[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3632-3640]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 803, SUPPORTING KNOWLEDGE AND 
                    INVESTING IN LIFELONG SKILLS ACT

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 113 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 113

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 803) to reform and strengthen the workforce 
     investment system of the Nation to put Americans back to work 
     and make the United States more competitive in the 21st 
     century. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as 
     an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-4. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is 
recognized for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1550

  Ms. FOXX. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of 
this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. House Resolution 113 provides for a structured rule 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 803, the Supporting Knowledge 
and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act, also known simply as the SKILLS 
Act.
  Mr. Speaker, today, the House will consider the SKILLS Act, which 
reauthorizes the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, of 1998. While these 
programs have continued to receive funding through the appropriations 
process, the WIA authorization expired in 2003.
  WIA seeks to coordinate local employment services through a unified 
workforce development service and a one-stop career center delivery 
system. Reforming the Nation's workforce development system is 
critical, and in these difficult economic times, when roughly 20 
million Americans are struggling to find adequate work, we cannot 
afford to delay action any longer. Delay is costly for those seeking to 
find work. Today, many unemployed and underemployed Americans have 
turned to Federal workforce education programs to develop the skills 
they need to be competitive for jobs, but instead of an easy-to-
navigate, responsive system, many have found a complex bureaucracy 
unresponsive to their needs and concerns.
  In January 2011, the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, 
identified 47 separate and distinct workforce development programs 
across nine different Federal agencies that cost taxpayers 
approximately $18 billion annually. The GAO report found that almost 
all of these programs were duplicative and overlapping, that only five 
of these programs had had any type of evaluation, and that those 
evaluations had not been very effective ones.
  Through the Education and the Workforce Committee's oversight of the 
WIA system, even more programs have been identified, and the true 
number of Federal workforce development programs is greater than 50. We 
know this is a problem, and we all agree this needs to change. 
President Obama recognized the challenge of the current bureaucratic 
system in his 2012 State of the Union address. Let me quote the 
President directly:

       I want to cut through the maze of confusing training 
     programs so that, from now on, people have one program, one 
     place to go, for all the information and help that they need.

  These are among the many reasons I introduced the SKILLS Act earlier 
this year. This legislation streamlines 35 duplicative Federal 
workforce development programs, and it creates a single workforce 
investment fund to serve employers, workers, and job seekers.
  The SKILLS Act establishes a dynamic, employer-driven workforce 
development system by ensuring that two-thirds of the State and local 
Workforce Investment Boards' members are employers, and it repeals 19 
federally mandated board positions. This legislation expands 
decisionmaking at State and local levels so that these individuals can 
make the best decisions to meet the needs of their communities.
  The bill also addresses the administrative bloat in Washington by 
requiring the Office of Management and Budget to identify and reduce 
the number of Federal staff working on employment workforce development 
programs that will be consolidated under this bill. The SKILLS Act 
holds these programs accountable for taxpayer dollars spent by 
requiring annual performance evaluations and by establishing common 
performance metrics.
  The bill also allows States to determine eligible training providers, 
simplifying the bureaucratic process that has forced many community 
colleges and other providers out of the system, and it gives local 
boards the flexibility to work directly with community colleges to 
educate large groups of participants. Additionally, the SKILLS Act 
encourages these programs to

[[Page 3633]]

