Reagan's original intent when he 
     signed the first Workforce Investment Act in 1988. This 
     twenty-one year old provision has been successfully 
     implemented since the inception of the job training program, 
     allowing religious organizations to provide essential 
     government services while maintaining a commitment to 
     protecting civil rights and religious liberty.

 Vote ``Yes'' on the Scott Amendment; Vote ``No'' on Final Passage if 
                       the Scott Amendment Fails

       Although religious employers have the right under Title VII 
     to apply religious tests to employees, the Constitution 
     requires that the direct receipt and administration of 
     federal funds remove that exemption. In addition, the federal 
     government has constitutional obligations reinforced by Bowen 
     v. Kendrick to refrain from religious discrimination. The 
     Scott Amendment will restore the civil rights provisions into 
     H.R. 27.
       For these reasons, OMB Watch encourages you to vote ``YES'' 
     on the Scott Amendment and ``NO'' on final passage if the 
     Scott Amendment fails. If you have any questions, please 
     contact Jennifer Lowe at 202-234-8494. Thank you for your 
     attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Gary Bass,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                                  People for the American Way,

                                Washington, DC, February 24, 2005.
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the over 675,000 
     members and supporters of People For the American Way, we are 
     writing to voice our opposition to the Job Training 
     Improvement Act (H.R. 27) as it would repeal longstanding 
     civil rights protections designed to protect workers against 
     religious discrimination in federally-funded job training 
     programs. We urge you not to eliminate the civil rights of 
     thousands of Americans by exempting religious organizations 
     from anti-discrimination requirements established over twenty 
     years ago. These critical requirements were signed into law 
     by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 under the Job Training 
     Partnership Act and were reaffirmed in 1998 during the 
     passage of the re-titled Workforce Investment Act (WIA). We 
     ask that you support the Scott amendment which would restore 
     this necessary protection. If Congress were to do otherwise, 
     it would be allowing direct federal funding of 
     discrimination. This is unacceptable.
       Maintaining the separation between church and state is 
     fundamental to maintaining the religious freedoms of all 
     Americans. However, this can not be accomplished when 
     organizations receiving federal funds are allowed to deny 
     employment opportunities based upon an individual's religious 
     beliefs.
       There is no need to exempt religious organizations from 
     anti-discrimination laws in order to protect the religious 
     identity of that organization. Provisions already exist that 
     allow an organization that is the recipient of federal funds 
     to separate its religious content from the provision of 
     services through the creation an independent 501[c][3] 
     organization. This allows the religious organization to 
     maintain its religious identity without government 
     interference, while also providing needed services in the 
     community.
       Any exemption for religious organizations receiving federal 
     funds should not be permitted for it would undermine a half 
     century of public policy aimed at protecting individuals from 
     discrimination in the workplace, and further erode the 
     fundamental protections against discrimination based on one's 
     religion that are absolutely central to our democracy.
       We ask that you uphold the religious liberties of all 
     Americans and not allow federal funding of employment 
     discrimination under H.R. 27. Therefore, we strongly urge you 
     to support the Scott amendment, which may be offered on the 
     floor, to restore current law and continue to protect 
     critical civil rights protections within the Job Training 
     Improvement Act. Furthermore, we ask that you vote no on the 
     final passage of H.R. 27 if this amendment is not adopted. 
     Thank you.
           Sincerely,
     Ralph G. Neas,
                                                        President.
     Tanya Clay,
     Deputy Director of Public Policy.
                                  ____



                                    Presbyterian Church (USA),

                                    Washington, DC, March 1, 2005.
       Dear Representative: As you consider H.R. 27 and the issue 
     of Faith-Based Hiring, I would like to alert you that the 
     official policy of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is to oppose 
     the kind of discrimination that could arise in the name of 
     religion through the passage of this bill. Religious freedom 
     and liberty has been a key component of the beliefs held by 
     members of this historic denomination.
       On Charitable Choice/Faith Based Initiatives--The 1988 
     General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) ``has 
     recognized for many years that, apart from question of 
     constitutionality, the church faces serious issues related to 
     its own liberty of faith and action when it receives 
     government funds. The 1969 General Assembly noted the 
     distinction between ``church-controlled'' and ``church-
     related'' and urged that ``temporary or permanent community 
     agencies qualified to receive public funds be established at 
     church initiative to maintain such programs;'' and, ``if 
     church control was temporarily necessary for start up or 
     experimental programs, that any permanent program resulting . 
     . . be removed from church control and put under the control 
     of independent community-based bodies.'' Holding that ``in 
     the conduct of social services church agencies should accept 
     necessary and proper governmental regulation and supervision 
     . . .'' (Minutes, 1988, p. 559).
       Also, General Assembly policy has consistently and clearly 
     stated that government has the primary responsibility for 
     caring for the poor, along with the private sector: The 1997 
     General Assembly stated (and the 1999 General Assembly 
     reaffirmed), ``that while the church, voluntary 
     organizations, business, and government must work 
     cooperatively to address the needs of poor persons and 
     communities, the government must assume the primary role for 
     providing direct assistance for the poor'' (Minutes, 1997, 
     pp. 553). The General Assembly has noted that the private 
     sector is incapable of caring for the needy on its own. The 
     1996 General Assembly asserted that ``churches and charities, 
     including many Presbyterian congregations and related 
     organizations, have responded generously to growing hunger 
     but do not have the capacity to replace public programs'' 
     (Minutes, 1996, p. 784).
       As with all institutions and organizations, there will be 
     those who may hold a differing view from that of the parent 
     body. Congress may receive letters from organizations that 
     may cause confusion about where the official policy of the 
     Church is on this issue.
       The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church is the 
     highest governing body of the 216 year denomination. There 
     are approximately 11,500 congregations with 2.5 million 
     members. Please contact me if you have further questions.
                                      Rev. Elenora Giddings Ivory,
     Director, Washington Office.
                                  ____

                                           Religious Action Center


                                            of Reform Judaism,

                                Washington, DC, February 24, 2005.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Union for Reform 
     Judaism, whose 900 congregations across North America 
     encompass 1.5 million Reform Jews, and the Central Conference 
     of American Rabbis (CCAR) whose membership includes over 1800 
     Reform rabbis, I strongly urge you to oppose the Job Training 
     and Improvement Act of 2005 (H.R. 27). H.R. 27 does not meet 
     the job training needs of either job seekers or employers and 
     would repeal civil rights laws by permitting government-
     funded faith-based job training programs to practice 
     religious discrimination in employment.
       H.R. 27 fails to make meaningful improvements to the 
     Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and would weaken the federal 
     government's job training programs. H.R. 27 consolidates 
     severa1 worker training programs into a single block grant 
     and gives states broad discretion in their use of funds. 
     Experience with block grants suggests that this wider 
     discretionary power is a precursor to federal funding cuts. 
     Under W1A, states and local governments have also been 
     allowed more discretion in the use of job training funding, 
     and states have used this discretion to fund new job training 
     facilities rather than focus on providing new services.
       The Job Training and Investment Act would also appeal civil 
     rights law by permitting government funded faith-based job 
     training programs to engage in religious discrimination when 
     making employment decisions. While the interrelated issues of 
     whether the Constitution permits federally funded religious 
     entities to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion 
     and the legitimate need to recognize the religious autonomy 
     of churches, synagogues, and houses of worship are complex, 
     government-funded discrimination is deeply problematic on a 
     policy level. The notion that a job notice could be placed in 
     the newspaper seeking employees for a government-funded 
     social service program run by a Protestant church that reads 
     ``Jews, Catholics, Muslims need not apply''

[[Page 3248]]

     or ``No unmarried mothers will be hired'' is profoundly 
     troubling. According to an April 2001 Pew Forum on Religion 
     and Public Life poll, 78 percent of Americans oppose allowing 
     government-funded religious organizations to hire only those 
     who share their religious beliefs.
       Religious institution can, and do, play a vital role in 
     helping provide employment services. However, the government 
     must ensure that religious organizations that accept 
     government funding are prohibited from practicing religious 
     discrimination.
       We urge you to address the real and distinct needs of 
     different types or workers and job seekers and to protect 
     longstanding civil rights by opposing the Job Training and 
     Improvement Act of 2005 (H.R. 27).
           Yours sincerely,
                                           Rabbi David Saperstein,
     Director and Counsel.
                                  ____



                                      The Interfaith Alliance,

                                Washington, DC, February 28, 2005.
       Dear Members of Congress: I write to you today as the 
     president of The Interfaith Alliance, a nonpartisan, national 
     grassroots organization dedicated to promoting the positive 
     and healing role of religion in public life, to urge you to 
     support the amendment, offered by Representative Bobby Scott 
     (D-VA), to the Job Training Improvement Act/H.R. 27 that 
     would restore civil rights protections. If an amendment like 
     this fails, I urge you to oppose the Job Training Improvement 
     Act/H.R. 27 because it is an unjustified assault on religious 
     liberty and civil rights protections.
       Section 127, entitled ``Non-Discrimination'' exempts 
     religious organizations that receive Federal funds from the 
     prohibition of discrimination that is standard practice for 
     all other organizations that contract with the federal 
     government. Specifically, under the subsections entitled 
     ``Prohibition of Discrimination Regarding Participation, 
     Benefits and Employment,'' and ``Exemption for Religious 
     Organizations,'' the bill states, that standard 
     nondiscrimination policies ``shall not apply to a recipient 
     of financial assistance under this title that is a religious 
     corporation, association, educational institution, or 
     society, with respect to the employment of individuals of a 
     particular religion . . .''
       This provision represents a dramatic shift in government 
     policy towards religion as it repeals longstanding civil 
     rights protections which have traditionally protected people 
     of faith and goodwill from religious employment 
     discrimination in federally funded job-training programs.
       Since its inception in 1982, when it was called the Job 
     Training Partnership Act (JTPA), this program has been the 
     largest Federal employment training program in the nation, 
     serving dislocated workers, homeless individuals, 
     economically disadvantaged adults, youths and older workers. 
     When signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, this program 
     contained the very language protecting against religious 
     discrimination that H.R. 27 seeks to repeal.
       As an organization comprised of 150,000 people of faith and 
     goodwill spanning over 70 faith traditions, I urge you to 
     support the Scott amendment to the Job Training Improvement 
     Act/H.R. 27 that would restore civil rights protections. If 
     an amendment like this fails, I urge you to oppose the Job 
     Training Improvement Act/H.R. 27 because it is an unjustified 
     assault on religious liberty and civil rights protections.
       America's unemployed citizens and those who wish to train 
     them should not be subjected to a religious test under a 
     Federal program. If you need further information on our 
     position on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact 
     Kim Baldwin, Director of Public Policy and Voter Education, 
     at 202-639-6370.
           Sincerely,
                                         Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy,
     President, The Interfaith Alliance.
                                  ____

         Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, 
           Washington Office for Advocacy,
                                                   Washington, DC.
     To: Members of the House of Representatives.

       Dear Representative: I write on behalf of over 1,000 
     congregations that make up the Unitarian Universalist 
     Association of Congregations (UUA). Unitarian Universalists 
     have a long and proud history of opposing the convergence of 
     religion and state in ways that compromise both entities. I 
     write today to urge you to oppose provisions in H.R. 27, The 
     Job Training Improvement Act that would do just that.
       We ask you to oppose religious discrimination in employment 
     procedures included in Section 128 of H.R. 27. If Section 128 
     were included as written, The Jobs Improvement Act would 
     allow religious organizations receiving government funds to 
     discriminate on the basis of religion when hiring employees 
     for taxpayer-funded positions. This would jeopardize both 
     civil rights and religious freedom. We urge you to support 
     the amendment offered on the floor by Representative Scott 
     that would restore protections contained in current law that 
     guard the freedom of religious belief and expression to all 
     people seeking employment of federally funded positions.
       While The Unitarian Universalist Association affirms the 
     critical role of faith as a source of healing in our society, 
     we strongly believe that all legally qualified social service 
     providers should be considered for employment without the 
     imposition of religious tests or proscription. By accepting 
     government funds, houses of worship are--and should remain 
     subject to government oversight, as well as government 
     regulation, including compliance reviews, audits, and 
     upholding the protections against civil rights violations 
     such as religious discrimination.
       If an amendment restoring current law by requiring 
     federally funded religious organizations to comply with civil 
     rights protections is not passed on the floor, we urge you to 
     oppose H.R. 27, the Job Training Improvement Act as written. 
     The protection of the religious expression of people of all 
     faiths is the responsibility all Americans, including 
     religious organizations such as ours and legislators such as 
     yourself. We ask for your vote against religious 
     discrimination in the workplace in order to protect the civil 
     rights and religious freedom of all people and remain true to 
     one of the core principles of our nation's commitment to 
     liberty for all.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Rob Keithan,
     Director.
                                  ____

         National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
           People, Washington Bureau,
                                Washington, DC, February 25, 2005.
     Members,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Re Support the Scott Amendment to H.R. 27, the Job Training 
         Improvement Act of 2005, which would restore protections 
         against discrimination in current law.

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Association 
     for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the nation's 
     oldest, largest and most widely recognized grassroots civil 
     rights organization, I urge you, in the strongest terms 
     possible to support the amendment being offered by 
     Congressman Bobby Scott to H.R. 27 that would retain the 
     civil rights protections when using federal funds in the 
     current law. If the bill's existing language becomes law, 
     civil rights protections that have been in place for decades 
     will be eliminated and the result will be federally funded 
     discrimination. Given the importance of this issue to the 
     NAACP and our membership, I would also urge you to vote 
     against final passage of the bill should the Scott amendment 
     fail.
       Because of our Nation's sorry history of bigotry, for 
     decades it has been illegal to discriminate in employment and 
     make hiring decisions based on race or religion. The only 
     exception is faith-based organizations that are exempted from 
     anti-discrimination provisions in programs using their own 
     money; although until now they had to adhere to basic civil 
     rights laws when using federal monies to support a program.
       There should be no question that Faith Based institutions 
     should, like all other recipients of federal funds, adhere to 
     basic civil rights laws when using federal funds. It is a 
     fundamental American principle that no citizen should have to 
     pass someone else's racial, ethnic or religious test to 
     qualify for a taxpayer-funded job and has been the law since 
     1982 when our federally-funded national job training programs 
     were consolidated under the Job Training Partnership Act. 
     H.R. 27 would eliminate the protections and advancements in 
     the current law, provisions which have never been 
     controversial.
       Congressman Scott's amendment would restore protections 
     against religious discrimination in hiring for jobs funded 
     through the Job Training Improvement Act. This amendment is 
     consistent with the civil rights laws passed of the mid-
     1960's and with the basic principles of our Constitution and 
     would reassert traditional and well-established employment 
     rights, civil rights and anti-discrimination protections.
       Make no mistake; enactment of this provision will not make 
     it easier for faith-based organizations to get federal 
     contracts; they still need to apply, compete, and are subject 
     to audit. Any program that can get funded under this bill can 
     get funded anyway; Faith based organizations must simply 
     comply with decades-old civil rights laws; they must not 
     discriminate in hiring.
       While there can be no question as to the invaluable role 
     that faith-based organizations have played and continue to 
     play in meeting many of the needs facing our nation today, it 
     is also true that there are a few organizations which may, 
     unfortunately, use religious discrimination as a shield for 
     racial or gender discrimination. Thus I urge you, again in 
     the strongest terms possible, to support Congressman Scott's 
     amendment and ensure that tax dollars are not being used to 
     support discrimination in any form.

[[Page 3249]]

       Should you have any questions or comments on the NAACP 
     position, I hope that you will feel free to contact me at 
     (202) 463-2940. The NAACP considers this to be a very 
     important civil rights vote, and your position will be 
     relayed to our national membership.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Hilary Shelton,
     Director.
                                  ____

              American Federation of State, County, and Municipal 
                                                        Employees,


                                                      AFL-CIO,

                                Washington, DC, February 25, 2005.
       Dear Representative: I am writing on behalf of the 1.4 
     million members of the American Federation of State, County 
     and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) to urge you to vote against 
     H.R. 27, the ``Job Training Improvement Act of 2005'' 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 improvements necessary to enhance the 
     training and career opportunities of unemployed workers. 
     Instead, the legislation completely eliminates the dislocated 
     worker training program, undermines state rapid response 
     systems, ends the federal-state labor exchange system, rolls 
     back protections against religious discrimination in hiring 
     by job training providers, and potentially undermines the 
     stability of other important related programs. It also 
     threatens the unemployment insurance-employment service 
     partnership that has served the nation well for over 70 
     years.
       We are especially concerned that H.R. 27 terminates the 
     U.S. Employment Service (ES) system by folding it into a 
     block grant with the WIA dislocated worker and adult training 
     programs. Funded from the federal Unemployment Insurance 
     Trust Fund, the ES has been a key part of the unemployment 
     insurance (UI) system since its inception. Through state 
     employment service agencies, the ES has administered the UI 
     ``work test'' to determine whether UI claimants are actively 
     seeking work in order to be eligible for UI benefits.
       It is highly doubtful that local one-stop centers with 
     multiple mandates could address the reemployment needs of UI 
     claimants and the mandates of the UI law effectively. In 
     addition, shifting the UI work test to one-stop centers, 
     which private companies can operate, would privatize an 
     important eligibility function for the UI program and set the 
     stage for privatizing the administration of UI benefits. This 
     is especially troubling in light of the importance of 
     preserving the confidentiality of employer wage records.
       Eliminating the Employment Service also advances a major 
     objective of the Administration: the devolution of the 
     federal unemployment insurance to the states, in effect 
     ending this critical countercyclical program as a national 
     system. Legislation to reduce the Federal Unemployment Tax 
     (FUTA) by 75% over several years and turn the financing of UI 
     operations back to the states has languished in Congress. 
     H.R. 27 accomplishes one phase of this larger plan.
       Block granting the dislocated and adult worker training 
     programs with the ES eliminates the distinct objectives of 
     each of these programs. Specifically, it ends targeted job 
     training assistance for workers dislocated by off-shoring and 
     other economic changes, pits different types of workers 
     against each other, and it will lead to future funding 
     reductions. It also replaces the current uniform statewide 
     job service that matches employers and job seekers with a 
     multiplicity of local programs that will have no incentive or 
     ability to cooperate as a comprehensive labor exchange 
     system.
       AFSCME also strongly opposes provisions in H.R. 27 that 
     give governors broad discretion to transfer resources from 
     the WIA ``partner programs'' to pay for WIA infrastructure 
     and core services costs.
       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 begin the 
     commingling of funds from these non-WIA programs and lay the 
     foundation for future block granting of these programs. Any 
     doubts that this is the long term objective should be 
     dispelled by the Administration's current request to modify 
     H.R. 27 to give governors authority to add up to five 
     additional ``partner programs'' to the block grant created in 
     the legislation (``WIA Plus''). These programs include 
     vocational rehabilitation, trade adjustment assistance, 
     veterans employment and training programs, adult education 
     and food stamp employment and training programs.
       In addition to the block grant strategy in the legislation, 
     H.R. 27 includes new demonstration authority for the 
     Department of Labor to operate ``personal reemployment 
     account'' (PRA) demonstrations. The PRAs would cap the cost 
     of training that unemployment insurance recipients can 
     receive and bar them from receiving free WIA services for a 
     year after the PRA account is established. They represent a 
     further contraction in the assistance the federal government 
     provides workers, and, since the Labor Department already is 
     running an experiment in seven states, they are entirely 
     unnecessary.
       Finally, the proposed PRAs or vouchers are complemented by 
     the repeal of longstanding civil rights protections that 
     prohibit religious-based employment discrimination by job 
     training providers. This rollback of civil rights 
     protections, designed to advance direct government funding of 
     pervasively religious institutions, overturns decades of 
     consensus on the need for nondiscriminatory treatment in job 
     training programs and should be rejected. We understand that 
     Rep. Bobby Scott intends to offer an amendment that would 
     restore to the bill the existing civil rights protections. We 
     urge you to support this amendment.
       In summary, H.R. 27 is a radical and partisan departure 
     from previous workforce policy. It transforms the original 
     one-stop idea of a better-coordinated workforce system into a 
     mechanism for reducing resources and block granting programs 
     in the future. It would undermine the role of Congress in 
     national workforce policy, erode accountability for the 
     expenditure of workforce funds, and retreat from important 
     civil rights protections that have enjoyed bipartisan support 
     for over 25 years. AFSCME strongly urges you to vote against 
     H.R. 27.
           Sincerely,
                                              Charles M. Loveless,
     Director of Legislation.
                                  ____

         American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 
           Organizations,
                                Washington, DC, February 17, 2005.
     Honorable John Boehner,
     Chairman, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Boehner: On Thursday, February 17, the House 
     Education and Workforce Committee will consider H.R. 27 to 
     reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act. The AFL-CIO urges 
     you to vote against this legislation, because it is a step 
     backward in securing needed training and employment programs 
     for our nation's unemployed and disadvantaged workers.
       Good jobs that support families are the foundation of a 
     strong economy and a strong nation, and creating and 
     sustaining good jobs is the number one priority for 
     Americans. Effective and meaningful job training programs and 
     income support for jobless workers combined with job search 
     assistance are key components of a comprehensive jobs 
     strategy. H.R. 27 does nothing to create and sustain good 
     jobs in America. At the same time it consolidates, block 
     grants and cuts the funding for Workforce Investment Act 
     programs designed to help unemployed workers and 
     disadvantaged adults.
       In particular, we are concerned about the following 
     provisions in H.R. 27:


                 elimination of the employment service

       The AFL-CIO opposes repeal of the Wagner-Peyser Act, called 
     for under H.R. 27. Repealing the Wagner-Peyser Act eliminates 
     the 60-year-old United States Employment Service (ES), a 
     federal-state partnership that maintains a nationwide, free, 
     publicly administered labor exchange matching job seekers and 
     employers. It is also the first step toward dismantling the 
     critical and historic federal role in the nation's 
     unemployment insurance (UI) system, turning it over entirely 
     to the states. Repealing the Wagner-Peyser Act and block 
     granting ES funds will reduce, privatize and voucherize free 
     public labor exchange programs.


                            wia 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 destroys 
     both the dislocated worker program, which has provided 
     assistance to experienced workers permanently dislocated from 
     their jobs, and the statewide job service, which provides a 
     uniform statewide system for matching employers and 
     jobseekers. The block grant will pit different types of 
     workers against each other for assistance and lead to future 
     funding reductions.


                         infrastructure funding

       H.R. 27 gives Governors broad discretion to transfer 
     additional resources from the WIA partner programs to pay for 
     WIA infrastructure and WIA core services costs--without any 
     assurance that more training would result. By relying on 
     funding transfers from these programs, H.R. 27, guarantees 
     WIA one-stop funding at the expense of disrupting and 
     weakening services provided by these non-WIA programs. 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.

[[Page 3250]]

                     personal reemployment accounts

       H.R. 27 includes a demonstration program for the Secretary 
     to conduct ``Personal Reemployment Account'' (PRA) 
     demonstrations even though the Department of Labor recently 
     initiated a PRA demonstration without strong interest among 
     the states. 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

       We are particularly concerned that this legislation would 
     remove key civil rights protections against religious 
     discrimination in publicly-funded programs. H.R. 27 repeals 
     longstanding civil rights protections that prohibit 
     religious-based employment discrimination by job training 
     providers.


                                funding

       Since taking office, President Bush has made real cuts in 
     job training and assistance programs to help unemployed and 
     underemployed workers, including Workforce Investment Act 
     programs for adults and dislocated workers and the Employment 
     Service. In inflation-adjusted dollars, these proposed cuts 
     total almost $1.9 billion.
       If implemented, the Bush WIA block grant proposals will cut 
     $284 million in real dollars from WIA and Employment Service 
     programs. If implemented, the new ``WIA Plus'' block grant 
     proposal will cut $354 million in real dollars from current 
     TAA, Vocational Rehabilitation, Adult Education, Veterans 
     Training and Food Stamp Employment and Training Programs. The 
     Bush block grant proposals will mean a total of $638 million 
     in real cuts for existing programs.


                         ``wia plus'' proposals

       Though not part of HR 27, at present, the Bush 
     Administration has proposed a ``WIA Plus'' initiative that 
     would allow Governors to merge five additional programs into 
     the WIA block grant: Trade Adjustment Assistance; Vocational 
     Rehabilitation; Food Stamps Employment and Training Programs; 
     Adult Education and Veterans Employment and Training 
     Programs.
       The legislation allows the Governor to: Ignore the 
     requirements of each statute authorizing these programs. 
     Treat individuals in different parts of the state 
     differently. Consolidate reporting so that no information or 
     tracking is provided on the nature and extent of services to 
     special groups.
       The ``WIA Plus'' proposal should be opposed because it: 
     Bypasses existing public administration requirements 
     permitting these programs to be contracted out. Eliminates 
     the obligation to provide long-term training and income 
     support to workers whose jobs have been outsourced or lost to 
     foreign trade. Eliminates job training and other workforce 
     assistance to unemployed, disabled and homeless veterans and 
     eliminates state veterans employment specialists and disabled 
     veterans employment specialists. Eliminates the specialized 
     counseling and customized help for the disabled provided 
     through state vocational rehabilitation agencies. Forces 
     those in need to compete for a declining share of resources. 
     Contains no assurance that individuals will receive the same 
     quality of service.
       For all of these reasons the AFL-CIO urges you to vote 
     against H.R. 27 and oppose any amendments that would 
     implement the Bush Administration's ``WIA Plus'' program.
           Sincerely,
                                                   William Samuel,
     Director, Department of Legislation.
                                  ____



                                        Human Rights Campaign,

                                    Washington, DC, March 2, 2005.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the more than 600,000 
     members of The Human Rights Campaign, we urge support for the 
     Scott Amendment to the Job Training Improvement Act (HR 27) 
     in order to protect workers against religious discrimination 
     in federally-funded job training programs. This Amendment 
     would restore current law and continue to protect critical 
     civil rights protections thus preventing the alteration of a 
     non discrimination policy that has been in place since it was 
     signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. Passing this bill 
     without such amendment will result in religious organizations 
     being able to use Federal money to discriminate based on 
     religion under this Act even when engaging in purely secular 
     job training endeavors.
       Absent the adoption of a civil rights amendment on the 
     House floor, we urge you to vote ``No'' on final passage of 
     H.R. 27.
       The 1998 Workforce Investment Act consolidated earlier job-
     training programs and simply recodified the nondiscrimination 
     provision included in the original Job Training Partnership 
     Act of 1982. The 1998 legislation, which included this 
     nondiscrimination provision, received strong bipartisan 
     support from both the House and Senate at the time of its 
     passage in the 105th Congress. Since its inclusion in the 
     1982 JTPA, it has enjoyed bipartisan support. This twenty-one 
     year old provision has worked well since the inception of 
     this program, allowing religious organizations to provide 
     government-funded services while maintaining America's 
     bedrock commitment to protecting both civil rights and 
     religious liberty.
       In general, we do not object to faith-based organizations 
     providing employment-related services or other social 
     services provided that public funds are not used to 
     discriminate. However as the Nation's largest gay, lesbian, 
     bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, we 
     summarily oppose using Federal funds to discriminate on any 
     basis, including religion, which we have witnessed used as a 
     proxy for sexual orientation and gender identity 
     discrimination.
       We strongly urge you to support the Scott Amendment and 
     oppose the unjustified rollback of civil rights protections 
     currently found in H.R. 27. We believe that tax payers should 
     never fund discrimination and urge your support in efforts to 
     restore these important protections.
       As always, should you have any questions please do not 
     hesitate to contact Shelley Simpson at 202-216-1586.
           Sincerely,
     David M. Smith,
       Vice President for Policy & Strategy.
     Christopher Labonte,
       Legislative Director.
                                  ____

                                             The Coalition Against


                                     Religious Discrimination,

                                                February 23, 2005.
       Dear Representative: We, the undersigned religious, civil 
     rights, labor, education, health and advocacy organizations 
     are writing to urge you to support Scott amendment to restore 
     critical civil rights protections to the Job Training 
     Improvement Act (H.R. 27), in order to protect workers 
     against religious discrimination in federally-funded job 
     training programs. Since their inception in 1982, these job-
     training programs have included important civil rights 
     protections against employment discrimination based on 
     religion in programs that receive federal funds. Absent the 
     adoption of a civil rights amendment on the House floor, we 
     urge you to vote ``No'' on final passage of H.R. 27.
       The 1998 Workforce Investment Act consolidated these 
     earlier job-training programs and simply recodified the 
     nondiscrimination provision included in the original Job 
     Training Partnership Act of 1982. The 1998 legislation, which 
     included this nondiscrimination provision, received strong 
     bipartisan support from both the House and Senate at the time 
     of its passage in the 105th Congress. Since its inclusion in 
     the 1982 JTPA, it has enjoyed bipartisan support. The 
     original Job Training Partnership Act was sponsored by then 
     Senator Dan Quayle, and was reported out of the Senate Labor 
     and Human Resources Committee then chaired by Senator Orrin 
     Hatch. Finally, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the 
     Job Training Partnership Act, which contains the very same 
     civil rights provision that H.R. 27 now seeks to repeal as it 
     applies to religious organizations. This 23 year old 
     provision has worked well since the inception of this 
     program, allowing religious organizations to provide 
     government-funded services while maintaining America's 
     bedrock commitment to protecting both civil rights and 
     religious liberty.
       We strongly urge you to support the Scott civil rights 
     amendment to H.R. 27 to restore current civil rights law and 
     to oppose the unjustified and unnecessary assault in H.R. 27 
     on our nation's commitment to eradicating employment 
     discrimination in government-funded jobs.
           Sincerely,
       AFL-CIO.
       American Association of University Women.
       American Civil Liberties Union.
       American Counseling Association.
       American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO.
       American Federation of Teachers.
       American Humanist Association.
       American Jewish Committee.
       American Jewish Congress.
       Americans for Religious Liberty.
       Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
       Anti-Defamation League.
       Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.
       Central Conference of American Rabbis.
       Episcopal Church, USA.
       Equal Partners in Faith.
       Frances Kissling, Catholics for a Free Choice.
       General Board of Church and Society of The United Methodist 
     Church.
       Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America.
       Human Rights Campaign.
       Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
       Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense).
       NAACP.
       National Association of Social Workers.
       National Council of Jewish Women.
       National Education Association.
       National Head Start Association.
       National PTA.
       OMB Watch.
       People For the American Way.
       Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office.

[[Page 3251]]

       Service Employees International Union SEIU, AFL-CIO.
       Texas Faith Network.
       Texas Freedom Network.
       The Interfaith Alliance.
       The Secular Coalition for America.
       Union for Reform Judaism.
       Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.
       United Auto Workers.
       United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries.
       Women of Reform Judaism.
                                  ____



                                      Baptist Joint Committee,

                                Washington, DC, February 25, 2005.
       Dear Representative: This week you will be asked to 
     consider the Job Training and Improvement Act (H.R. 27). We 
     write to request your support for the Scott amendment to 
     restore critical civil rights protections. Without the 
     adoption of this amendment, we urge you to reject this 
     legislation because it would allow religious employment 
     discrimination in positions funded with federal dollars.
       Some religious organizations qualify for an exemption to 
     the ban on religious discrimination in Title VII of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964. We support Title VII's exemption for 
     churches and other religious organizations. This exemption, 
     when applied to privately funded activities and enterprises, 
     appropriately protects the church's autonomy and its ability 
     to perform its mission. Courts have interpreted this 
     exemption not only to apply to clergy, but also to all of the 
     religious organization's employees including support staff, 
     and not only to religious affiliations, but also to religious 
     beliefs and practices. While we support this exemption, we 
     oppose its application in a publicly funded context.
       Without the Scott civil rights amendment, H.R. 27 would 
     allow tax-funded employment discrimination on the basis of 
     religion. Allowing government to subsidize religious 
     discrimination with tax dollars is arguably unconstitutional, 
     and in any case, an unconscionable advancement of religion 
     that simultaneously turns back the clock on civil rights.
       Religion has flourished in this country since its founding 
     precisely because the institutional spheres of church and 
     state have operated separately. This type of legislation 
     violates the separation of church and state and, therefore, 
     threatens religion. We ask you to oppose H.R. 27 and provide 
     protections from religious employment discrimination in 
     federally funded job training programs.
           Sincerely,
     K. Hollyn Hollman.
                                  ____



                                   African American Ministers,

                                Washington, DC, February 25, 2005.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Member of Congress: As pastors and leaders of 
     predominately African American congregations across the 
     country, we urge you to protect the civil rights and 
     religious freedom of all Americans and oppose the 
     discriminatory provisions in the Job Training Improvement Act 
     (H.R. 27). African American religious leaders and activists 
     have worked tirelessly over the past decades to ensure civil 
     rights protections. However, this bill would repeal these 
     longstanding civil rights protections designed to protect 
     workers against religious discrimination in federally-funded 
     job training programs.
       We believe that maintaining the separation between church 
     and state is fundamental to maintaining the religious 
     freedoms of all Americans. Therefore, as leaders of our 
     respective congregations, we cannot compromise our principles 
     by supporting legislation that allows religiously-affiliated 
     organizations, to discriminate with Federal taxpayers' 
     dollars. The role of the church is to promote our religious 
     teachings, and this should not be confused with religious 
     intolerance or discrimination.
       Since 1982, anti-discrimination requirements have been 
     included in the Job Training Partnership Act, re-titled the 
     Workforce Investment Act in 1998. It is important to 
     recognize that religiously affiliated organizations have not 
     requested an exemption. Furthermore, there is no need to 
     exempt religious organizations from these anti-discrimination 
     laws. Houses of worship can create independent 501(c)(3) 
     organizations in order to separate religious content from the 
     provision of services. This allows our religious 
     organizations to maintain their religious identity without 
     government interference, while also providing needed services 
     in the community.
       Not only is the exemption in H.R. 27 unnecessary, it is 
     also detrimental to the fundamental protections against 
     discrimination based on one's religion that are absolutely 
     central to our democracy. The current language in H.R. 27 
     does not protect the civil rights cherished in our 
     communities, but instead encourages federally-funded 
     discrimination.
       For these reasons, we ask that you prevent unnecessary and 
     unacceptable religious discrimination and show your 
     commitment to upholding critical civil rights protections 
     within H.R. 27.
           Sincerely,
                                        Reverend Timothy McDonald.


                             Board Members

       Rev. Wendell Anthony, Fellowship Chapel United Church of 
     Christ, Detroit, MI.
       Rev. Dr. FLoyd W. Davis, High Street Baptist Church, 
     Roanoke, VA.
       Elder Kevin A. Ford, St. Paul UCGC, Chicago, IL.
       Rev. Julius C. Hope, New Grace Missionary Baptist Church, 
     Highland Park, MI.
       Rev. Dr. Arnold W. Howard, Enon Baptist Church, Baltimore, 
     MD.
       Rev. Leonard B. Jackson, First A.M.E. Church, Los Angeles, 
     CA.
       Rev. Dr. Clarence Pemberton, Jr., The New Hope Baptist 
     Church, Philadelphia, PA.
       Rev. James B. Sampson, First New Zion Missionary Baptist 
     Church, Jacksonville, FL.
       Rev. L. Charles Stovall, Camp Wisdom UMC, Dallas, TX.
       Rev. Dr. Rolen Womack, Jr., Progressive Baptist Church, 
     Milwaukee, WI.
       Rev. Albert Love, Love In Action Ministries, 5410 Skyview 
     Drive, SW., Atlanta, GA.
       Rev. Robert Shine, Berachah Baptist Church, 2043 Eastburn 
     Ave., Philadelphia, PA.
                                  ____



                               American Civil Liberties Union,

                                Washington, DC, February 25, 2005.
     Re the Job Training Improvement Act (H.R. 27) Creates an 
         Unconstitutional Loophole Allowing Government-Funded 
         Religious Discrimination.

       Dear Representative: The American Civil Liberties Union 
     strongly urges you to support the Scott amendment to the Job 
     Training Improvement Act (H.R. 27) to restore current law and 
     to continue to defend critical civil rights protections 
     designed to protect employees against religious 
     discrimination in federally-funded job training programs. 
     Since their inception in 1982, these federally-funded job 
     training programs have included important civil rights 
     protections against employment discrimination. H.R. 27 will 
     create an unconstitutional loophole to the enforcement of 
     this longstanding prohibition against government-funded 
     religious discrimination in Federal job training programs.


     H.R. 27 Changes Longstanding Civil Rights Law That Was Never 
                             Controversial

       H.R. 27 explicitly authorizes federally-funded religious 
     organizations receiving funds from the Act's job training 
     programs to discriminate against their employees based on 
     religion. Current law prohibits participants in Federal job 
     training programs from discriminating based on race, color, 
     religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or political 
     affiliation or belief. 29 U.S.C. 2938 (a)(2). H.R. 27 would 
     allow taxpayer dollars to fund religious organizations that 
     discriminate against their employees in the delivery of 
     federally-funded services.
       The civil rights provision barring federally-funded 
     religious discrimination has never been controversial. In 
     fact, the provision was first included in the Federal job 
     training legislation that then-Senator Dan Quayle sponsored, 
     which passed through a committee chaired by Senator Orrin 
     Hatch, and was signed by President Ronald Reagan. Throughout 
     its 21-year history, the civil rights provision has not been 
     an obstacle to the participation of religiously-affiliated 
     organizations in Federal job training programs. In fact, many 
     religiously-affiliated organizations participate in the 
     programs and comply with the same civil rights provision that 
     apply to everyone else.


  There Is Little Support for the Anti-Civil Rights Provision in the 
                                 Senate

       In the 108th Congress, the Senate passed its version of the 
     faith-based initiative after stripping out any provisions 
     that could have created any special advantages for federally-
     funded religious organizations. The sponsors of the 
     legislation realized that a majority of the Senate supported 
     the eradication of religious discrimination in federally-
     funded employment positions--and did not want to roll-back 
     any civil rights protections. The civil rights community 
     joins a significant portion of the religious community in 
     urging the House to make the same decision to oppose Federal 
     taxpayer support for religious discrimination by federally-
     funded employers.