focus on in-demand jobs and industries so that participants will be 
able to succeed in the workplace upon completion, and it ensures that 
funds are spent directly on services rather than on administration and 
bureaucrats. This bill improves transparency by requiring States and 
local areas to report annually on administrative costs.
  Each day we delay is another day employers are not hiring the workers 
they need, another day unemployed workers are not receiving the best 
technical education and another day taxpayer dollars are wasted on red 
tape and well-intentioned but broken programs. We have a responsibility 
to move this process forward. The time to act is now.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bill, the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong 
Skills, or SKILLS Act.
  For the last 40 years, the reauthorization of the Federal job 
training legislation has had the support of Democrats and Republicans. 
Members on both sides of the aisle know that the passage of this bill 
is critical to our Nation's recovery and future competitiveness.
  I served on the State Board of Education in Colorado from 2000 to 
2006, and I recall the prior authorization of the Workforce Investment 
Act that we're still operating under. It dates to 1998. It came up 
after 5 years, which was in 2003, and I remember being on the State 
board. In our State, like in many States, jurisdiction goes between 
both the Department of Labor and the State Department of Education. 
Under the State Department of Education, we have some of the adult 
literacy components and adult education components of workforce 
investment, and under the Department of Labor, we have other areas of 
responsibility.
  We said, well, hopefully, Congress will act. That was in 2003-2004, 
but that Congress didn't act. We said, well, hopefully, Congress will 
act in 2005-2006. We still need a reauthorization, so let's hope 
Congress will act. Then I ran for Congress. I was in the next Congress 
from 2009-2010 with a Democratic majority. It didn't pass. In 2011-
2012, with a Republican majority, there was no WIA reauthorization.
  So here we are now in the 113th Congress, and, unfortunately, we have 
a bill that lacks bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the Republicans 
have departed from the long history of bipartisanship in common areas 
of agreement, some of which were talked about by Dr. Foxx in her 
opening remarks: streamlining programs; reducing the number of programs 
that have been shown to be ineffective by the GAO; having a workforce 
investment system that's more nimble and able to react to changes in 
the economy, to changes in the employment sector, to changes in the 
types of skills that people need to succeed in the 21st century 
workforce. Unfortunately, we have a bill today which falls short in 
that regard.
  Even though this bill gives great authority to Governors, I have word 
from my own home State's Department of Labor and Unemployment of its 
opposition to this bill. We have statements from many other disability 
advocates, youth groups, civil rights groups that are opposed to this 
bill. Workers with disabilities, disadvantaged youth, returning 
veterans, low-income adults, migrant workers, and minorities are all 
underserved populations that a workforce investment system is designed 
to serve, yet these are the very populations that stand to lose the 
most under the current bill.
  Instead of encouraging collaboration between these programs and 
streamlining these programs and rewarding what works and stopping what 
doesn't work, this bill forces effective programs to compete with one 
another for State funding, putting an additional burden on State and 
local budgets in the process. Instead of prioritizing incentives for 
business, which could potentially leverage our Federal investment for 
colleges and local governments and workforce organizations to 
collaborate, this bill requires that only employers be represented on 
Workforce Investment Boards, leaving many other stakeholders on the 
sidelines.
  Of course, meeting the needs of employers is the goal of the 
Workforce Investment Act, but when you look at the stakeholders that 
will deliver on that and match the people to the skills, you need to 
include businesses, colleges, local governments, and others who work in 
partnership with needs assessment, driven by the employment needs of 
the private sector, to help determine the outputs that are important 
for workforce training systems so that our economy can continue to grow 
and succeed.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill hands a blank check to Governors with a 
message that says to go ahead and use Federal tax dollars however you 
like, you can eliminate services for the underserved, and yet we, the 
American taxpayers, are continuing to pay for it.
  Look, we are custodians of taxpayer trust here in this body. 
Frequently, this body doesn't do a very good job of that with the 
deficits that we have, with the lack of any comprehensive way of 
reining in Federal spending and even with regard to the sequester, 
which, while it makes progress on reining in Federal spending, it does 
so in a non-discriminate way rather than with a thoughtful approach 
that would be in the interest of our country. Here we are just passing 
out dollar bills, throwing dollar bills to the States. Here comes Uncle 
Sam, ready to bail out Governors. They're playing the walnut game--
moving it over to this account and moving it to this account.

                              {time}  1600

  This is essentially a slush fund for State Governors, as it's 
currently constructed, at the expense of groups that traditionally have 
high unemployment, including veterans who so capably served our 
country, particularly during our two most recent wars--the Iraq War, 
which has wound down, and the Afghanistan war, which we hope winds down 
over the next couple of years--as well as the many veterans of prior 
conflicts, including the first Gulf War and the Vietnam conflict, who 
continue to suffer from unemployment at above average levels to this 
day.
  In addition, this bill decreases the WIA State set-aside funding that 
facilitates targeted innovation and encourages interstate partnerships. 
My home State of Colorado has used this funding for a State energy 
sector partnership, provided scholarships to train over 20 Coloradans. 
It led to full-time employment, even leading to the creation of a new 
company.
  This funding also allowed Colorado to form 10 strategy sector 
partnerships, which have leveraged more than three-quarters of a 
million in private financing and public financing towards incentives 
that will train over 1,200 Colorado job seekers in high-demand 
occupations. This vital funding would be slashed from 15 percent to 5 
percent. I would add that, under the Democratic substitute, which we 
are grateful that this rule allows for, WIA State set-aside would be 
restored at the full 15 percent.
  In addition, this bill would freeze authorized funding levels for WIA 
over the next 7 years. This freeze comes on top of the fact that WIA 
funding has already been cut in half since 2001. Let me say that again. 
WIA funding has been cut in half since 2001, at the very time when the 
changing needs of the global economy need to be matched so that 
Americans can keep up with the skills they need to compete in the 21st 
century economy. And while making a cut there could save a few dollars 
now, if we fail to invest in the future of bringing Americans along to 
ensure that they can have good jobs that our Nation depends on, this 
would have a profound negative impact on our budget and economy over 
time.
  There are many ideas that a number of us have had to make this bill 
better. Many of them are included in the Democratic substitute, which 
is allowed under this rule and will be debated with extended debate 
time and discussed. However, many of us would have preferred an open 
rule. We proposed an open rule yesterday in the