H.R. 27 Would Reverse the Government's Long Standing Protection Against 
                    Federally Funded Discrimination

       H.R. 27 attacks the very core of civil rights protections 
     historically supported by the federal government. More than 
     60 years ago, one of the first success of the modern civil 
     rights movement was a decision by President Franklin 
     Roosevelt to bar federal contractors from discriminating 
     based on race, religion, or national origin. From that first 
     presidential decision through the Supreme Court's decision 
     allowing the Federal government to deny special tax 
     advantages to Bob Jones University, which claimed a religious 
     right to retain the tax benefits while pursuing racist 
     practices, the Federal government has made the eradication of 
     federally funded discrimination among its highest priorities.
       In Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), 
     the Supreme Court held that Federal government could deny a 
     religiously-run university tax benefits because

[[Page 3252]]

     the university imposed a racially discriminatory anti-
     miscegenation policy. Id. at 605. The Court decided that the 
     Federal government's compelling interest in eradicating 
     racial discrimination in education superceded any burden on 
     the university's religious exercise of enforcing a 
     religiously-motivated ban on students interracial dating. Id. 
     at 604.
       H.R. 27 would allow a religious organization, such as Bob 
     Jones University, that discriminates based on religion, to 
     participate in Federal job training programs. In a disturbing 
     result, Bob Jones University could be denied tax benefits 
     because of its racist policies toward its students, but could 
     receive Federal job training money under H.R. 27 to 
     discriminate against employees working in the Federal job 
     training program--simply because the employees do not meet 
     Bob Jones University's religious tests. Moreover, in the many 
     religious organizations in which most, if not all, of the 
     adherents are of a single race, the result of federally-
     funded religious discrimination will effectively be federal 
     funds going to the employment of persons of a single race.
       The Federal government clearly has a compelling interest in 
     applying the Workforce Investment Act's current civil rights 
     provision to everyone receiving federal funds--including 
     religious organizations seeking to discriminate on the basis 
     of religion in hiring persons to work in Federal job training 
     programs. H.R. 27 is inconsistent with the leading Supreme 
     Court case on the use of federal funds by religious 
     organizations that discriminate.
       There is no meaningful difference between the government 
     prohibiting tax benefits to organizations that discriminate 
     based on race and the Workforce Investment Act's statutory 
     prohibition on discrimination based on religion in Federal 
     job training programs. In fact, the United States itself--
     during the current Administration--squarely rejected the 
     proposition that intentional religious discrimination gets 
     less protection under the Equal Protection Clause than 
     intentional racial discrimination. In its October 26, 2001 
     brief defending the religion prong of Title VII from an 
     Eleventh Amendment attack, the United States stated that 
     ``[c]ontrary to Defendant's contention that the Supreme Court 
     has `distinguished claims involving differential treatment on 
     the basis of race and speech from those involving religion,' 
     there can be no doubt that the Equal Protection Clause 
     subjects State governments engaging in intentional 
     discrimination on the basis of religion to strict scrutiny.'' 
     Brief of Intervenor United States in Endres v. Indiana State 
     Police (N.D. Ind. Oct. 26, 2001) (brief is available on 
     www.usdoi.gov). Congress should not now take the position 
     that it cannot or will not enforce a civil rights ban on 
     federal funds going to an organization claiming a right to 
     discriminate based on religion when the Supreme Court 
     specifically authorized the United States to enforce a civil 
     rights ban on federal tax benefits going to an organization 
     making a directly analogous religious exercise claim to 
     discriminate based on race. Thus, the sponsors' statement 
     that the Congress has no duty to fully enforce the 
     nondiscrimination statute is contrary to law--and abandons 
     one of the seminal decisions in civil rights, namely Bob 
     Jones Univ.


                      H.R. 27 Is Unconstitutional

       H.R. 27 abets unconstitutional employment discrimination 
     based on religion. Its exemption of religious organizations 
     from the prohibition on religious discrimination in the 
     program is contrary to constitutional law and will open the 
     door to government-funded discrimination.
       Proponents of allowing religious organizations to use 
     Federal funds to discriminate against their employees argue 
     that their position is consistent with a provision in Title 
     VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that generally permits 
     religious organizations to prefer members of their own 
     religion when making employment decisions. However, that 
     provision does not consider whether federally-funded 
     religious groups can discriminate with federal taxpayer 
     dollars. Moreover, although the Supreme Court upheld the 
     constitutionality of the religious organization exemption in 
     Title VII, Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 
     327, 336-39 (1987), the Court has never considered whether it 
     is unconstitutional for a religious organization to 
     discriminate based on religion when making employment 
     decisions in programs that the government finances to provide 
     governmental services.
       Several courts have considered whether a religious 
     organization can retain its Title VII exemption after receipt 
     of indirect Federal funds, e.g., Siegel v. Truett-McConnell 
     College, Inc., 13 F. Supp.2d 1335, 1344 (N.D. Ga. 1994) 
     (clarifying that its decision permitting a religious 
     university to invoke the Title VII exemption is because the 
     government aid is directed to the students rather than the 
     employer), but only one federal court has decided the 
     constitutionality of retaining the Title VII exemption after 
     receipt of direct Federal funds, Dodge v. Salvation Army, 
     1989 WL 53857 (S.D. Miss. 1989). In that decision, the court 
     held that the religious employer's claim of its Title VII 
     exemption for a position ``substantially, if not 
     exclusively'' funded with government money was 
     unconstitutional because it had ``a primary effect of 
     advancing religion and creating excessive government 
     entanglement.'' Id. The analysis applied by the court in 
     Dodge should apply with equal force to the Workforce 
     Investment Act programs that would provide direct Federal 
     funds to religious organizations.
       In addition to causing the Establishment Clause violation 
     cited by the court in Dodge, H.R. 27 would also subject the 
     government and any religious employer invoking the right to 
     discriminate with Federal dollars to liability for violation 
     of constitutional rights under the Free Exercise Clause and 
     the Equal Protection Clause. Although mere receipt of 
     government funds is insufficient to trigger constitutional 
     obligations on private persons, a close nexus between the 
     government and the private person's activity can result in 
     the courts treating the private person as a state actor. 
     Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982).
       It is beyond question that the government itself cannot 
     prefer members of a particular religion to work in a 
     federally-funded program. The Equal Protection Clause 
     subjects governments engaging in intentional discrimination 
     on the basis of religion to strict scrutiny. E.g., United 
     States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 125 n.9 (1979); City of 
     New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303 (1976). No government 
     could itself engage in the religious discrimination in 
     employment accommodated and encouraged by the proposed rule's 
     employment provision. Thus, the government would be in 
     violation of the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal 
     Protection Clause for knowingly funding religious 
     discrimination.
       Of course, a private organization is not subject to the 
     requirements of the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal 
     Protection Clause unless the organization is considered a 
     state actor for a specific purpose. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 
     42, 52 (1988). The Supreme Court recently outlined the 
     conditions necessary to establish that there is a sufficient 
     nexus between the government and the private person to find 
     that the private person is a state actor for purposes of 
     compliance with constitutional requirements on certain 
     decisions made by participants in the government program:
       [S]tate action may be found if, though only if, there is 
     such a `close nexus between the State and the challenged 
     action' that seemingly private behavior `may be fairly 
     treated as that of the State itself.' . . . We have, for 
     example, held that a challenged activity may be state action 
     when it results from the State's exercise of `coercive 
     power,' when the state provides `significant encouragement, 
     either overt or covert,' or when a private actor operates as 
     a `willful participant
     in joint activity with the State or its
     agents' . . .

     Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic 
     Association, 121 S. Ct. 924, (2001) (citations omitted).
       The extraordinary role that the current Administration--and 
     the sponsors of H.R. 27--have taken in accommodating, 
     fostering, and encouraging religious organizations to 
     discriminate based on religion when hiring for federally-
     funded programs creates the nexus for constitutional duties 
     to be imposed on the provider, in addition to the 
     requirements already placed on government itself. The clear 
     intent of the change in the civil rights provision in the 
     Workforce Investment Act is to encourage certain providers 
     receiving federal funds to discriminate based on religion.
       The H.R. 27 provision allowing government-funded religious 
     discrimination is part of a growing pattern of congressional, 
     presidential, and regulatory actions taken specifically for 
     the purpose of accommodating, fostering, and encouraging 
     federally-funded private organizations to discriminate in 
     ways that would unquestionably be unconstitutional if engaged 
     in by the federal government itself. For example, in December 
     of last year, President Bush signed Executive Order 13279, 
     which amended an earlier executive order, which had provided 
     more than 60 years of protection against discrimination based 
     on religion by federal contractors. The Bush Order provides 
     an exemption for religious organizations contracting with the 
     government to discriminate in employment based on religion. 
     In addition, the federal government is simultaneously 
     proposing regulations to allow religious organizations to 
     discriminate based on religion in employment for federal 
     programs involving substance abuse counseling, welfare 
     reform, housing, and veterans benefits.
       Although religious employers enjoy an exemption from Title 
     VII allowing them to apply religious tests when hiring for 
     positions funded with their own money, the Constitution 
     requires that direct receipt and administration of federal 
     funds removes that exemption. In addition, the federal 
     government itself has constitutional obligations to refrain 
     from religious discrimination or from establishing a 
     religion. H.R. 27 fails to meet any of those constitutional 
     mandates.
       For these reasons, the ACLU strongly urges you to support 
     the Scott amendment to H.R. 27. Thank you for your attention 
     to this matter, and please do not hesitate to call Terri 
     Schroeder at 202-675-2324 if you have any questions regarding 
     this issue.
           Sincerely,
     Laura W. Murphy,

[[Page 3253]]

       Director.
     Terri A. Schroeder,
       Senior Lobbyist.
                                  ____

                                   Americans United for Separation


                                          of Church and State,

                                Washington, DC, February 24, 2005.
       Dear Representative: Americans United for Separation of 
     Church and State strongly urges you to support the Scott 
     amendment to the Job Training Improvement Act (H.R. 27). The 
     Scott amendment would restore longstanding civil rights 
     protections in the Workforce Investment Act (``WIA''), which 
     guards workers against discrimination in WIA-funded job 
     training programs. Absent adoption of the Scott Amendment on 
     the House floor, Americans United strongly urges you to vote 
     ``No'' on final passage of H.R. 27.
       Americans United represents more than 75,000 individual 
     members throughout the fifty states, as well as cooperating 
     houses of worship and other religious bodies committed to the 
     preservation of religious liberty. The civil rights rollback 
     contained in H.R. 27 would allow religious organizations 
     operating government-funded programs under WIA to 
     discriminate in employment on the basis of religion, 
     religious practice, or religious beliefs. H.R. 27 thus has 
     serious implications for the protection of civil rights and 
     religious liberty, and must be opposed.
       Section 128 of H.R. 27, entitled ``Non-Discrimination,'' 
     exempts religious organizations that receive Federal funds 
     from the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of 
     religion that is standard practice for all other 
     organizations receiving funding under WIA. Since its 
     inception in 1982, when it was called the Job Training 
     Partnership Act (``JTPA''), this program has served as the 
     largest federal employment training service in the nation, 
     serving dislocated workers, homeless individuals, 
     economically disadvantaged adults, youth and older workers. 
     When signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, this program 
     contained the very language protecting against religious 
     discrimination that H.R. 27 seeks to repeal as to religious 
     organizations.
       The 1998 WIA consolidated these earlier job-training 
     programs and simply recodified the nondiscrimination 
     provision included in the original JTPA. The 1998 
     legislation, which included this nondiscrimination provision, 
     received strong bipartisan support from both the House and 
     Senate at the time of its passage in the 105th Congress. The 
     original JTPA was sponsored by then-Senator Dan Quayle, and 
     was reported out of the Senate Labor and Human Resources 
     Committee then chaired by Senator Orrin Hatch. Since its 
     inclusion in the 1982 JTPA, it has enjoyed bipartisan 
     support. This 23-year-old provision has worked well since the 
     inception of this program, allowing religious organizations 
     to provide government-funded services while maintaining 
     America's bedrock commitment to protecting both civil rights 
     and religious liberty.
       Americans United strongly urges you to support the Scott 
     amendment and to oppose the unjustified and unnecessary 
     assault in H.R. 27 on our nation's longstanding commitment to 
     eradicating employment discrimination in government-funded 
     jobs. If you have any questions about H.R. 27 or would like 
     further information on any other issue of importance to 
     Americans United, please do not hesitate to contact Aaron D. 
     Schuham, Legislative Director, at (202) 466-3234, extension 
     240.
           Sincerely,
                                               Rev. Barry W. Lynn,
                                               Executive Director.

  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
27, the so-called Job Training Improvement Act of 2005.
  Millions of Americans are unemployed today and finding it harder to 
get a job. According to the Minnesota Department of Employment and 
Economic Development, job seekers in Minnesota still out-number 
unfilled jobs by two-to-one.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 27 does nothing to put people back to work. It 
doesn't shorten the lists of people waiting to use the resources at my 
one stops. It won't meet the needs of the approximately 8,000 Minnesota 
youth who can't get WIA job-related services every year. Instead, this 
bill unravels the very programs that ensure these workers have the 
skills and training they need to find high paying, long-term jobs.
  H.R. 27 eliminates targeted programs designed to help both dislocated 
workers and unemployed adults find a job. It block grants dedicated 
assistance forcing low-income workers and welfare recipients to compete 
with dislocated workers for the same limited federal resources.
  This bill eliminates dedicated funding for job search services, like 
Minnesota's Job Bank, which assists thousands of Minnesotans. This 
funding supports a rapid response system that meets the immediate needs 
of workers affected by mass layoffs. These changes threaten to break 
apart Minnesota's statewide workforce development system at the very 
time when these services are needed most to help unemployed workers 
find jobs.
  In addition, H.R. 27 does nothing to ensure that these limited funds 
are used for training. It allows governors to take money away from 
adult education and veterans' job programs and use it to cover 
bureaucratic costs. Sadly, it also restricts youth funding to out-of-
school youth. This will devastate the Building Lives Program, which 
Ramsey County uses to provide job training services to troubled teens 
during school hours.
  Most concerning, however, is that this bill repeals basic civil 
rights protections for employees of job training programs by allowing 
organizations that receive Federal job-training funds to discriminate 
on the basis of religion.
  I speak as a person who was brought up by a Lutheran mother and a 
Catholic father. I remember when my mother went to church to see her 
little girl receive her first communion and wasn't made to feel 
welcome. I don't want to go back to those days. I don't want the 
children I represent to know how it feels to be kept from fulfilling 
their dreams or meet their potential because someone doesn't like the 
church, mosque or synagogue you attend. Yet, this bill leads our 
country in that direction.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that we must strengthen our 
workforce investment system to help Minnesotans get back to work. H.R. 
27, however, fails to meet that goal and at the same time encourages 
rolling back civil rights protections. I urge my colleagues to reject 
this bill today.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, while I did not support the Workforce 
Investment Act Reauthorization bill that was passed by this body, I 
would like to thank Chairman Boehner, as well as the Republican and 
Democratic Committee staffs, for assisting me in adding two significant 
amendments to the bill.
  The first of these amendments relates to domestic microcredit, and 
ensures that local one-stop centers may use funding to provide 
information about the benefits of microcredit lending, and the local 
institutions that provide such loans, to individuals partaking in 
entrepreneurial training. The second amendment creates a demonstration 
project which will provide funds to industry consortia for the purpose 
of workforce training and development. Businesses, institutions of 
higher education, employee representatives, and workforce development 
community-based organizations within an industry will be able to join 
together to identify and address workforce needs within their given 
industry. These funds can be used to advance worker skills, conduct 
analyses of skill deficiencies and plans to address them, and develop 
rigorous training and education programs related to employment in high-
growth, high-wage industries. The amendment creates a ``win-win'' for 
employers and employees, as it would help employers improve their 
workforce, and allow employees to obtain the skills necessary to 
advance their careers.
  Again, I feel strongly that these amendments will result in positive 
changes to current law, and I thank Chairman Boehner as well as the 
Republican and Democratic staffs of the Education and the Workforce 
Committee for their assistance.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                                H.R. 27

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Job Training Improvement Act 
     of 2005''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. References.

 TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO TITLE I OF THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998

Sec. 101. Definitions.
Sec. 102. Purpose.
Sec. 103. State workforce investment boards.
Sec. 104. State plan.
Sec. 105. Local workforce investment areas.
Sec. 106. Local workforce investment boards.
Sec. 107. Local plan.
Sec. 108. Establishment of one-stop delivery systems.
Sec. 109. Eligible providers of training services.
Sec. 110. Eligible providers of youth activities.
Sec. 111. Youth Activities.
Sec. 112. Comprehensive programs for adults.
Sec. 113. Performance accountability system.
Sec. 114. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 115. Job corps.
Sec. 116. Native American programs.
Sec. 117. Migrant and seasonal farmworker programs.

[[Page 3254]]

Sec. 118. Veterans' workforce investment programs.
Sec. 119. Youth challenge grants.
Sec. 120. Technical assistance.
Sec. 121. Demonstration, pilot, multiservice, research and multi-State 
              projects.
Sec. 122. Community-based job training.
Sec. 123. Personal Reemployment Accounts.
Sec. 124. Training for realtime writers.
Sec. 125. Business partnership grants.
Sec. 126. National dislocated worker grants.
Sec. 127. Authorization of appropriations for national activities.
Sec. 128. Requirements and restrictions.
Sec. 129. Nondiscrimination.
Sec. 130. Administrative provisions.
Sec. 131. General program requirements.

 TITLE II--ADULT EDUCATION, BASIC SKILLS, AND FAMILY LITERACY EDUCATION

Sec. 201. Table of contents.
Sec. 202. Amendment.

             TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO THE WAGNER-PEYSER ACT

Sec. 301. Amendments to the Wagner-Peyser Act.

         TITLE IV--AMENDMENTS TO THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973

Sec. 401. Findings.
Sec. 402. Rehabilitation Services Administration.
Sec. 403. Director.
Sec. 404. Definitions.
Sec. 405. State plan.
Sec. 406. Scope of services.
Sec. 407. Standards and indicators.
Sec. 408. Reservation for expanded transition services.
Sec. 409. Client assistance program.
Sec. 410. Protection and advocacy of individual rights.
Sec. 411. Chairperson.
Sec. 412. Authorizations of appropriations.
Sec. 413. Conforming amendment.
Sec. 414. Helen Keller National Center Act.

                 TITLE V--TRANSITION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 501. Transition provisions.
Sec. 502. Effective date.

     SEC. 3. REFERENCES.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, wherever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     amendment or repeal shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of the Workforce Investment Act of 
     1998 (20 U.S.C. 9201 et seq.).

 TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO TITLE I OF THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998

     SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 101 (29 U.S.C. 2801) is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraphs (13) and (24) and redesignating 
     paragraphs (1) through (12) as paragraphs (3) through (14), 
     and paragraphs (14) through (23) as paragraphs (15) through 
     (24), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after ``In this title:'' the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(1) Accrued expenditures.--The term `accrued 
     expenditures' means charges incurred by recipients of funds 
     under this title for a given period requiring the provision 
     of funds for goods or other tangible property received; 
     services performed by employees, contractors, subgrantees, 
     and other payees; and other amounts becoming owed under 
     programs assisted under this title for which no current 
     services or performance is required, such as annuities, 
     insurance claims, and other benefit payments.
       ``(2) Administrative costs.--The term `administrative 
     costs' means expenditures incurred by State and local 
     workforce investment boards, direct recipients (including 
     State grant recipients under subtitle B and recipients of 
     awards under subtitle D), local grant recipients, local 
     fiscal agents or local grant subrecipients, and one-stop 
     operators in the performance of administrative functions and 
     in carrying out activities under this title which are not 
     related to the direct provision of workforce investment 
     services (including services to participants and employers). 
     Such costs include both personnel and non-personnel and both 
     direct and indirect.'';
       (3) in paragraph (6) (as so redesignated), by inserting 
     ``(or such other level as the Governor may establish)'' after 
     ``8th grade level'';
       (4) in paragraph (10) (as so redesignated)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (C)--
       (i) by striking ``not less than 50 percent of the cost of 
     the training'' and inserting ``a significant portion of the 
     cost of training, as determined by the local board''; and
       (ii) by striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) in the case of customized training with an employer 
     in multiple local areas in the State, for which such employer 
     pays a significant portion of the cost of the training, as 
     determined by the Governor.'';
       (5) in paragraph (11)(A)(ii)(II) (as so redesignated) by 
     striking ``section 134(c)'' and inserting ``section 121(e)'';
       (6) in paragraph (14)(A) (as so redesignated) by striking 
     ``section 122(e)(3)'' and inserting ``section 122'';
       (7) in paragraph (25)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``higher of--'' and 
     all that follows through clause (ii) and inserting ``poverty 
     line for an equivalent period;''; and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (F) as 
     subparagraphs (E) through (G), respectively, and inserting 
     after subparagraph (C) the following:
       ``(D) receives or is eligible to receive free or reduced 
     price lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School 
     Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);'';
       (8) in paragraph (32) by striking ``the Republic of the 
     Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia,''; and
       (9) by striking paragraph (33) and redesignating paragraphs 
     (34) through (53) as paragraphs (33) through (52), 
     respectively.

     SEC. 102. PURPOSE.

       Section 106 (29 U.S.C. 2811) is amended by inserting at the 
     end the following: ``It is also the purpose of this subtitle 
     to provide workforce investment activities in a manner that 
     promotes the informed choice of participants and actively 
     involves participants in decisions affecting their 
     participation in such activities.''.

     SEC. 103. STATE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARDS.

       (a) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--Section 111(b) (29 U.S.C. 2821(b)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by amending paragraph (1)(C) to read as follows:
       ``(C) representatives appointed by the Governor, who are--
       ``(i)(I) the lead State agency officials with 
     responsibility for the programs and activities that are 
     described in section 121(b) and carried out by one-stop 
     partners;
       ``(II) in any case in which no lead State agency official 
     has responsibility for such a program or activity, a 
     representative in the State with expertise relating to such 
     program or activity; and
       ``(III) if not included under subclause (I), the director 
     of the State unit, defined in section 7(8)(B) of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705(8)(B)) except that 
     in a State that has established 2 or more designated State 
     units to administer the vocational rehabilitation program, 
     the board representative shall be the director of the 
     designated State unit that serves the most individuals with 
     disabilities in the State;
       ``(ii) the State agency officials responsible for economic 
     development;
       ``(iii) representatives of business in the State who--

       ``(I) are owners of businesses, chief executive or 
     operating officers of businesses, and other business 
     executives or employers with optimum policy making or hiring 
     authority, including members of local boards described in 
     section 117(b)(2)(A)(i);
       ``(II) represent businesses with employment opportunities 
     that reflect employment opportunities in the State; and
       ``(III) are appointed from among individuals nominated by 
     State business organizations and business trade associations;

       ``(iv) chief elected officials (representing both cities 
     and counties, where appropriate);
       ``(v) representatives of labor organizations, who have been 
     nominated by State labor federations; and
       ``(vi) such other representatives and State agency 
     officials as the Governor may designate.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``paragraph (1)(C)(i)'' 
     and inserting ``paragraph (1)(C)(iii)''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 111(c) (29 U.S.C 
     2811(c)) is amended by striking ``subsection (b)(1)(C)(i)'' 
     and inserting ``subsection (b)(1)(C)(iii)''.
       (b) Functions.--Section 111(d) (29 U.S.C. 2811(d)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``section 134(c)'' and 
     inserting ``section 121(e)'';
       (2) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) development and review of statewide policies 
     affecting the integrated provision of services through the 
     one-stop delivery system described in section 121, 
     including--
       ``(A) the development of criteria for, and the issuance of, 
     certifications of one-stop centers;
       ``(B) the criteria for the allocation of one-stop center 
     infrastructure funding under section 121(h), and oversight of 
     the use of such funds;
       ``(C) approaches to facilitating equitable and efficient 
     cost allocation in one-stop delivery systems; and
       ``(D) such other matters that may promote statewide 
     objectives for, and enhance the performance of, one-stop 
     delivery systems within the State;'';
       (3) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``and the development of 
     State criteria relating to the appointment and certification 
     of local boards under section 117'' after ``section 116'';
       (4) in paragraph (5), by striking ``sections 128(b)(3)(B) 
     and 133(b)(3)(B)'' and inserting ``sections 128(b)(3) and 
     133(b)(3)''; and
       (5) in paragraph (9), by striking ``section 503'' and 
     inserting ``section 136(i)''.
       (c) Elimination of Alternative Entity and Provision of 
     Authority to Hire Staff.--Section 111(e) (29 U.S.C. 2821(e)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Authority to Hire Staff.--The State board may hire 
     staff to assist in carrying out the functions described in 
     subsection (d).''.

     SEC. 104. STATE PLAN.

       (a) Planning Cycle.--Section 112(a) (29 U.S.C. 2822(a)) is 
     amended by striking ``5-year strategy'' and inserting ``2-
     year strategy''.
       (b) Contents.--Section 112(b) (29 U.S.C. 2822(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (12)(A), by striking ``sections 
     128(b)(3)(B) and 133(b)(3)(B)'' and inserting ``sections 
     128(b)(3) and 133(b)(3)'';

[[Page 3255]]

       (2) in paragraph (14), by striking ``section 134(c)'' and 
     inserting ``section 121(e)'';
       (3) in paragraph (17)(A)--
       (A) in clause (iii) by striking ``and'';
       (B) by amending clause (iv) to read as follows:
       ``(iv) how the State will serve the employment and training 
     needs of dislocated workers (including displaced homemakers 
     and formerly self-employed and transitioning farmers, 
     ranchers, and fisherman) low income individuals (including 
     recipients of public assistance), individuals with limited 
     English proficiency, homeless individuals, ex-offenders, 
     individuals training for nontraditional employment, and other 
     individuals with multiple barriers to employment (including 
     older individuals); and''; and
       (C) by inserting after clause (iv) the following:
       ``(v) how the State will serve the employment and training 
     needs of individuals with disabilities, consistent with 
     section 188 and Executive Order 13217 (42 U.S.C. 12131 note; 
     relating to community-based alternatives for individuals with 
     disabilities) including the provision of outreach, intake, 
     assessments, and service delivery, the development of 
     performance measures, the training of staff, and other 
     aspects of accessibility to program services, consistent with 
     sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 
     and'';
       (4) in paragraph (18)(D), by striking ``youth opportunity 
     grants'' and inserting ``youth challenge grants''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(19) a description of the methodology for determining 
     one-stop partner program contributions for the cost of the 
     infrastructure of one-stop centers under section 121(h)(1) 
     and of the formula for allocating such infrastructure funds 
     to local areas under section 121(h)(3); and
       ``(20) a description of any programs and strategies the 
     State will utilize to meet the needs of businesses in the 
     State, including small businesses, which may include 
     providing incentives and technical assistance to assist local 
     areas in engaging employers in local workforce development 
     activities.''.
       (c) Modification to Plan.--Section 112(d) (29 U.S.C. 
     2822(d)) is amended by striking ``5-year period'' and 
     inserting ``2-year period''.

     SEC. 105. LOCAL WORKFORCE INVESTMENT AREAS.

       (a) Designation of Areas.--
       (1) Considerations.--Section 116(a)(1)(B) (29 U.S.C. 
     2831(a)(1)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     clause:
       ``(vi) The extent to which such local areas will promote 
     efficiency in the administration and provision of 
     services.''.
       (2) Automatic designation.--Section 116(a)(2) (29 U.S.C. 
     2831(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Automatic designation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B) 
     of this paragraph and subsection (b), the Governor shall 
     approve a request for designation as a local area from--
       ``(i) any unit of general local government with a 
     population of 500,000 or more; and
       ``(ii) an area served by a rural concentrated employment 
     program grant recipient that served as a service delivery 
     area or substate area under the Job Training Partnership Act 
     (29 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.),

     for the 2-year period covered by a State plan under section 
     112 if such request is made not later than the date of the 
     submission of the State plan.
       ``(B) Continued designation based on performance.--The 
     Governor may deny a request for designation submitted 
     pursuant to subparagraph (A) if such unit of government was 
     designated as a local area for the preceding 2-year period 
     covered by a State plan and the Governor determines that such 
     local area did not perform successfully during such 
     period.''.
       (b) Regional Planning.--Section 116(c)(1) (29 U.S.C. 
     2831(c)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``The State may require the local boards for the designated 
     region to prepare a single regional plan that incorporates 
     the elements of the local plan under section 118 and that is 
     submitted and approved in lieu of separate local plans under 
     such section.''.

     SEC. 106. LOCAL WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARDS.

       (a) Composition.--Section 117(b)(2)(A) (29 U.S.C. 
     2832(b)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i)(II), by inserting ``, businesses that are 
     in the leading industries in the local area, and large and 
     small businesses in the local area'' after ``local area'';
       (2) by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) a superintendent of the local secondary school 
     system, an administrator of an entity providing adult 
     education and literacy activities that is not a one-stop 
     partner designated under section 121(b)(1)(B), and the 
     president or chief executive officer of a postsecondary 
     educational institution serving the local area (including 
     community colleges, where such entities exist);'';
       (3) in clause (iv), by striking the semicolon and inserting 
     ``and faith-based organizations; and''; and
       (4) by striking clause (vi).
       (b) Authority of Board Members.--Section 117(b)(3) (29 
     U.S.C. 2832(b) is amended--
       (1) in the heading, by inserting ``and representation'' 
     after ``members''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``The members of 
     the board shall represent diverse geographic sections within 
     the local area.''.
       (c) Functions.--Section 117(d) (29 U.S.C. 2832(d)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``by awarding grants'' 
     and all that follows through ``youth council''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4) by inserting ``, and ensure the 
     appropriate use and management of the funds provided under 
     this title for such programs, activities, and system'' after 
     ``area''.
       (d) Authority to Establish Councils and Elimination of 
     Requirement for Youth Councils.--Section 117(h) (29 U.S.C. 
     2832(h)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(h) Establishment of Councils.--The local board may 
     establish councils to provide information and advice to 
     assist the local board in carrying out activities under this 
     title. Such councils may include a council composed of one-
     stop partners to advise the local board on the operation of 
     the one-stop delivery system, a youth council composed of 
     experts and stakeholders in youth programs to advise the 
     local board on activities for youth, and such other councils 
     as the local board determines are appropriate.''.
       (e) Repeal of Alternative Entity Provision.--Section 117 
     (29 U.S.C. 2832) is further amended by striking subsection 
     (i).

     SEC. 107. LOCAL PLAN.

       (a) Planning Cycle.--Section 118(a) (29 U.S.C. 2833(a)) is 
     amended by striking ``5-year'' and inserting ``2-year''.
       (b) Contents.--Section 118(b) (29 U.S.C. 2833(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) a description of the one-stop delivery system to be 
     established or designated in the local area, including a 
     description of how the local board will ensure the continuous 
     improvement of eligible providers of services through the 
     system and ensure that such providers meet the employment 
     needs of local employers and participants;'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and dislocated 
     worker'';
       (3) in paragraph (9), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     semicolon; and
       (4) by redesignating paragraph (10) as paragraph (12) and 
     inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
       ``(10) a description of the strategies and services that 
     will be initiated in the local area to engage employers, 
     including small employers, in workforce development 
     activities;
       ``(11) how the local area will serve the employment and 
     training needs of individuals with disabilities, consistent 
     with section 188 and Executive Order 13217 (42 U.S.C. 12131 
     note) including the provision of outreach, intake, 
     assessments, and service delivery, the development of 
     performance measures, the training of staff, and other 
     aspects of accessibility to program services, consistent with 
     sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 
     and''.

     SEC. 108. ESTABLISHMENT OF ONE-STOP DELIVERY SYSTEMS.

       (a) One-Stop Partners.--
       (1) Required partners.--Section 121(b)(1) (29 U.S.C. 
     2841(b)(1)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by striking clauses (ii) and (v);
       (ii) by redesignating clauses (iii) and (iv) as clauses 
     (ii) and (iii), respectively, and by redesignating clauses 
     (vi) through (xii) as clauses (iv) through (x), respectively;
       (iii) in clause (ix) (as so redesignated), by striking 
     ``and'' at the end;
       (iv) in clause (x) (as so redesignated), by striking the 
     period and inserting ``; and''; and
       (v) by inserting after clause (x)(as so redesignated) the 
     following:
       ``(xi) programs authorized under part A of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), subject to 
     subparagraph (C).''; and
       (B) by adding after subparagraph (B) the following:
       ``(C) Determination by the governor.--The program referred 
     to in clause (xi) of subparagraph (B) shall be included as a 
     required partner for purposes of this title in a State unless 
     the Governor of the State notifies the Secretary and the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing of a 
     determination by the Governor not to include such programs as 
     required partners for purposes of this title in the State.''.
       (2) Additional partners.--Section 121(b)(2)(B) (29 U.S.C. 
     2841(b)(2)(B)) is amended--
       (A) by striking clause (i) and redesignating clauses (ii) 
     through (v) as clauses (i) through (iv) respectively;
       (B) in clause (iii) (as so redesignated) by striking 
     ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in clause (iv) (as so redesignated) by striking the 
     period and inserting a semicolon; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new clauses:
       ``(v) employment and training programs administered by the 
     Social Security Administration, including the Ticket to Work 
     program (established by Public Law 106-170);
       ``(vi) employment and training programs carried out by the 
     Small Business Administration;
       ``(vii) programs under part D of title IV of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 451 et seq.) (relating to child 
     support enforcement);
       ``(viii) employment, training, and literacy services 
     carried out by public libraries; and
       ``(ix) programs carried out in the local area for 
     individuals with disabilities, including programs carried out 
     by State agencies relating to mental health, mental 
     retardation, and developmental disabilities, State Medicaid 
     agencies, State Independent Living Councils, and Independent 
     Living Centers.''.
       (b) Provision of Services.--Subtitle B of title I is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 121(d)(2), by striking ``section 134(c)'' 
     and inserting ``subsection (e)'';
       (2) by striking subsection (e) of section 121;
       (3) by moving subsection (c) of section 134 from section 
     134, redesignating such subsection

[[Page 3256]]

     as subsection (e), and inserting such subsection (as so 
     redesignated) after subsection (d) of section 121; and
       (4) by amending subsection (e) of section 121 (as moved and 
     redesignated by paragraph (2))--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``subsection (d)(2)'' 
     and inserting ``section 134(c)(2)'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (i) by striking ``subsection (d)'' and inserting ``section 
     134(c)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``subsection (d)(4)(G)'' and inserting 
     ``section 134(c)(4)(G)'';
       (C) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking ``subsection (e)'' and 
     inserting ``section 134(d)'';
       (D) in paragraph (1)(D), by striking ``section 121(b)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (b)''; and
       (E) by amending paragraph (1)(E) to read as follows:
       ``(E) shall provide access to the information described in 
     section 15(e) of the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49l-
     2(e)).''.
       (c) Certification and Funding of One-Stop Centers.--Section 
     121 (as amended by subsection (b)) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(g) Certification of One-Stop Centers.--
       ``(1) In general.--The State board shall establish 
     procedures and criteria for periodically certifying one-stop 
     centers for the purpose of awarding the one-stop 
     infrastructure funding described in subsection (h).
       ``(2) Criteria.--The criteria for certification under this 
     subsection shall include minimum standards relating to the 
     scope and degree of service integration achieved by the 
     centers involving the programs provided by the one-stop 
     partners, and how the centers ensure that such providers meet 
     the employment needs of local employers and participants.
       ``(3) Effect of certification.--One-stop centers certified 
     under this subsection shall be eligible to receive the 
     infrastructure grants authorized under subsection (h).
       ``(h) One-Stop Infrastructure Funding.--
       ``(1) Partner contributions.--
       ``(A) Provision of funds.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, as determined under subparagraph (B), a 
     portion of the Federal funds provided to the State and areas 
     within the State under the Federal laws authorizing the one-
     stop partner programs described in subsection (b)(1)(B) and 
     participating additional partner programs described in 
     (b)(2)(B) for a fiscal year shall be provided to the Governor 
     by such programs to carry out this subsection.
       ``(B) Determination of governor.--Subject to subparagraph 
     (C), the Governor, in consultation with the State board, 
     shall determine the portion of funds to be provided under 
     subparagraph (A) by each one-stop partner and in making such 
     determination shall consider the proportionate use of the 
     one-stop centers by each partner, the costs of administration 
     for purposes not related to one-stop centers for each 
     partner, and other relevant factors described in paragraph 
     (3).
       ``(C) Limitations.--
       ``(i) Provision from administrative funds.--The funds 
     provided under this paragraph by each one-stop partner shall 
     be provided only from funds available for the costs of 
     administration under the program administered by such 
     partner, and shall be subject to the limitations with respect 
     to the portion of funds under such programs that may be used 
     for administration.
       ``(ii) Federal direct spending programs.--Programs that are 
     Federal direct spending under section 250(c)(8) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 
     U.S.C. 900(c)(8)) shall not, for purposes of this paragraph, 
     be required to provide an amount in excess of the amount 
     determined to be equivalent to the proportionate use of the 
     one-stop centers by such programs in the State.
       ``(iii) Native american programs.--Native American programs 
     established under section 166 shall not be subject to the 
     provisions of this subsection. The method for determining the 
     appropriate portion of funds to be provided by such Native 
     American programs to pay for the costs of infrastructure of a 
     one-stop center certified under subsection (g) shall be 
     determined as part of the development of the memorandum of 
     understanding under subsection (c) for the one-stop center 
     and shall be stated in the memorandum.
       ``(2) Allocation by governor.--From the funds provided 
     under paragraph (1), the Governor shall allocate funds to 
     local areas in accordance with the formula established under 
     paragraph (3) for the purposes of assisting in paying the 
     costs of the infrastructure of One-Stop centers certified 
     under subsection (g).
       ``(3) Allocation formula.--The State board shall develop a 
     formula to be used by the Governor to allocate the funds 
     described in paragraph (1). The formula shall include such 
     factors as the State board determines are appropriate, which 
     may include factors such as the number of centers in the 
     local area that have been certified, the population served by 
     such centers, and the performance of such centers.
       ``(4) Costs of infrastructure.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `costs of infrastructure' means the 
     nonpersonnel costs that are necessary for the general 
     operation of a one-stop center, including the rental costs of 
     the facilities, the costs of utilities and maintenance, 
     equipment (including adaptive technology for individuals with 
     disabilities), strategic planning activities for the center, 
     and common outreach activities.
       ``(i) Other Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to the funds provided to 
     carry out subsection (h), a portion of funds made available 
     under Federal law authorizing the one-stop partner programs 
     described in subsection (b)(1)(B) and participating partner 
     programs described in subsection (b)(2)(B), or the noncash 
     resources available under such programs shall be used to pay 
     the costs relating to the operation of the one-stop delivery 
     system that are not paid for from the funds provided under 
     subsection (h), to the extent not inconsistent with the 
     Federal law involved including--
       ``(A) infrastructure costs that are in excess of the funds 
     provided under subsection (h);
       ``(B) common costs that are in addition to the costs of 
     infrastructure; and
       ``(C) the costs of the provision of core services 
     applicable to each program.
       ``(2) Determination and guidance.--The method for 
     determining the appropriate portion of funds and noncash 
     resources to be provided by each program under paragraph (1) 
     shall be determined as part of the memorandum of 
     understanding under subsection (c). The State board shall 
     provide guidance to facilitate the determination of 
     appropriate allocation of the funds and noncash resources in 
     local areas.''.

     SEC. 109. ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS OF TRAINING SERVICES.