[[Page 3634]]

Rules Committee. Had an open rule been offered, I would have loved to 
bring forth a number of amendments, including one that is a bill I 
cosponsor with Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut that would 
make it easier for women to get training in jobs that they are capable 
of doing in fields that they are traditionally underrepresented in. 
There are many fields, while women have made great progress across the 
economy, where women only have a 2 or 3 or 4 percent presence that are 
high-paying jobs. We need to match women to the skills so they can 
fulfill those opportunities.
  I also would like to see, if there had been an open process here on 
the floor of the House of Representatives, a requirement that State and 
local workforce organizations both give some of their time and effort 
on promoting training to empower people to start their own companies 
through entrepreneurship and innovation. In addition to creating access 
to entrepreneurship training, we can focus on reducing the skills gap 
in computer science and information technology, fast-growing 
occupations, by providing education and training for the jobs of their 
future.
  Democrats have introduced their own workforce reauthorization bill, 
the Workforce Investment Act of 2013, which would streamline programs, 
maintain strong protections for veterans and other vulnerable 
populations, and create stronger accountability for employment outcomes 
while recognizing and expanding the central role community colleges 
play in job training.
  Again, I'm pleased that this rule makes the Democratic substitute in 
order. I wish that it was an open rule that allowed for a full 
discussion of the many ideas that come from the entire body of 
membership.
  It will take both sides working together on this bill, with Dr. 
Foxx's effort, Ranking Member Miller's effort, Chairman Kline's effort, 
Ranking Member Hinojosa's effort, to create a reauthorization that will 
stand the test of time, replacing the 1998 law that we all continue to 
operate under in a world that has changed significantly since then.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Colorado, as he's on 
the Education Committee. And I certainly wish that he and his 
colleagues had stayed in the Education Committee markup on this bill 
and offered the many ideas he said that they had to make it better; 
but, unfortunately, they walked out and did not take the opportunity to 
offer those amendments in the committee.
  I would now like to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague 
from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I stand here today to show my support in favor 
of the workforce initiative bill presented by the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  This bill is not restrictive to any group, be it gender or race, but 
is for all Americans. This bill will allow people to find gainful 
employment in the marketplace. This is what America is in dire need of 
right now, and that is jobs.
  By helping people acquire the skills needed to find employment, we 
also give them the ability to help themselves in their ability to 
change their lifestyle as they pursue their American Dream.
  The SKILLS Act will help the economy in several ways:
  One, by creating a more qualified workforce to fill the needs of 
today's industries. Thus, it will bring more certainty to the 
marketplace. Therefore, employers, knowing that there is a more readily 
available trained workforce, will be more likely to expand their 
business.
  Another way is it will create higher paying jobs.
  A third way is it reduces the number of administrative agencies that 
oversee and run these programs by more than half, thereby causing 
government to be more streamlined, operate more efficiently, and save 
the taxpayers money.
  The end result, we help people get back to work sooner; and by doing 
so, we make a stronger America. So many of our policies of the past, 
although well-intentioned, have held people back and kept them out of 
the workforce by not promoting the learning or the advanced job skills 
needed in today's work environment. I believe we all would prefer to 
see people independent and self-sufficient versus dependent upon 
government.
  America is known as a generous country, and let's work to keep her 
that way; but America is also known as the land of opportunity for 
those that choose to seize that opportunity. This SKILLS Act will help 
ensure people acquire the skills, and if they desire to take advantage 
of the opportunity, to succeed in America. Again, everyone wins and 
America is stronger.
  For these reasons, we should move forward with this legislation; and 
I urge my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, to vote in favor 
of the rule.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, a colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. 
McGovern.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the ongoing problem with this Republican 
majority is their insistence on partisan political ploys at the expense 
of sound policy. It's their way or the highway, and this is a good 
example. This bill should be a bipartisan bill. This bill should have 
brought both sides together for the common goal of putting people back 
to work.
  The bill we are considering today, the so-called SKILLS Act, doesn't 
in any way, shape, or form reflect bipartisanship. Instead of bringing 
a bill to the floor that will help our economy prosper and grow jobs, 
instead of bringing a bill to the floor where there's bipartisanship, 
this majority has given us a bill that, quite frankly, will gut job 
training programs.
  This is not a good bill. In fact, it does real harm to job training 
programs that will help put Americans back to work. And I'm 
particularly alarmed by the bill's egregious cuts to the SNAP Education 
and Training program.
  The SKILLS Act would destroy the SNAP Education and Training program 
as we know it. It would kill a program that provides low-income 
individuals with the training they need to get jobs, jobs that pay 
enough to get them off of public assistance. And here is the deal: the 
SNAP Education and Training program works; it actually works.
  The author of this bill, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Dr. 
Foxx, does not take a meat-ax to this program but, instead, cleverly 
reworks it in a way so that, while it will exist in name, it will not 
be able to carry out its mission. Rather than going directly at the 
program and reducing or zeroing out the program funding, the bill 
instead eliminates the role of the SNAP agency in determining what 
kinds of services are provided to SNAP participants.
  Under the SKILLS Act, the WIA board is authorized to serve ``eligible 
SNAP participants.'' The way this would appear to work is that the 
State SNAP agency would still assign some group of participants to SNAP 
Education and Training programs, but only to those programs as provided 
through WIA.