       Section 122 (29 U.S.C. 2842) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 122. IDENTIFICATION OF ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS OF TRAINING 
                   SERVICES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Governor shall establish criteria 
     and procedures regarding the eligibility of providers of 
     training services described in section 134(c)(4) to receive 
     funds provided under section 133(b) for the provision of such 
     training services.
       ``(b) Criteria.--
       ``(1) In general.--The criteria established pursuant to 
     subsection (a) shall take into account the performance of 
     providers of training services with respect to the indicators 
     described in section 136 or other appropriate indicators 
     (taking into consideration the characteristics of the 
     population served and relevant economic conditions), and such 
     other factors as the Governor determines are appropriate to 
     ensure the quality of services, the accountability of 
     providers, how the centers ensure that such providers meet 
     the needs of local employers and participants, whether 
     providers of training allow participants to attain a 
     certification, certificate, or mastery, and the informed 
     choice of participants under chapter 5. Such criteria shall 
     require that the provider submit appropriate, accurate and 
     timely information to the State for purposes of carrying out 
     subsection (d). The criteria shall also provide for periodic 
     review and renewal of eligibility under this section for 
     providers of training services. The Governor may authorize 
     local areas in the State to establish additional criteria or 
     to modify the criteria established by the Governor under this 
     section for purposes of determining the eligibility of 
     providers of training services to provide such services in 
     the local area.
       ``(2) Limitation.--In carrying out the requirements of this 
     subsection, no personally identifiable information regarding 
     a student, including Social Security number, student 
     identification number, or other identifier, may be disclosed 
     without the prior written consent of the parent or eligible 
     student in compliance with section 444 of the General 
     Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g).
       ``(c) Procedures.--The procedures established under 
     subsection (a) shall identify the application process for a 
     provider of training services to become eligible to receive 
     funds under section 133(b) for the provision of training 
     services, and identify the respective roles of the State and 
     local areas in receiving and reviewing applications and in 
     making determinations of eligibility based on the criteria 
     established under this section. The procedures shall also 
     establish a process for a provider of training services to 
     appeal a denial or termination of eligibility under this 
     section that includes an opportunity for a hearing and 
     prescribes appropriate time limits to ensure prompt 
     resolution of the appeal.
       ``(d) Information To Assist Participants in Choosing 
     Providers.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to facilitate and assist 
     participants under chapter 5 in choosing providers of 
     training services, the Governor shall ensure that an 
     appropriate list or lists of providers determined eligible 
     under this section in the State, accompanied by such 
     information as the Governor determines is appropriate, is 
     provided to the local boards in the State to be made 
     available to such participants and to members of the public 
     through the one-stop delivery system in the State.
       ``(2) Special rule.--An entity that carries out programs 
     under the Act of August 16, 1937 (commonly known as the 
     `National Apprenticeship Act', 50 Stat. 664, chapter 663; 29 
     U.S.C. 50 et seq.) shall be included on the list of eligible 
     providers described in paragraph (1) for so long as such 
     entity remains certified by the Department of Labor.
       ``(e) Agreements With Other States.--States may enter into 
     agreements, on a reciprocal basis, to permit eligible 
     providers of training services to accept individual training 
     accounts provided in another State.
       ``(f) Recommendations.--In developing the criteria, 
     procedures, and information required under this section, the 
     Governor shall solicit and take into consideration the 
     recommendations of local boards and providers of training 
     services within the State.
       ``(g) Opportunity To Submit Comments.--During the 
     development of the criteria, procedures, and information 
     required under this section, the Governor shall provide an 
     opportunity

[[Page 3257]]

     for interested members of the public, including 
     representatives of business and labor organizations, to 
     submit comments regarding such criteria, procedures, and 
     information.
       ``(h) On-the-Job Training or Customized Training 
     Exception.--
       ``(1) In general.--Providers of on-the-job training or 
     customized training shall not be subject to the requirements 
     of subsections (a) through (g).
       ``(2) Collection and dissemination of information.--A one-
     stop operator in a local area shall collect such performance 
     information from on-the-job training and customized training 
     providers as the Governor may require, determine whether the 
     providers meet such performance criteria as the Governor may 
     require, and disseminate information identifying providers 
     that meet the criteria as eligible providers, and the 
     performance information, through the one-stop delivery 
     system. Providers determined to meet the criteria shall be 
     considered to be identified as eligible providers of training 
     services.''.

     SEC. 110. ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS OF YOUTH ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Eligible Providers of Youth Activities.--Section 123 
     (29 U.S.C. 2843) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 123. ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS OF YOUTH ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--From the funds allocated under section 
     128(b) to a local area, the local board for such area shall 
     award grants or contracts on a competitive basis to providers 
     of youth activities identified based on the criteria in the 
     State plan and shall conduct oversight with respect to such 
     providers.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--A local board may award grants or 
     contracts on a sole-source basis if such board determines 
     there are an insufficient number of eligible providers of 
     training services in the local area involved (such as rural 
     areas) for grants to be awarded on a competitive basis under 
     subsection (a).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) is amended by amending the item related to section 123 
     to read as follows:

``Sec. 123. Eligible providers of youth activities.''.

     SEC. 111. YOUTH ACTIVITIES.

       (a) State Allotments.--
       (1) In general.--Section 127(a) (29 U.S.C. 2852(a)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Allotment Among States.--
       ``(1) Youth activities.--
       ``(A) Youth challenge grants.--
       ``(i) Reservation of funds.--Of the amount appropriated 
     under section 137(a) for each fiscal year, the Secretary 
     shall reserve 25 percent to provide youth challenge grants 
     under section 169.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--Notwithstanding clause (i), if the 
     amount appropriated under section 137(a) for a fiscal year 
     exceeds $1,000,000,000, the Secretary shall reserve 
     $250,000,000 to provide youth challenge grants under section 
     169.
       ``(B) Outlying areas and native americans.--
       ``(i) In general.--After determining the amount to be 
     reserved under subparagraph (A), of the remainder of the 
     amount appropriated under section 137(a) for each fiscal year 
     the Secretary shall--

       ``(I) reserve not more than \1/4\ of one percent of such 
     amount to provide assistance to the outlying areas to carry 
     out youth activities and statewide workforce investment 
     activities; and
       ``(II) reserve not more than 1 and \1/2\ percent of such 
     amount to provide youth activities under section 166 
     (relating to Native Americans).

       ``(ii) Restriction.--The Republic of Palau shall cease to 
     be eligible to receive funding under this subparagraph upon 
     entering into an agreement for extension of United States 
     educational assistance under the Compact of Free Association 
     (approved by the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act 
     of 2003 (Public Law 108-188)) after the date of enactment of 
     the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005.
       ``(C) States.--
       ``(i) In general.--Of the remainder of the amount 
     appropriated under section 137(a) for a fiscal year that is 
     available after determining the amounts to be reserved under 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), the Secretary shall allot--

       ``(I) the amount of the remainder that is less than or 
     equal to the total amount that was allotted to States for 
     fiscal year 2005 under section 127(b)(1)(C) of this Act (as 
     in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Job 
     Training Improvement Act of 2005) in accordance with the 
     requirements of such section 127(b)(1)(C); and
       ``(II) the amount of the remainder, if any, in excess of 
     the amount referred to in subclause (I) in accordance with 
     clause (ii).

       ``(ii) Formulas for excess funds.--Subject to clauses (iii) 
     and (iv), of the amounts described in clause (i)(II)--

       ``(I) 33\1/3\ percent shall be allotted on the basis of the 
     relative number of individuals in the civilian labor force 
     who are ages 16-19 in each State, compared to the total 
     number of individuals in the civilian labor force who are 
     ages 16-19 in all States;
       ``(II) 33\1/3\ percent shall be allotted on the basis of 
     the relative number of unemployed individuals in each State, 
     compared to the total number of unemployed individuals in all 
     States; and
       ``(III) 33\1/3\ percent shall be allotted on the basis of 
     the relative number of disadvantaged youth who are ages 16 
     through 21 in each State, compared to the total number of 
     disadvantaged youth who are ages 16 through 21 in all States.

       ``(iii) Minimum and maximum percentages.--The Secretary 
     shall ensure that no State shall receive an allotment for a 
     fiscal year that is less than 90 percent or greater than 130 
     percent of the allotment percentage of that State for the 
     preceding fiscal year.
       ``(iv) Small state minimum allotment.--Subject to clause 
     (iii), the Secretary shall ensure that no State shall receive 
     an allotment under this paragraph that is less than \3/10\ of 
     1 percent of the amount available under subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Definitions.--For the purposes of paragraph (1), the 
     following definitions apply:
       ``(A) Allotment percentage.--The term `allotment 
     percentage', used with respect to fiscal year 2006 or a 
     subsequent fiscal year, means a percentage of the remainder 
     described in paragraph (1)(C)(i) that is received through an 
     allotment made under this subsection for the fiscal year. The 
     term, with respect to fiscal year 2005, means the percentage 
     of the amounts allotted to States under this chapter (as in 
     effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Job 
     Training Improvement Act of 2005) that is received by the 
     State involved for fiscal year 2005.
       ``(B) Disadvantaged youth.--The term `disadvantaged youth' 
     means an individual who is age 16 through 21 who received an 
     income, or is a member of a family that received a total 
     family income, that, in relation to family size, does not 
     exceed the poverty line.
       ``(3) Special rule.--For purposes of the formulas specified 
     in paragraph (1)(C), the Secretary shall, as appropriate and 
     to the extent practicable, exclude college students and 
     members of the Armed Forces from the determination of the 
     number of disadvantaged youth.''.
       (2) Reallotment.--Section 127 (29 U.S.C. 2552) is further 
     amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (b);
       (B) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b);
       (C) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated)--
       (i) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Amount.--The amount available for reallotment for a 
     program year is equal to the amount by which the unexpended 
     balance at the end of the program year prior to the program 
     year for which the determination is made exceeds 30 percent 
     of the total amount of funds available to the State under 
     this section during such prior program year (including 
     amounts allotted to the State in all prior program years that 
     remained available). For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     expended balance is the amount that is the difference 
     between--
       ``(A) the total amount of funds available to the State 
     under this section during the program year prior to the 
     program year for which the determination is made (including 
     amounts allotted to the State in all prior program years that 
     remained available); and
       ``(B) the accrued expenditures during such prior program 
     year.'';
       (ii) in paragraph (3)--

       (I) by striking ``for the prior program year'' and 
     inserting ``for the program year in which the determination 
     is made''; and
       (II) by striking ``such prior program year'' and inserting 
     ``such program year'';

       (iii) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) Eligibility.--For purposes of this subsection, an 
     eligible State means a State which does not have an amount 
     available for reallotment under paragraph (2) for the program 
     year for which the determination under paragraph (2) is 
     made.''; and
       (iv) in paragraph (5), by striking ``obligation'' and 
     inserting ``accrued expenditure''.
       (b) Within State Allocations.--
       (1) Reservation for statewide activities.--Section 128(a) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Reservation for Statewide Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Governor of a State shall reserve 
     not more than 10 percent of the amount allotted to the State 
     under section 127(a)(1)(C) for a fiscal year for statewide 
     activities.
       ``(2) Use of funds.--Regardless of whether the amounts are 
     allotted under section 127(a)(1)(C) and reserved under 
     paragraph (1) or allotted under section 132 and reserved 
     under section 133(a), the Governor may use the reserved 
     amounts to carry out statewide youth activities under section 
     129(b) or statewide employment and training activities under 
     section 133.''.
       (2) Within state allocations.--Section 128(b) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(b) Within State Allocation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Of the amounts allotted to the State 
     under section 127(a)(1)(C) and not reserved under subsection 
     (a)(1)--
       ``(A) 80 percent of such amounts shall be allocated by the 
     Governor to local areas in accordance with paragraph (2); and
       ``(B) 20 percent of such amounts shall be allocated by the 
     Governor to local areas in accordance with paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Established formula.--
       ``(A) In general.--Of the amounts described in paragraph 
     (1)(A), the Governor shall allocate--
       ``(i) 33\1/3\ percent shall be allotted on the basis of the 
     relative number of individuals in the civilian labor force 
     who are ages 16-19 in each local area, compared to the total 
     number of individuals in the civilian labor force who are 
     ages 16-19 in all local areas in the State;
       ``(ii) 33\1/3\ percent shall be allotted on the basis of 
     the relative number of unemployed individuals in each local 
     area, compared to the total number of unemployed individuals 
     in all local areas in the State; and

[[Page 3258]]

       ``(iii) 33\1/3\ percent on the basis of the relative number 
     of disadvantaged youth who are ages 16 through 21 in each 
     local area, compared to the total number of disadvantaged 
     youth who are ages 16 through 21 in all local areas in the 
     State.
       ``(B) Minimum and maximum percentages.--The Governor shall 
     ensure that no local area shall receive an allocation for a 
     fiscal year under this paragraph that is less than 90 percent 
     or greater than 130 percent of the allocation percentage of 
     the local area for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(C) Definitions.--
       ``(i) Allocation percentage.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `allocation percentage', used with 
     respect to fiscal year 2006 or a subsequent fiscal year, 
     means a percentage of the amount described in paragraph(1)(A) 
     that is received through an allocation made under this 
     paragraph for the fiscal year. The term, with respect to 
     fiscal year 2005, means the percentage of the amounts 
     allocated to local areas under this chapter (as in effect on 
     the day before the date of enactment of the Job Training 
     Improvement Act of 2005) that is received by the local area 
     involved for fiscal year 2005.
       ``(ii) Disadvantaged youth.--The term `disadvantaged youth' 
     means an individual who is age 16 through 21 who received an 
     income, or is a member of a family that received a total 
     family income, that, in relation to family size, does not 
     exceed the poverty line.
       ``(3) Youth discretionary allocation.--The Governor shall 
     allocate to local areas the amounts described in paragraph 
     (1)(B) in accordance with such demographic and economic 
     factors as the Governor, after consultation with the State 
     board and local boards, determines are appropriate.
       ``(4) Local administrative cost limit.--
       ``(A) In general.--Of the amounts allocated to a local area 
     under this subsection and section 133(b) for a fiscal year, 
     not more than 10 percent of the amount may be used by the 
     local boards for the administrative costs of carrying out 
     local workforce investment activities under this chapter or 
     chapter 5.
       ``(B) Use of funds.--Funds made available for 
     administrative costs under subparagraph (A) may be used for 
     the administrative costs of any of the local workforce 
     investment activities described in this chapter or chapter 5, 
     regardless of whether the funds were allocated under this 
     subsection or section 133(b).''.
       (3) Reallocation.--Section 128(c) (29 U.S.C. 2853(c)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)(A) or (3) 
     of'';
       (B) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Amount.--The amount available for reallocation for a 
     program year is equal to the amount by which the unexpended 
     balance at the end of the program year prior to the program 
     year for which the determination is made exceeds 30 percent 
     of the total amount of funds available to the local area 
     under this section during such prior program year, (including 
     amounts allotted to the local area in prior program years 
     that remain available). For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     unexpended balance is the amount that is the difference 
     between--
       ``(A) the total amount of funds available to the local area 
     under this section during the program year prior to the 
     program year for which the determination is made (including 
     amounts allocated to the local area in all prior program 
     years that remained available); and
       ``(B) the accrued expenditures during such prior program 
     year.'';
       (C) by amending paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``subsection (b)(3)'' the first two places 
     it appears and inserting ``subsection (b)'';
       (ii) by striking ``the prior program year'' and inserting 
     ``the program year in which the determination is made'';
       (iii) by striking ``such prior program year'' and inserting 
     ``such program year''; and
       (iv) by striking the last sentence; and
       (D) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) Eligibility.--For purposes of this subsection, an 
     eligible local area means a local area which does not have an 
     amount available for reallocation under paragraph (2) for the 
     program year for which the determination under paragraph (2) 
     is made.''.
       (c) Youth Participant Eligibility.--Section 129(a) (29 
     U.S.C. 2854(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Youth Participant Eligibility.--
       ``(1) In general.--The individuals participating in 
     activities carried out under this chapter by a local area 
     during any program year shall be individuals who, at the time 
     the eligibility determination is made, are--
       ``(A) not younger than age 16 or older than age 24; and
       ``(B) one or more of the following:
       ``(i) school dropouts;
       ``(ii) recipients of a secondary school diploma, General 
     Educational Development credential (GED), or other State-
     recognized equivalent (including recognized alternative 
     standards for individuals with disabilities) who are 
     deficient in basic skills and not attending any school;
       ``(iii) court-involved youth attending an alternative 
     school;
       ``(iv) youth in foster care or who have been in foster 
     care; or
       ``(v) in school youth who are low-income individuals and 
     one or more of the following:

       ``(I) Deficient in literacy skills.
       ``(II) Homeless, runaway, or foster children.
       ``(III) Pregnant or parents.
       ``(IV) Offenders.
       ``(V) Individuals who require additional assistance to 
     complete an educational program, or to secure and hold 
     employment.

       ``(2) Priority for school dropouts.--A priority in the 
     provision of services under this chapter shall be given to 
     individuals who are school dropouts.
       ``(3) Limitations on activities for in-school youth.--
       ``(A) Percentage of funds.--For any program year, not more 
     than 30 percent of the funds available for statewide 
     activities under subsection (b), and not more than 30 percent 
     of funds available to local areas under subsection (c), may 
     be used to provide activities for in-school youth meeting the 
     requirements of paragraph (1)(B)(v).
       ``(B) Non-school hours required.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), 
     activities carried out under this chapter for in-school youth 
     meeting the requirements of paragraph (1)(B)(v) shall only be 
     carried out in non-school hours or periods when school is not 
     in session (such as before and after school or during 
     recess).
       ``(ii) Exception.--The requirements of clause (i) shall not 
     apply to activities carried out for in-school youth meeting 
     the requirements of paragraph (1)(B)(v) during school hours 
     that are part of a program that has demonstrated 
     effectiveness in high school youth attaining diplomas.''.
       (d) Statewide Youth Activities.--Section 129(b) (29 U.S.C. 
     2854(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Statewide Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--Funds reserved by a Governor for a State 
     as described in sections 128(a) and 133(a)(1) may be used for 
     statewide activities including--
       ``(A) additional assistance to local areas that have high 
     concentrations of eligible youth;
       ``(B) supporting the provision of core services described 
     in section 134(c)(2) in the one-stop delivery system;
       ``(C) conducting evaluations under section 136(e) of 
     activities authorized under this chapter and chapter 5 in 
     coordination with evaluations carried out by the Secretary 
     under section 172, research, and demonstration projects;
       ``(D) providing incentive grants to local areas for 
     regional cooperation among local boards (including local 
     boards in a designated region as described in section 
     116(c)), for local coordination of activities carried out 
     under this Act, and for exemplary performance by local areas 
     on the local performance measures;
       ``(E) providing technical assistance and capacity building 
     to local areas, one-stop operators, one-stop partners, and 
     eligible providers, including the development and training of 
     staff, the development of exemplary program activities, and 
     the provision of technical assistance to local areas that 
     fail to meet local performance measures;
       ``(F) operating a fiscal and management accountability 
     system under section 136(f); and
       ``(G) carrying out monitoring and oversight of activities 
     under this chapter and chapter 5.
       ``(2) Limitation.--Not more than 5 percent of the funds 
     allotted under section 127(b) shall be used by the State for 
     administrative activities carried out under this subsection 
     and section 133(a).
       ``(3) Prohibition.--No funds described in this subsection 
     or in section 134(a) may be used to develop or implement 
     education curricula for school systems in the State.''.
       (e) Local Elements and Requirements.--
       (1) Program design.--Section 129(c)(1) (29 U.S.C. 2854(c) 
     (1)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``paragraph (2)(A) or (3), as appropriate, of'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``are directly linked 
     to one or more of the performance outcomes relating to this 
     chapter under section 136, and that'' after ``for each 
     participant that''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (C)--
       (i) by redesignating clauses (i) through (iv) as clauses 
     (ii) through (v), respectively;
       (ii) by inserting before clause (ii) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(i) activities leading to the attainment of a secondary 
     school diploma, General Educational Development credential 
     (GED), or other State-recognized equivalent (including 
     recognized alternative standards for individuals with 
     disabilities);'';
       (iii) in clause (ii) (as so redesignated), by inserting 
     ``and advanced training'' after ``opportunities'';
       (iv) in clause (iii) (as so redesignated), by inserting 
     ``that lead to the attainment of recognized credentials'' 
     after ``learning''; and
       (v) by amending clause (v) (as redesignated by this 
     subparagraph) to read as follows:
       ``(v) effective connections to employers in sectors of the 
     local labor market experiencing high growth in employment 
     opportunities.''.
       (2) Program elements.--Section 129(c)(2) (29 U.S.C. 
     2854(c)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``secondary school, 
     including dropout prevention strategies'' and inserting 
     ``secondary school diploma, General Educational Development 
     credential (GED), or other State-recognized equivalent 
     (including recognized alternative standards for individuals 
     with disabilities), including dropout prevention 
     strategies'';
       (B) in subparagraph (I), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in subparagraph (J), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:

[[Page 3259]]

       ``(K) on-the-job training opportunities; and
       ``(L) financial literacy skills.''.
       (3) Additional requirements.--Section 129(c)(3)(A) (29 
     U.S.C. 2854(c)(3)(A)) is amended in the matter preceding 
     clause (i) by striking ``or applicant who meets the minimum 
     income criteria to be considered an eligible youth''.
       (4) Priority and exceptions.--Section 129(c) (29 U.S.C. 
     2854(c)) is further amended--
       (A) by striking paragraphs (4) and (5);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (4);
       (C) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (5), and in 
     such redesignated paragraph (5) by striking ``youth 
     councils'' and inserting ``local boards''; and
       (D) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (6).

     SEC. 112. COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS FOR ADULTS.

       (a) Title Amendment.--
       (1) The title heading of chapter 5 is amended to read as 
     follows:

   ``CHAPTER 5--COMPREHENSIVE EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ACTIVITIES FOR 
                               ADULTS''.

       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) is amended by amending the item related to the heading 
     for chapter 5 to read as follows:

   ``Chapter 5--Comprehensive Employment and Training Activities for 
                               Adults''.

       (b) General Authorization.--Section 131 (29 U.S.C. 2861) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``paragraphs (1)(B) and (2)(B) of''; and
       (2) by striking ``, and dislocated workers,''.
       (c) State Allotments.--
       (1) In general.--Section 132(a) (29 U.S.C. 2862(a)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) reserve 10 percent of the amount appropriated under 
     section 137(b) for a fiscal year, of which--
       ``(A) not less than 75 percent shall be used for national 
     dislocated worker grants under section 173, of which up to 
     $125,000,000 may be used to carry out section 171(d);
       ``(B) not more than 20 percent may be used for 
     demonstration projects under section 171; and
       ``(C) not more than 5 percent may be used to provide 
     technical assistance under section 170; and
       ``(2) make allotments from 90 percent of the amount 
     appropriated under section 137(b) for a fiscal year in 
     accordance with subsection (b).''.
       (2) Allotment among states.--Section 132(b) (29 U.S.C. 
     2862(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Allotment Among States for Adult Employment and 
     Training Activities.--
       ``(1) Reservation for outlying areas.--
       ``(A) In general.--From the amount made available under 
     subsection (a)(2) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall 
     reserve not more than \1/4\ of 1 percent to provide 
     assistance to outlying areas to carry out employment and 
     training activities for adults and statewide workforce 
     investment activities.
       ``(B) Restriction.--The Republic of Palau shall cease to be 
     eligible to receive funding under this paragraph upon 
     entering into an agreement for extension of United States 
     educational assistance under the Compact of Free Association 
     (approved by the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act 
     of 2003 (Public Law 108-188)) after the date of enactment of 
     the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005.
       ``(2) States.--Subject to paragraph (5), of the remainder 
     of the amount referred to under subsection (a)(2) for a 
     fiscal year that is available after determining the amount to 
     be reserved under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall allot to 
     the States for employment and training activities for adults 
     and for statewide workforce investment activities--
       ``(A) 26 percent in accordance with paragraph (3); and
       ``(B) 74 percent in accordance with paragraph (4).
       ``(3) Base formula.--
       ``(A) Fiscal year 2006.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the amount 
     referred to in paragraph (2)(A) shall be allotted for fiscal 
     year 2006 on the basis of allotment percentage of each State 
     under section 6 of the Wagner-Peyser Act for fiscal year 
     2005.
       ``(ii) Excess amounts.--If the amount referred to in 
     paragraph (2)(A) for fiscal year 2006 exceeds the amount that 
     was available for allotment to the States under the Wagner-
     Peyser Act for fiscal year 2005, such excess amount shall be 
     allotted on the basis of the relative number of individuals 
     in the civilian labor force in each State, compared to the 
     total number of individuals in the civilian labor force in 
     all States, adjusted to ensure that no State receives less 
     than \3/10\ of one percent of such excess amount.
       ``(iii) Definition.--For purposes of this subparagraph, the 
     term `allotment percentage' means the percentage of the 
     amounts allotted to States under section 6 of the Wagner-
     Peyser Act that is received by the State involved for fiscal 
     year 2005.
       ``(B) Fiscal years 2007 and thereafter.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), the amount 
     referred to in paragraph(2)(A) shall be allotted for fiscal 
     year 2007 and each fiscal year thereafter on the basis of the 
     allotment percentage of each State under this paragraph for 
     the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Excess amounts.--If the amount referred to in 
     paragraph (2)(A) for fiscal year 2007 or any fiscal year 
     thereafter exceeds the amount that was available for 
     allotment under this paragraph for the prior fiscal year, 
     such excess amount shall be allotted on the basis of the 
     relative number of individuals in the civilian labor force in 
     each State, compared to the total number of individuals in 
     the civilian labor force in all States, adjusted to ensure 
     that no State receives less than \3/10\ of one percent of 
     such excess amount.
       ``(iii) Definition.--For purposes of this subparagraph, the 
     term `allotment percentage' means the percentage of the 
     amounts allotted to States under this paragraph in a fiscal 
     year that is received by the State involved for such fiscal 
     year.
       ``(4) Consolidated formula.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), of 
     the amount referred to in paragraph (2)(B)--
       ``(i) 60 percent shall be allotted on the basis of the 
     relative number of unemployed individuals in each State, 
     compared to the total number of unemployed individuals in all 
     States;
       ``(ii) 25 percent shall be allotted on the basis of the 
     relative excess number of unemployed individuals in each 
     State, compared to the total excess number of unemployed 
     individuals in all States; and
       ``(iii) 15 percent shall be allotted on the basis of the 
     relative number of disadvantaged adults in each State, 
     compared to the total number of disadvantaged adults in all 
     States.
       ``(B) Minimum and maximum percentages.--
       ``(i) Minimum percentage.--The Secretary shall ensure that 
     no State shall receive an allotment under this paragraph for 
     a fiscal year that is less than 90 percent of the allotment 
     percentage of the State under this paragraph for the 
     preceding fiscal year.
       ``(ii) Maximum percentage.--Subject to clause (i), the 
     Secretary shall ensure that no State shall receive an 
     allotment for a fiscal year under this paragraph that is more 
     than 130 percent of the allotment of the State under this 
     paragraph for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(C) Small state minimum allotment.--Subject to 
     subparagraph (B), the Secretary shall ensure that no State 
     shall receive an allotment under this paragraph that is less 
     than \2/10\ of 1 percent of the amount available under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(D) Definitions.--For the purposes of this paragraph:
       ``(i) Allotment percentage.--The term `allotment 
     percentage', used with respect to fiscal year 2006 or a 
     subsequent fiscal year, means a percentage of the amounts 
     described in paragraph (2)(B) that is received through an 
     allotment made under this paragraph for the fiscal year. The 
     term, with respect to fiscal year 2005, means the percentage 
     of the amounts allotted to States under this chapter (as in 
     effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Job 
     Training Improvement Act of 2005) and under reemployment 
     service grants received by the State involved for fiscal year 
     2005.
       ``(ii) Disadvantaged adult.--The term `disadvantaged adult' 
     means an individual who is age 22 through 72 who received an 
     income, or is a member of a family that received a total 
     family income, that, in relation to family size, does not 
     exceed the poverty line.
       ``(iii) Excess number.--The term `excess number' means, 
     used with respect to the excess number of unemployed 
     individuals within a State, the number that represents the 
     number of unemployed individuals in excess of 4\1/2\ percent 
     of the civilian labor force in the State.
       ``(5) Adjustments in allotments based on differences with 
     unconsolidated formulas.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that for any 
     fiscal year no State has an allotment difference, as defined 
     in subparagraph (C), that is less than zero. The Secretary 
     shall adjust the amounts allotted to the States under this 
     subsection in accordance with subparagraph (B) if necessary 
     to carry out this subparagraph.
       ``(B) Adjustments in allotments.--
       ``(i) Redistribution of excess amounts.--

       ``(I) In general.--If necessary to carry out subparagraph 
     (A), the Secretary shall reduce the amounts that would be 
     allotted under paragraphs (3) and (4) to States that have an 
     excess allotment difference, as defined in subclause (II), by 
     the amount of such excess, and use such amounts to increase 
     the allotments to States that have an allotment difference 
     less than zero.
       ``(II) Excess amounts.--For purposes of subclause (I), the 
     term `excess' allotment difference means an allotment 
     difference for a State that is--

       ``(aa) in excess of 3 percent of the amount described in 
     subparagraph (C)(i)(II); or
       ``(bb) in excess of a percentage established by the 
     Secretary that is greater than 3 percent of the amount 
     described in subparagraph (C)(i)(II) if the Secretary 
     determines that such greater percentage is sufficient to 
     carry out subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) Use of amounts available under national reserve 
     account.--If the funds available under clause (i) are 
     insufficient to carry out subparagraph (A), the Secretary 
     shall use funds reserved under section 132(a) in such amounts 
     as are necessary to increase the allotments to States to meet 
     the requirements of subparagraph (A). Such funds shall be 
     used in the same manner as the States use the other funds 
     allotted under this subsection.
       ``(C) Definition of allotment difference.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
     `allotment difference' means the difference between--

       ``(I) the total amount a State would receive of the amounts 
     available for allotment under subsection (b)(2) for a fiscal 
     year pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (4); and

[[Page 3260]]

       ``(II) the total amount the State would receive of the 
     amounts available for allotment under subsection (b)(2) for 
     the fiscal year if such amounts were allotted pursuant to the 
     unconsolidated formulas (applied as described in clause 
     (iii)) that were used in allotting funds for fiscal year 
     2005.

       ``(ii) Unconsolidated formulas.--For purposes of clause 
     (i), the unconsolidated formulas are:

       ``(I) The requirements for the allotment of funds to the 
     States contained in section 132(b)(1)(B) of this Act (as in 
     effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Job 
     Training Improvement Act of 2005) that were applicable to the 
     allotment of funds under such section for fiscal year 2005.
       ``(II) The requirements for the allotment of funds to the 
     States contained in section 132(b)(2)(B) of this Act (as in 
     effect on the day before the date of enactment of the Job 
     Training Improvement Act of 2005) that were applicable to the 
     allotment of funds under such section for fiscal year 2005.
       ``(III) The requirements for the allotment of funds to the 
     States that were contained in section 6 of the Wagner-Peyser 
     Act (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of 
     the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005) that were 
     applicable to the allotment of funds under such Act for 
     fiscal year 2005.
       ``(IV) The requirements for the allotment of funds to the 
     States that were established by the Secretary for 
     Reemployment Services Grants that were applicable to the 
     allotment of funds for such grants for fiscal year 2005.

       ``(iii) Proportionate application of unconsolidated 
     formulas based on fiscal year 2005.--In calculating the 
     amount under clause (i)(II), each of the unconsolidated 
     formulas identified in clause (ii) shall be applied, 
     respectively, only to the proportionate share of the total 
     amount of funds available for allotment under subsection 
     (b)(2) for a fiscal year that is equal to the proportionate 
     share to which each of the unconsolidated formulas applied 
     with respect to the total amount of funds allotted to the 
     States under all of the unconsolidated formulas in fiscal 
     year 2005.
       ``(iv) Rule of construction.--The amounts used to adjust 
     the allotments to a State under subparagraph (B) for a fiscal 
     year shall not be included in the calculation of the amounts 
     under clause (i) for a subsequent fiscal year, including the 
     calculation of allocation percentages for a preceding fiscal 
     year applicable to paragraphs (3) and (4) and to the 
     unconsolidated formulas described in clause (ii).''.
       (3) Reallotment.--Section 132(c) (29 U.S.C. 2862(c)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Amount.--The amount available for reallotment for a 
     program year is equal to the amount by which the unexpended 
     balance at the end of the program year prior to the program 
     year for which the determination is made exceeds 30 percent 
     of the total amount of funds available to the State under 
     this section during such prior program year (including 
     amounts allotted to the State in all prior program years that 
     remained available). For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     expended balance is the amount that is the difference 
     between--
       ``(A) the total amount of funds available to the State 
     under this section during the program year prior to the 
     program year for which the determination is made (including 
     amounts allotted to the State in all prior program years that 
     remained available); and
       ``(B) the accrued expenditures during such prior program 
     year.'';
       (B) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``for the prior program year'' and 
     inserting ``for the program year in which the determination 
     is made''; and
       (ii) by striking ``such prior program year'' and inserting 
     ``such program year'';
       (C) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) Eligibility.--For purposes of this subsection, an 
     eligible State means a State that does not have an amount 
     available for reallotment under paragraph (2) for the program 
     year for which the determination under paragraph (2) is 
     made.''; and
       (D) in paragraph (5), by striking ``obligation'' and 
     inserting ``accrued expenditure''.
       (d) Within State Allocations.--
       (1) Reservation for state activities.--Section 133(a) (29 
     U.S.C. 2863(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Reservation for Statewide Activities.--The Governor 
     of a State may reserve up to 50 percent of the total amount 
     allotted to the State under section 132 for a fiscal year to 
     carry out the statewide activities described in section 
     134(a).''.
       (2) Allocations to local areas.--Section 133(b) (29 U.S.C. 
     2863(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Allocations to Local Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--Of the amounts allotted to the State 
     under section 132(b)(2) and not reserved under subsection 
     (a)--
       ``(A) 85 percent of such amounts shall be allocated by the 
     Governor to local areas in accordance with paragraph (2); and
       ``(B) 15 percent of such amounts shall be allocated by the 
     Governor to local areas in accordance with paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Established formula.--
       ``(A) In general.--Of the amounts described in paragraph 
     (1)(A), the Governor shall allocate--
       ``(i) 60 percent on the basis of the relative number of 
     unemployed individuals in each local area, compared to the 
     total number of unemployed individuals in all local areas in 
     the State;
       ``(ii) 25 percent on the basis of the relative excess 
     number of unemployed individuals in each local area, compared 
     to the total excess number of unemployed individuals in all 
     local areas in the State; and
       ``(iii) 15 percent shall be allotted on the basis of the 
     relative number of disadvantaged adults in each local area, 
     compared to the total number of disadvantaged adults in all 
     local areas in the State.
       ``(B) Minimum and maximum percentages.--The Governor shall 
     ensure that no local area shall receive an allocation for a 
     fiscal year under this paragraph that is less than 90 percent 
     or greater than 130 percent of the allocation percentage of 
     the local area for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(C) Definitions.--
       ``(i) Allocation percentage.--The term `allocation 
     percentage', used with respect to fiscal year 2006 or a 
     subsequent fiscal year, means a percentage of the amount 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) that is received through an 
     allocation made under this paragraph for the fiscal year. The 
     term, with respect to fiscal year 2005, means the percentage 
     of the amounts allocated to local areas under this chapter 
     (as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of the 
     Job Training Improvement Act of 2005) that is received by the 
     local area involved for fiscal year 2005.
       ``(ii) Disadvantaged adult.--The term `disadvantaged adult' 
     means an individual who is age 22 through 72 who received an 
     income, or is a member of a family that received a total 
     family income, that, in relation to family size, does not 
     exceed the poverty line.
       ``(iii) Excess number.--The term `excess number' means, 
     used with respect to the excess number of unemployed 
     individuals within a local area, the number that represents 
     the number of unemployed individuals in excess of 4.5 percent 
     of the civilian labor force in the local area.
       ``(3) Discretionary allocation.--The Governor shall 
     allocate to local areas the amounts described in paragraph 
     (1)(B) based on a formula developed in consultation with the 
     State board and local boards. Such formula shall be objective 
     and geographically equitable and may include such demographic 
     and economic factors as the Governor, after consultation with 
     the State board and local boards, determines are appropriate.
       ``(4) Local administrative cost limit.--
       ``(A) In general.--Of the amounts allocated to a local area 
     under this subsection and section 128(b) for a fiscal year, 
     not more than 10 percent of the amount may be used by the 
     local boards for the administrative costs of carrying out 
     local workforce investment activities under this chapter or 
     chapter 4.
       ``(B) Use of funds.--Funds made available for 
     administrative costs under subparagraph (A) may be used for 
     the administrative costs of any of the local workforce 
     investment activities described in this chapter or chapter 4, 
     regardless of whether the funds were allocated under this 
     subsection or section 128(b).''.
       (3) Reallocation among local areas.--Section 133(c) (29 
     U.S.C. 2863(c)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)(A) or (3) 
     of'';
       (B) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
       ``(2) Amount.--The amount available for reallocation for a 
     program year is equal to the amount by which the unexpended 
     balance at the end of the program year prior to the program 
     year for which the determination is made exceeds 30 percent 
     of the total amount of funds available to the local area 
     under this section during such prior program year (including 
     amounts allotted to the local area in prior program years 
     that remain available). For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     unexpended balance is the amount that is the difference 
     between--
       ``(A) the total amount of funds available to the local area 
     under this section during the program year prior to the 
     program year for which the determination is made (including 
     amounts allocated to the local area in all prior program 
     years that remained available); and
       ``(B) the accrued expenditures during such prior program 
     year.'';
       (C) by amending paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking ``subsection (b)(3)'' the first two places 
     it appears and inserting ``subsection (b)'';
       (ii) by striking ``the prior program year'' and inserting 
     ``the program year in which the determination is made'';
       (iii) by striking ``such prior program year'' and inserting 
     ``such program year''; and
       (iv) by striking the last sentence; and
       (D) by amending paragraph (4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) Eligibility.--For purposes of this subsection, an 
     eligible local area means a local area which does not have an 
     amount available for reallocation under paragraph (2) for the 
     program year for which the determination under paragraph (2) 
     is made.''.
       (e) Use of Funds for Employment and Training Activities.--
       (1) Statewide employment and training activities.--
       (A) In general.--Section 134(a)(1) (29 U.S.C. 2864(a)(1) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Required use of funds.--Not less than 50 percent of 
     the funds reserved by a Governor under section 133(a) shall 
     be used to support the provision of core services in local 
     areas, consistent with the local plan, through one-stop 
     delivery systems by distributing funds to local