                              {time}  1610

  And here's the concern: the concern is that a good number of States, 
including my home State of Massachusetts, have found the WIA services 
to be inappropriate for SNAP recipients.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, childless, unemployed adults generally 
cannot participate in SNAP for more than 3 months out of every 3 years 
unless they are enrolled in certain types of training programs for 20 
hours per week.
  In this legislation, workforce investment boards are not required to 
provide work slots that meet these conditions, and State SNAP agencies 
are no longer able to provide additional services. As a result, if jobs 
are not available, some poor individuals who are willing to work could 
lose their SNAP benefits. They could lose their food benefits.
  According to the Government Accountability Office:


[[Page 3635]]

       Many SNAP participants are not ready for many program 
     services such as training classes offered by programs at the 
     WIA one-stops because they lack basic skills, such as reading 
     and computer literacy, that would allow them to use their 
     services successfully.

  At best, Mr. Speaker, low-income individuals on SNAP who are lacking 
job skills that will help them get off public assistance will be denied 
access to job-training programs. But here's the kicker: at worst, low-
income individuals who rely on SNAP to put food on their table will 
either see part or all of their benefit cut.
  Yes, Mr. Speaker, just when you think things couldn't get worse for 
poor people in this country, this new legislation could actually make 
hunger worse.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill that does nothing to help the 
American economy or the unemployed or the untrained in this country. We 
should be focusing on jobs, not partisan legislation.
  This is an area where we should be able to come together, as my 
colleague, Mr. Polis, said. This is yet another attack on poor people. 
We should be working to end hunger now and not passing bills that make 
hunger worse.
  I'll conclude as I began, Mr. Speaker, by saying that this is one of 
those opportunities that I think the American people believe that we 
could come together. Unfortunately, this has become a partisan ploy, 
another partisan press release.
  This bill is going nowhere, and I regret that very much because 
unemployed people need help.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am used to hyperbole on this floor. I'm used 
to hyperbole from my colleague from Massachusetts, but I really think 
this one was a little over the top.
  This bill does not kill the employment program with SNAP, and only 
6.8 percent of the recipients of food stamps even participate in that 
program. So to say that this bill is going to create additional hunger 
in this country is really over the top a little bit.
  The best way we can help people who are hungry in this country is to 
help them get a good-paying job, and that's what we need to be doing.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina for yielding, as well as her sponsorship of this 
important bill.
  You know, job creation and getting Americans back to work is the 
number one priority facing this country. And in talking to people from 
my district, talking to people who are unemployed, people who are 
underemployed, they tell me that they need skills to get back to work.
  We need workforce development programs that work. We need to train 
people for jobs that are here today and jobs that are going to be here 
tomorrow.
  One step we can take is to reform our workforce development program. 
Our system currently isn't flexible. It has too much red tape, and we 
need to make sure it works for people who are looking for jobs and 
connects people who are looking for jobs with employers that have open 
positions.
  We need a nimble system that can respond to our changing economy, and 
we have to streamline our current system. Today we have at least 47 
duplicative or ineffective programs. We need a simpler, more 
comprehensive system, a system that employers and job seekers can 
navigate and successfully complete.
  The SKILLS Act will address these issues and set up a workforce 
development program that will train people looking for jobs to get them 
back to work. That's why I look forward to voting in favor of the 
SKILLS Act.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado, and I rise in 
opposition to the rule and the underlying bill of the so-called SKILLS 
Act.
  Fifteen years ago, before I was in Congress, I watched with great 
interest as Congress, House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, worked 
on worker training and produced the Workforce Investment Act. I was 
impressed. This was the kind of thing that Congress should be doing. It 
was the kind of thing that made me look forward to the prospect of 
maybe going to Congress some day.
  I remember David Broder, then the dean of Washington journalists, 
wrote a column saying this is exactly the kind of thing that Congress 
should be doing--and they were doing it in a bipartisan way.
  And here we are today, 15 years later, with an ideological, partisan 
dead end.
  Now, let me make it clear: workforce investment is what Congress 
needs to do. The government plays an important role in training and 
fostering a strong and capable workforce.
  The so-called SKILLS Act does not invest in the workforce. Rather, it 
seeks to combine and reduce vital programs that workers need.
  As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I, along 
with others, sought to help to develop and update an efficient, fair 
program that would help eager workers get the right training and get 
the right jobs. We had some good ideas to contribute. Some of them had 
been tested in my home State of New Jersey.
  We had some strong evidence that some of the programs that 
Representative Foxx's version had canceled, or sought to cancel, should 
be improved and retained. We had good legislative language for the 
majority party to consider, and we were rebuffed. Our efforts were in 
vain.
  American workers are now caught in the middle of this partisan, 
ideological effort. Individuals with disabilities, the disadvantaged, 
high-risk youth, veterans cannot afford to be abandoned by the majority 
party's proposal.
  It was interesting that the author of this bill said, well, only 6.8 
percent of the SNAP participants use the workforce training. Oh, so 3 
million people we can forget about. Is that the implication of that?
  No, I think the implication should be we should expand it to even 
more. We need to work together to provide our Nation's job seekers with 
the resources and the training they need to obtain and maintain quality 
employment. The underlying partisan ``consolidate it and then cut it 
bill'' will keep people out of work, not put them back to work.
  I urge the defeat of the rule so that we can have something more 
bipartisan, and I urge defeat of the bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of a line from ``The Canterbury 
Tales'': The gentleman doth protest too much.
  We're told that this is a partisan bill, that the efforts of the 
other side were in vain.
  Well, let me remind my colleague, he's one of the members of the 
committee that walked out of the committee meeting. When there was the 
opportunity for the Democrats to offer amendments, they did not do it. 
However, some amendments were offered before the Rules Committee, and 
we have all of the amendments that were submitted by the Democrats and 
not withdrawn that are going to be considered today.
  The Democrat substitute amendment was made in order, and I appreciate 
Mr. Polis acknowledging that. And we've given them extended debate 
time. So it's not exactly as though we are shutting them out of this 
process.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from North Carolina, Congresswoman Ellmers.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Speaker, thank you to my distinguished colleague 
from North Carolina, whose passion and longstanding experience in this 
area have brought this great piece of legislation for us to be able to 
vote on today.
  And I would just like to rise and say that I am in support of the 
rule and the underlying bill to the SKILLS Act.

                              {time}  1620

  Here in Congress we frequently hear from our constituents back home 
that we need to work with the President on many issues, and this is a 
perfect example of a piece of legislation that we are working on with 
President Barack Obama. The SKILLS Act directly addresses what the 
President recently

[[Page 3636]]

called ``a maze of confusing training programs.''
  This is our chance to come together and create meaningful, 
commonsense reform that will help struggling Americans pull themselves 
up out of unemployment and empower them to better provide for their 
families. It would also create a single Workforce Investment Fund. It 
basically streamlines numerous ineffective, redundant programs, and it 
allows for every American to better themselves.
  I can only think of whom this bill actually helps. I can think of the 
single mother who is working every day and wants to better help her 
family and have the flexibility to go back to school to our good 
community colleges in this country, to our technical schools. This bill 
cuts the red tape that our community colleges and our technical schools 
now face. And now we can help them. There are so many out there that 
need this help.
  Mr. Speaker, this idea is not Republican and it is not Democrat. It 
is common sense. In fact, this bill is largely the same bill that came 
out of the Education and Workforce Committee last Congress, and most of 
the Democratic provisions have been retained.
  I am also hearing from constituents back home. For instance, Dr. 
Larry Keen, president of Fayetteville Technical Community College, 
recently told my office:

       I am in favor of the SKILLS Act and the purposes for which 
     it was created. Anything that contributes to the 
     simplification of a very complex system is of value.