[[Page 3261]]

     areas in accordance with subparagraph (B). Such funds may be 
     used by States to employ State personnel to provide such 
     services in designated local areas in consultation with local 
     boards.
       ``(B) Method of distributing funds.--The method of 
     distributing funds under this paragraph shall be developed in 
     consultation with the State board and local boards. Such 
     method of distribution, which may include the formula 
     established under section 121(h)(3), shall be objective and 
     geographically equitable, and may include factors such as the 
     number of centers in the local area that have been certified, 
     the population served by such centers, and the performance of 
     such centers.
       ``(C) Other use of funds.--Funds reserved by a Governor for 
     a State--
       ``(i) under section 133(a) and not used under subparagraph 
     (A), may be used for statewide activities described in 
     paragraph (2); and
       ``(ii) under section 133(a) and not used under subparagraph 
     (A), and under section 128(a) may be used to carry out any of 
     the statewide employment and training activities described in 
     paragraph (3).''.
       (B) Statewide rapid response activities.--Section 134(a)(2) 
     (29 U.S.C. 2864(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Statewide rapid response activities.--A State shall 
     carry out statewide rapid response activities using funds 
     reserved as described in section 133(a). Such activities 
     shall include--
       ``(A) provision of rapid response activities, carried out 
     in local areas by the State or by an entity designated by the 
     State, working in conjunction with the local boards and the 
     chief elected officials in the local areas; and
       ``(B) provision of additional assistance to local areas 
     that experience disasters, mass layoffs or plant closings, or 
     other events that precipitate substantial increases in the 
     number of unemployed individuals, carried out in local areas 
     by the State, working in conjunction with the local boards 
     and the chief elected officials in the local areas.''.
       (C) Statewide employment and training activities.--Section 
     134(a)(3) (29 U.S.C. 2864(a)(3)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3) Statewide activities.--Funds reserved by a Governor 
     for a State as described in sections 133(a) and 128(a) may be 
     used for statewide activities including--
       ``(A) supporting the provision of core services described 
     in section 134(c)(2) in the one-stop delivery system;
       ``(B) conducting evaluations under section 136(e) of 
     activities authorized under this chapter and chapter 4 in 
     coordination with evaluations carried out by the Secretary 
     under section 172, research, and demonstration projects;
       ``(C) providing incentive grants to local areas for 
     regional cooperation among local boards (including local 
     boards in a designated region as described in section 
     116(c)), for local coordination of activities carried out 
     under this Act, and for exemplary performance by local areas 
     on the local performance measures;
       ``(D) providing technical assistance and capacity building 
     to local areas, one-stop operators, one-stop partners, and 
     eligible providers, including the development and training of 
     staff, the development of exemplary program activities, and 
     the provision of technical assistance to local areas that 
     fail to meet local performance measures;
       ``(E) operating a fiscal and management accountability 
     system under section 136(f);
       ``(F) carrying out monitoring and oversight of activities 
     carried out under this chapter and chapter 4;
       ``(G) implementing innovative programs, such as incumbent 
     worker training programs, programs and strategies designed to 
     meet the needs of businesses in the State, including small 
     businesses, and engage employers in workforce activities, and 
     programs serving individuals with disabilities consistent 
     with section 188;
       ``(H) developing strategies for effectively serving hard-
     to-serve populations and for integrating programs and 
     services among one-stop partners;
       ``(I) implementing innovative programs for displaced 
     homemakers, which for purposes of this subparagraph may 
     include an individual who is receiving public assistance and 
     is within 2 years of exhausting lifetime eligibility under 
     Part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 
     et seq.);
       ``(J) implementing programs to increase the number of 
     individuals training for and placed in nontraditional 
     employment; and
       ``(K) carrying out activities to facilitate remote access 
     to services provided through a one-stop delivery system, 
     including facilitating access through the use of 
     technology.''.
       (D) Limitation on state administrative expenditures.--
     Section 134(a) is further amended by adding the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Limitation.--Not more than 5 percent of the funds 
     allotted under section 132(b) shall be used by the State for 
     administrative activities carried out under this subsection 
     and section 128(a).''.
       (2) Local employment and training activities.--Section 
     134(b) (29 U.S.C. 2864(b)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``under paragraph (2)(A)'' and all that 
     follows through ``section 133(b)(2)(B)'' and inserting 
     ``under section 133(b)''; and
       (B) in paragraphs (1) and (2), by striking ``or dislocated 
     workers, respectively'' .
       (3) Technical amendment.--Section 134 is further amended by 
     redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (c) and 
     (d), respectively.
       (4) Required local employment and training activities.--
       (A) Allocated funds.--Section 134(c)(1) (29 U.S.C. 
     2864(c)(1)) (as redesignated by paragraph (3)) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--Funds allocated to a local area for 
     adults under section 133(b) shall be used--
       ``(A) to establish a one-stop delivery system as described 
     in section 121(e);
       ``(B) to provide the core services described in paragraph 
     (2) through the one-stop delivery system in accordance with 
     such paragraph;
       ``(C) to provide the intensive services described in 
     paragraph (3) to adults described in such paragraph; and
       ``(D) to provide training services described in paragraph 
     (4) to adults described in such paragraph.''.
       (B) Core services.--Section 134(c)(2) (29 U.S.C. 
     2864(c)(2)) (as redesignated by paragraph (3)) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``who are adults or dislocated workers'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``under this 
     subtitle'' and inserting ``under the one-stop partner 
     programs described in section 121(b)'';
       (iii) by amending subparagraph (D) to read as follows:
       ``(D) labor exchange services, including--
       ``(i) job search and placement assistance, and where 
     appropriate career counseling;
       ``(ii) appropriate recruitment services for employers; and
       ``(iii) reemployment services provided to unemployment 
     claimants.'';
       (iv) in subparagraph (I), by inserting ``and the 
     administration of the work test for the unemployment 
     compensation system'' after ``compensation''; and
       (v) by amending subparagraph (J) to read as follows:
       ``(J) assistance in establishing eligibility for programs 
     of financial aid assistance for training and education 
     programs that are not funded under this Act and are available 
     in the local area; and''.
       (C) Intensive services.--Section 134(c)(3) (29 U.S.C. 
     2864(c)(3) (as redesignated by paragraph (3) of this 
     subsection) is amended--
       (i) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Eligibility.--Funds allocated to a local area under 
     section 133(b) shall be used to provide intensive services 
     for adults who--

       ``(I) are unemployed and who have been determined by the 
     one-stop operator to be--

       ``(aa) unlikely or unable to obtain suitable employment 
     through core services; and
       ``(bb) in need of intensive services in order to obtain 
     suitable employment; or

       ``(II) are employed, but who are determined by a one-stop 
     operator to be in need of intensive services to obtain or 
     retain suitable employment.

       ``(ii) Definition.--The Governor shall define the term 
     `suitable employment' for purposes of this subparagraph.''; 
     and
       (ii) in subparagraph (C)--

       (I) in clause (v), by striking ``for participants seeking 
     training services under paragraph (4)''; and
       (II) by adding the following clauses after clause (vi):

       ``(vii) Internships and work experience.
       ``(viii) Literacy activities relating to basic work 
     readiness, information and communication technology literacy 
     activities, and financial literacy activities.
       ``(ix) Out-of-area job search assistance and relocation 
     assistance.''.
       (D) Training services.--Section 134(c)(4) (as redesignated 
     by paragraph (3) of this subsection) is amended--
       (i) by amending subparagraph (A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Eligibility.--Funds allocated to a local area under 
     section 133(b) shall be used to provide training services to 
     adults who--

       ``(I) after an interview, evaluation, or assessment, and 
     case management, have been determined by a one-stop operator 
     or one-stop partner, as appropriate, to--

       ``(aa) be unlikely or unable to obtain or retain suitable 
     employment through intensive services under paragraph (3)(A);
       ``(bb) be in need of training services to obtain or retain 
     suitable employment; and
       ``(cc) have the skills and qualifications to successfully 
     participate in the selected program of training services;

       ``(II) select programs of training services that are 
     directly linked to the employment opportunities in the local 
     area involved or in another area in which the adults 
     receiving such services are willing to commute or relocate;
       ``(III) who meet the requirements of subparagraph (B); and
       ``(IV) who are determined eligible in accordance with the 
     priority system in effect under subparagraph (E).

       ``(ii) Definition.--The Governor shall define the term 
     `suitable employment' for purposes of this subparagraph.'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``Except'' and 
     inserting ``Notwithstanding section 479B of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087uu) and except'';
       (iii) in subparagraph (D)--

       (I) by amending clause (iv) to read as follows:

       ``(iv) entrepreneurial training, including providing 
     information about obtaining microcredit loans for the purpose 
     of starting a business, including contact information of 
     microcredit lenders operating within the local area;'';

[[Page 3262]]

       (II) in clause (viii) by inserting ``(including English as 
     a Second Language)'' after ``activities''; and
       (III) by redesignating clause (ix) as clause (x) and 
     inserting after clause (viii) the following:

       ``(ix) training that integrates occupational skills 
     training and English language acquisition;'';
       (iv) by amending subparagraph (E) to read as follows:
       ``(E) Priority.--
       ``(i) In general.--A priority shall be given to unemployed 
     individuals for the provision of intensive and training 
     services under this subsection.
       ``(ii) Additional priority.--If the funds in the local 
     area, including the funds allocated under section 133(b), for 
     serving recipients of public assistance and other low-income 
     individuals, including single parents, displaced homemakers, 
     and pregnant single women, is limited, the priority for the 
     provision of intensive and training services under this 
     subsection shall include such recipients and individuals.
       ``(iii) Determinations.--The Governor and the appropriate 
     local board shall direct the one-stop operators in the local 
     area with regard to making determinations with respect to the 
     priority of service under this subparagraph.'';
       (v) in subparagraph (F), by adding the following clause 
     after clause (iii):
       ``(iv) Enhanced individual training accounts.--Each local 
     board may, through one-stop centers, assist individuals 
     receiving individual training accounts through the 
     establishment of such accounts that include, in addition to 
     the funds provided under this paragraph, funds from other 
     programs and sources that will assist the individual in 
     obtaining training services.'';
       (vi) in subparagraph (G)(iv), by redesignating subclause 
     (IV) as subclause (V) and inserting after subclause (III) the 
     following:

       ``(IV) Individuals with disabilities.''; and

       (vii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) Computer technology.--In providing training services 
     under subparagraph (G), funds allocated to a local area under 
     this title may be used to purchase computer technology for 
     use by an individual who is eligible pursuant to subsection 
     (A), only if--
       ``(i) such purchase is part of an ongoing training program; 
     and
       ``(ii) such purchase is necessary to ensure the individual 
     can participate in such training program.

     Any purchase of computer technology under this subparagraph 
     shall remain the property of the one-stop operator.''.
       (5) Permissible activities.--Section 134(d) (as 
     redesignated by paragraph (3)) is amended--
       (A) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) Discretionary one-stop delivery activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--Funds allocated to a local area under 
     section 133(b) may be used to provide, through the one-stop 
     delivery system--
       ``(i) customized screening and referral of qualified 
     participants in training services to employers;
       ``(ii) customized employment-related services to employers 
     on a fee-for-service basis;
       ``(iii) customer support to navigate among multiple 
     services and activities for special participant populations 
     that face multiple barriers to employment, including 
     individuals with disabilities;
       ``(iv) employment and training assistance provided in 
     coordination with child support enforcement activities of the 
     State agency carrying out subtitle D of title IV of the 
     Social Security Act;
       ``(v) activities to improve services to local employers, 
     including small employers in the local area, and increase 
     linkages between the local workforce investment system and 
     employers; and
       ``(vi) activities to facilitate remote access to services 
     provided through a one-stop delivery system, including 
     facilitating access through the use of technology.
       ``(B) Work support activities for low-wage workers.--
       ``(i) In general.--Funds allocated to a local area under 
     133(b) may be used to provide, through the one-stop delivery 
     system and in collaboration with the appropriate programs and 
     resources of the one-stop partners, work support activities 
     designed to assist low-wage workers in retaining and 
     enhancing employment.
       ``(ii) Activities.--The activities described in clause (i) 
     may include assistance in accessing financial supports for 
     which such workers may be eligible and the provision of 
     activities available through the one-stop delivery system in 
     a manner that enhances the opportunities of such workers to 
     participate, such as the provision of employment and training 
     activities during nontraditional hours and the provision of 
     on-site child care while such activities are being 
     provided.''; and
       (B) by adding after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Incumbent worker training programs.--
       ``(A) In general.--The local board may use up to 10 percent 
     of the funds allocated to a local area under section 133(b) 
     to carry out incumbent worker training programs in accordance 
     with this paragraph.
       ``(B) Training activities.--The training programs for 
     incumbent workers under this paragraph shall be carried out 
     by the local area in conjunction with the employers of such 
     workers for the purpose of assisting such workers in 
     obtaining the skills necessary to retain employment and avert 
     layoffs.
       ``(C) Employer match required.--
       ``(i) In general.--Employers participating in programs 
     under this paragraph shall be required to pay a proportion of 
     the costs of providing the training to the incumbent workers. 
     The Governor shall establish, or may authorize the local 
     board to establish, the required portion of such costs, which 
     shall not be less than--

       ``(I) 10 percent of the costs, for employers with 50 or 
     fewer employees;
       ``(II) 25 percent of the costs, for employers with more 
     than 50 employees but fewer than 100 employees; and
       ``(III) 50 percent of the costs, for employers with 100 or 
     more employees.

       ``(ii) Calculation of match.--The wages paid by an employer 
     to a worker while they are attending training may be included 
     as part of the requirement payment of the employer.''.

     SEC. 113. PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM.

       (a) State Performance Measures.--
       (1) In general.--Section 136(b)(1) (29 U.S.C. 2871(b)(1)) 
     is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``and the customer 
     satisfaction indicator of performance described in paragraph 
     (2)(B)''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``paragraph 
     (2)(C)'' and inserting ``paragraph (2)(B)''.
       (2) Indicators of performance.--Section 136(b)(2) (29 
     U.S.C. 2871(b)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``(except for self-
     service and information activities) and (for participants who 
     are eligible youth age 19 through 21) for youth activities 
     authorized under section 129'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A)(i)(II), by inserting ``and'' after 
     the semicolon;
       (C) in subparagraph (A)(i)(III), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting a period;
       (D) by striking subparagraph (A)(i)(IV);
       (E) by amending subparagraph (A)(ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) Core indicators for eligible youth.--The core 
     indicators of performance for youth activities authorized 
     under section 129 shall consist of--

       ``(I) entry into employment, education or advanced 
     training, or military service;
       ``(II) attainment of secondary school diploma, General 
     Educational Development credential (GED), or other State-
     recognized equivalent (including recognized alternative 
     standards for individuals with disabilities); and
       ``(III) literacy or numeracy gains.'';

       (F) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (G) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B), 
     and by adding at the end of such subparagraph (as so 
     redesignated) the following new sentence: ``Such indicators 
     may include customer satisfaction of employers and 
     participants with services received from the workforce 
     investment activities authorized under this subtitle.''.
       (3) Levels of performance.--Section 136(b)(3)(A) (29 U.S.C. 
     2871(b)(3)(A)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``and the customer 
     satisfaction indicator described in paragraph (2)(B)'';
       (B) in clause (ii), by striking ``and the customer 
     satisfaction indicator of performance, for the first 3'' and 
     inserting ``for the 2'';
       (C) in clause (iii)--
       (i) in the heading, by striking ``for first 3 years''; and
       (ii) by striking ``and the customer satisfaction indicator 
     of performance, for the first 3'' and inserting ``for the 
     2'';
       (D) in clause (iv)--
       (i) by striking subclause (I);
       (ii) by redesignating subclauses (II) and (III) as 
     subclauses (I) and (II), respectively; and
       (iii) in subclause (I) (as so redesignated)--

       (I) by striking ``taking into account'' and inserting 
     ``which shall be adjusted based on'';
       (II) by inserting ``, such as unemployment rates and job 
     losses or gains in particular industries'' after ``economic 
     conditions''; and
       (III) by inserting ``, such as indicators of poor work 
     history, lack of work experience, low levels of literacy or 
     English proficiency, disability status, including the number 
     of veterans with disabilities, and welfare dependency'' after 
     ``program'';

       (E) by striking clause (v); and
       (F) by redesignating clause (vi) as clause (v).
       (4) Additional indicators.--Section 136(b)(3)(B) is amended 
     by striking ``paragraph (2)(C)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (2)(B)''.
       (b) Local Performance Measures.--Section 136(c) (29 U.S.C 
     2871(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A)(i), by striking ``, and the 
     customer satisfaction indicator of performance described in 
     subsection (b)(2)(B),'';
       (2) in paragraph (1)(A)(ii), by striking ``subsection 
     (b)(2)(C)'' and inserting ``subsection (b)(2)(B)''; and
       (3) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) Determinations.--In determining such local levels of 
     performance, the local board, the chief elected official, and 
     the Governor shall ensure such levels are adjusted based on 
     the specific economic characteristics (such as unemployment 
     rates and job losses or gains in particular industries), 
     demographic characteristics, or other characteristics of the 
     population to be served in the local area, such as poor work 
     history, lack of work experience, low levels of literacy or 
     English proficiency, disability status, including the number 
     of veterans with disabilities, and welfare dependency.''.
       (c) Report.--Section 136(d) (29 U.S.C. 2871(d)) is 
     amended--

[[Page 3263]]

       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and the customer 
     satisfaction indicator'' in both places that it appears;
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``(excluding 
     participants who received only self-service and informational 
     activities); and'' and inserting a semicolon;
       (B) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) the number of participants served and the cost per 
     participant.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Data validation.--In preparing the reports described 
     in this subsection, the States shall establish procedures, 
     consistent with guidelines issued by the Secretary, to ensure 
     the information contained in the report is valid and 
     reliable.''.
       (d) Sanctions for State.--Section 136(g) (29 U.S.C. 
     2871(g)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``or (B)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``section 503'' and 
     inserting ``section 136(i)''.
       (e) Sanctions for Local Areas.--Section 136(h) (29 U.S.C. 
     2871(h)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or (B)''; and
       (2) by amending paragraph (2)(B) to read as follows:
       ``(B) Appeal to governor.--A local area that is subject to 
     a reorganization plan under subparagraph (A) may, not later 
     than 30 days after receiving notice of the reorganization 
     plan, appeal to the Governor to rescind or revise such plan. 
     In such case, the Governor shall make a final decision not 
     later than 30 days after the receipt of the appeal.''.
       (f) Incentive Grants.--Section 136(i) (29 U.S.C. 2871(i)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(i) Incentive Grants for States and Local Areas.--
       ``(1) Incentive grants for states.--
       ``(A) In general.--From funds appropriated under section 
     174, the Secretary may award grants to States for exemplary 
     performance in carrying programs under chapters 4 and 5 of 
     this title. Such awards may be based on States meeting or 
     exceeding the performance measures established under this 
     section, on the performance of the State in serving special 
     populations, including the levels of service provided and the 
     performance outcomes, and such other factors relating to the 
     performance of the State under this title as the Secretary 
     determines is appropriate.
       ``(B) Use of funds.--The funds awarded to a State under 
     this paragraph may be used to carry out any activities 
     authorized under chapters 4 and 5 of this title, including 
     demonstrations and innovative programs for special 
     populations.
       ``(2) Incentive grants for local areas.--
       ``(A) In general.--From funds reserved under sections 
     128(a) and 133(a), the Governor may award incentive grants to 
     local areas for exemplary performance with respect to the 
     measures established under this section and with the 
     performance of the local area in serving special populations, 
     including the levels of service and the performance outcomes.
       ``(B) Use of funds.--The funds awarded to a local area may 
     be used to carry out activities authorized for local areas 
     under chapters 4 and 5 of this title, and such demonstration 
     or other innovative programs to serve special populations as 
     may be approved by the Governor.''.
       (g) Use of Core Indicators for Other Programs.--Section 136 
     (29 U.S.C. 2871) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following subsection:
       ``(j) Use of Core Indicators for Other Programs.--In 
     addition to the programs carried out under chapters 4 and 5, 
     and consistent with the requirements of the applicable 
     authorizing laws, the Secretary shall use the core indicators 
     of performance described in subsection (b)(2)(A) to assess 
     the effectiveness of the programs described under section 
     121(b)(1)(B) that are carried out by the Secretary.''.
       (h) Repeal of Definitions.--Sections 502 and 503 (and the 
     items related to such sections in the table of contents) are 
     repealed.

     SEC. 114. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Youth Activities.--Section 137(a) (29 U.S.C. 2872(a)) 
     is amended by striking ``such sums as may be necessary for 
     each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003'' and inserting 
     ``$1,250,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011''.
       (b) Adult Employment and Training Activities.--Section 
     137(b) (29 U.S.C. 2872(b)) is amended by striking ``section 
     132(a)(1), such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal 
     years 1999 through 2003'' and inserting ``section 132(a), 
     $3,140,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011''.
       (c) Dislocated Worker Employment and Training Activities.--
     Section 137 is further amended by striking subsection (c).

     SEC. 115. JOB CORPS.

       (a) Industry Councils.--Section 154(b) (29 U.S.C. 2894(b)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``local and distant''; 
     and
       (2) by adding after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Employers outside of local areas.--The industry 
     council may include, or otherwise provide for consultation 
     with, employers from outside the local area who are likely to 
     hire a significant number of enrollees from the Job Corps 
     center.''.
       (b) Indicators of Performance and Additional Information.--
     Section 159(c) (29 U.S.C. 2893(c)) is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1) Core indicators.--The Secretary shall annually 
     establish expected levels of performance for Job Corps 
     centers and the Job Corps program relating to each of the 
     core indicators for youth identified in section 
     136(b)(2)(A)(ii).''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``measures'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``indicators''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 161 (29 
     U.S.C. 2901) is amended by striking ``1999 through 2003'' and 
     inserting ``2006 through 2011''.

     SEC. 116. NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS.

       (a) Advisory Council.--Section 166(h)(4)(C) (29 U.S.C. 
     2911(h)(4)(C)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(C) Duties.--The Council shall advise the Secretary on 
     the operation and administration of the programs assisted 
     under this section.''.
       (b) Assistance to American Samoans in Hawaii.--Section 166 
     (29 U.S.C. 2911) is further amended by striking subsection 
     (j).

     SEC. 117. MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKER PROGRAMS.

       Section 167(d) is amended by inserting ``(including 
     permanent housing)'' after ``housing''.

     SEC. 118. VETERANS' WORKFORCE INVESTMENT PROGRAMS.

       Section 168(a)(3)(C) (29 U.S.C. 2913 (a)(3)(C)) is amended 
     by striking ``section 134(c)'' and inserting ``section 
     121(e)''.

     SEC. 119. YOUTH CHALLENGE GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 169 (29 U.S.C. 2914) is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 169. YOUTH CHALLENGE GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--Of the amounts reserved by the Secretary 
     under section 127(a)(1)(A) for a fiscal year--
       ``(1) the Secretary shall use not less than 80 percent to 
     award competitive grants under subsection (b); and
       ``(2) the Secretary may use not more than 20 percent to 
     award discretionary grants under subsection (c).
       ``(b) Competitive Grants to States and Local Areas.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--From the funds described in 
     subsection (a)(1), the Secretary shall award competitive 
     grants to eligible entities to carry out activities 
     authorized under this section to assist eligible youth in 
     acquiring the skills, credentials and employment experience 
     necessary to succeed in the labor market.
       ``(2) Eligible entities.--Grants under this subsection may 
     be awarded to States, local boards, recipients of grants 
     under section 166 (relating to Native American programs), and 
     public or private entities (including consortia of such 
     entities) applying in conjunction with local boards.
       ``(3) Grant period.--The Secretary may make a grant under 
     this section for a period of 1 year and may renew the grants 
     for each of the 4 succeeding years.
       ``(4) Authority to require match.--The Secretary may 
     require that grantees under this subsection provide a non-
     Federal share of the cost of activities carried out under a 
     grant awarded under this subsection.
       ``(5) Participant eligibility.--Youth ages 14 through 19 as 
     of the time the eligibility determination is made may be 
     eligible to participate in activities provided under this 
     subsection.
       ``(6) Use of funds.--Funds under this subsection may be 
     used for activities that are designed to assist youth in 
     acquiring the skills, credentials and employment experience 
     that are necessary to succeed in the labor market, including 
     the activities identified in section 129. The activities may 
     include activities such as--
       ``(A) training and internships for out-of-school youth in 
     sectors of the economy experiencing or projected to 
     experience high growth;
       ``(B) after-school dropout prevention activities for in-
     school youth;
       ``(C) activities designed to assist special youth 
     populations, such as court-involved youth and youth with 
     disabilities; and
       ``(D) activities combining remediation of academic skills, 
     work readiness training, and work experience, and including 
     linkages to postsecondary education, apprenticeships, and 
     career-ladder employment.
       ``(7) Applications.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this subsection, an eligible entity shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require, 
     including--
       ``(A) a description of the activities the eligible entity 
     will provide to eligible youth under this subsection;
       ``(B) a description of the programs of demonstrated 
     effectiveness on which the provision of the activities under 
     subparagraph (A) are based, and a description of how such 
     activities will expand the base of knowledge relating to the 
     provision of activities for youth;
       ``(C) a description of the private and public, and local 
     and State resources that will be leveraged to provide the 
     activities described under subparagraph (A) in addition to 
     the funds provided under this subsection; and
       ``(D) the levels of performance the eligible entity expects 
     to achieve with respect to the indicators of performance for 
     youth specified in section 136(b)(2)(A)(ii).
       ``(8) Factors for award.--In awarding grants under this 
     subsection the Secretary may

[[Page 3264]]

     consider the quality of the proposed project, the goals to be 
     achieved, the likelihood of successful implementation, the 
     extent to which the project is based on proven strategies or 
     the extent to which the project will expand the knowledge 
     base on activities for youth, and the additional State, local 
     or private resources that will be provided.
       ``(9) Evaluation.--The Secretary may reserve up to 5 
     percent of the funds described in subsection(a)(1) to provide 
     technical assistance to, and conduct evaluations of the 
     projects funded under this subsection (using appropriate 
     techniques as described in section 172(c)).
       ``(c) Discretionary Grants for Youth Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--From the funds described in 
     subsection(a)(2), the Secretary may award grants to eligible 
     entities to provide activities that will assist youth in 
     preparing for, and entering and retaining, employment.
       ``(2) Eligible entities.--Grants under this subsection may 
     be awarded to public or private entities that the Secretary 
     determines would effectively carry out activities relating to 
     youth under this subsection.
       ``(3) Participant eligibility.--Youth ages 14 through 19 at 
     the time the eligibility determination is made may be 
     eligible to participate in activities under this subsection.
       ``(4) Use of funds.--Funds provided under this subsection 
     may be used for activities that will assist youth in 
     preparing for, and entering and retaining, employment, 
     including the activities described in section 129 for out-of-
     school youth, activities designed to assist in-school youth 
     to stay in school and gain work experience, and such other 
     activities that the Secretary determines are appropriate.
       ``(5) Applications.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this subsection, an eligible entity shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(6) Additional requirements.--The Secretary may require 
     the provision of a non-Federal share for projects funded 
     under this subsection and may require participation of 
     grantees in evaluations of such projects, including 
     evaluations using the techniques as described in section 
     172(c).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) is amended by amending the item related to section 169 
     to read as follows:

``Sec. 169. Youth challenge grants.''.

     SEC. 120. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       Section 170 (29 U.S.C. 2915) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b);
       (2) by striking
       ``(a) General Technical Assistance.--'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as 
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) respectively, and moving such 
     subsections 2 ems to the left;
       (4) in subsection (a) (as redesignated by paragraph (3))--
       (A) by inserting ``the training of staff providing rapid 
     response services, the training of other staff of recipients 
     of funds under this title, peer review activities under this 
     title, assistance regarding accounting and program operation 
     practices (when such assistance would not be duplicative to 
     assistance provided by the State), technical assistance to 
     States that do not meet State performance measures described 
     in section 136,'' after ``localities,''; and
       (B) by striking ``from carrying out activities'' and all 
     that follows up to the period and inserting ``to implement 
     the amendments made by the Job Training Improvement Act of 
     2005''; and
       (5) by inserting, after subsection (c) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (3)), the following:
       ``(d) Best Practices Coordination.--The Secretary shall 
     establish a system whereby States may share information 
     regarding best practices with regard to the operation of 
     workforce investment activities under this Act.''.

     SEC. 121. DEMONSTRATION, PILOT, MULTISERVICE, RESEARCH AND 
                   MULTI-STATE PROJECTS.

       (a) Demonstration and Pilot Projects.--Section 171(b) (29 
     U.S.C. 2916(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``Under a'' and inserting ``Consistent with 
     the priorities specified in the'';
       (B) by amending subparagraphs (A) through (D) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(A) projects that assist national employers in connecting 
     with the workforce investment system established under this 
     title in order to facilitate the recruitment and employment 
     of needed workers and to provide information to such system 
     on skills and occupations in demand;
       ``(B) projects that promote the development of systems that 
     will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of programs 
     carried out under this title;
       ``(C) projects that focus on opportunities for employment 
     in industries and sectors of industries that are experiencing 
     or are likely to experience high rates of growth, including 
     those relating to information technology;
       ``(D) projects carried out by States and local areas to 
     test innovative approaches to delivering employment-related 
     services;'';
       (C) by striking subparagraph (E);
       (D) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) and (G) as 
     subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively;
       (E) in subparagraph (F) (as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``; and'' and inserting a semicolon;
       (F) by inserting after subparagraph (F) (as so 
     redesignated) the following:
       ``(G) projects that provide retention grants to qualified 
     job training programs upon placement or retention of a low-
     income individual trained by that program in employment with 
     a single employer for a period of 1 year, provided that such 
     employment is providing to the low-income individual an 
     income not less than twice the poverty line for that 
     individual;'';
       (G) by amending subparagraph (H) to read as follows:
       ``(H) projects that focus on opportunities for employment 
     in industries and sectors of industries that are being 
     transformed by technology and innovation requiring new 
     knowledge or skill sets for workers, including advanced 
     manufacturing; and''; and
       (H) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(I) projects carried out by States and local areas to 
     assist adults or out of school youth in starting a small 
     business, including training and assistance in business or 
     financial management or in developing other skills necessary 
     to operate a business.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking subparagraph (B); and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (B).
       (b) Multiservice Projects.--Section 171(c)(2)(B) (29 U.S.C. 
     2916(c)(2)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Net impact studies and reports.--The Secretary shall 
     conduct studies to determine the net impacts of programs, 
     services, and activities carried out under this title. The 
     Secretary shall prepare and disseminate to Congress and the 
     public reports containing the results of such studies.''.

     SEC. 122. COMMUNITY-BASED JOB TRAINING.

       Section 171(d) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Community-Based Job Training.--
       ``(1) Demonstration project.--In addition to the 
     demonstration projects under subsection (b), the Secretary 
     may establish and implement a national demonstration project 
     designed to develop local solutions to the workforce 
     challenges facing high-growth, high-skill industries with 
     labor shortages, and increase opportunities for workers to 
     gain access to employment in high-growth, high-demand 
     occupations by promoting the establishment of partnerships 
     among education entities, the workforce investment system, 
     and businesses in high-growth, high-skill industries.
       ``(2) Grants.--In carrying out the demonstration project 
     under this subsection, the Secretary shall award competitive 
     grants, in accordance with generally applicable Federal 
     requirements, to eligible entities to carry out activities 
     authorized under this subsection.
       ``(3) Definitions.--
       ``(A) Eligible entity.--In this subsection, the term 
     `eligible entity' means a community college or consortium of 
     community colleges that shall work in conjunction with--
       ``(i) the local workforce investment system; and
       ``(ii) business or businesses in a qualified industry or an 
     industry association in a qualified industry.
       ``(B) Qualified industry.--In this subsection, the term 
     `qualified industry' means an industry or economic sector 
     that is projected to experience significant growth, such as 
     an industry and economic sector that--
       ``(i) is projected to add substantial numbers of new jobs 
     to the economy;
       ``(ii) has significant impact on the economy;
       ``(iii) impacts the growth of other industries and economic 
     sectors;
       ``(iv) is being transformed by technology and innovation 
     requiring new knowledge or skill sets for workers;
       ``(v) is a new or emerging industry or economic sector that 
     is projected to grow; or
       ``(vi) has high-skilled occupations and significant labor 
     shortages in the local area.
       ``(C) Community college.--As used in this subsection, the 
     term `community college' means an institution of higher 
     education, as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001), that provides not less than a 
     2-year program that is acceptable for full credit toward a 
     bachelor's degree, or is a tribally controlled college or 
     university.
       ``(4) Authority to require non-federal share.--The 
     Secretary may require that recipients of grants under this 
     subsection provide a non-Federal share, from either cash or 
     noncash resources, of the costs of activities carried out 
     under a grant awarded under this subsection.
       ``(5) Use of funds.--Grants awarded under this subsection 
     may be used for--
       ``(A) the development, by a community college, in 
     consultation with representatives of qualified industries, of 
     rigorous training and education programs related to 
     employment in a qualified industry identified in the eligible 
     entity's application;
       ``(B) training of adults and dislocated workers in the 
     skills and competencies needed to obtain or upgrade 
     employment in a qualified industry identified in the eligible 
     entity's application;
       ``(C) disseminating to adults and dislocated workers, 
     through the one-stop delivery system, information on high-
     growth, high-demand occupations in qualified industries;
       ``(D) placing, through the one-stop delivery system, 
     trained individuals into employment in qualified industries; 
     and
       ``(E) increasing the integration of community colleges with 
     activities of businesses and the one-stop delivery system to 
     meet the training needs for qualified industries.
       ``(6) Applications.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this subsection, an eligible entity shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require, 
     including--
       ``(A) a description of the community college that will 
     offer training under the grant;

[[Page 3265]]

       ``(B) an economic analysis of the local labor market to 
     identify high-growth, high-demand industries and identify the 
     workforce issues faced by those industries;
       ``(C) a description of the qualified industry for which 
     training will occur and the availability of competencies on 
     which training will be based;
       ``(D) an assurance that the application was developed in 
     consultation with the local board or boards in the area or 
     areas where the proposed grant will be used;
       ``(E) performance outcomes for the grant, including 
     expected number of individuals to be trained in a qualified 
     industry, the employment and retention rates for such 
     individuals in a qualified industry, and earnings increases 
     for such individuals;
       ``(F) a description of how the activities funded by the 
     proposed grant will be coordinated with activities provided 
     through the one-stop delivery system in the local area or 
     areas; and
       ``(G) a description of any local or private resources that 
     will support the activities carried out under this subsection 
     and allow the entity to carry out and expand such activities 
     after the expiration of the grant.
       ``(7) Factors for award of grant.--
       ``(A) In general.--In awarding grants under this subsection 
     the Secretary shall consider--
       ``(i) the extent of public and private collaboration, 
     including existing partnerships among industries, community 
     colleges, and the public workforce investment system;
       ``(ii) the extent to which the grant will provide job 
     seekers with employment opportunities in high-growth, high-
     demand occupations;
       ``(iii) the extent to which the grant will expand the local 
     one-stop delivery system's capacity to be demand-driven and 
     responsive to local economic needs;
       ``(iv) the extent to which local businesses commit to hire 
     or retain individuals who receive training through the grant; 
     and
       ``(v) the extent to which the eligible entity commits to 
     make any newly developed products, such as competencies or 
     training curriculum, available for distribution nationally.
       ``(B) Leveraging of resources.--In awarding grants under 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall also consider--
       ``(i) the extent to which local or private resources, in 
     addition to the funds provided under this subsection, will be 
     made available to support the activities carried out under 
     this subsection; and
       ``(ii) the ability of an eligible entity to continue to 
     carry out and expand such activities after the expiration of 
     the grant.
       ``(C) Distribution of grants.--In awarding grants under 
     this subsection the Secretary shall ensure an equitable 
     distribution of such grants across geographically diverse 
     areas.
       ``(8) Performance accountability and evaluation.--
       ``(A) Performance accountability.--The Secretary shall 
     require an eligible entity that receives a grant under this 
     subsection to report to the Secretary on the employment 
     outcomes obtained by individuals receiving training under 
     this subsection using the indicators of performance 
     identified in the eligible entity's grant application.
       ``(B) Evaluation.--The Secretary may require that an 
     eligible entity that receives a grant under this subsection 
     participate in an evaluation of activities carried out under 
     this subsection, including an evaluation using the techniques 
     described in section 172(c).''.

     SEC. 123. PERSONAL REEMPLOYMENT ACCOUNTS.

       Section 171 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Personal Reemployment Accounts.--
       ``(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term `State' 
     means each of the several States of the United States, the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and 
     the United States Virgin Islands.
       ``(2) Demonstration project.--In addition to the 
     demonstration projects under subsection (b), the Secretary 
     may establish and implement a national demonstration project 
     designed to analyze and provide data on workforce training 
     programs that accelerate the reemployment of unemployed 
     individuals, promote the retention in employment of such 
     individuals, and provide such individuals with enhanced 
     flexibility, choice, and control in obtaining intensive 
     reemployment, training, and supportive services.
       ``(3) Grants.--
       ``(A) In general.--In carrying out the demonstration 
     project, the Secretary shall make grants, on a competitive 
     basis, to eligible entities to provide personal reemployment 
     accounts to eligible individuals. In awarding grants under 
     this subsection the Secretary shall take into consideration 
     awarding grants to eligible entities from diverse geographic 
     areas, including rural areas.
       ``(B) Duration.--The Secretary shall make the grants for 
     periods of not less than 2 years and may renew the grant for 
     each of the succeeding 3 years.
       ``(4) Eligible entity.--In this subsection, the term 
     `eligible entity' means--
       ``(A) a State; or
       ``(B) a local board or consortium of local boards.
       ``(5) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--An eligible entity that receives a grant 
     under this subsection shall use the grant funds to provide, 
     through a local area or areas, eligible individuals with 
     personal reemployment accounts. An eligible individual may 
     receive only 1 personal reemployment account.
       ``(B) Geographic area and amount.--
       ``(i) In general.--The eligible entity shall establish the 
     amount of a personal reemployment account for each eligible 
     individual participating, which shall be uniform throughout 
     the area represented by the eligible entity, and shall not 
     exceed $3,000.
       ``(ii) Option for states.--If the eligible entity is a 
     State, the eligible entity may choose to use the grant 
     statewide, if practicable, or only in specified local areas 
     within a State.
       ``(C) Eligible individuals.--
       ``(i) In general.--Each eligible entity shall establish 
     eligibility criteria for individuals for personal 
     reemployment accounts in accordance with this subparagraph.
       ``(ii) Eligibility criteria requirements.--

       ``(I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), an individual 
     shall be eligible to receive a personal reemployment account 
     under a grant awarded under this subsection if, beginning 
     after the date of enactment of this subsection, the 
     individual--

       ``(aa) is identified by the State pursuant to section 
     303(j)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 503(j)(1)) as 
     likely to exhaust regular unemployment compensation and in 
     need of job search assistance to make a successful transition 
     to new employment, or the individual's unemployment can be 
     attributed in substantial part to unfair competition from 
     Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated;
       ``(bb) is receiving regular unemployment compensation under 
     any Federal or State unemployment compensation program 
     administered by the State; and
       ``(cc) is eligible for not less than 20 weeks of regular 
     unemployment compensation described in item (bb).

       ``(II) Additional eligibility and priority criteria.--An 
     eligible entity may establish criteria that are in addition 
     to the criteria described in subclause (I) for the 
     eligibility of individuals to receive a personal reemployment 
     account under this subsection. An eligible entity may also 
     establish criteria for priority in the provision of a 
     personal reemployment account to such eligible individuals 
     under a grant awarded under this subsection.

       ``(iii) Transition rule.--

       ``(I) Previously identified as likely to exhaust 
     unemployment compensation.--

       ``(aa) In general.--At the option of the eligible entity, 
     and subject to item (bb), an individual may be eligible to 
     receive a personal reemployment account under this subsection 
     if the individual--
       ``(AA) during the 13-week period ending the week prior to 
     the date of the enactment of the subsection, was identified 
     by the State pursuant to section 303(j)(1) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 503(j)(1)) as likely to exhaust 
     regular unemployment compensation and in need of job search 
     assistance to make a successful transition to new employment; 
     and
       ``(BB) otherwise meets the requirements of clause 
     (ii)(I)(bb) and (cc).
       ``(bb) Additional eligibility and priority criteria.--An 
     eligible entity may establish criteria that is in addition to 
     the criteria described in item (aa) for the eligibility of 
     individuals to receive a personal reemployment account under 
     this subsection. An eligible entity may also establish 
     criteria for priority in the provision of such accounts to 
     such eligible individuals under this subsection.

       ``(II) Previously exhausted unemployment compensation.--At 
     the option of the eligible entity, an individual may be 
     eligible to receive a personal reemployment account under a 
     grant awarded under this subsection if the individual--

       ``(aa) during the 26-week period ending the week prior to 
     the date of the enactment of this subsection, exhausted all 
     rights to any unemployment compensation; and
       ``(bb)(AA) is enrolled in training and needs additional 
     support to complete such training, with a priority of service 
     to be provided to such individuals who are training for 
     shortage occupations or high-growth industries; or
       ``(BB) is separated from employment in an industry or 
     occupation that has experienced declining employment, or no 
     longer provides any employment, in the local labor market 
     during the 2-year period ending on the date of the 
     determination of eligibility of the individual under this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(iv) No individual entitlement.--Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to entitle any individual to 
     receive a personal reemployment account.
       ``(D) Limitations.--
       ``(i) Information and attestation.--Prior to the 
     establishment of a personal reemployment account for an 
     eligible individual, the eligible entity receiving a grant, 
     through the one-stop delivery system in the participating 
     local area or areas, shall ensure that the individual--

       ``(I) is informed of the requirements applicable to the 
     personal reemployment account, including the allowable uses 
     of funds from the account, the limitations on access to 
     services described in paragraph (7)(A)(iii) and a description 
     of such services, and the conditions for receiving a 
     reemployment bonus;
       ``(II) has the option to develop a personal reemployment 
     plan which will identify the employment goals and appropriate 
     combination of services selected by the individual to achieve 
     the employment goals; and
       ``(III) signs an attestation that the individual has been 
     given the option to develop a personal reemployment plan in 
     accordance with subclause (II), will comply with the 
     requirements under this subsection relating to the personal 
     reemployment accounts, and will reimburse the

[[Page 3266]]

     account or, if the account has been terminated, the grant 
     awarded under this subsection, for any amounts expended from 
     the account that are not allowable.

       ``(ii) Periodic interviews.--If a recipient exhausts his or 
     her rights to any unemployment compensation, and the 
     recipient has a remaining balance in his or her personal 
     reemployment account, the one-stop delivery system shall 
     conduct periodic interviews with the recipient to assist the 
     recipient in meeting his or her individual employment goals.
       ``(iii) Use of personal reemployment accounts.--The 
     eligible entity receiving a grant shall ensure that eligible 
     individuals receiving a personal reemployment account use the 
     account in accordance with paragraph (7).
       ``(6) Application for grants.--To be eligible to receive a 
     grant under this subsection, an eligible entity shall submit 
     an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may require, 
     including--
       ``(A) if the eligible entity is a State--
       ``(i) assurance that the application was developed in 
     conjunction with the local board or boards and chief elected 
     officials where the personal reemployment accounts shall be 
     made available; and
       ``(ii) a description of the methods and procedures for 
     providing funds to local areas where the personal 
     reemployment accounts shall be made available;
       ``(B) a description of the criteria and methods to be used 
     for determining eligibility for the personal reemployment 
     account, including whether the eligible entity intends to 
     include the optional categories described in paragraph 
     (5)(C)(iii), and the additional criteria and priority for 
     service that the eligible entity intends to apply, if any, 
     pursuant to paragraph (5)(C)(ii)(II);
       ``(C) a description of the methods or procedures to be used 
     to provide eligible individuals information relating to 
     services and providers;
       ``(D) a description of safeguards to ensure that funds from 
     the personal reemployment accounts are used for purposes 
     authorized under this subsection and to ensure the quality 
     and integrity of services and providers, consistent with the 
     purpose of providing eligible individuals with enhanced 
     flexibility, choice, and control in obtaining intensive 
     reemployment, training, and supportive services;
       ``(E) a description of how the eligible entity will 
     coordinate the activities carried out under this subsection 
     with the employment and training activities carried out under 
     section 134 and other activities carried out by local boards 
     through the one-stop delivery system in the State or local 
     area; and
       ``(F) an assurance that the eligible entity will comply 
     with any evaluation and reporting requirements the Secretary 
     may require.
       ``(7) Use of personal reemployment accounts.--
       ``(A) Allowable activities.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to the requirements contained in 
     clauses (ii) and (iii), a recipient of a personal 
     reemployment account may use amounts in a personal 
     reemployment account to purchase 1 or more of the following:

       ``(I) Intensive services, including those type of services 
     specified in section 134(d)(3)(C).
       ``(II) Training services, including those types of services 
     specified in section 134(d)(4)(D).
       ``(III) Supportive services, except for needs related 
     payments.

       ``(ii) Delivery of services.--The following requirements 
     relating to delivery of services shall apply to the grants 
     under this subsection:

       ``(I) Recipients may use funds from the personal 
     reemployment account to purchase the services described in 
     clause (i) through the one-stop delivery system on a fee-for-
     service basis, or through other providers, consistent with 
     the safeguards described in paragraph (6)(D).
       ``(II) The eligible entity, through the one-stop delivery 
     system in the participating local area, may pay costs for 
     such services directly on behalf of the recipient, through a 
     voucher system, or by reimbursement to the recipient upon 
     receipt of appropriate cost documentation.
       ``(III) Each eligible entity, through the one-stop delivery 
     system in the participating local area, shall make available 
     to recipients information on training providers specified in 
     section 134(d)(4)(F)(ii), information available to the one-
     stop delivery system on providers of the intensive and 
     supportive services described in clause (i), and information 
     relating to occupations in demand in the local area.

       ``(iii) Limitations.--The following limitations shall apply 
     with respect to personal reemployment accounts under this 
     subsection:

       ``(I) Amounts in a personal reemployment account may be 
     used for up to 1 year from the date of the establishment of 
     the account.
       ``(II) Each recipient shall submit cost documentation as 
     required by the one-stop delivery system.
       ``(III) For the 1-year period following the establishment 
     of the account, recipients may not receive intensive, 
     supportive, or training services funded under this title 
     except on a fee-for-services basis as specified in clause 
     (ii)(I).
       ``(IV) Amounts in a personal reemployment account shall be 
     nontransferable.

       ``(B) Reemployment bonus.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii)--

       ``(I) if a recipient determined eligible under paragraph 
     (5)(C)(ii) obtains full-time employment before the 13th week 
     of unemployment for which unemployment compensation is paid, 
     the balance of his or her personal reemployment account shall 
     be provided directly to the recipient in cash; and
       ``(II) if a recipient determined eligible under paragraph 
     (5)(C)(iii) obtains full-time employment before the end of 
     the 13th week after the date on which the account is 
     established, the balance of his or her personal reemployment 
     account shall be provided directly to the recipient in cash.

       ``(ii) Limitations.--The following limitations shall apply 
     with respect to a recipient described in clause (i):

       ``(I) 60 percent of the remaining personal reemployment 
     account balance shall be paid to the recipient at the time of 
     employment.
       ``(II) 40 percent of the remaining personal reemployment 
     account shall be paid to the recipient after 26 weeks of 
     employment retention.

       ``(iii) Exception regarding subsequent employment.--If a 
     recipient described in clause (i) subsequently becomes 
     unemployed due to a lack of work after receiving the portion 
     of the reemployment bonus specified under clause (ii)(I), the 
     individual may use the amount remaining in the personal 
     reemployment account for the purposes described in 
     subparagraph (A) but may not be eligible for additional cash 
     payments under this subparagraph.
       ``(8) Program information and evaluation.--
       ``(A) Information.--The Secretary may require from eligible 
     entities the collection and reporting on such financial, 
     performance, and other program-related information as the 
     Secretary determines is appropriate to carry out this 
     subsection, including the evaluation described in 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Evaluation.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary, pursuant to the authority 
     provided under section 172, shall, directly or through 
     grants, contracts, or cooperative agreement with appropriate 
     entities, conduct an evaluation of the activities carried out 
     under any grants awarded under this subsection.
       ``(ii) Report.--The report to Congress under section 172(e) 
     relating to the results of the evaluations required under 
     section 172 shall include the recommendation of the Secretary 
     with respect to the use of personal reemployment account as a 
     mechanism to assist individuals in obtaining and retaining 
     employment.''.

     SEC. 124. TRAINING FOR REALTIME WRITERS.

       Section 171 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Training for Realtime Writers.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make competitive 
     grants to eligible entities under paragraph (2)(A) to promote 
     training and placement of individuals as realtime writers in 
     order to meet the requirements for closed captioning of video 
     programming set forth in section 723 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 613) and the rules prescribed 
     thereunder.
       ``(2) Limitations.--
       ``(A) Eligible entities.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     an eligible entity is a court reporting or realtime writing 
     training program that--
       ``(i) can document and demonstrate to the Secretary that it 
     meets appropriate standards of educational and financial 
     accountability, with a curriculum capable of training 
     realtime writers, qualified to provide captioning services 
     and includes arrangements to assist in the placement of such 
     individuals in employment as realtime writers; and
       ``(ii) is and entity that--

       ``(I) is an eligible provider of training services under 
     section 122; or
       ``(II) is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by 
     the Department of Education; and participates in student aid 
     programs under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.).

       ``(B) Priority in grants.--In determining whether to award 
     grants under this section, the Secretary shall give priority 
     to eligible entities that--
       ``(i) demonstrate the greatest ability to increase their 
     capacity to train realtime writers;
       ``(ii) demonstrate the most promising collaboration with 
     local workforce investment boards, local educational 
     institutions, businesses, labor organizations, or other 
     community-based organization having the potential to train or 
     provide job placement assistance to realtime writers; and
       ``(iii) propose the most promising and innovative 
     approaches for initiating or expanding training or job 
     placement assistance efforts for realtime writers.
       ``(C) Duration of grant.--A grant under this subsection 
     shall be for a period of 2 years.
       ``(D) Maximum amount of grant.--The amount of a grant 
     provided under paragraph (1) to an entity eligible may not 
     exceed $1,500,000.
       ``(3) Application.--To receive a grant under paragraph (1), 
     an eligible entity shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time and in such manner as the Secretary 
     may require. The application shall include--
       ``(A) a description of the training and assistance to be 
     funded using the grant amount, including how such training 
     and assistance will increase the number of realtime writers;
       ``(B) a description of performance measures to be utilized 
     to evaluate the progress of individuals receiving such 
     training and assistance in matters relating to enrollment, 
     completion of training, and job placement and retention;
       ``(C) a description of the manner in which the eligible 
     entity intends to continue providing the training and 
     assistance to be funded by the grant after the end of the 
     grant period, including any partnerships or arrangements 
     established for that purpose;
       ``(D) a description of how the eligible entity will work 
     with local workforce investment

[[Page 3267]]

     boards to ensure that training and assistance to be funded 
     with the grant will further local workforce goals, including 
     the creation of educational opportunities for individuals who 
     are from economically disadvantaged backgrounds or are 
     dislocated workers; and
       ``(E) such other information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(4) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--An eligible entity receiving a grant 
     under paragraph (1) shall use the grant amount for purposes 
     relating to the recruitment, training, assistance, and job 
     placement of individuals (including individuals who have 
     completed a court reporting training program) as realtime 
     writers, including--
       ``(i) recruitment activities;
       ``(ii) the provision of training grants to individuals for 
     training in realtime writing;
       ``(iii) distance learning;
       ``(iv) design and development of curriculum to more 
     effectively train realtime writing skills and education in 
     the knowledge bases necessary for the delivery of high 
     quality closed captioning services;
       ``(v) assistance in job placement for upcoming and recent 
     graduates with all types of captioning employers; and
       ``(vi) encouragement of individuals with disabilities to 
     pursue a career in realtime writing.
       ``(B) Administrative costs.--The recipient of a grant under 
     paragraph (1) may not use more than 5 percent of the grant 
     amount to pay administrative costs associated with activities 
     funded by the grant.
       ``(5) Reports.--Each eligible entity receiving a grant 
     under paragraph (1) shall submit to the Secretary, at the end 
     of each year of the grant period, a report which shall 
     include--
       ``(A) a description of the use of grant amounts by the 
     entity during such year;
       ``(B) an assessment, utilizing the performance measures 
     submitted by the entity in the application for the grant 
     under paragraph (2)(D), of the effectiveness of activities 
     carried out using such funds in increasing the number of 
     realtime writers; and
       ``(C) a description of the best practices identified by the 
     entity as a result of the grant for increasing the number of 
     individuals who are trained, employed, and retained in 
     employment as realtime writers.''.

     SEC. 125. BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP GRANTS.

       Section 171 (29 U.S.C. 2916) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(g) Business Partnership Grants.--
       ``(1) Demonstration project.--In addition to the 
     demonstration projects under subsection (b), (d), and (e), 
     the Secretary may make up to 10 competitive grants per year 
     to eligible entities to expand local sector-focused training 
     and workforce development in high growth, high wage industry 
     sectors in one or more regions of particular States.
       ``(2) Eligible entities.--For purposes of this subsection 
     an eligible entity is a business or business partnership, 
     including associations of single or related industry 
     employers and employee representatives, consortia of such 
     employers, employee representatives, and workforce 
     development community-based organizations, and higher 
     education institutions.
       ``(3) Use of funds.--Grants awarded under this subsection 
     may be used to--
       ``(A) provide workforce-directed business services to help 
     employers in targeted industries better retain, support and 
     advance their skilled workers;
       ``(B) provide capacity building through regional skill 
     alliances, workforce intermediaries, and other collaborative 
     entities to link businesses to public workforce systems and 
     service providers targeted for their industry;
       ``(C) conduct analyses of skills that are needed in the 
     workforce in such industries currently and in the future to 
     project new market opportunities in particular industries;
       ``(D) develop rigorous training and education programs 
     related to employment in high-growth, high-wage industries;
       ``(E) develop skill standards and industry-certified 
     curricula used in preparing workers for employment in such 
     industries;
       ``(F) train adults and dislocated workers in the skills and 
     competencies needed to obtain or upgrade employment;
       ``(G) disseminate information on high-growth, high-wage 
     occupations;
       ``(H) place trained individuals into employment in high-
     growth, high-wage industries;
       ``(I) increase integration between training providers, 
     businesses, and the one-stop delivery system to meet the 
     training needs of particular industries.
       ``(4) Reports.--The Secretary shall track and annually 
     report to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor 
     and Pensions of the Senate, on the industries receiving 
     grants under this subsection, the performance results of each 
     such grant, and the percentage and amount of grants awarded 
     to eligible entities for programs serving each of the 
     following populations: incumbent workers, dislocated workers, 
     adults, and youth.''.

     SEC. 126. NATIONAL DISLOCATED WORKER GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 173 (29 U.S.C. 2916) is amended--
       (1) by amending the designation and heading to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 173. NATIONAL DISLOCATED WORKER GRANTS.''; AND

       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``national emergency grants'' in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1) and inserting ``national dislocated 
     worker grants''; and
       (B) in paragraph (1), by striking ``subsection (c)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (b)''.
       (b) Administration.--Section 173 (29 U.S.C. 2918) is 
     further amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (b) and redesignating 
     subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (b) and (c), 
     respectively; and
       (2) by striking subsection (e) and redesignating 
     subsections (f) and (g) as subsection (d) and (e), 
     respectively.
       (c) Eligible Entities.--Section 173(b)(1)(B) (29 U.S.C. 
     2918(b)(1)(B)) (as redesignated by subsection (b)(1) of this 
     section) is amended by striking ``, and other entities'' and 
     all that follows and inserting a period.
       (d) Participant Eligibility for Military Spouses.--Section 
     173(b)(2)(A) (29 U.S.C. 2918(b)(2)(A)) (as redesignated by 
     subsection (b)(1) of this section) is amended--
       (1) in clause (iii), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (2) in clause (iv)(IV) by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (3) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(v) is the spouse of a member of the Armed Forces who is 
     on active duty or full-time National Guard duty, or who was 
     recently separated from such duties, and such spouse is in 
     need of employment and training assistance to obtain or 
     retain employment.''.
       (e) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1(b) is amended by amending the item related to section 173 
     to read as follows:

``Sec. 173. National dislocated worker grants.''.

     SEC. 127. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATIONAL 
                   ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 174(a)(1) (29 U.S.C. 2919(a)(1)) 
     is amended by striking ``1999 through 2003'' and inserting 
     ``2006 through 2011''.
       (b) Reservations.--Section 174(b) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) Technical Assistance; Demonstration and Pilot 
     Projects; Evaluations; Incentive Grants.--
       ``(1) Demonstration and pilot projects.--
       ``(A) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out section 171, $211,000,000 for fiscal year 2006 
     and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2007 
     through 2011.
       ``(B) Reservation for community-based job training.--Of the 
     amount appropriated pursuant to subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary shall reserve up to $125,000,000 for carrying out 
     section 171(d).
       ``(2) Technical assistance, evaluations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 170, 
     section 172, and section 136 such sums as may be necessary 
     for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2011.''.

     SEC. 128. REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 181(c)(2)(A) (29 U.S.C. 
     2931(c)(2)(A)) is amended in the matter preceding clause (i) 
     by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may''.
       (b) Limitations.--Section 181(e) (29 U.S.C. 2931(e)) is 
     amended by striking ``training for'' and inserting ``the 
     entry into employment, retention in employment, or increases 
     in earnings of''.
       (c) Reports to Congress.--Section 185(e)(2) (29 U.S.C. 
     2935(e)(2)) is amended by inserting ``and the Secretary shall 
     submit to the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate,'' after 
     ``Secretary,''.

     SEC. 129. NONDISCRIMINATION.

       Section 188(a)(2) (29 U.S.C. 2931(a)(2)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(2) Prohibition of discrimination regarding 
     participation, benefits, and employment.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     no individual shall be excluded from participation in, denied 
     the benefits of, subjected to discrimination under, or denied 
     employment in the administration of or in connection with, 
     any such program or activity because of race, color, 
     religion, sex (except as otherwise permitted under title IX 
     of the Education Amendments of 1972), national origin, age, 
     disability, or political affiliation or belief.
       ``(B) Exemption for religious organizations.--Subparagraph 
     (A) shall not apply to a recipient of financial assistance 
     under this title that is a religious corporation, 
     association, educational institution, or society, with 
     respect to the employment of individuals of a particular 
     religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by 
     such corporation, association, educational institution, or 
     society of its activities. Such recipients shall comply with 
     the other requirements contained in subparagraph (A).''.

     SEC. 130. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Program Year.--Section 189(g)(1) (29 U.S.C. 2939(g)(1)) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--Appropriations for any fiscal year for 
     programs and activities carried out under this title shall be 
     available for obligation only on the basis of a program year. 
     The program year shall begin on July 1 in the fiscal year for 
     which the appropriation is made.''.
       (b) Availability.--Section 189(g)(2) (29 U.S.C. 2939(g)(2)) 
     is amended by striking ``each State'' and inserting ``each 
     recipient''.
       (c) General Waivers.--Section 189(i)(4) (29 U.S.C. 
     2939(i)(4)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), in the matter preceding clause 
     (i), by inserting ``, or in accordance with subparagraph 
     (D)'' after ``subparagraph (B)''; and
       (2) by adding the following subparagraph:

[[Page 3268]]

       ``(D) Expedited process for extending approved waivers to 
     additional states.--In lieu of the requirements of 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C), the Secretary may establish an 
     expedited procedure for the purpose of extending to 
     additional States the waiver of statutory or regulatory 
     requirements that have been approved for a State pursuant to 
     a request under subparagraph (B). Such procedure shall ensure 
     that the extension of such waivers to additional States are 
     accompanied by appropriate conditions relating the 
     implementation of such waivers.''.

     SEC. 131. GENERAL PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 195 (29 U.S.C. 2945) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(14) Funds provided under this title shall not be used to 
     establish or operate stand-alone fee-for-service enterprises 
     that compete with private sector employment agencies within 
     the meaning of section 701(c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
     (42 U.S.C. 2000e(c)). For purposes of this paragraph, such an 
     enterprise does not include one-stop centers.
       ``(15) Any report required to be submitted to Congress, or 
     to a Committee of Congress, under this title shall be 
     submitted to both the chairmen and ranking minority members 
     of the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions of the Senate.''.

 TITLE II--ADULT EDUCATION, BASIC SKILLS, AND FAMILY LITERACY EDUCATION

     SEC. 201. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents in section 1(b) is amended by 
     amending the items relating to title II to read as follows:

    ``TITLE II--ADULT EDUCATION, BASIC SKILLS, AND FAMILY LITERACY 
                               EDUCATION

``Sec. 201. Short title.
``Sec. 202. Purpose.
``Sec. 203. Definitions.
``Sec. 204. Home schools.
``Sec. 205. Authorization of appropriations.

                    ``Chapter 1--Federal Provisions

``Sec. 211. Reservation of funds; grants to eligible agencies; 
              allotments.
``Sec. 212. Performance accountability system.
``Sec. 213. Incentive grants for States.

                     ``Chapter 2--State Provisions

``Sec. 221. State administration.
``Sec. 222. State distribution of funds; matching requirement.
``Sec. 223. State leadership activities.
``Sec. 224. State plan.
``Sec. 225. Programs for corrections education and other 
              institutionalized individuals.

                     ``Chapter 3--Local Provisions

``Sec. 231. Grants and contracts for eligible providers.
``Sec. 232. Local application.
``Sec. 233. Local administrative cost limits.

                    ``Chapter 4--General Provisions

``Sec. 241. Administrative provisions.
``Sec. 242. National Institute for Literacy.
``Sec. 243. National leadership activities.''.

     SEC. 202. AMENDMENT.

       Title II (29 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.) is amended to read as 
     follows:

    ``TITLE II--ADULT EDUCATION, BASIC SKILLS, AND FAMILY LITERACY 
                               EDUCATION

     ``SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       ``This title may be cited as the `Adult Education, Basic 
     Skills, and Family Literacy Education Act'.

     ``SEC. 202. PURPOSE.

       ``It is the purpose of this title to provide instructional 
     opportunities for adults seeking to improve their literacy 
     skills, including their basic reading, writing, speaking, and 
     math skills, and support States and local communities in 
     providing, on a voluntary basis, adult education, basic 
     skills, and family literacy education programs, in order to--
       ``(1) increase the literacy of adults, including the basic 
     reading, writing, speaking, and math skills, to a level of 
     proficiency necessary for adults to obtain employment and 
     self-sufficiency and to successfully advance in the 
     workforce;
       ``(2) assist adults in the completion of a secondary school 
     education (or its equivalent) and the transition to a 
     postsecondary educational institution;
       ``(3) assist adults who are parents to enable them to 
     support the educational development of their children and 
     make informed choices regarding their children's education 
     including, through instruction in basic reading, writing, 
     speaking, and math skills; and
       ``(4) assist immigrants who are not proficient in English 
     in improving their reading, writing, speaking, and math 
     skills and acquiring an understanding of the American free 
     enterprise system, individual freedom, and the 
     responsibilities of citizenship.

     ``SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title:
       ``(1) Adult education, basic skills, and family literacy 
     education programs.--The term `adult education, basic skills, 
     and family literacy education programs' means a sequence of 
     academic instruction and educational services below the 
     postsecondary level that increase an individual's ability to 
     read, write, and speak in English and perform mathematical 
     computations leading to a level of proficiency equivalent to 
     at least a secondary school completion that is provided for 
     individuals--
       ``(A) who are at least 16 years of age;
       ``(B) who are not enrolled or required to be enrolled in 
     secondary school under State law; and
       ``(C) who--
       ``(i) lack sufficient mastery of basic reading, writing, 
     speaking, and math skills to enable the individuals to 
     function effectively in society;
       ``(ii) do not have a secondary school diploma, General 
     Educational Development credential (GED), or other State-
     recognized equivalent and have not achieved an equivalent 
     level of education; or
       ``(iii) are unable to read, write, or speak the English 
     language.
       ``(2) Eligible agency.--The term `eligible agency'--
       ``(A) means the primary entity or agency in a State or an 
     outlying area responsible for administering or supervising 
     policy for adult education, basic skills, and family literacy 
     education programs in the State or outlying area, 
     respectively, consistent with the law of the State or 
     outlying area, respectively; and
       ``(B) may be the State educational agency, the State agency 
     responsible for administering workforce investment 
     activities, or the State agency responsible for administering 
     community or technical colleges.
       ``(3) Eligible provider.--The term `eligible provider' 
     means--
       ``(A) a local educational agency;
       ``(B) a community-based or faith-based organization of 
     demonstrated effectiveness;
       ``(C) a volunteer literacy organization of demonstrated 
     effectiveness;
       ``(D) an institution of higher education;
       ``(E) a public or private educational agency;
       ``(F) a library;
       ``(G) a public housing authority;
       ``(H) an institution that is not described in any of 
     subparagraphs (A) through (G) and has the ability to provide 
     adult education, basic skills, and family literacy education 
     programs to adults and families; or
       ``(I) a consortium of the agencies, organizations, 
     institutions, libraries, or authorities described in any of 
     subparagraphs (A) through (H).
       ``(4) English language acquisition program.--The term 
     `English language acquisition program' means a program of 
     instruction designed to help individuals with limited English 
     proficiency achieve competence in reading, writing, and 
     speaking the English language.
       ``(5) Essential components of reading instruction.--The 
     term `essential components of reading instruction' has the 
     meaning given to that term in section 1208 of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965.
       ``(6) Family literacy education program.--The term `family 
     literacy education program' means an educational program 
     that--
       ``(A) assists parents and students, on a voluntary basis, 
     in achieving the purposes of this title as described in 
     section 202; and
       ``(B) is of sufficient intensity in terms of hours and of 
     sufficient duration to make sustainable changes in a family, 
     is based upon scientific research-based principles, and, for 
     the purpose of substantially increasing the ability of 
     parents and children to read, write, and speak English, 
     integrates--
       ``(i) interactive literacy activities between parents and 
     their children;
       ``(ii) training for parents regarding how to be the primary 
     teacher for their children and full partners in the education 
     of their children;
       ``(iii) parent literacy training that leads to economic 
     self-sufficiency; and
       ``(iv) an age-appropriate education to prepare children for 
     success in school and life experiences.
       ``(7) Governor.--The term `Governor' means the chief 
     executive officer of a State or outlying area.
       ``(8) Individual with a disability.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `individual with a disability' 
     means an individual with any disability (as defined in 
     section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).
       ``(B) Individuals with disabilities.--The term `individuals 
     with disabilities' means more than one individual with a 
     disability.
       ``(9) Individual with limited english proficiency.--The 
     term `individual with limited English proficiency' means an 
     adult or out-of-school youth who has limited ability in 
     reading, writing, speaking, or understanding the English 
     language, and--
       ``(A) whose native language is a language other than 
     English; or
       ``(B) who lives in a family or community environment where 
     a language other than English is the dominant language.
       ``(10) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     `institution of higher education' has the meaning given to 
     that term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
       ``(11) Literacy.--The term `literacy' means an individual's 
     ability to read, write, and speak in English, compute, and 
     solve problems at a level of proficiency necessary to obtain 
     employment and to successfully make the transition to 
     postsecondary education.
       ``(12) Local educational agency.--The term `local 
     educational agency' has the meaning given to that term in 
     section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965.
       ``(13) Outlying area.--The term `outlying area' has the 
     meaning given to that term in section 101 of this Act.
       ``(14) Postsecondary educational institution.--The term 
     `postsecondary educational institution' means--
       ``(A) an institution of higher education that provides not 
     less than a 2-year program of instruction that is acceptable 
     for credit toward a bachelor's degree;

[[Page 3269]]

       ``(B) a tribally controlled community college; or
       ``(C) a nonprofit educational institution offering 
     certificate or apprenticeship programs at the postsecondary 
     level.
       ``(15) Reading.--The term `reading' has the meaning given 
     to that term in section 1208 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       ``(16) Scientifically based research.--The term 
     `scientifically based research' has the meaning given to that 
     term in section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965.
       ``(17) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       ``(18) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and 
     the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
       ``(19) State educational agency.--The term `State 
     educational agency' has the meaning given to that term in 
     section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965.
       ``(20) Workplace literacy program.--The term `workplace 
     literacy program' means an educational program that is 
     offered in collaboration between eligible providers and 
     employers or employee organizations for the purpose of 
     improving the productivity of the workforce through the 
     improvement of reading, writing, speaking, and math skills.

     ``SEC. 204. HOME SCHOOLS.

       ``Nothing in this title shall be construed to affect home 
     schools, whether or not a home school is treated as a home 
     school or a private school under State law, or to compel a 
     parent engaged in home schooling to participate in an English 
     language acquisition program, a family literacy education 
     program, or an adult education, basic skills, and family 
     literacy education program.

     ``SEC. 205. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title $590,127,000 for fiscal year 2006 and such sums as may 
     be necessary for fiscal years 2007 through 2011.

                    ``CHAPTER 1--FEDERAL PROVISIONS

     ``SEC. 211. RESERVATION OF FUNDS; GRANTS TO ELIGIBLE 
                   AGENCIES; ALLOTMENTS.

       ``(a) Reservation of Funds.--From the sums appropriated 
     under section 205 for a fiscal year, the Secretary--
       ``(1) shall reserve up to 1.72 percent for incentive grants 
     under section 213;
       ``(2) shall reserve 1.75 percent to carry out section 242; 
     and
       ``(3) shall reserve up to 1.55 percent to carry out section 
     243.
       ``(b) Grants to Eligible Agencies.--
       ``(1) In general.--From the sums appropriated under section 
     205 and not reserved under subsection (a) for a fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall award a grant to each eligible agency 
     having a State plan approved under section 224 in an amount 
     equal to the sum of the initial allotment under subsection 
     (c)(1) and the additional allotment under subsection (c)(2) 
     for the eligible agency for the fiscal year, subject to 
     subsections (f) and (g).
       ``(2) Purpose of grants.--The Secretary may award a grant 
     under paragraph (1) only if the eligible agency involved 
     agrees to expend the grant in accordance with the provisions 
     of this title.
       ``(c) Allotments.--
       ``(1) Initial allotments.--From the sums appropriated under 
     section 205 and not reserved under subsection (a) for a 
     fiscal year, the Secretary shall allot to each eligible 
     agency having a State plan approved under section 224--
       ``(A) $100,000, in the case of an eligible agency serving 
     an outlying area; and
       ``(B) $250,000, in the case of any other eligible agency.
       ``(2) Additional allotments.--From the sums appropriated 
     under section 205, not reserved under subsection (a), and not 
     allotted under paragraph (1), for a fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall allot to each eligible agency that receives 
     an initial allotment under paragraph (1) an additional amount 
     that bears the same relationship to such sums as the number 
     of qualifying adults in the State or outlying area served by 
     the eligible agency bears to the number of such adults in all 
     States and outlying areas.
       ``(d) Qualifying Adult.--For the purpose of subsection 
     (c)(2), the term `qualifying adult' means an adult who--
       ``(1) is at least 16 years of age;
       ``(2) is beyond the age of compulsory school attendance 
     under the law of the State or outlying area;
       ``(3) does not have a secondary school diploma, General 
     Educational Development credential (GED), or other State-
     recognized equivalent; and
       ``(4) is not enrolled in secondary school.
       ``(e) Special Rule.--
       ``(1) In general.--From amounts made available under 
     subsection (c) for the Republic of Palau, the Secretary shall 
     award grants to Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, or the Republic of Palau to carry 
     out activities described in this title in accordance with the 
     provisions of this title as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(2) Termination of eligibility.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Republic of Palau shall be 
     eligible to receive a grant under this title until an 
     agreement for the extension of United States education 
     assistance under the Compact of Free Association for the 
     Republic of Palau becomes effective.
       ``(3) Administrative costs.--The Secretary may provide not 
     more than 5 percent of the funds made available for grants 
     under this subsection to pay the administrative costs of the 
     Pacific Region Educational Laboratory regarding activities 
     assisted under this subsection.
       ``(f) Hold-Harmless Provisions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), and 
     subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), for fiscal year 2006 and 
     each succeeding fiscal year, no eligible agency shall receive 
     an allotment under this title that is less than 90 percent of 
     the allotment the eligible agency received for the preceding 
     fiscal year under this title.
       ``(2) Exception.--An eligible agency that receives for the 
     preceding fiscal year only an initial allotment under 
     subsection (c)(1) (and no additional allotment under 
     subsection (c)(2)) shall receive an allotment equal to 100 
     percent of the initial allotment.
       ``(3) Ratable reduction.--If for any fiscal year the amount 
     available for allotment under this title is insufficient to 
     satisfy the provisions of paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     ratably reduce the payments to all eligible agencies, as 
     necessary.
       ``(g) Reallotment.--The portion of any eligible agency's 
     allotment under this title for a fiscal year that the 
     Secretary determines will not be required for the period such 
     allotment is available for carrying out activities under this 
     title, shall be available for reallotment from time to time, 
     on such dates during such period as the Secretary shall fix, 
     to other eligible agencies in proportion to the original 
     allotments to such agencies under this title for such year.

     ``SEC. 212. PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to establish 
     a comprehensive performance accountability system, composed 
     of the activities described in this section, to assess the 
     effectiveness of eligible agencies in achieving continuous 
     improvement of adult education, basic skills, and family 
     literacy education programs funded under this title, in order 
     to optimize the return on investment of Federal funds in 
     adult education, basic skills, and family literacy education 
     programs.
       ``(b) Eligible Agency Performance Measures.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each eligible agency, the eligible 
     agency performance measures shall consist of--
       ``(A)(i) the core indicators of performance described in 
     paragraph (2)(A); and
       ``(ii) employment performance indicators identified by the 
     eligible agency under paragraph (2)(B); and
       ``(B) an eligible agency adjusted level of performance for 
     each indicator described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Indicators of performance.--
       ``(A) Core indicators of performance.--The core indicators 
     of performance shall include the following:
       ``(i) Measurable improvements in literacy, including basic 
     skill levels in reading, writing, and speaking the English 
     language and basic math, leading to proficiency in each 
     skill.
       ``(ii) Receipt of a secondary school diploma, General 
     Educational Development credential (GED), or other State-
     recognized equivalent.
       ``(iii) Placement in postsecondary education or other 
     training programs.
       ``(B) Employment performance indicators.--Consistent with 
     applicable Federal and State privacy laws, an eligible agency 
     shall identify in the State plan the following individual 
     participant employment performance indicators:
       ``(i) Entry into employment.
       ``(ii) Retention in employment.
       ``(iii) Increase in earnings.
       ``(3) Levels of performance.--
       ``(A) Eligible agency adjusted levels of performance for 
     core indicators.--
       ``(i) In general.--For each eligible agency submitting a 
     State plan, there shall be established, in accordance with 
     this subparagraph, levels of performance for each of the core 
     indicators of performance described in paragraph (2)(A) for 
     adult education, basic skills, and family literacy education 
     programs authorized under this title. The levels of 
     performance established under this subparagraph shall, at a 
     minimum--

       ``(I) be expressed in an objective, quantifiable, and 
     measurable form; and
       ``(II) show the progress of the eligible agency toward 
     continuously and significantly improving the agency's 
     performance outcomes in an objective, quantifiable, and 
     measurable form.

       ``(ii) Identification in state plan.--Each eligible agency 
     shall identify, in the State plan submitted under section 
     224, expected levels of performance for each of the core 
     indicators of performance for the first 3 program years 
     covered by the State plan.
       ``(iii) Agreement on eligible agency adjusted levels of 
     performance for first 3 years.--In order to ensure an optimal 
     return on the investment of Federal funds in adult education, 
     basic skills, and family literacy education programs 
     authorized under this title, the Secretary and each eligible 
     agency shall reach agreement on levels of student performance 
     for each of the core indicators of performance, for the first 
     3 program years covered by the State plan, taking into 
     account the levels identified in the State plan under clause 
     (ii) and the factors described in clause (iv). The levels 
     agreed to under this clause shall be considered to be the 
     eligible agency adjusted levels of performance for the 
     eligible agency for such years and shall be incorporated into 
     the State plan prior to the approval of such plan.
       ``(iv) Factors.--The agreement described in clause (iii) or 
     (v) shall take into account--

[[Page 3270]]

       ``(I) how the levels involved compare with the eligible 
     agency's adjusted levels of performance, taking into account 
     factors including the characteristics of participants when 
     the participants entered the program; and
       ``(II) the extent to which such levels promote continuous 
     and significant improvement in performance on the student 
     proficiency measures used by such eligible agency and ensure 
     optimal return on the investment of Federal funds.

       ``(v) Agreement on eligible agency adjusted levels of 
     performance for second 3 years.--Prior to the fourth program 
     year covered by the State plan, the Secretary and each 
     eligible agency shall reach agreement on levels of student 
     performance for each of the core indicators of performance 
     for the fourth, fifth, and sixth program years covered by the 
     State plan, taking into account the factors described in 
     clause (iv). The levels agreed to under this clause shall be 
     considered to be the eligible agency adjusted levels of 
     performance for the eligible agency for such years and shall 
     be incorporated into the State plan.
       ``(vi) Revisions.--If unanticipated circumstances arise in 
     a State resulting in a significant change in the factors 
     described in clause (iv)(I), the eligible agency may request 
     that the eligible agency adjusted levels of performance 
     agreed to under clause (iii) or (v) be revised.
       ``(B) Levels of employment performance.--The eligible 
     agency shall identify, in the State plan, eligible agency 
     levels of performance for each of the employment performance 
     indicators described in paragraph (2)(B). Such levels shall 
     be considered to be eligible agency adjusted levels of 
     performance for purposes of this title.
       ``(c) Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each eligible agency that receives a 
     grant under section 211(b) shall annually prepare and submit 
     to the Secretary, the Governor, the State legislature, and 
     eligible providers a report on the progress of the eligible 
     agency in achieving eligible agency performance measures, 
     including the following:
       ``(A) Information on the levels of performance achieved by 
     the eligible agency with respect to the core indicators of 
     performance and employment performance indicators.
       ``(B) The number and type of each eligible provider that 
     receives funding under such grant.
       ``(2) Information dissemination.--The Secretary--
       ``(A) shall make the information contained in such reports 
     available to the general public through publication 
     (including on the Internet site of the Department of 
     Education) and other appropriate methods;
       ``(B) shall disseminate State-by-State comparisons of the 
     information; and
       ``(C) shall provide the appropriate committees of the 
     Congress with copies of such reports.

     ``SEC. 213. INCENTIVE GRANTS FOR STATES.

       ``(a) In General.--From funds appropriated under section 
     211(a)(1), the Secretary may award grants to States for 
     exemplary performance in carrying out programs under this 
     title. Such awards shall be based on States exceeding the 
     core indicators of performance established under section 
     212(b)(2)(A) and may be based on the performance of the State 
     in serving populations, such as those described in section 
     224(b)(10), including the levels of service provided and the 
     performance outcomes, and such other factors relating to the 
     performance of the State under this title as the Secretary 
     determines appropriate.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--The funds awarded to a State under 
     this paragraph may be used to carry out any activities 
     authorized under this title, including demonstrations and 
     innovative programs for hard-to-serve populations.

                     ``CHAPTER 2--STATE PROVISIONS

     ``SEC. 221. STATE ADMINISTRATION.

       ``Each eligible agency shall be responsible for the 
     following activities under this title:
       ``(1) The development, submission, implementation, and 
     monitoring of the State plan.
       ``(2) Consultation with other appropriate agencies, groups, 
     and individuals that are involved in, or interested in, the 
     development and implementation of activities assisted under 
     this title.
       ``(3) Coordination and avoidance of duplication with other 
     Federal and State education, training, corrections, public 
     housing, and social service programs.

     ``SEC. 222. STATE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS; MATCHING 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       ``(a) State Distribution of Funds.--Each eligible agency 
     receiving a grant under this title for a fiscal year--
       ``(1) shall use an amount not less than 82.5 percent of the 
     grant funds to award grants and contracts under section 231 
     and to carry out section 225, of which not more than 10 
     percent of such amount shall be available to carry out 
     section 225;
       ``(2) shall use not more than 12.5 percent of the grant 
     funds to carry out State leadership activities under section 
     223; and
       ``(3) shall use not more than 5 percent of the grant funds, 
     or $75,000, whichever is greater, for the administrative 
     expenses of the eligible agency.
       ``(b) Matching Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to receive a grant from the 
     Secretary under section 211(b), each eligible agency shall 
     provide, for the costs to be incurred by the eligible agency 
     in carrying out the adult education, basic skills, and family 
     literacy education programs for which the grant is awarded, a 
     non-Federal contribution in an amount at least equal to--
       ``(A) in the case of an eligible agency serving an outlying 
     area, 12 percent of the total amount of funds expended for 
     adult education, basic skills, and family literacy education 
     programs in the outlying area, except that the Secretary may 
     decrease the amount of funds required under this subparagraph 
     for an eligible agency; and
       ``(B) in the case of an eligible agency serving a State, 25 
     percent of the total amount of funds expended for adult 
     education, basic skills, and family literacy education 
     programs in the State.
       ``(2) Non-federal contribution.--An eligible agency's non-
     Federal contribution required under paragraph (1) may be 
     provided in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, and shall 
     include only non-Federal funds that are used for adult 
     education, basic skills, and family literacy education 
     programs in a manner that is consistent with the purpose of 
     this title.

     ``SEC. 223. STATE LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--Each eligible agency may use funds made 
     available under section 222(a)(2) for any of the following 
     adult education, basic skills, and family literacy education 
     programs:
       ``(1) The establishment or operation of professional 
     development programs to improve the quality of instruction 
     provided pursuant to local activities required under section 
     231(b), including instruction incorporating the essential 
     components of reading instruction and instruction provided by 
     volunteers or by personnel of a State or outlying area.
       ``(2) The provision of technical assistance to eligible 
     providers of adult education, basic skills, and family 
     literacy education programs, including for the development 
     and dissemination of scientifically based research 
     instructional practices in reading, writing, speaking, math, 
     and English language acquisition programs.
       ``(3) The provision of assistance to eligible providers in 
     developing, implementing, and reporting measurable progress 
     in achieving the objectives of this title.
       ``(4) The provision of technology assistance, including 
     staff training, to eligible providers of adult education, 
     basic skills, and family literacy education programs, 
     including distance learning activities, to enable the 
     eligible providers to improve the quality of such activities.
       ``(5) The development and implementation of technology 
     applications or distance learning, including professional 
     development to support the use of instructional technology.
       ``(6) Coordination with other public programs, including 
     welfare-to-work, workforce development, and job training 
     programs.
       ``(7) Coordination with existing support services, such as 
     transportation, child care, and other assistance designed to 
     increase rates of enrollment in, and successful completion 
     of, adult education, basic skills, and family literacy 
     education programs, for adults enrolled in such activities.
       ``(8) The development and implementation of a system to 
     assist in the transition from adult basic education to 
     postsecondary education.
       ``(9) Activities to promote workplace literacy programs.
       ``(10) Activities to promote and complement local outreach 
     initiatives described in section 243(7).
       ``(11) Other activities of statewide significance, 
     including assisting eligible providers in achieving progress 
     in improving the skill levels of adults who participate in 
     programs under this title.
       ``(12) Integration of literacy, instructional, and 
     occupational skill training and promotion of linkages with 
     employees.
       ``(b) Coordination.--In carrying out this section, eligible 
     agencies shall coordinate where possible, and avoid 
     duplicating efforts, in order to maximize the impact of the 
     activities described in subsection (a).
       ``(c) State-Imposed Requirements.--Whenever a State or 
     outlying area implements any rule or policy relating to the 
     administration or operation of a program authorized under 
     this title that has the effect of imposing a requirement that 
     is not imposed under Federal law (including any rule or 
     policy based on a State or outlying area interpretation of a 
     Federal statute, regulation, or guideline), the State or 
     outlying area shall identify, to eligible providers, the rule 
     or policy as being imposed by the State or outlying area.

     ``SEC. 224. STATE PLAN.

       ``(a) 6-Year Plans.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each eligible agency desiring a grant 
     under this title for any fiscal year shall submit to, or have 
     on file with, the Secretary a 6-year State plan.
       ``(2) Comprehensive plan or application.--The eligible 
     agency may submit the State plan as part of a comprehensive 
     plan or application for Federal education assistance.
       ``(b) Plan Contents.--The eligible agency shall include in 
     the State plan or any revisions to the State plan--
       ``(1) an objective assessment of the needs of individuals 
     in the State or outlying area for adult education, basic 
     skills, and family literacy education programs, including 
     individuals most in need or hardest to serve;
       ``(2) a description of the adult education, basic skills, 
     and family literacy education programs that will be carried 
     out with funds received under this title;
       ``(3) a description of how the eligible agency will 
     evaluate and measure annually the effectiveness and 
     improvement of the adult education, basic skills, and family 
     literacy education programs based on the performance measures 
     described in section 212 including--
       ``(A) how the eligible agency will evaluate and measure 
     annually such effectiveness on a grant-by-grant basis; and

[[Page 3271]]

       ``(B) how the eligible agency--
       ``(i) will hold eligible providers accountable regarding 
     the progress of such providers in improving the academic 
     achievement of participants in adult education programs under 
     this title and regarding the core indicators of performance 
     described in section 212(b)(2)(A); and
       ``(ii) will use technical assistance, sanctions, and 
     rewards (including allocation of grant funds based on 
     performance and termination of grant funds based on 
     nonperformance);
       ``(4) a description of the performance measures described 
     in section 212 and how such performance measures have 
     significantly improved adult education, basic skills, and 
     family literacy education programs in the State or outlying 
     area;
       ``(5) an assurance that the eligible agency will, in 
     addition to meeting all of the other requirements of this 
     title, award not less than one grant under this title to an 
     eligible provider that--
       ``(A) offers flexible schedules and necessary support 
     services (such as child care and transportation) to enable 
     individuals, including individuals with disabilities, or 
     individuals with other special needs, to participate in adult 
     education, basic skills, and family literacy education 
     programs; and
       ``(B) attempts to coordinate with support services that are 
     not provided under this title prior to using funds for adult 
     education, basic skills, and family literacy education 
     programs provided under this title for support services;
       ``(6) an assurance that the funds received under this title 
     will not be expended for any purpose other than for 
     activities under this title;
       ``(7) a description of how the eligible agency will fund 
     local activities in accordance with the measurable goals 
     described in section 231(d);
       ``(8) an assurance that the eligible agency will expend the 
     funds under this title only in a manner consistent with 
     fiscal requirements in section 241;
       ``(9) a description of the process that will be used for 
     public participation and comment with respect to the State 
     plan, which process--
       ``(A) shall include consultation with the State workforce 
     investment board, the State board responsible for 
     administering community or technical colleges, the Governor, 
     the State educational agency, the State board or agency 
     responsible for administering block grants for temporary 
     assistance to needy families under title IV of the Social 
     Security Act, the State council on disabilities, the State 
     vocational rehabilitation agency, other State agencies that 
     promote the improvement of adult education, basic skills, and 
     family literacy education programs, and direct providers of 
     such programs; and
       ``(B) may include consultation with the State agency on 
     higher education, institutions responsible for professional 
     development of adult education, basic skills, and family 
     literacy education programs instructors, representatives of 
     business and industry, refugee assistance programs, and 
     faith-based organizations;
       ``(10) a description of the eligible agency's strategies 
     for serving populations that include, at a minimum--
       ``(A) low-income individuals;
       ``(B) individuals with disabilities;
       ``(C) the unemployed;
       ``(D) the underemployed; and
       ``(E) individuals with multiple barriers to educational 
     enhancement, including individuals with limited English 
     proficiency;
       ``(11) a description of how the adult education, basic 
     skills, and family literacy education programs that will be 
     carried out with any funds received under this title will be 
     integrated with other adult education, career development, 
     and employment and training activities in the State or 
     outlying area served by the eligible agency;
       ``(12) a description of the steps the eligible agency will 
     take to ensure direct and equitable access, as required in 
     section 231(c)(1), including--
       ``(A) how the State will build the capacity of community-
     based and faith-based organizations to provide adult 
     education, basic skills, and family literacy education 
     programs; and
       ``(B) how the State will increase the participation of 
     business and industry in adult education, basic skills, and 
     family literacy education programs;
       ``(13) an assessment of the adequacy of the system of the 
     State or outlying area to ensure teacher quality and a 
     description of how the State or outlying area will use funds 
     received under this subtitle to improve teacher quality, 
     including professional development on the use of 
     scientifically based research to improve instruction; and
       ``(14) a description of how the eligible agency will 
     consult with any State agency responsible for postsecondary 
     education to develop adult education that prepares students 
     to enter postsecondary education without the need for 
     remediation upon completion of secondary school equivalency 
     programs.
       ``(c) Plan Revisions.--When changes in conditions or other 
     factors require substantial revisions to an approved State 
     plan, the eligible agency shall submit the revisions of the 
     State plan to the Secretary.
       ``(d) Consultation.--The eligible agency shall--
       ``(1) submit the State plan, and any revisions to the State 
     plan, to the Governor, the chief State school officer, or the 
     State officer responsible for administering community or 
     technical colleges, or outlying area for review and comment; 
     and
       ``(2) ensure that any comments regarding the State plan by 
     the Governor, the chief State school officer, or the State 
     officer responsible for administering community or technical 
     colleges, and any revision to the State plan, are submitted 
     to the Secretary.
       ``(e) Plan Approval.--A State plan submitted to the 
     Secretary shall be approved by the Secretary only if the plan 
     is consistent with the specific provisions of this title.

     ``SEC. 225. PROGRAMS FOR CORRECTIONS EDUCATION AND OTHER 
                   INSTITUTIONALIZED INDIVIDUALS.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--From funds made available under 
     section 222(a)(1) for a fiscal year, each eligible agency 
     shall carry out corrections education and education for other 
     institutionalized individuals.
       ``(b) Uses of Funds.--The funds described in subsection (a) 
     shall be used for the cost of educational programs for 
     criminal offenders in correctional institutions and for other 
     institutionalized individuals, including academic programs 
     for--
       ``(1) basic skills education;
       ``(2) special education programs as determined by the 
     eligible agency;
       ``(3) reading, writing, speaking, and math programs; and
       ``(4) secondary school credit or diploma programs or their 
     recognized equivalent.
       ``(c) Priority.--Each eligible agency that is using 
     assistance provided under this section to carry out a program 
     for criminal offenders within a correctional institution 
     shall give priority to serving individuals who are likely to 
     leave the correctional institution within 5 years of 
     participation in the program.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Correctional institution.--The term `correctional 
     institution' means any--
       ``(A) prison;
       ``(B) jail;
       ``(C) reformatory;
       ``(D) work farm;
       ``(E) detention center; or
       ``(F) halfway house, community-based rehabilitation center, 
     or any other similar institution designed for the confinement 
     or rehabilitation of criminal offenders.
       ``(2) Criminal offender.--The term `criminal offender' 
     means any individual who is charged with, or convicted of, 
     any criminal offense.

                     ``CHAPTER 3--LOCAL PROVISIONS

     ``SEC. 231. GRANTS AND CONTRACTS FOR ELIGIBLE PROVIDERS.

       ``(a) Grants and Contracts.--From grant funds made 
     available under section 211(b), each eligible agency shall 
     award multiyear grants or contracts, on a competitive basis, 
     to eligible providers within the State or outlying area that 
     meet the conditions and requirements of this title to enable 
     the eligible providers to develop, implement, and improve 
     adult education, basic skills, and family literacy education 
     programs within the State.
       ``(b) Local Activities.--The eligible agency shall require 
     eligible providers receiving a grant or contract under 
     subsection (a) to establish or operate one or more programs 
     of instruction that provide services or instruction in one or 
     more of the following categories:
       ``(1) Adult education, basic skills, and family literacy 
     education programs (including proficiency in reading, 
     writing, speaking, and math).
       ``(2) Workplace literacy programs.
       ``(3) English language acquisition programs.
       ``(4) Family literacy education programs.
       ``(c) Direct and Equitable Access; Same Process.--Each 
     eligible agency receiving funds under this title shall ensure 
     that--
       ``(1) all eligible providers have direct and equitable 
     access to apply for grants or contracts under this section; 
     and
       ``(2) the same grant or contract announcement process and 
     application process is used for all eligible providers in the 
     State or outlying area.
       ``(d) Measurable Goals.--The eligible agency shall require 
     eligible providers receiving a grant or contract under 
     subsection (a) to demonstrate--
       ``(1) the eligible provider's measurable goals for 
     participant outcomes to be achieved annually on the core 
     indicators of performance and employment performance 
     indicators described in section 212(b)(2);
       ``(2) the past effectiveness of the eligible provider in 
     improving the basic academic skills of adults and, for 
     eligible providers receiving grants in the prior year, the 
     success of the eligible provider receiving funding under this 
     title in exceeding its performance goals in the prior year;
       ``(3) the commitment of the eligible provider to serve 
     individuals in the community who are the most in need of 
     basic academic skills instruction services, including 
     individuals who are low-income or have minimal reading, 
     writing, speaking, and math skills, or limited English 
     proficiency;
       ``(4) the program--
       ``(A) is of sufficient intensity and duration for 
     participants to achieve substantial learning gains; and
       ``(B) uses instructional practices that include the 
     essential components of reading instruction;
       ``(5) educational practices are based on scientifically 
     based research;
       ``(6) the activities of the eligible provider effectively 
     employ advances in technology, as appropriate, including the 
     use of computers;
       ``(7) the activities provide instruction in real-life 
     contexts, when appropriate, to ensure that an individual has 
     the skills needed to compete in the workplace and exercise 
     the rights and responsibilities of citizenship;

[[Page 3272]]

       ``(8) the activities are staffed by well-trained 
     instructors, counselors, and administrators;
       ``(9) the activities are coordinated with other available 
     resources in the community, such as through strong links with 
     elementary schools and secondary schools, postsecondary 
     educational institutions, one-stop centers, job training 
     programs, community-based and faith-based organizations, and 
     social service agencies;
       ``(10) the activities offer flexible schedules and support 
     services (such as child care and transportation) that are 
     necessary to enable individuals, including individuals with 
     disabilities or other special needs, to attend and complete 
     programs;
       ``(11) the activities include a high-quality information 
     management system that has the capacity to report measurable 
     participant outcomes and to monitor program performance 
     against the performance measures established by the eligible 
     agency;
       ``(12) the local communities have a demonstrated need for 
     additional English language acquisition programs;
       ``(13) the capacity of the eligible provider to produce 
     valid information on performance results, including 
     enrollments and measurable participant outcomes;
       ``(14) adult education, basic skills, and family literacy 
     education programs offer rigorous reading, writing, speaking, 
     and math content that are based on scientifically based 
     research; and
       ``(15) applications of technology, and services to be 
     provided by the eligible providers, are of sufficient 
     intensity and duration to increase the amount and quality of 
     learning and lead to measurable learning gains within 
     specified time periods.
       ``(e) Special Rule.--Eligible providers may use grant funds 
     under this title to serve children participating in family 
     literacy programs assisted under this part, provided that 
     other sources of funds available to provide similar services 
     for such children are used first.

     ``SEC. 232. LOCAL APPLICATION.

       ``Each eligible provider desiring a grant or contract under 
     this title shall submit an application to the eligible agency 
     containing such information and assurances as the eligible 
     agency may require, including--
       ``(1) a description of how funds awarded under this title 
     will be spent consistent with the requirements of this title;
       ``(2) a description of any cooperative arrangements the 
     eligible provider has with other agencies, institutions, or 
     organizations for the delivery of adult education, basic 
     skills, and family literacy education programs; and
       ``(3) each of the demonstrations required by section 
     231(d).

     ``SEC. 233. LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE COST LIMITS.

       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), of the amount 
     that is made available under this title to an eligible 
     provider--
       ``(1) at least 95 percent shall be expended for carrying 
     out adult education, basic skills, and family literacy 
     education programs; and
       ``(2) the remaining amount shall be used for planning, 
     administration, personnel and professional development, 
     development of measurable goals in reading, writing, 
     speaking, and math, and interagency coordination.
       ``(b) Special Rule.--In cases where the cost limits 
     described in subsection (a) are too restrictive to allow for 
     adequate planning, administration, personnel development, and 
     interagency coordination, the eligible provider may negotiate 
     with the eligible agency in order to determine an adequate 
     level of funds to be used for noninstructional purposes.

                    ``CHAPTER 4--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     ``SEC. 241. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       ``(a) Supplement not Supplant.--Funds made available for 
     adult education, basic skills, and family literacy education 
     programs under this title shall supplement and not supplant 
     other State or local public funds expended for adult 
     education, basic skills, and family literacy education 
     programs.
       ``(b) Maintenance of Effort.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Determination.--An eligible agency may receive funds 
     under this title for any fiscal year if the Secretary finds 
     that the fiscal effort per student or the aggregate 
     expenditures of such eligible agency for activities under 
     this title, in the second preceding fiscal year, were not 
     less than 90 percent of the fiscal effort per student or the 
     aggregate expenditures of such eligible agency for adult 
     education, basic skills, and family literacy education 
     programs, in the third preceding fiscal year.
       ``(B) Proportionate reduction.--Subject to paragraphs (2), 
     (3), and (4), for any fiscal year with respect to which the 
     Secretary determines under subparagraph (A) that the fiscal 
     effort or the aggregate expenditures of an eligible agency 
     for the preceding program year were less than such effort or 
     expenditures for the second preceding program year, the 
     Secretary--
       ``(i) shall determine the percentage decreases in such 
     effort or in such expenditures; and
       ``(ii) shall decrease the payment made under this title for 
     such program year to the agency for adult education, basic 
     skills, and family literacy education programs by the lesser 
     of such percentages.
       ``(2) Computation.--In computing the fiscal effort and 
     aggregate expenditures under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     shall exclude capital expenditures and special one-time 
     project costs.
       ``(3) Decrease in federal support.--If the amount made 
     available for adult education, basic skills, and family 
     literacy education programs under this title for a fiscal 
     year is less than the amount made available for adult 
     education, basic skills, and family literacy education 
     programs under this title for the preceding fiscal year, then 
     the fiscal effort per student and the aggregate expenditures 
     of an eligible agency required in order to avoid a reduction 
     under paragraph (1)(B) shall be decreased by the same 
     percentage as the percentage decrease in the amount so made 
     available.
       ``(4) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirements of 
     this subsection for not more than 1 fiscal year, if the 
     Secretary determines that a waiver would be equitable due to 
     exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, such as a 
     natural disaster or an unforeseen and precipitous decline in 
     the financial resources of the State or outlying area of the 
     eligible agency. If the Secretary grants a waiver under the 
     preceding sentence for a fiscal year, the level of effort 
     required under paragraph (1) shall not be reduced in the 
     subsequent fiscal year because of the waiver.

     ``SEC. 242. NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LITERACY.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Purpose.--The purpose of the National Institute for 
     Literacy is to promote the improvement of literacy, including 
     skills in reading, writing, and English language acquisition 
     for children, youth, and adults, through practices derived 
     from the findings of scientifically based research.
       ``(2) Establishment.--There is established a National 
     Institute for Literacy (in this section referred to as the 
     `Institute'). The Institute shall be administered under the 
     terms of an interagency agreement entered into, reviewed 
     annually, and modified as needed by the Secretary of 
     Education with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and 
     the Secretary of Labor (in this section referred to as the 
     `Interagency Group').
       ``(3) Offices.--The Institute shall have offices separate 
     from the offices of the Department of Education, the 
     Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department 
     of Labor.
       ``(4) Administrative support.--The Department of Education 
     shall provide administrative support for the Institute.
       ``(5) Daily operations.--The Director of the Institute 
     shall administer the daily operations of the Institute.
       ``(b) Duties.--
       ``(1) In general.--To carry out its purpose, the Institute 
     may--
       ``(A) identify and disseminate rigorous scientific research 
     on the effectiveness of instructional practices and 
     organizational strategies relating to programs on the 
     acquisition of skills in reading, writing, and English 
     language acquisition for children, youth, and adults;
       ``(B) create and widely disseminate materials about the 
     acquisition and application of skills in reading, writing, 
     and English language acquisition for children, youth, and 
     adults based on scientifically based research;
       ``(C) ensure a broad understanding of scientifically based 
     research on reading, writing, and English language 
     acquisition for children, youth, and adults among Federal 
     agencies with responsibilities for administering programs 
     that provide related services, including State and local 
     educational agencies;
       ``(D) facilitate coordination and information sharing among 
     national organizations and associations interested in 
     programs that provide services to improve skills in reading, 
     writing, and English language acquisition for children, 
     youth, and adults;
       ``(E) coordinate with the appropriate offices in the 
     Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human 
     Services, the Department of Labor, and other Federal agencies 
     to apply the findings of scientifically based research 
     related to programs on reading, writing, and English language 
     acquisition for children, youth, and adults;
       ``(F) establish a national electronic database and Internet 
     site describing and fostering communication on scientifically 
     based programs in reading, writing, and English language 
     acquisition for children, youth, and adults, including 
     professional development programs; and
       ``(G) provide opportunities for technical assistance, 
     meetings, and conferences that will foster increased 
     coordination among Federal, State, and local agencies and 
     entities and improvement of reading, writing, and English 
     language acquisition skills for children, youth, and adults.
       ``(2) Coordination.--In identifying scientifically based 
     research on reading, writing, and English language 
     acquisition for children, youth, and adults, the Institute 
     shall use standards for research quality that are consistent 
     with those established by the Institute of Education 
     Sciences.
       ``(3) Grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Institute may award grants to, or 
     enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with, 
     individuals, public or private institutions, agencies, 
     organizations, or consortia of such individuals, 
     institutions, agencies, or organizations, to carry out the 
     activities of the Institute.
       ``(B) Regulations.--The Director may adopt the general 
     administrative regulations of the Department of Education, as 
     applicable, for use by the Institute.
       ``(C) Relation to other laws.--The duties and powers of the 
     Institute under this title are in addition to the duties and 
     powers of the Institute under subparts 1, 2, and 3 of part B 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (commonly referred to as Reading First, Early Reading First, 
     and the William F. Goodling Even Start Family Literacy 
     Program, respectively).

[[Page 3273]]

       ``(c) Visiting Scholars.--The Institute may establish a 
     visiting scholars program, with such stipends and allowances 
     as the Director considers necessary, for outstanding 
     researchers, scholars, and individuals who--
       ``(1) have careers in adult education, workforce 
     development, or scientifically based reading, writing, or 
     English language acquisition; and
       ``(2) can assist the Institute in translating research into 
     practice and providing analysis that advances instruction in 
     the fields of reading, writing, and English language 
     acquisition for children, youth, and adults.
       ``(d) Interns and Volunteers.--The Institute, in 
     consultation with the National Institute for Literacy 
     Advisory Board, may award paid and unpaid internships to 
     individuals seeking to assist the Institute in carrying out 
     its purpose. Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United 
     States Code, the Institute may accept and use voluntary and 
     uncompensated services as the Institute determines necessary.
       ``(e) National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--
       ``(A) In general.--There shall be a National Institute for 
     Literacy Advisory Board (in this section referred to as the 
     `Board'), which shall consist of 10 individuals appointed by 
     the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
       ``(B) Qualifications.--The Board shall be composed of 
     individuals who--
       ``(i) are not otherwise officers or employees of the 
     Federal Government; and
       ``(ii) are knowledgeable about current effective 
     scientifically based research findings on instruction in 
     reading, writing, and English language acquisition for 
     children, youth, and adults.
       ``(C) Composition.--The Board may include--
       ``(i) representatives of business, industry, labor, 
     literacy organizations, adult education providers, community 
     colleges, students with disabilities, and State agencies, 
     including State directors of adult education; and
       ``(ii) individuals who, and representatives of entities 
     that, have been successful in improving skills in reading, 
     writing, and English language acquisition for children, 
     youth, and adults.
       ``(2) Duties.--The Board shall--
       ``(A) make recommendations concerning the appointment of 
     the Director of the Institute;
       ``(B) provide independent advice on the operation of the 
     Institute;
       ``(C) receive reports from the Interagency Group and the 
     Director; and
       ``(D) review the biennial report to the Congress under 
     subsection (k).
       ``(3) Federal advisory committee act.--Except as otherwise 
     provided, the Board shall be subject to the provisions of the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act.
       ``(4) Appointments.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each member of the Board shall be 
     appointed for a term of 3 years, except that the initial 
     terms for members may be 1, 2, or 3 years in order to 
     establish a rotation in which one-third of the members are 
     selected each year. Any such member may be appointed for not 
     more than 2 consecutive terms.
       ``(B) Vacancies.--Any member appointed to fill a vacancy 
     occurring before the expiration of the term for which the 
     member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only 
     for the remainder of that term. A member may serve after the 
     expiration of that member's term until a successor has taken 
     office.
       ``(5) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall 
     constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold hearings. A 
     recommendation of the Board may be passed only by a majority 
     of the Board's members present at a meeting for which there 
     is a quorum.
       ``(6) Election of officers.--The Chairperson and Vice 
     Chairperson of the Board shall be elected by the members of 
     the Board. The term of office of the Chairperson and Vice 
     Chairperson shall be 2 years.
       ``(7) Meetings.--The Board shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson or a majority of the members of the Board.
       ``(f) Gifts, Bequests, and Devises.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Institute may accept, administer, 
     and use gifts or donations of services, money, or property, 
     whether real or personal, tangible or intangible.
       ``(2) Rules.--The Board shall establish written rules 
     setting forth the criteria to be used by the Institute in 
     determining whether the acceptance of contributions of 
     services, money, or property whether real or personal, 
     tangible or intangible, would reflect unfavorably upon the 
     ability of the Institute or any employee to carry out the 
     responsibilities of the Institute or employee, or official 
     duties, in a fair and objective manner, or would compromise 
     the integrity, or the appearance of the integrity, of the 
     Institute's programs or any official involved in those 
     programs.
       ``(g) Mails.--The Board and the Institute may use the 
     United States mails in the same manner and under the same 
     conditions as other departments and agencies of the United 
     States.
       ``(h) Director.--The Secretary of Education, after 
     considering recommendations made by the Board and consulting 
     with the Interagency Group, shall appoint and fix the pay of 
     the Director of the Institute and, when necessary, shall 
     appoint an Interim Director of the Institute.
       ``(i) Applicability of Certain Civil Service Laws.--The 
     Director and staff of the Institute may be appointed without 
     regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, 
     governing appointments in the competitive service, and may be 
     paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title relating to 
     classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that an 
     individual so appointed may not receive pay in excess of the 
     annual rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule.
       ``(j) Experts and Consultants.--The Institute may procure 
     temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       ``(k) Biennial Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Institute shall submit a report 
     biennially to the Committee on Education and the Workforce of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate. Each report 
     submitted under this subsection shall include--
       ``(A) a comprehensive and detailed description of the 
     Institute's operations, activities, financial condition, and 
     accomplishments in identifying and describing programs on 
     reading, writing, and English language acquisition for 
     children, youth, and adults for the period covered by the 
     report; and
       ``(B) a description of how plans for the operation of the 
     Institute for the succeeding 2 fiscal years will facilitate 
     achievement of the purpose of the Institute.
       ``(2) First report.--The Institute shall submit its first 
     report under this subsection to the Congress not later than 1 
     year after the date of the enactment of the Job Training 
     Improvement Act of 2005.
       ``(l) Additional Funding.--In addition to the funds 
     authorized under section 205 and reserved for the Institute 
     under section 211, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor, or the 
     head of any other Federal agency or department that 
     participates in the activities of the Institute may provide 
     funds to the Institute for activities that the Institute is 
     authorized to perform under this section.

     ``SEC. 243. NATIONAL LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES.

       ``The Secretary shall establish and carry out a program of 
     national leadership activities that may include the 
     following:
       ``(1) Technical assistance, on request, including 
     assistance--
       ``(A) on request to volunteer community- and faith-based 
     organizations, including but not limited to, improving their 
     fiscal management, research-based instruction, and reporting 
     requirements, and the development of measurable objectives to 
     carry out the requirements of this title;
       ``(B) in developing valid, measurable, and reliable 
     performance data, and using performance information for the 
     improvement of adult education basic skills, English language 
     acquisition, and family literacy education programs;
       ``(C) on adult education professional development; and
       ``(D) in using distance learning and improving the 
     application of technology in the classroom, including 
     instruction in English language acquisition for individuals 
     who have limited English proficiency.
       ``(2) Providing for the conduct of research on national 
     literacy basic skill acquisition levels among adults, 
     including the number of limited English proficient adults 
     functioning at different levels of reading proficiency.
       ``(3) Improving the coordination, efficiency, and 
     effectiveness of adult education and workforce development 
     services at the national, State, and local levels.
       ``(4) Determining how participation in adult education 
     basic skills, English language acquisition, and family 
     literacy education programs prepares individuals for entry 
     into and success in postsecondary education and employment, 
     and in the case of prison-based services, the effect on 
     recidivism.
       ``(5) Evaluating how different types of providers, 
     including community and faith-based organizations or private 
     for-profit agencies measurably improve the skills of 
     participants in adult education basic skills, English 
     language acquisition, and family literacy education programs.
       ``(6) Identifying model integrated basic and workplace 
     skills education programs, including programs for individuals 
     with limited English proficiency coordinated literacy and 
     employment services, and effective strategies for serving 
     adults with disabilities.
       ``(7) Supporting the development of an entity that would 
     produce and distribute technology-based programs and 
     materials for adult education, basic skills, and family 
     literacy education programs using an intercommunication 
     system, as that term is defined in section 397 of the 
     Communications Act of 1934, and expand the effective outreach 
     and use of such programs and materials to adult education 
     eligible providers.
       ``(8) Initiating other activities designed to improve the 
     measurable quality and effectiveness of adult education basic 
     skills, English language acquisition, and family literacy 
     education programs nationwide.''.

             TITLE III--AMENDMENTS TO THE WAGNER-PEYSER ACT

     SEC. 301. AMENDMENTS TO THE WAGNER-PEYSER ACT.

       The Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et. seq.) is amended--
       (1) by striking sections 1 through 13;
       (2) in section 14 by inserting ``of Labor'' after 
     ``Secretary''; and
       (3) by amending section 15 to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 15. WORKFORCE AND LABOR MARKET INFORMATION SYSTEM.

       ``(a) System Content.--

[[Page 3274]]

       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor, in accordance 
     with the provisions of this section, shall oversee the 
     development, maintenance, and continuous improvement of a 
     nationwide workforce and labor market information system that 
     includes--
       ``(A) statistical data from cooperative statistical survey 
     and projection programs and data from administrative 
     reporting systems that, taken together, enumerate, estimate, 
     and project employment opportunities and conditions at 
     national, State, and local levels in a timely manner, 
     including statistics on--
       ``(i) employment and unemployment status of national, 
     State, and local populations, including self-employed, part-
     time, and seasonal workers;
       ``(ii) industrial distribution of occupations, as well as 
     current and projected employment opportunities, wages, 
     benefits (where data is available), and skill trends by 
     occupation and industry, with particular attention paid to 
     State and local conditions;
       ``(iii) the incidence of, industrial and geographical 
     location of, and number of workers displaced by, permanent 
     layoffs and plant closings; and
       ``(iv) employment and earnings information maintained in a 
     longitudinal manner to be used for research and program 
     evaluation;
       ``(B) information on State and local employment 
     opportunities, and other appropriate statistical data related 
     to labor market dynamics, which--
       ``(i) shall be current and comprehensive;
       ``(ii) shall meet the needs identified through the 
     consultations described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     subsection (e)(2); and
       ``(iii) shall meet the needs for the information identified 
     in section 134(d);
       ``(C) technical standards (which the Secretary shall 
     publish annually) for data and information described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) that, at a minimum, meet the 
     criteria of chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code;
       ``(D) procedures to ensure compatibility and additivity of 
     the data and information described in subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) from national, State, and local levels;
       ``(E) procedures to support standardization and aggregation 
     of data from administrative reporting systems described in 
     subparagraph (A) of employment-related programs;
       ``(F) analysis of data and information described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) for uses such as--
       ``(i) national, State, and local policymaking;
       ``(ii) implementation of Federal policies (including 
     allocation formulas);
       ``(iii) program planning and evaluation; and
       ``(iv) researching labor market dynamics;
       ``(G) wide dissemination of such data, information, and 
     analysis in a user-friendly manner and voluntary technical 
     standards for dissemination mechanisms; and
       ``(H) programs of--
       ``(i) training for effective data dissemination;
       ``(ii) research and demonstration; and
       ``(iii) programs and technical assistance.
       ``(2) Information to be confidential.--
       ``(A) In general.--No officer or employee of the Federal 
     Government or agent of the Federal Government may--
       ``(i) use any submission that is furnished for exclusively 
     statistical purposes under the provisions of this section for 
     any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which the 
     submission is furnished;
       ``(ii) make any publication or media transmittal of the 
     data contained in the submission described in clause (i) that 
     permits information concerning individual subjects to be 
     reasonably inferred by either direct or indirect means; or
       ``(iii) permit anyone other than a sworn officer, employee, 
     or agent of any Federal department or agency, or a contractor 
     (including an employee of a contractor) of such department or 
     agency, to examine an individual submission described in 
     clause (i),

     without the consent of the individual, agency, or other 
     person who is the subject of the submission or provides that 
     submission.
       ``(B) Immunity from legal process.--Any submission 
     (including any data derived from the submission) that is 
     collected and retained by a Federal department or agency, or 
     an officer, employee, agent, or contractor of such a 
     department or agency, for exclusively statistical purposes 
     under this section shall be immune from the legal process and 
     shall not, without the consent of the individual, agency, or 
     other person who is the subject of the submission or provides 
     that submission, be admitted as evidence or used for any 
     purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial or 
     administrative proceeding.
       ``(C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed to provide immunity from the legal process for 
     such submission (including any data derived from the 
     submission) if the submission is in the possession of any 
     person, agency, or entity other than the Federal Government 
     or an officer, employee, agent, or contractor of the Federal 
     Government, or if the submission is independently collected, 
     retained, or produced for purposes other than the purposes of 
     this Act.
       ``(b) System Responsibilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--The workforce and labor market 
     information system described in subsection (a) shall be 
     planned, administered, overseen, and evaluated through a 
     cooperative governance structure involving the Federal 
     Government and States.
       ``(2) Duties.--The Secretary, with respect to data 
     collection, analysis, and dissemination of labor employment 
     statistics for the system, shall carry out the following 
     duties:
       ``(A) Assign responsibilities within the Department of 
     Labor for elements of the workforce and labor market 
     information system described in subsection (a) to ensure that 
     all statistical and administrative data collected is 
     consistent with appropriate Bureau of Labor Statistics 
     standards and definitions.
       ``(B) Actively seek the cooperation of other Federal 
     agencies to establish and maintain mechanisms for ensuring 
     complementarity and nonduplication in the development and 
     operation of statistical and administrative data collection 
     activities.
       ``(C) Eliminate gaps and duplication in statistical 
     undertakings, with the systemization of wage surveys as an 
     early priority.
       ``(D) In collaboration with the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
     and States, develop and maintain the elements of the 
     workforce and labor market information system described in 
     subsection (a), including the development of consistent 
     procedures and definitions for use by the States in 
     collecting the data and information described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (a)(1).
       ``(E) Establish procedures for the system to ensure that--
       ``(i) such data and information are timely;
       ``(ii) paperwork and reporting for the system are reduced 
     to a minimum; and
       ``(iii) States and localities are fully involved in the 
     development and continuous improvement of the system at all 
     levels, including ensuring the provision, to such States and 
     localities, of budget information necessary for carrying out 
     their responsibilities under subsection (e).
       ``(c) National Electronic Tools To Provide Services.--The 
     Secretary is authorized to assist in the development of 
     national electronic tools that may be used to facilitate the 
     delivery of core services described in section 134 and to 
     provide workforce information to individuals through the one-
     stop delivery systems described in section 121 and through 
     other appropriate delivery systems.
       ``(d) Coordination With the States.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary, working through the 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Employment and Training 
     Administration, shall regularly consult with representatives 
     of State agencies carrying out workforce information 
     activities regarding strategies for improving the workforce 
     and labor market information system.
       ``(2) Formal consultations.--At least twice each year, the 
     Secretary, working through the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
     shall conduct formal consultations regarding programs carried 
     out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics with representatives of 
     each of the 10 Federal regions of the Department of Labor, 
     elected from the State directors affiliated with State 
     agencies that perform the duties described in subsection 
     (e)(2).
       ``(e) State Responsibilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to receive Federal financial 
     assistance under this section, the Governor of a State 
     shall--
       ``(A) be responsible for the management of the portions of 
     the workforce and labor market information system described 
     in subsection (a) that comprise a statewide workforce and 
     labor market information system and for the State's 
     participation in the development of the annual plan;
       ``(B) establish a process for the oversight of such system;
       ``(C) consult with State and local employers, participants, 
     and local workforce investment boards about the labor market 
     relevance of the data to be collected and disseminated 
     through the statewide workforce and labor market information 
     system;
       ``(D) consult with State educational agencies and local 
     educational agencies concerning the provision of employment 
     statistics in order to meet the needs of secondary school and 
     postsecondary school students who seek such information;
       ``(E) collect and disseminate for the system, on behalf of 
     the State and localities in the State, the information and 
     data described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection 
     (a)(1);
       ``(F) maintain and continuously improve the statewide 
     workforce and labor market information system in accordance 
     with this section;
       ``(G) perform contract and grant responsibilities for data 
     collection, analysis, and dissemination for such system;
       ``(H) conduct such other data collection, analysis, and 
     dissemination activities as will ensure an effective 
     statewide workforce and labor market information system;
       ``(I) actively seek the participation of other State and 
     local agencies in data collection, analysis, and 
     dissemination activities in order to ensure complementarity, 
     compatibility, and usefulness of data;
       ``(J) participate in the development of the annual plan 
     described in subsection (c); and
       ``(K) utilize the quarterly records described in section 
     136(f)(2) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to assist 
     the State and other States in measuring State progress on 
     State performance measures.
       ``(2) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be construed as limiting the ability of a Governor to conduct 
     additional data collection, analysis, and dissemination 
     activities with State funds or with Federal funds from 
     sources other than this section.
       ``(f) Nonduplication Requirement.--None of the functions 
     and activities carried out pursuant to this section shall 
     duplicate the functions and activities carried out under the 
     Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education 
     Act (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.).
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry

[[Page 3275]]

     out this section such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     the fiscal years 2006 through 2011.
       ``(h) Definition.--In this section, the term `local area' 
     means the smallest geographical area for which data can be 
     produced with statistical reliability.''.

         TITLE IV--AMENDMENTS TO THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973

     SEC. 401. FINDINGS.

       Section 2(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
     701(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) there is a substantial need to improve and expand 
     services for students with disabilities under this Act.''.

     SEC. 402. REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.

       Section 3(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
     702(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Office of the Secretary'' and inserting 
     ``Department of Education'';
       (2) by striking ``President by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate'' and inserting ``Secretary, except 
     that the Commissioner appointed under the authority existing 
     on the day prior to the date of enactment of the Job Training 
     Improvement Act of 2005 may continue to serve in the former 
     capacity''; and
       (3) by striking ``, and the Commissioner shall be the 
     principal officer,''.

     SEC. 403. DIRECTOR.

       (a) In General.--The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
     701 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Commissioner'' each place it appears, 
     except in sections 3(a) (as amended by section 402) and 21, 
     and inserting ``Director'';
       (2) in section 100(d)(2)(B), by striking ``COMMISSIONER'' 
     and inserting ``DIRECTOR'';
       (3) in section 706, by striking ``COMMISSIONER'' and 
     inserting ``DIRECTOR''; and
       (4) in section 723(a)(3), by striking ``commissioner'' and 
     inserting ``director''.
       (b) Exception.--Section 21 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
     1973 (29 U.S.C. 718) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``Commissioner'' the first place it appears 
     and inserting ``Director of the Rehabilitation Services 
     Administration''; and
       (B) by striking ``(referred to in this subsection as the 
     `Director')''; and
       (2) by striking ``Commissioner and the Director'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``both such Directors''.

     SEC. 404. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 7 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705) 
     is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (35) through (39) as 
     paragraphs (36), (37), (38), (40), and (41), respectively;
       (2) in subparagraph (A)(ii) of paragraph (36) (as 
     redesignated in paragraph (1)), by striking ``paragraph 
     (36)(C)'' and inserting ``paragraph (37)(C)'';
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (34) the following:
       ``(35)(A) The term `student with a disability' means an 
     individual with a disability who--
       ``(i) is not younger than 16 and not older than 21;
       ``(ii) has been determined to be eligible under section 
     102(a) for assistance under this title; and
       ``(iii)(I) is eligible for, and is receiving, special 
     education under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
     Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.); or
       ``(II) is an individual with a disability, for purposes of 
     section 504.
       ``(B) The term `students with disabilities' means more than 
     1 student with a disability.''; and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (38) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1)) the following:
       ``(39) The term `transition services expansion year' 
     means--
       ``(A) the first fiscal year for which the amount 
     appropriated under section 100(b) exceeds the amount 
     appropriated under section 100(b) for fiscal year 2004 by not 
     less than $100,000,000; and
       ``(B) each fiscal year subsequent to that first fiscal 
     year.''.

     SEC. 405. STATE PLAN.

       (a) Coordination With Education Officials and Assistive 
     Technology Programs.--Section 101(a)(11) of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 721(a)(11)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D)(i) by inserting ``, which may be 
     provided using alternative means of meeting participation 
     (such as video conferences and conference calls)'' before the 
     semicolon; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) Coordination with assistive technology programs.--The 
     State plan shall include an assurance that the designated 
     State unit and the lead agency responsible for carrying out 
     duties under the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 
     3001), as amended, have developed working relationships and 
     coordinate their activities.''.
       (b) Assessment and Strategies.--Section 101(a)(15) of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 721(a)(15)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)
       (A) in clause (i)--
       (i) in subclause (II), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in subclause (III), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(IV) in a transition services expansion year, students 
     with disabilities, including their need for transition 
     services;''; and

       (B) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as clauses 
     (iii) and (iv), respectively, and inserting after clause (i) 
     the following:
       ``(ii) include an assessment of the transition services 
     provided under this Act, and coordinated with transition 
     services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
     Act, as to those services meeting the needs of individuals 
     with disabilities;''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (D)--
       (A) by redesignating clauses (iii), (iv), and (v) as 
     clauses (iv), (v), and (vi), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
       ``(iii) in a transition services expansion year, the 
     methods to be used to improve and expand vocational 
     rehabilitation services for students with disabilities, 
     including the coordination of services designed to facilitate 
     the transition of such students from the receipt of 
     educational services in school to the receipt of vocational 
     rehabilitation services under this title or to postsecondary 
     education or employment;''.
       (c) Services for Students With Disabilities.--Section 
     101(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 721(a)) 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(25) Services for students with disabilities.--The State 
     plan for a transition services expansion year shall provide 
     an assurance satisfactory to the Secretary that the State--
       ``(A) has developed and implemented strategies to address 
     the needs identified in the assessment described in paragraph 
     (15), and achieve the goals and priorities identified by the 
     State, to improve and expand vocational rehabilitation 
     services for students with disabilities on a statewide basis 
     in accordance with paragraph (15); and
       ``(B) from funds reserved under section 110A, shall carry 
     out programs or activities designed to improve and expand 
     vocational rehabilitation services for students with 
     disabilities that--
       ``(i) facilitate the transition of the students with 
     disabilities from the receipt of educational services in 
     school, to the receipt of vocational rehabilitation services 
     under this title, including, at a minimum, those services 
     specified in the interagency agreement required in paragraph 
     (11)(D);
       ``(ii) improve the achievement of post-school goals of 
     students with disabilities, including improving the 
     achievement through participation (as appropriate when 
     vocational goals are discussed) in meetings regarding 
     individualized education programs developed under section 614 
     of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1414);
       ``(iii) provide vocational guidance, career exploration 
     services, and job search skills and strategies and technical 
     assistance to students with disabilities;
       ``(iv) support the provision of training and technical 
     assistance to State and local educational agency and 
     designated State agency personnel responsible for the 
     planning and provision of services to students with 
     disabilities; and
       ``(v) support outreach activities to students with 
     disabilities who are eligible for, and need, services under 
     this title.''.

     SEC. 406. SCOPE OF SERVICES.

       Section 103 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
     723) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (15) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(15) transition services for students with disabilities, 
     that facilitate the achievement of the employment outcome 
     identified in the individualized plan for employment, 
     including, in a transition services expansion year, services 
     described in clauses (i) through (iii) of section 
     101(a)(25)(B);'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (6) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(6)(A)(i) Consultation and technical assistance services 
     to assist State and local educational agencies in planning 
     for the transition of students with disabilities from school 
     to post-school activities, including employment.
       ``(ii) In a transition services expansion year, training 
     and technical assistance described in section 
     101(a)(25)(B)(iv).
       ``(B) In a transition services expansion year, services for 
     groups of individuals with disabilities who meet the 
     requirements of clauses (i) and (iii) of section 7(35)(A), 
     including services described in clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and 
     (v) of section 101(a)(25)(B), to assist in the transition 
     from school to post-school activities.''; and
       (3) in subsection (b) by inserting at the end, the 
     following:
       ``(7) The establishment, development, or improvement of 
     assistive technology demonstration, loan, reutilization, or 
     financing programs in coordination with activities authorized 
     under the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 (29. U.S.C. 3001), 
     as amended, to promote access to assistive technology for 
     individuals with disabilities and employers.''.

     SEC. 407. STANDARDS AND INDICATORS.

       Section 106(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 
     726(a)) is amended by striking paragraph (1)(C) and all that 
     follows through paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Measures.--The standards and indicators shall include 
     outcome and related measures of program performance that--
       ``(A) facilitate the accomplishment of the purpose and 
     policy of this title;
       ``(B) to the maximum extent practicable, are consistent 
     with the core indicators of performance, and corresponding 
     State adjusted levels of performance, established under 
     section 136(b) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 
     U.S.C. 2871(b)); and
       ``(C) include measures of the program's performance with 
     respect to the transition to post-

[[Page 3276]]

     school vocational activities, and achievement of the post-
     school vocational goals, of students with disabilities served 
     under the program.''.

     SEC. 408. RESERVATION FOR EXPANDED TRANSITION SERVICES.

       The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is amended by inserting 
     after section 110 (29 U.S.C. 730) the following:

     ``SEC. 110A. RESERVATION FOR EXPANDED TRANSITION SERVICES.

       ``(a) Reservation.--From the State allotment under section 
     110 in a transition services expansion year, each State shall 
     reserve an amount calculated by the Director under subsection 
     (b) to carry out programs and activities under sections 
     101(a)(25)(B) and 103(b)(6).
       ``(b) Calculation.--The Director shall calculate the amount 
     to be reserved for such programs and activities for a fiscal 
     year by each State by multiplying $50,000,000 by the 
     percentage determined by dividing--
       ``(1) the amount allotted to that State under section 110 
     for the prior fiscal year, by
       ``(2) the total amount allotted to all States under section 
     110 for that prior fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 409. CLIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       Section 112(e)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 
     U.S.C. 732(e)(1)) is amended by redesignating subparagraph 
     (D) as subparagraph (E) and inserting after subparagraph (C) 
     the following:
       ``(D) The Secretary shall make grants to the protection and 
     advocacy system serving the American Indian Consortium to 
     provide services in accordance with this section. The amount 
     of such grants shall be the same as provided to territories 
     under this subsection. ''.

     SEC. 410. PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

       Section 509(g)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 
     U.S.C. 794e(g)(2)) is amended by striking ``was paid'' and 
     inserting ``was paid, except that program income generated 
     from such amount shall remain available to such system for 
     one additional fiscal year''.

     SEC. 411. CHAIRPERSON.

       Section 705(b)(5) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 
     U.S.C. 796d(b)(5)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) Chairperson.--The Council shall select a chairperson 
     from among the voting membership of the Council.''.

     SEC. 412. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is further amended--
       (1) in section 100(b)(1) by striking ``fiscal years 1999 
     through 2003'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2006 through 
     2011'';
       (2) in section 100(d)(1)(B) by striking ``fiscal year 
     2003'' and inserting ``fiscal year 2011'';
       (3) in section 110(c) by amending paragraph (2) to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2) The sum referred to in paragraph (1) shall be, as 
     determined by the Secretary, not less than 1 percent and not 
     more than 1.5 percent of the amount referred to in paragraph 
     (1) for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2011.'';
       (4) in section 112(h) by striking ``fiscal years 1999 
     through 2003'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2006 through 
     2011'';
       (5) in section 201(a) by striking ``fiscal years 1999 
     through 2003'' each place it appears and inserting ``fiscal 
     years 2006 through 2011'';
       (6) in section 302(i) by striking ``fiscal years 1999 
     through 2003'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2006 through 
     2011'';
       (7) in section 303(e) by striking ``fiscal years 1999 
     through 2003'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2006 through 
     2011'';
       (8) in section 304(b) by striking ``fiscal years 1999 
     through 2003'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2006 through 
     2011'';
       (9) in section 305(b) by striking ``fiscal years 1999 
     through 2003'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2006 through 
     2011'';
       (10) in section 405 by striking ``fiscal years 1999 through 
     2003'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2006 through 2011'';
       (11) in section 502(j) by striking ``fiscal years 1999 
     through 2003'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2006 through 
     2011'';
       (12) in section 509(l) by striking ``fiscal years 1999 
     through 2003'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2006 through 
     2011'';
       (13) in section 612 by striking ``fiscal years 1999 through 
     2003'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2006 through 2011'';
       (14) in section 628 by striking ``fiscal years 1999 through 
     2003'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2006 through 2011'';
       (15) in section 714 by striking ``fiscal years 1999 through 
     2003'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2006 through 2011'';
       (16) in section 727 by striking ``fiscal years 1999 through 
     2003'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2006 through 2011''; and
       (17) in section 753 by striking ``fiscal years 1999 through 
     2003'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2006 through 2011''.

     SEC. 413. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Section 1(b) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is amended 
     by inserting after the item relating to section 110 the 
     following:

``Sec. 110A. Reservation for expanded transition services.''.

     SEC. 414. HELEN KELLER NATIONAL CENTER ACT.

       (a) General Authorization of Appropriations.--The first 
     sentence of section 205(a) of the Helen Keller National 
     Center Act (29 U.S.C. 1904(a)) is amended by striking ``1999 
     through 2003'' and inserting ``2006 through 2011''.
       (b) Helen Keller National Center Federal Endowment Fund.--
     The first sentence of section 208(h) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     1907(h)) is amended by striking ``1999 through 2003'' and 
     inserting ``2006 through 2011''.

                 TITLE V--TRANSITION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 501. TRANSITION PROVISIONS.

       The Secretary of Labor shall take such actions as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate to provide for the 
     orderly implementation of this Act.

     SEC. 502. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Except as otherwise provided in this Act, this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act, shall take effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 109-11. Each amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered 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.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
report 109-11.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Kildee

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a designee of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Kildee:
       Strike sections 111 and 119.
       In section 101(1), strike ``paragraphs (13) and'' and all 
     that follows through ``through (24)'' and insert ``paragraph 
     (24) and redesignating paragraphs (1) through (23) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (25)''.
       In section 101(8), strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
       Strike paragraph (9) of section 101.
       In the table of contents in section 2 of the bill, strike 
     the items related to section 111 and redesignate succeeding 
     items accordingly.
       In the table of contents in section 2 of the bill, strike 
     the item related to section 119 and redesignate succeeding 
     items accordingly.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 126, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, current law requires that services be provided to both 
in-school youth and out-of-school youth. Nothing in the Act prevents 
States from spending all of youth funds on out-of-school youths. In 
fact, as many as 17 States spend more than 30 percent on out-of-school 
programs. The majority of States are challenged by current out-of-
school requirements.
  Eliminating services for in-school youth cuts funding for programs 
designed to keep youths in school, to develop workforce skills, to 
prepare for post-secondary education, and provide after school and 
summer opportunities.
  H.R. 27 limits the business community's ability to work with schools 
and prepare emerging workforces. In many communities, you have that 
cooperation between the business community and the schools.
  H.R. 27 restricts services for rural youths. Many rural in-school 
programs provide workforce development and on-school support service 
for students who are at risk for dropping out. I think it is very, very 
important that we maintain the in-school youth program, and that is the 
purpose for me offering this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment and yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is being offered by my friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), would strike all of the positive 
reforms for youth that are included in H.R. 27. Under current law, 
funds for the WIA youth program are spread too thinly, as they fund 
programs that both serve in-school and out-of-school youth.
  In the White House, the Disadvantaged Youth Task Force has proposed 
targeted Federal youth training funds to serve the most in need and to 
reduce the duplication of services amongst

[[Page 3277]]

Federal programs. There are a large number of programs today designed 
to deal with in-school, at-risk children, and there is really only one 
program in WIA that is targeted at out-of-school youth.
  What we tried to do in this bill was to strike a balance by requiring 
that 70 percent of the youth program funds go to out-of-school youth, a 
population that is by and large ignored and that I think these funds 
ought to be targeted to. We do allow the local workforce boards to use 
up to 30 percent of their programs for in-school youth; but there are 
other programs, a half a dozen other programs, targeted at these at-
risk children who are in school.
  So as a way of trying to bring more synergy to an effort to help out-
of-school youth, I think the language we have in the bill strikes the 
right balance.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Tierney 
amendment, and I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee) for yielding me this time and also for his leadership. I also 
want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for his 
leadership. I know he was very thoughtful in this amendment.
  Particularly when we talk about these programs, what comes to mind, 
and I heard the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) be so eloquent in 
the Committee on Rules about the effectiveness and the importance of a 
training program, number one, for the new jobs of the 21st century. I 
am reminded of the fact that I spent a good part of my time as a 
locally elected official on the Houston City Council promoting the job 
training programs of our community that came down through the workforce 
board commissions in Texas.
  When you eliminate summer jobs, you are literally undermining the 
opportunities for inner-city and rural youth to move to the next level 
of opportunity. You are extinguishing the right and the exposure that 
they have for career preparation. You go into these youth training 
programs and you look at the smiles on the faces of individuals who 
have come from experiences where there was no work, where their 
families are unemployed, and where there is no hope and opportunity.
  I am very disappointed, in addition, to the cut in youth programs, 
and the fact that we are now getting rid of the veterans' preference 
for job training, actually cutting funds. What an outrage. With a 
million people having served in Afghanistan and Iraq; with the 
devastation of the impact of those returning veterans, with their 
emotional problems and injuries, and now we are suggesting to them that 
they are not worthy of a job preference.
  Let me also say that when you block-grant these dollars, you block-
grant job training away. That is what this program does; and in 
particular, it sends away this opportunity.
  My last point is that I might beg to differ with the chairman of this 
particular distinguished committee. There is discrimination in this 
bill. And, frankly, I think we should follow the Kildee model, who said 
that he knew a priest in Detroit who had a job training program who 
made sure that there was no discrimination, whether someone is a 
Muslim, whether they are Jewish or Catholic or Protestant. A program 
that is based upon religion and allows someone to deny you the 
opportunity for a job or a training position under the auspices of 
being a particular faith and being in charge of that particular program 
is discrimination under title VII in the 1964 Civil Rights Bill or 
under any discrimination law that has been passed in America and that 
exists today.
  Frankly, I believe this bill, even in its presence on the floor of 
the House, should go no further than this House; and I ask my 
colleagues to support the Tierney amendment, but to oppose the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to correct the record.
  The gentlewoman who just spoke says that we eliminated a preference 
for veterans in this bill. The fact is that there is a preference for 
veterans written into the law. That has not changed at all.
  Secondly, the gentlewoman said there are block grants in the 
underlying bill. There are no block grants. As a matter of fact, the 
targeting of funds to the local workforce boards in this bill is more 
structured than it is today under current law, so that at least 75 
percent of the funds available back to the States must go to the local 
workforce investment boards.
  Lastly, the gentlewoman said that we have discrimination in this 
bill. I would just remind the gentlewoman that when our predecessors 
wrote the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they recognized in title VII that 
religious organizations ought to be protected in their hiring so that 
they would not be required to hire anybody that shows up, but could, if 
they wanted to, only hire those people within their faith.
  Now, if people want to disagree with title VII of the 1964 Civil 
Rights Act, they certainly have that right. They may go to the 
Committee on the Judiciary and change that law, but let us not try to 
do it in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Price), a member of the committee).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to 
speak again on this, and I am astounded, frankly, at the level of 
misinformation that is coming from the other side.
  I think it is important to look at the bill specifically as it 
defines youth. The definition of youth has changed. The age for when an 
individual is considered a youth has changed. Currently it is 14 to 21 
years. In the bill, it would change it from 16 to 24 years. What that 
means is that we have more individuals out of school, out of school, 
who require assistance. And that is one of the reasons the provision is 
in the bill to change it, so that more individuals out of school will 
have greater opportunity to access those monies.
  It is also important to appreciate this is a Department of Labor 
program. The Department of Education has a phenomenal number of 
programs eligible for in-school youth that really dwarfs the amount of 
money for the out-of-school individuals, 15 to 1 by my count. Some of 
those programs are title I grants to improve education for the 
disadvantaged, neglected and delinquent grants to local educational 
agencies, 21st Century Learning Centers, Safe and Drug-free Schools and 
community State grants, Bilingual Education Instructional Services, 
Dropout Prevention Grants, and on and on and on, Striving Readers Grant 
and Vocational Technical Education.
  In summary, no one, no one is decreasing the amount of money to in-
school youth for the concerns and the issues that they have. What we 
are doing is making it so that this bill addresses those individuals 
that are most in need.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), the author of the 
amendment.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and I thank the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for taking this amendment to this 
point.
  Just in response to the gentleman's comments a second ago and 
earlier, the reason for this amendment is that current law takes care 
of any State that wants to put a higher proportion of funds towards 
out-of-school youth. It has the flexibility for that. And if they want 
to move in that direction, they can.
  It also allows States like Massachusetts, and at least 17 others, who 
have a greater need to serve in-school youth for job training purposes, 
to use their money for that.
  What the H.R. 27 bill does is it takes away that flexibility and 
harms at least 27 States from being able to help the people that they 
want while it solves a problem that does not exist for the others. The 
others already can, in fact, serve as many of the people they want out 
of school.

[[Page 3278]]

  With respect to this money that is a duplication for it because there 
are other funds going, none of those other programs have money left 
over for job training. They are already used up. Most of them are 
underfunded: Safe and Drug-Free Schools being slashed by the President. 
Title I, underfunded. You can go right on down the line.
  So I hope my colleagues look at this and do not disadvantage those 
States that need to have the flexibility to serve more in-school youth, 
and at the same time realize that this amendment harms those who need 
more out-of-school youth served in no way at all.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds, the balance of my 
time, to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), who 
I know has been pressed for time.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much. This is an 
example of the collegiality of our Committee on Education and the 
Workforce. We do not agree often, but we at least have a good collegial 
time doing it.
  I just want to stress the points that I made. And the fact of the 
matter is that having a mandate that every State put all their money 
toward out-of-school youth does not help those States that have an in-
school youth issue. It also deprives a lot of programs that are working 
with our business community and in-school youth to get them better 
equipped to not only support themselves but their families to have them 
be more self-sufficient when they get out of school. Those programs 
would be slashed in many States if H.R. 27 were to go through as it is.
  We have a great need for these in many States; programs like Girls 
Inc., Action Inc. and others work that way. I respect the chairman 
giving me this time to make that point, that this H.R. 27 change is a 
solution that does not have a problem.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). All time having expired, the question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Kildee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in House Report 109-11.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Velazquez:
       In subsection (e)(7)(A)(i) of the matter proposed to be 
     inserted by section 123, add at the end the following:

       ``(IV) Borrower guarantee fees for loans made pursuant to 
     section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)).''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 126, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, for many unemployed workers, starting a small company 
provides opportunities for career growth and financial success. But the 
lack of access to capital prevents many entrepreneurs from starting 
their own business. The Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan 
program is a critical source of capital for small businesses, providing 
30 percent of all long-term loans to U.S. entrepreneurs.
  Despite the success of the 7(a) loan program, the Bush administration 
has repeatedly underfunded it, implemented a series of caps, imposed 
burdensome restrictions, and shut down the entire program. In the 
latest attack on October 1, the President doubled the fees that small 
businesses must pay to receive a 7(a) loan.
  These new up-front fees are limiting the number of small businesses 
that can afford 7(a) loans. For a loan of $150,000, an entrepreneur 
must now pay nearly $3,000 in up-front fees, a significant cost for 
someone trying to start a company. These higher costs have 
significantly reduced small business use of the 7(a) program, as loan 
volume has decreased by $500 million since the new fees were 
implemented. The impact has been so great that this January the SBA 
made fewer loans than when the administration shut down the entire 
program last January.
  President Bush was wrong when he increased the burden entrepreneurs 
face in accessing capital. This amendment acknowledges the 
shortsightedness of that decision. It affirms that new fees on 7(a) 
loans are hurting small businesses and demonstrates congressional 
support for using Federal funding to cover the cost of these fees.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote against the Bush administration's 
policy raising the fees on 7(a) loans. It is a vote for our Nation's 
up-and-coming small business owners.
  I have serious reservations about Personal Reemployment Accounts, as 
they will place severe limits on the amount of training an unemployed 
worker can receive. However, if Congress is going to establish Personal 
Reemployment Accounts, then we should provide entrepreneurs with the 
opportunity to use these resources to secure the capital needed to 
start small businesses. Unemployed workers should be allowed to use 
these funds in their accounts to pay for the cost of the 7(a) loan 
fees, and that is exactly what my amendment will do.
  Given President Bush's commitment to creating an ownership society, I 
am surprised there are not more provisions in this bill to help 
unemployed workers own small businesses. The goal here is help reduce 
high unemployment, create a strong workforce, and boost our economy. 
This cannot be achieved without a stronger commitment to our Nation's 
entrepreneurs. After all, it was laid-off managers launching their own 
small businesses that turned our economy around during the last 
recession.
  We need a revival of entrepreneurship in this country that will spur 
more job creation and grow our economy. To do this, we must take 
advantage of every opportunity to ensure that capital is accessible and 
affordable for all start-up small business owners, and we must make it 
clear that President Bush is failing our Nation's entrepreneurs. This 
amendment is one of those opportunities, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, although I do not oppose the amendment, I 
ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). Without objection, the gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I guess I was prepared to accept this amendment, or to support this 
amendment, but the gentlewoman's rhetoric almost decided me not to.
  But as I read the amendment, it says the amendment would allow 
unemployable workers to also use their personal re-employment accounts 
to cover the borrower guaranty costs associated with small business 
claims. If we can keep the focus on that, instead of the rhetoric 
against President Bush, I see no reason to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  On October 1, the Bush administration effectively implemented a tax 
on U.S. entrepreneurship. By doubling the fees on 7-A loans, the Bush 
administration has severely limited access to critical source of 
capital for our Nation's small businesses.
  I want to be on record, and I want every Member in this House to be 
on record about the fact that last July, an amendment to the CJS 
appropriations that would have protected the 7-A program was approved 
with strong support. The House was on record then,

[[Page 3279]]

and we should continue to be on record for the small business 
community.
  This amendment sends a message that Congress is not willing to accept 
the recent policy decisions of the Bush administration to further 
burden U.S. entrepreneurs. They are our job creators. They drive our 
economy and they deserve our support.
  Our goal is to fully repeal the freeze on the 7-A loans. While this 
amendment will not change the fee structure, it will help entrepreneurs 
afford this vital source of capital. So I therefore urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Velazquez 
amendment to H.R. 27 but in strong opposition to the underlying bill. 
H.R. 27 is a fundamentally flawed and partisan job training bill, which 
does nothing to address the root causes of why little actual job 
training services are provided under the Workforce Investment Act.
  The Velazquez amendment would compensate for the harm in the Bush 
administration's policy of raising the fees on 7(a) loans and its 
proposal to undermine existing job-training programs by establishing an 
untested job-training voucher program. It addresses these two critical 
issues by offering a solution that would benefit entrepreneurs by 
providing them the opportunity to use funds from personal reinvestment 
accounts to secure the capital needed to start small businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, with our high employment rate and the administration's 
failure to create the number of jobs it promised, entrepreneurship is a 
viable alternative to unemployment. The Velazquez amendment allows 
unemployed individuals to use the personal reinvestment accounts to 
defray the costs of the administration's recent fee increases for the 
7(a) loan program. This fee increase on the 7(a) program puts the 
program out of reach for newly unemployed workers. This amendment would 
help to defray the cost of the 7(a) loan program for potential 
borrowers.
  Access to capital is the biggest obstacle that entrepreneurs face in 
starting small businesses. A vote for this amendment is a vote to give 
unemployed workers resources to invest in their future by securing 
capital to start small businesses. Not only would this amendment help 
our Nation's unemployed, it will also boost job creation. After all, 
small businesses account for approximately 75 percent of the net new 
jobs added to the economy.
  I would like to commend Ranking Member Velazquez on her amendment and 
continued commitment to our Nation's small businesses. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Velazquez amendment.
  Ms. VELAQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Velazquez).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Velazquez) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 3 printed in House 
report 109-11.


           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia:
       Strike section 129.
       In the table of contents in section 2 of the bill, strike 
     the item relating to section 129, and redesignate succeeding 
     sections accordingly.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 126, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and a Member opposed each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 1 minute and 15 
seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I made a previous statement on this amendment during 
the consideration of the rule, so let me just say that this amendment 
is offered along with my colleagues, 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 job training law.
  Current law prohibits sponsors of job training programs from 
discriminating in hiring based on race or religion. This amendment will 
keep the law the way it has been since 1965. We have heard some 
comments about title VII. Title VII gives the religious organization an 
exemption to discriminate with its own money. It was never intended to 
apply to Federal money.
  In any event, there has been no discrimination in job training 
programs with Federal money, whether it is faith-based sponsored or 
otherwise since 1965.
  Speakers have suggested that religious organizations have barriers to 
participation. They do not say what the barrier is. The barrier is that 
you cannot discriminate in employment with the Federal money. Any 
program that can get funded under this new language in the bill could 
be funded anyway under the traditional funding, no discrimination, if 
the sponsor would agree not to discriminate in employment. That has 
been the rule since 1965.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
The amendment by my friend from Virginia would actually work against 
the neediest citizens in our local communities. Faith-based 
organizations such as churches, synagogues and other faith-based 
charities are a central part of the fabric of local communities across 
America. Many of these faith-based institutions provide assistance to 
the hardest-to-serve individuals because they often go where others 
will not and serve those others prefer not to serve, and go out of the 
way to meet people where they are rather than where we would want them 
to be.
  President Bush noted yesterday at a speech that one of the key 
reasons why many faith-based groups are so effective is the commitment 
to serve that is grounded in the shared values and religious identity 
of their volunteers and their employees. In other words, effectiveness 
happens because people who share faith show up to help a particular 
organization based on that faith to succeed.
  I agree with President Bush that many faith-based organizations can 
make a vital contribution to Federal assistance programs. Yet this 
amendment would deny faith-based institutions their rights, under the 
historic 1964 Civil Rights Act. Considering the proven track record of 
faith-based providers in meeting the needs of our citizens, why would 
we want to deny them the opportunity to help in Federal job training 
efforts?
  Unfortunately, in some Federal laws, these faith-based organizations 
have been stripped of their hiring rights and must relinquish their 
civil liberties if they choose to participate in Federal service 
initiatives.
  The landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly protects the rights of 
religious organizations to take religion into account into their hiring 
practices. In fact, the Civil Rights Act made clear that when faith-
based organizations hire employees on a religious basis, it is an 
exercise of the organization's civil liberties and not discrimination 
under Federal law.
  Those organizations willing to serve their communities by 
participating in Federal programs should not be forced

[[Page 3280]]

to compromise their religious liberties in order to serve those in 
need. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 upheld the rights of faith-based 
institutions and held that it was constitutional for these groups to 
take religion into account when making hiring decisions.
  Former Democrat President Bill Clinton himself signed four laws 
explicitly allowing faith-based groups to staff on a religious basis 
when they receive Federal funds. Those laws are the 1996 Welfare Reform 
Law, the 1998 Community Services Block Grant Act, the 2000 Community 
Renewal Tax Relief Act, and the 2000 Substance Abuse and Mental Health 
Services Administration Act.
  President Bush has worked tirelessly to remove the barriers that 
needlessly discourage faith-based groups from bringing their talents 
and compassion to Federal initiatives that help Americans in need. And 
just yesterday, again, he called on Congress to send him the same 
language protecting religious hiring that President Clinton signed on 
four other occasions.
  The underlying bill answers the President's call and takes advantage 
of the positive role that faith-based institutions play in our 
communities in serving those who are most in need. We should not be 
denying faith-based providers the opportunity to serve the neediest of 
our citizens. And I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Scott 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I will begin by correcting two 
misunderstandings about this amendment. First, it would not keep faith-
based organizations from hiring members of their own religion with 
their own funds in the exercise of their faith.
  Second, it would not keep faith-based organizations from 
participating in job training programs under this bill. What this 
amendment says is that if a faith-based organization accepts Federal 
funds for job training, then in delivering job training, it cannot 
engage in religious discrimination.
  Yesterday President Bush called on Congress, and let me quote, ``to 
judge faith-based groups by results, not by their religion.''
  Well, current law does judge faith-based organizations by results, 
not by their religion. But sadly, the supporters of H.R. 27 would allow 
federally-funded job training programs to judge job applicants by their 
religion, not by their results.
  Under H.R. 27, a faith-based grantee could refuse to hire the best 
qualified person for the grant or even fire its best worker because 
they are not the right religion. That is wrong, it is unconstitutional, 
and it is bad policy.
  When people who desperately need a job seek help, they do not care 
about the religion of the person helping them, they do care that the 
person helping them was hired because he or she was the best qualified 
person, and they do care that the person helping them is not concerned 
about their religion. But when the people providing help are hired 
because of their own religion, it is naive to think that religion will 
not permeate the help that they provide, no matter what H.R. 27 says.
  The proof of this slippery slope is in the President's words. In 
talking about a hypothetical federally-funded Methodist alcohol 
treatment center, he said that the policy should be that ``all are 
welcome, welcome to be saved so they become sober.''
  I support every American's right to seek salvation through their 
religion, but our only interest in federally-funded programs should be 
whether they provide qualified services for which they are funded. No, 
this amendment does not discriminate against religion, it protects 
people from discrimination because of their religion.
  In closing, I will correct a third misunderstanding, that the faith 
community opposes this amendment. A wide range of faith-based 
organizations support this amendment because they recognize that it is 
not an attack on American religious freedoms, but a defense of those 
freedoms.
  So I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for their commitments to 
protecting American's liberties and I encourage all Americans to join 
us in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) for yielding me this time.
  First, let me clarify what this amendment is not about. This 
amendment is not about whether faith-based organizations do a terrific 
job in our communities and around the world in providing services. They 
do, and they are doing that every day. Catholic Charities, Jewish 
Federation, and a whole variety of Protestant denominations currently 
receive Federal dollars to provide services in our community and around 
the world. Indeed, many of them receive money today to provide job 
training services, and they do a good job.
  And guess what, today they are doing it under current law which says 
when they receive those Federal tax dollars, they may not discriminate 
in who they hire based on religion, and not one of those organizations 
has come to me and said we could do a better job in providing job 
training services if only you would let us discriminate based on 
religion. That is what this is all about.
  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not say in any way that religious 
organizations can take taxpayer dollars and then discriminate in their 
hiring based on religion when they are providing services based on 
those dollars. The issue is very simple. Taxes are paid by Christians, 
by Jews, by Muslims, by people of all denominations. We are now using 
those resources to provide to faith-based organizations, and what the 
bill would allow people to do is to say to somebody who is coming to 
apply for a job to provide job training services, you know what, we 
know you are qualified, we know you have a great education, know you 
can do a good job in providing job training services, but you are the 
wrong religion. We do not want you because you are Christian, we do not 
want you because you are Jewish, we do not want you because you are the 
wrong religion. That is a terrible message to be sending to people 
throughout this country. In fact, it is a great irony that in a bill 
that is designed to provide job training to help more people get jobs, 
we would put in a provision that would deny someone an opportunity to 
get a job providing job training based on their religion.

                              {time}  1730

  I urge my colleagues to stick with the current law, because what the 
underlying bill does is eliminate current law and give a green light 
that allows people to discriminate based on religion, a terrible 
message to send. Let us not do it.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Title VII of 
the 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly says that religious organizations 
in their hiring can hire people of their own faith. Period. That is 
what it says. It does not say whether you take Federal money or you do 
not take Federal money. It says that a religious organization can take 
religion into account in terms of their hiring. Period.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to further elaborate on the last 
point in this amendment's attack on religious liberty in the United 
States, that in fact the interpretation in the Presiding Bishop v. 
Amos, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the language permitting 
religious organizations to staff on a religious basis in matters 
concerning employment when they receive Federal funds, in a unanimous 
decision.
  Finding that the exemption did not violate the establishment clause, 
the Supreme Court has made it clear that

[[Page 3281]]

it is ``a permissible legislative purpose to alleviate significant 
governmental interference with the ability of religious organizations 
to define and carry out their religious missions.''
  Even where the content of their activities is secular, in the sense 
that activities do not include religious teaching, proselytizing, or 
worship, and it is very important for everybody to understand, we all 
agree you cannot have prayer, you cannot proselytize, you cannot use 
government funds for anything but a secular purpose in job training, 
Justice Brennan, hardly a conservative, said that even if a religious 
organization is providing job training, which would be a secular thing, 
it is likely to be infused with a religious purpose. In other words, 
the motivation of the individuals probably is religious.
  He also recognized that churches and other religious entities ``often 
regard the provision of such services as a means of fulfilling 
religious duty and of providing an example of the way of life a church 
seeks to foster.'' He is perhaps one of the greatest liberal justices 
of all time. And then he recognized that preserving the title VII 
protections when religious organizations engage in social services is a 
necessary element of religious freedom.
  This attempt to redefine the Supreme Court in today's debate is 
unfortunate. It is, in my opinion, bigotry against many religious 
people in the United States who would like to provide assistance to the 
poor, who would like to leverage their funds, their volunteer time, 
their churches, but are being told that even though they accept 
everybody in, even though they cannot proselytize with it, that they 
are not welcome to participate, they are going to have their liberties 
taken away.
  For example, a case we often hear, well, they can set up a 501(c)3 or 
not have that reach, but Catholic Charities, an organization that 
historically has taken funds and it is often held up, the California 
Supreme Court just said that because Catholic Charities offers secular 
services to clients and does not directly preach Catholic values, it is 
therefore not a religious organization. Therefore, the court ruled that 
Catholic Charities must provide services contrary to their religious 
principles.
  Furthermore, as we take the logical extension of this which we are 
dealing with in whether we provide buses and computers to private 
schools and which will certainly come up in education bills in front of 
our committee, one of the questions is, if those funds run through the 
bishop's office, does in fact the reach of the funds that go for buses 
and for computers, which the court has ruled a computer does not do the 
proselytizing, the software does the proselytizing, will this reach 
back in because the governance of Catholic Charities ultimately comes 
back to the bishop's office?
  Court rulings are increasingly tilting that direction because we have 
falsely interpreted what is religious liberty in the United States and 
that we have to make it clear in these bills which, as the chairman has 
pointed out, have passed this House multiple times, the President of 
the United States in many of these was not President Bush pushing a 
faith-based initiative, but President Clinton. And as the Member from 
Maryland has pointed out, he did not enthusiastically say this was 
going to be upheld; but the fact is over the objections of many on his 
side, he supported it.
  Former Vice President Gore has said specifically that religious 
organizations should not have to change their religious character in 
order to participate. What does religious character mean? It means that 
if you are an Orthodox Jewish group and you are going to serve 
everybody in your community, that you get to be an Orthodox Jewish 
group; if you are an evangelical group that believes in the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ, that people who represent your 
organization should share that belief; if you are a Muslim group, that 
people who represent that group should share that.
  The fundamental question here is, and through my Subcommittee on 
Criminal Justice and Human Services we held eight hearings across the 
United States and we had a great debate in every region of the country, 
but many organizations came forth, whether they were Muslim, Jewish or 
Christian in some form, and said, we cannot compromise the nature of 
our faith if you are going to make us change our hiring practices.
  So what we are saying, by trying to take away their religious 
liberty, if they want to provide secular services, that we are 
discriminating and changing policy contrary to what President Clinton 
has supported, contrary to what President Bush has supported, contrary 
to the different nominees of both parties; and it will be a sad day if 
this Congress after bipartisan efforts for the last 5 to 8 years to 
push this type of legislation to allow these faith-based groups at the 
table would go backwards and say, you are no longer welcome, you are 
not invited to help anymore, you are off the table.
  I believe that the Members, and I know one argument is that we had 
these debates in the middle of the night, I believe Members actually 
looked at those bills and they knew what they were voting for, and I 
hope they will not flip-flop today.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the history is ambiguous. 
Courts have been on both sides. The principle is what is involved. We 
are told that if we adopt this amendment, we are denying the liberty to 
religious organizations. The liberty that is being asked, frankly I am 
disappointed to hear this asserted, and I think the greatest 
denigration of religious organizations coming forward here are those 
who are saying this: there are religious groups in this country who are 
eager to help people in need, but if they get Federal tax dollars to 
help people in need and they are forced to associate with heathens and 
unbelievers and infidels, then they will be driven away.
  What is so terrible about saying to the Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn who 
were cited, you want to help the people in Brooklyn, the people you 
want to help will be black and Hispanic, they will be white and poor 
and Jewish and Christian, if you really want to help them, on your own, 
whatever you want to do, you can do. But if you want all of those 
people in Brooklyn who paid Federal taxes, if you want a share of their 
Federal taxes to run a program to help them, God forbid, I guess you 
mean this literally, God forbid you should have to hire one of them.
  Martin Luther King said, and it is sadly still true, that one of the 
most segregated times in America is the hour of worship. So understand 
that when you empower the religious groups to discriminate based on 
religion, you will also de facto empower some segregation. Those 
Orthodox Jewish groups in Brooklyn will hire very few black people in 
Brooklyn. And if in fact you have a policy that says all the money is 
going to go in these areas to the religious groups, then what about 
people who are not religious? The Constitution says you should not 
discriminate against them. You may not think much of them, but you 
should not be discriminating against them, but they cannot ever get a 
job.
  And you talk about message. I love this message. What we are going to 
be saying if you win here in the House of Representatives is, attention 
all Shiites, do not hire Sunnis. That is your principle. Apparently, we 
are going to be encouraging the people in Iraq with Iraqi Government 
money or American Government money, a lot of it is going to Iraq, do 
you really think you want to send that message to the Shiites that when 
they try to rebuild their country they should not hire Sunnis?
  And what are you saying? That there is something somehow so corrosive 
about associating with someone of a different religion that it disables 
you from doing good? What kind of motivation do you impute to these 
people? You want to do good, but you should not have to associate with 
one of those people. By the way, even you acknowledge that the people 
being served have to be of all religions. So this religious purity that 
apparently is so essential has already been dissolved.

[[Page 3282]]

  But here is the point: we are being asked to say to Americans, yes, 
you will pay taxes for this; but the taxes you pay, you are not 
eligible for a job because you believe in the wrong God. Or you believe 
in God in the wrong way. You believe in the wrong denomination. Or you 
do not believe. Again, what are you saying? Is it really the case that 
religious organizations, that they are somehow so angry towards 
outsiders, that they feel so unclean that they cannot help people in 
need if they have to associate with people who are otherwise perfectly 
qualified, who believe in the mission of this entity, but they do not 
share the same religion?
  I hope we will not so characterize religious people as being so 
narrow and so biased towards people not of their own religion that they 
cannot even work with them in this common cause to which you say they 
are committed.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The 
1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly protects the rights of religious 
organizations to take religion into account in their hiring practices. 
In fact, the Civil Rights Act made clear that when faith-based 
organizations hire employees on a religious basis, it is an exercise of 
the organization's civil liberties and does not constitute 
discrimination under Federal law.
  The writers of that legislation understood that a church, a 
synagogue, a mosque all operate as distinctly religious organizations. 
They are, therefore, protected under the first amendment's right to the 
free exercise of religion.
  Why are we being asked today, then, to approve an amendment that 
revokes the constitutional right of faith-based communities to practice 
their religions freely? This amendment would revoke the 
constitutionally protected right of faith-based groups to maintain 
their religious nature and character through those they hire. By 
denying the rights of religious organizations to hire according to 
their principles, this amendment declares war between the government 
and faith-based organizations, it cuts services for people in need, it 
eliminates the role of faith-based organizations in our government 
efforts to help.
  I doubt that the gentleman from Virginia would support an amendment 
forcing him to hire staff who oppose his values and priorities as a 
legislator. Why then are we being asked to call it discriminatory when 
a Christian or Muslim charity wants to consider the beliefs of 
potential employees before hiring them? Such practices have been upheld 
by the United States Supreme Court. If this amendment passes, we might 
as well revisit the Civil Rights Act itself, since we would be 
rewriting it today.
  Faith-based providers cannot be expected to sustain their religious 
missions without the ability to employ individuals who share the tenets 
and practices of their faith. The success of any organization is having 
everyone on board with its essential principles and vision. The Civil 
Rights Act secures that right, the Supreme Court protected it, and we 
should follow suit.
  This amendment should be defeated.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we are revisiting the civil 
rights laws. There has been no discrimination since 1965, and that is 
exactly what we are revisiting.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of his amendment, and I find 
it just incredible that all of a sudden discrimination becomes the core 
of religious organizations, for those of us who have spent almost 40 
years working with faith-based organizations in our communities 
involved in all kinds of public service endeavors, all kinds of 
delivery of services to people in need, to help members of our 
community in almost everything, from education to child care to job 
training to substance abuse to a whole range of activities that are 
absolutely essential to binding our community together.
  Nobody said that discrimination was a fundamental part of this 
operation all through the sixties and seventies, the eighties or the 
nineties. None of these organizations ever said they were unable to 
deliver these services, unwilling to deliver these services, unwilling 
to help these people whom they have chosen to extend the services of 
their organization to; when they took Federal money said they could not 
do this because they needed to discriminate. But all of a sudden now 
the suggestion is that the basic tenet is that you must be able to 
discriminate. You must be able to discriminate or you will not deliver 
these services.
  What does it also say about the use of the taxpayers' dollars? If the 
best person to provide the substance abuse counseling, if the best 
person to provide the child development, if the best person to provide 
the job training is not of the same religion, is the taxpayer getting a 
fair shake when they hire somebody else that does not have those 
qualifications? Should we not be looking for the best person to provide 
these services? You cannot maintain your religious character, you 
cannot maintain the religious character of your organization unless you 
can discriminate in hiring?
  Organizations, again, have never suggested that they have been 
diminished because they ran a child development center. They have never 
said they have been diminished because they ran an afterschool program 
because they could not discriminate. What is this liberty to 
discriminate against somebody else using Federal dollars? This is 
absolutely unacceptable.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Price), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity once 
again to speak on this, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment. The misunderstandings and confusion and frankly the 
hyperbole is phenomenal coming out of the other side. No one, no one, 
is encouraging faith-based institutions to discriminate with the 
language in this bill.
  Sometimes I think it is helpful to go back to the original language. 
We have had a lot of reference to title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 
1964. What it says specifically is ``This subchapter shall not apply to 
an employer with respect to the employment of,'' et cetera. It does not 
say anything about the source of the money. Nothing. There is no 
mention of the source.
  There has been some discussion about previous language that many 
Members on the other side of the aisle have adopted in previous bills, 
four pieces of legislation under the Clinton administration. President 
Clinton himself said that no discrimination with employment in the 
bills that were adopted, and we have heard about them, the welfare 
reform, the community renewal tax relief, Community Services Block 
Grant, substance abuse. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) himself 
said that there has been no discrimination since 1965.
  Well, the exact identical language in this bill was in those. If 
there is this incredible occurrence that is happening out there with 
this remarkable discrimination, where are the examples under those 
bills? Where are the examples of discrimination under those bills that 
have exactly the same language as this bill that we are promoting here?
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this and to be certain, to be certain, 
there is no intent or desire on anybody on this side of the aisle to 
encourage discrimination by faith-based institutions.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, our Nation 
has

[[Page 3283]]

moved inexorably toward the elimination of all forms of discrimination 
in government contracting and in the private sector. This bill rolls 
back that commitment that would enshrine the principle of religious 
discrimination in one of our most important job training programs at a 
time when many Americans are losing their jobs and need the help these 
programs offer.
  Members on the other sides of the aisle say that this would roll back 
the ability of churches and synagogues to discriminate on the basis of 
religion now. Nonsense. They can discriminate. No one tells the 
Catholic Church they have to hire women priests. No one tells the 
Catholic Church or any other church or synagogue they have to hire a 
janitor of a different religion. Nor would this amendment. What this 
says is that with Federal funds, they cannot discriminate. With their 
own funds they still can.
  President Reagan, who signed the original version of this legislation 
23 years ago, did not think it was necessary to allow employment 
discrimination with Federal funds. No one should ever be told that they 
cannot hold a job simply because they profess the wrong faith. And why 
is this necessary? Are religiously affiliated charities unable to 
participate in federally social services programs? Is there a single 
Member of this House who has not held secure government funds for such 
programs? For Catholic Charities? The Federation of Protestant Welfare 
Agencies? The Jewish Federation, and countless others? We all get these 
funds. That is no secret.
  The only thing required of these organizations is that they play by 
the same rules as everyone else. They cannot make professing religious 
faith a precondition of receiving social services paid for with the 
taxpayers' dollars, and they cannot discriminate in employment when 
those jobs are paid for with taxpayers' dollars.
  We have all heard about the bad old days when signs hung in windows: 
``No Catholics need apply,'' ``No Jews need apply. Fill in one's 
favorite denomination. That is wrong. People of every faith pay their 
taxes, and we have no right to deny them employment paid for by those 
taxes.
  It is wrong. It is unAmerican. It is immoral. It is unnecessary, and 
it is unprecedented.
  These are the armies of compassion. Religious discrimination with 
taxpayers' dollars is not compassionate. I urge support for the 
amendment.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno).
  Mr. FORTUNO. Mr. Chairman, the discussion today is really about 
protecting the mission of those religious organizations that some of 
the Members here are proposing that we regulate even further in spite 
of the wonderful job they are doing to work with our social ills. It is 
also about preserving the strength and integrity of religious 
organizations that engage in this type of social work. It is not a 
license we are looking for to impose particular religious beliefs, but 
a guarantee to protect the administrative integrity that is part of 
each religious group that engages in this type of work.
  Faith-based and community-based organizations are far better suited 
than a government bureaucracy to address these issues and produce 
results. Key to their success is a unifying roll they often play in 
their communities, as well as their proximity to individuals and 
communities in need.
  This is especially true, I must say, of the Hispanic American 
population. Hispanic Americans traditionally, in following their 
traditional values and beliefs, often turn to faith-based and community 
organizations for help. By channeling social services through these 
organizations, we can avoid losing members of this community in our 
society.
  However, what some today are trying to do here is essentially trying 
to tell them whom they can hire and whom they cannot hire. I know of 
different programs actually as we speak here in Washington, D.C. I have 
a group of six or seven ministers from the northwestern part of Puerto 
Rico that are visiting with us today, and they have been doing, for a 
number of years, a wonderful job in terms of working with our younger 
population. No one from Washington, I repeat, no one from Washington, 
has a right to tell them whom they can hire and whom they cannot hire. 
When a faith-based group hires employees on a religious basis, they are 
exercising their civil liberties. No one from Washington will take that 
away from them. If denied the right to staff their programs on a 
religious basis, employees of religious organizations not sharing the 
religious organization's faith could end up suing to tear down 
religious art or symbols and perhaps even its religious sounding name.
  What is really happening here is there are some people who do not 
believe that these organizations should be performing the job they are 
performing.
  I ask everyone here to oppose the amendment that has been introduced.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the gentleman 
from Virginia's (Mr. Scott) amendment to H.R. 27.
  Twenty-three years ago, the Workforce Investment Act was first 
enacted. It established a commonsense clause prohibiting job 
discrimination on the basis of religion. WIA then was originally 
designed to provide funding for secular social services. Clearly, it 
did not intend to permit government-funded job training programs to 
engage in religious discrimination when making an employment decision, 
which is exactly what this bill purports to do.
  H.R. 27 would allow faith-based organizations to discriminate not 
just on the basis of a person's religious affiliation, but also on how 
closely they follow the tenets of that religion. This would include 
religious beliefs on medical treatments; procedures; marriage; 
pregnancy; gender; and, yes, even race.
  Under this bill, if a woman providing workforce rehabilitation 
services in a faith-based organization was found to be using birth 
control, she could be fired, demoted, or not promoted. Or if a faith-
based organization frowned upon women working outside the home, they 
could deny a woman a job just because of her gender or even deny it to 
her husband for allowing such a breach of faith.
  It is simply unAmerican to set the clock back on the safeguards 
provided to protected classes, including religion, sex, race, 
ethnicity, and sexual orientation. H.R. 27 would remove these important 
protections, allowing faith-based organizations to discriminate on the 
basis of religion, even regarding the secular social services they 
provide.
  This bill contains the first ever major rollback of civil rights 
protections that were established over 40 years ago, and many of us, 
including myself, have profited from those protections and from those 
rights granted to us 40 years ago. This is an unconscionable change of 
Federal law, and I cannot support a bill with such provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Scott 
amendment and voting ``no'' on the final passage of this bill that 
endorses a Federal rollback of decades-old civil rights and privacy 
protections.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Scott amendment, 
which seeks to strike important protections for religious organizations 
included in the bill.
  I am frankly appalled at the scale of the rhetoric being presented by 
the minority party on this issue. We know that many religious 
organizations in our hometowns and across America provide invaluable 
job training services in our communities. We must help religious 
organizations, whether they be churches, synagogues, or mosques, 
maintain their integrity while continuing to provide these vital 
services to those in need.
  This debate is about whether a religious organization should have the 
ability to select employees who share

[[Page 3284]]

common values and sense of purpose. This is not saying that they will 
not hire people of other religions but we will not force them to do so. 
This is a vital criterion for all organizations, especially religious 
ones. A secular group, such as Planned Parenthood or the Sierra Club, 
that receives government money, is currently free to hire based on 
their ideology and mission but still use Federal funds in accordance 
with the terms of the program. How can we allow this for groups such as 
these and not allow it for groups that are religious by nature?
  Others who oppose these hiring protections for religious 
organizations talk about discrimination. The only discrimination that 
would take place here is if we do not include these protections. 
Without them we would be discriminating against religious organizations 
just because they are religious. Religious organizations should be 
allowed to apply for the same amount of government money for services 
they provide that nonreligious organizations do. If we deny them these 
protections, many of them would have to compromise their missions or 
not apply at all for assistance in implementing these services.
  The real question here should be, do we want to be telling religious 
organizations whom they can hire and cannot hire? No. Nowhere in the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 does it state that a faith-based organization 
loses its rights if it accepts Federal funds.
  Our Nation was founded by those fleeing religious persecution and 
seeking religious freedom. For us to forget that and to place 
restrictions of this sort on our churches is contrary to the very 
foundation of this great Nation. I implore each and every one of my 
colleagues to take a long hard work at what message we would be sending 
to oppressed people across the globe if we do not include these 
important protections for religious organizations.
  If we approve this amendment, we could be seriously damaging the 
integrity and mission of these faith-based institutions that only seek 
to serve our communities.
  I urge the Members to oppose this amendment and support these 
important protections for religious organizations that want to provide 
job training services to our communities.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, next month my family and I will observe my wife's 
Jewish tradition and recite the ancient story, the Passover at our 
family seder. Later this month, I will honor my religious tradition and 
commemorate Christ's crucifixion on Good Friday and his resurrection on 
Easter Sunday. And today I will honor the principles behind the United 
States Constitution and vote for the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. 
Scott) amendment.
  The principle here is that when an organization takes Federal money, 
it takes with it the responsibility not to discriminate. I do not think 
we should ever have a situation in this country where an organization 
takes taxpayers' money collected from everyone and then says if they 
want to be a job counselor in our agency, they cannot be a Catholic, 
they cannot be Jewish, they cannot be Muslim, they cannot be an 
evangelical Christian. Our religious organizations are free and should 
remain free to discriminate with their own funds. That is the religious 
liberty that our friends on the other side refer to correctly. But that 
liberty does not extend to the power to use someone else's money to 
subsidize the practice of one's religion. That is the establishment of 
a religion which is specifically precluded by the first amendment of 
the Constitution.
  It would be a travesty to reject the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. 
Scott) amendment. It would be wholly consistent with the religious 
principles of this country to adopt it. I would urge its adoption.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).
  Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the offered 
amendment. It seems to me in our country right now we have an all-out 
assault on faith-based groups. Just this week, a court in my home State 
of Louisiana ruled that school boards were prohibited from having 
voluntary school board member-led prayers to begin their meetings. Now, 
this very Chamber, the Supreme Court, and many government entities 
begin their proceedings with a prayer; and along that line I see 
nothing wrong with us inviting faith-based groups to be partners with 
the government in training tomorrow's workforce.
  To me, this debate should be about one and only one thing, and that 
is how do we provide the most effective training for our future 
workers? Nobody here is arguing that we should have an unlevel playing 
field. Nobody here is arguing for favoritism for faith-based groups. 
Rather, we are simply saying, let us level the playing field. Let us 
invite those who are motivated by faith to help us to train displaced 
workers, to train tomorrow's workforce.
  In my home State of Louisiana, faith-based groups have done a 
wonderful thing. They have provided health care to those who needed it; 
they have provided education, housing and shelter to those whose needed 
it the most.
  What is next? If you extend the logic of this amendment, what might 
be next might be those Catholic hospitals not being able to accept 
Medicare patients. What might be next might be the Baptist hospitals 
not being allowed to participate in our State's Medicaid program.
  We are not asking for special treatment. All we are saying is let us 
build on a bipartisan precedent, a precedent set in the Civil Rights 
Act, a precedent reaffirmed under President Clinton under four 
different bills. Let us build on that bipartisan precedent of opening 
the doors and allowing faith-based groups to participate as equal 
partners.
  People of faith pay taxes as well in this country. We are not arguing 
for special treatment; we are just arguing for a level playing field.
  Four different times this Congress saw fit to open those doors to 
faith-based groups. Four different times President Clinton signed into 
law four different measures designed to protect the interests and 
rights of faith-based groups.
  Today this bill that we are going to approve later on the floor today 
simply takes another step forward. It simply says to the faith-based 
community, we will not discriminate against you. We will not require 
you to give up your employment rights guaranteed or granted to you by 
the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
  To quote Members from the other side, Senator Kerry and Senator 
Clinton, those that have stood before for freedom and plurality, they 
themselves say, Senator Clinton in her own words says, ``There is no 
contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding 
our constitutional principles.'' Senator Kerry says, ``I know there are 
some that say that the first amendment means faith-based organizations 
can't help government. I've never accepted that. I think they are 
wrong.''
  In this instance, I find myself in agreement with both Senator Kerry 
and Senator Clinton. The first amendment is not designed to protect 
government, not designed to protect us from faith; it is rather 
designed to separate church and State. It is, rather, designed to 
protect faith from government, not the other way around.
  So I think we need to stop closing the door to people of faith. We 
need to stop discriminating against those groups that are motivated by 
their religious beliefs to help the weakest in society. I rise in 
opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, we keep hearing that we are discriminating against 
religious organizations in terms of participation in government 
contracts. That is not true. The fact is that they can participate. 
When you talk about a barrier, say what the barrier is. The barrier is, 
there is a level playing field; you cannot discriminate.

[[Page 3285]]

  We have also heard a lot about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. What has 
not been said is since 1965 there has been a specific prohibition 
against discrimination in Federal contracts. You have not been able to 
discriminate in a job training program since 1965. In fact, for defense 
contracts, you have not been able to discriminate since 1941.
  We also heard, Mr. Chairman, about the hiring for Planned Parenthood, 
I believe, and what your position is on abortion or gun control or 
something. In the 1960s, Mr. Chairman, we passed civil rights laws to 
respond to our sorry history of bigotry, and we designated specific 
protected classes where you could not discriminate in employment, race, 
color, creed, national origin and sex; and you cannot discriminate 
against those protected classes.
  There is a difference between telling somebody they cannot get a job 
because I do not like your position on gun control and we do not hire 
blacks or Jews. Race and religion are protected classes; positions on 
gun control and abortion are not, and there is a difference.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, this debate is about one question that 
each Member and each American should ask himself or herself. This is 
the question: Should any American citizen have to pass someone else's 
private religious test to qualify for a tax-funded job? I think the 
vast majority of Americans would answer that question, absolutely not.
  Should the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who is the author of 
this bill, have to come to me if I get a $5 million job computer 
training grant from the Federal Government under this bill, should the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) have to come to me and answer a 20-
point religious questionnaire? Should the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Boehner) have to say whether or not he believes in Jesus Christ, 
whether or not he believes in evolution, whether or not he believes in 
the literal interpretation of the New Testament?
  I do not think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) should have to 
answer those kinds of questions to me as a recipient of a $5 million 
job training grant. And without the Scott amendment, that is exactly 
what could happen under this bill.
  For those who oppose the Scott amendment, let me say what you are 
endorsing. You are saying it is okay for a church associated with Bob 
Jones University, at least based on its past philosophy, it can take a 
$1 million job training grant and pay for a sign that says, No Jews Or 
Catholics Need Apply Here For a Federally Funded Job. Do you really 
think that is right?
  What the opponents of the Scott amendment are saying is that the 
members of a white church who received a $1 million job training grant 
can say to an African American applicant, You do not belong to our 
church. Even though you are totally qualified for this federally funded 
job, we are not going to hire you.
  What this bill would say, without the Scott amendment, is that 
someone could say to a single mom trying to find a job in our religious 
faith, We do not believe single mothers should work, so we are not 
going to hire you, even though you are fully qualified for this job.
  Religious discrimination is wrong. To subsidize it in the year 2005 I 
find unbelievable. It is unbelievable that on the very day American 
soldiers are risking their lives in Iraq, and perhaps some have given 
their lives today in Iraq to give the Iraqis religious freedom, we are 
debating a bill on the floor of this House that would say an American 
citizen can be denied a federally funded, tax-funded job for simply one 
reason, the exercise of your religious faith.
  Religious freedom is not just any freedom; it is the first freedom. 
It is the first freedom enunciated in the Bill of Rights. It is the 
freedom upon which all other freedoms we cherish in this country are 
built.
  The Founding Fathers thought so much about that freedom, about 
religious freedom, they put in the first 16 words of the first 
amendment these words: ``Congress shall pass no law respecting an 
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
  If saying that someone has to lose a job to support his or her family 
because they are exercising their own deeply-felt religious faith, if 
that is not prohibiting the free exercise of religion, what is? If 
saying we are going to take away your ability to put food on the table 
for your children and a job that is paid for by taxpayers, to say that 
you cannot have that job because you do not pass my private religious 
test, if that is not prohibiting the free exercise of religion, what 
is?
  The ninth commandment warns people to not bear false witness against 
thy neighbor. Yet repeatedly I have heard on this floor those say on 
this side of the floor that supporters of the Scott amendment are 
opposed to faith-based groups being involved in providing social 
services.
  I would suggest perhaps they should not only preach the Ten 
Commandments; perhaps they should exercise and practice the ninth 
commandment, because to make that argument is to suggest that the 
Baptist Joint Committee, the American Jewish Committee, and numerous 
other religious groups are somehow opposing faith-based groups' 
involvement in Federal social service programs. You know that argument 
is simply not correct.
  This amendment, the Scott amendment, is about one question and one 
question alone: Should any American citizen have to pass another 
American citizen's private religious test to qualify for a federally 
funded job? I hope the Members of this House will respect the Founding 
Fathers and the first amendment and the views of the vast majority of 
American citizens and say, no, you should not be denied a tax-funded 
job because of the exercise of your religious faith.
  I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to put partisanship and 
politics aside. Vote for religious freedom. Vote for the Scott 
amendment.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from Virginia is 
recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not propose 
any new initiative. The adoption of this amendment will simply keep the 
law the way it has been in job training programs since 1965.
  Much has been said about court cases. None of those court cases 
involved Federal money. They involve church money and what the church 
can do with its church money; and whether it is religious or secular 
activities, it is still the church's money, not Federal money.
  Since 1965 there has been no discrimination with Federal money, at 
least until these faith-based initiatives came along. In fact, since 
1941 there has been no discrimination in defense contracts, without 
exception. So if you want to sell the Army some rifles, if you 
discriminate in employment, the Army will not buy those rifles from 
you.
  Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said about the Clinton administration. 
Let me say I will be introducing into the Record statements made at the 
signing of those bills outlining the interpretation of the Clinton 
administration, outlining why there would be no discrimination in 
employment under the Clinton administration, notwithstanding the 
language in those various bills.
  There has been no discrimination against faith-based organizations. 
Speakers have suggested that they cannot get contracts. The fact of the 
matter is that they can get contracts. In fact, anybody that can get 
funded under the underlying bill could be funded if the organization 
would simply agree not to discriminate in employment.
  In 1964, a gentleman during the debate on the floor said in terms of 
whether or not you can get the money, ``Stop the discrimination, get 
the money; continue the discrimination, do not get the money.''

[[Page 3286]]

  That is what we are talking about here. Telling somebody that they 
are not qualified for a federally paid-for job because of religion is 
wrong. Adopt my amendment and we will keep the law the way it has been 
since 1965.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 8 
minutes.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we keep our 
eye on the target here. The bill before us seeks to help Americans who 
need job training services or retraining services to help them have an 
opportunity to participate and succeed in the economy of the 21st 
century. The question is how best do we deliver those services.
  Under the Workforce Investment Act, we set up these one-stop centers 
all over the country. They have in fact been wildly successful. But we 
also know that there are pockets of poverty, pockets of people in very 
dire straits, that are not going to come walking into a one-stop shop. 
We also know that there are organizations out there that as part of 
their faith, part of the mission of their faith, go out and help those 
in need.

                              {time}  1815

  Now, what we are trying to do is to make sure that these services get 
to the people that they need. So in this bill we include protections 
for those faith-based organizations who may want to participate in this 
program, give them the opportunity to do that without, without giving 
up their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
  It is a very simple question that we are down to here. My friends on 
the other side of the aisle, by and large, want to say if you take one 
Federal dollar in the pursuit of helping others under this program, you 
have to give up your rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That is 
the whole point here.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  If it is true that they cannot discriminate with the Federal money, 
but can discriminate with the church money, is the statement that the 
gentleman mentioned, true or not?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The gentleman is not stating a point 
of order.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) will continue.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, so the debate here boils down to one of 
two issues, you believe that if these faith-based organizations want to 
participate in these programs that they have to give up their rights 
under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
  We believe and the majority of this House has believed on a number of 
occasions as we have had this vote, that faith-based organizations who 
want to help the neediest of the needy should in fact be able to have 
their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It is just as simple as 
that.
  So I would ask my colleagues as they look at this bill and look at 
this amendment to support the work that we have done, to allow these 
groups to participate. They do good work. There is no reason why that 
they cannot partner with the Federal Government to help us in our 
effort to help the neediest of the needy, and to help improve the 
prospects for job training and retraining to help all Americans 
participate in the 21st century economy and give them a chance to 
succeed at the American dream.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote against the Scott 
amendment.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott. As 
written, the underlying bill will make it legal for faith-based 
organizations that receive federal funds and run job-training programs 
to discriminate in their hiring practices.
  Throughout my life, I have fought against discrimination wherever it 
is practiced in our social, cultural, political and economic life. The 
language contained in this bill goes against that core principle. The 
president and I have our disagreements, but the one concern we do share 
is that Sunday is generally regarded as the most segregated day of the 
week. The bill before us today encourages faith-based organizations to 
practice discrimination within their employment practices with Federal 
funds during the workday week.
  I support the work of our religious institutions in sponsoring 
federal programs and delivering vital social and employment programs to 
our communities. I first sought elected office by the grace of our God 
and at the urging of my church. But supporters of this bill contend if 
you do not allow religious organizations to hire members of their own 
faith, we are denying religious institutions from participating in 
federal programs that deliver needed services to our local communities. 
In other words, they argue we are practicing religious bigotry.
  Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, I would suggest that 
this movement is reminiscent of the days of school desegregation when 
many parents withdrew their children from public school so they could 
attend so-called Christian academies for the purpose learning. Why does 
the federal government want to encourage that kind of action? This bill 
does just that.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee Of the Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), amendment by 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), amendment by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Kildee

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Kildee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200, 
noes 222, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 44]

                               AYES--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon

[[Page 3287]]


     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--222

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Carson
     Cleaver
     Gillmor
     Harris
     Jones (OH)
     McCrery
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Napolitano
     Reynolds
     Ryan (OH)

                              {time}  1845

  Messrs. LaTOURETTE, NEUGE-
BAUER, and WALDEN of Oregon, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, and Messrs. FITZ-
PATRICK of Pennsylvania, PETRI, and OTTER changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SPRATT, POMEROY and SHAYS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The pending business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 202, 
noes 221, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 45]

                               AYES--202

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman

[[Page 3288]]


     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Carson
     Cleaver
     Gillmor
     Harris
     Jones (OH)
     McCrery
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Napolitano
     Reynolds


                  Announcement By The Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote) (Mr. Bass). Members are advised 
that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1853

  Mr. SHAYS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. FOSSELLA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 239, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 46]

                               AYES--186

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--239

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Carson
     Cleaver
     Gillmor
     Harris
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Napolitano
     Reynolds

                              {time}  1903

  Mr. BASS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). There being no further amendments, 
the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bass, the Acting 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House Resolution 126, he reported 
the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee 
of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.

[[Page 3289]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Kildee

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. KILDEE. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Kildee of Michigan moves to recommit the bill H.R. 27 
     to the Committee on Education and the Workforce with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       After section 127, insert the following new section (and 
     redesignate succeeding sections and conform the table of 
     contents accordingly):

     SEC. 128. ASSISTANCE TO VETERANS RETURNING FROM ACTIVE DUTY 
                   AND WORKERS WHO LOSE JOBS DUE TO OFFSHORING.

       The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 is amended by adding 
     after section 174 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 175. ASSISTANCE TO VETERANS RETURNING FROM ACTIVE DUTY 
                   AND WORKERS WHO LOSE JOBS DUE TO OFFSHORING.

       ``(a) Income Support, Job Training, Job Search Assistance, 
     Relocation Allowance.--
       ``(1) In general.--From the amount authorized under 
     subsection (d), the Secretary shall make grants to States to 
     provide income support, job training assistance, job search 
     assistance, and relocation allowances to--
       ``(A) individuals who have lost employment due to 
     offshoring; and
       ``(B) a person who is unemployed and, while on active duty 
     in the Armed Forces, was deployed overseas in support of 
     Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.
       ``(2) Veteran eligibility for job training.--With respect 
     to job training assistance under this subsection, a person 
     who served on active duty in the Armed Forces and was 
     deployed overseas in support of Operation Enduring Freedom or 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom shall be eligible regardless of 
     whether such person is employed.
       ``(b) Assistance.--The benefits provided under this section 
     for such individuals shall be the same as the benefits for 
     such individuals under the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
     program (under subchapter II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 
     U.S.C. 2271 et seq.)).
       ``(c) Offshoring of Jobs.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `offshoring' means any action taken by an employer 
     the effect of which is to create, shift, or transfer work or 
     facilities outside the United States.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.''.

  Mr. KILDEE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, my motion to recommit is simple. It provides 
extra assistance to workers whose jobs have been outsourced and 
veterans who are returning from conflicts overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, half a million jobs have been outsourced over the past 3 
years. An additional 830,000 jobs are expected to be outsourced in 2005 
and 3.3 million by 2015. Up to 6 million jobs may be sent overseas in 
the next 10 years. These statistics represent lost jobs for American 
workers. Fewer jobs means that American workers will struggle to 
provide for their families and fall further into debt. The 
administration has turned a deaf ear to the needs of these workers. 
American workers who lose their jobs due to outsourcing need 
significant assistance and resources to obtain new employment. This 
motion would provide this help.
  Likewise, many veterans returning from the conflicts in Afghanistan 
and Iraq may need skills and training to obtain or retain their jobs. 
Reservists who have spent a year or more overseas have put their 
careers on hold to serve our country. This amendment would provide the 
help they need.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members who want to help our veterans and those 
who have lost their jobs to outsourcing to support this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from South 
Dakota (Ms. Herseth).
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan for offering this motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, we have asked literally hundreds of thousands of our 
best and brightest, many of them National Guard and Reservists from 
South Dakota, to serve overseas in Operations Iraqi Freedom and 
Enduring Freedom. We owe these brave men and women and their families a 
great deal for their sacrifice during these difficult times. What we 
owe them is the opportunity to make good on the American Dream that 
they have fought to defend.
  This motion would create an economic transition benefit, similar to 
Trade Adjustment Act assistance, for service members returning from 
Iraq and Afghanistan who find themselves without employment. 
Additionally, too many of the brave men and women who are serving in 
the National Guard and Reserve forces have returned home to find their 
jobs gone and their families struggling to make ends meet. While our 
military personnel are risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
they should not be worrying if their jobs will be there for them when 
they return home or what they will do if they are not.
  This motion to recommit would provide unemployed veterans of Iraq and 
Afghanistan with income support and intensive employment training and 
job relocation assistance so that they can successfully transition back 
into civilian life.
  I ask my colleagues to support this motion to recommit. Our returning 
servicemembers from Iraq and Afghanistan deserve no less.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the outsourcing of good-paying American 
jobs to other countries is a crisis that touches every community in the 
United States. Up to half a million jobs have been outsourced over the 
past 3 years to countries like China, India, and Mexico. This at a time 
when there are 8 million Americans out of work.
  Americans now understand that outsourcing negatively impacts every 
segment of our economy. Not only have 2.7 million jobs been lost in our 
once-vibrant manufacturing sector since the beginning of this 
administration but white collar jobs are being offshored as well. 
According to one report, 181,000 computer jobs will be moved offshore 
by the end of 2005. Last year, State and local governments outsourced 
$10 billion of public projects.
  What we are witnessing today is a full-scale erosion of the American 
workforce, with millions seeking skills to improve their current 
employment situation. This bill undermines our job training system and 
our economy alike. This motion seeks to provide assistance to veterans, 
provide workers who lost their jobs to outsourcing with job training 
assistance, allowances to relocate to where they can find work and 
other forms of income support. This bill destroys the functioning 
elements of our job training system. It does not, quote, improve our 
delivery of these vital services for unemployed Americans.
  I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this motion which will 
address a very urgent problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let us tell the truth about what has 
happened in job creation in America. Over the last 17 months, 2.7 
million new jobs have been created in America. Our economy is strong 
and our economy is getting stronger. If we look at the underlying bill 
that we have before us, veterans have a preference to services above 
all others.
  What the gentleman from Michigan proposes here is a brand new program 
similar to a trade adjustment program

[[Page 3290]]

that provides up to 2 years of unemployment-type benefits and provides 
unlimited access to training. But the fact is that unemployed workers 
have access today, people coming back from Iraq who are unemployed have 
access to services, and those who may have their jobs lost through 
outsourcing have, in fact, access to services.
  But what also happens under the gentleman's amendment is that they 
get a preference in this bill. The gentleman creates a new preference 
here above other types of people who may have lost their jobs. The 
underlying bill, in fact, will provide more services to more unemployed 
workers and workers who want to increase their skills who may not be 
unemployed.
  But when we look at this, this is a new program. This is an 
authorization. There is no appropriation. We all know it will probably 
take 2 to 5 years for this type of program to be implemented. The fact 
is I think it is a cruel hoax on those who may be unemployed, who may 
fall into one of these categories to think that they are going to be 
eligible for unemployment-type assistance or be eligible for unlimited 
training when, in fact, there is no appropriation and the fact is the 
program will take years to implement.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and 
support the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 228, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 47]

                               AYES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--228

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bonner
     Carson
     Cleaver
     Gillmor
     Harris
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Napolitano


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the 
vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1933

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KILDEE. 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 224, 
noes 200, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 48]

                               AYES--224

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)

[[Page 3291]]


     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hensarling
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bonner
     Carson
     Cleaver
     Gillmor
     Harris
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Napolitano
     Pelosi

                              {time}  1942

  Mr. ROYCE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________