  Again, I rise today in support of this. I agree with Dr. Keen. I am 
here to say that I am calling on my colleagues to step away from this 
partisan attack and help us pass this bill. Additionally, I hope the 
Senate will do the same.
  Mr. POLIS. I have to take a moment to correct the gentlelady from 
North Carolina, my colleague, Dr. Foxx, who quoted, ``The lady doth 
protest too much,'' saying it was from Canterbury Tales. It is actually 
from Shakespeare's Hamlet. I'm sure the gentlelady, upon further 
reflection, will concur.
  I will add this bill, like Hamlet, is indeed a tragedy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 803, the SKILLS Act.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the time to be investing in workforce 
development programs, not slashing them. I especially want to point out 
that unemployment in Rhode Island remains unacceptably high, yet the 
skills gap is an employment obstacle we can overcome with the right 
resources. Workers need proper training to succeed in a global economy, 
and the Workforce Investment Act programs have helped to do just that.
  So it saddens me that the bill before us today cuts so many vital 
programs just when we need them the most. It freezes investments in job 
training. It cuts or consolidates 35 critical programs and limits 
access to services for youth, minorities, older workers, people with 
disabilities, and veterans--the vulnerable populations that this law 
was designed to serve.
  This bill could also imperil the efforts of organizations making 
positive strides also in my home State. A prime example of this is the 
Genesis Adult Education Center in Providence, which receives 20 percent 
of its total budget from WIA sources and helps some of the most 
disadvantaged people in our State through job training, child care, and 
support services. Under the SKILLS Act, the Genesis Center could face a 
reduction of funding and would be forced to serve fewer Rhode 
Islanders.
  At the Job Corps centers nationwide, enrollment of new students has 
been suspended, and this bill does nothing to address this problem. For 
almost 3 years, the Job Corps center in Rhode Island has been unable to 
enroll new students in job training classes. We should be considering 
legislation that addresses this challenge and invests in job creation, 
and this bill falls far short on both counts.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and reject this bill so that 
we can come together in a bipartisan manner that properly addresses our 
workforce issues.
  Ms. FOXX. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Hurt).
  Mr. HURT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I thank her for 
her leadership on this very, very important issue.
  As I travel across Virginia's Fifth District, it is clear that years 
of failed policies--like the President's health care law, higher taxes, 
and stimulus spending--have impacted the people that I represent. Main 
Streets all across our rural district have seen our small businesses 
struggle. Families across our district have felt the pain as neighbors, 
friends, and family members have lost their jobs and tried to find 
work.
  As our economy struggles, ensuring our unemployed and underemployed 
have access to the skills training that they need to improve their 
careers is as important as ever. However, the Federal Government 
workforce training programs, while well intended, are cluttered with 
bureaucracy, waste, and inefficiency. They're not helping those they 
were intended to help. Americans will not benefit from these programs 
until we ensure that they are both efficient and effective.
  At a time when the national debt is skyrocketing, a 2011 study from 
the GAO found that taxpayers are spending $18 billion on 47 duplicative 
job training programs across nine Federal agencies. Our top priority in 
the House of Representatives over the last 2 years has been getting 
Americans out of the unemployment lines and into good-paying jobs. And 
today we are standing up to make those critical reforms.
  By adopting the SKILLS Act, Congress will put words into action and 
take a critical step toward getting our communities back to work. This 
legislation will eliminate red tape that prevents workers from 
accessing job training, and it will ensure that support is tailored to 
the specific needs of individual workers.
  A strong workforce is critical to this Nation. I remain committed to 
getting Virginia's Fifth District back to work. I urge my colleagues to 
support me in supporting the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to the rule and to the underlying bill. At a 
time when more and more people are starting their own businesses, we 
should be doing everything we can to encourage entrepreneurship. 
Unfortunately, current rules make it difficult for Workforce Investment 
Boards, or WIBs as we call them, to provide entrepreneurial training 
services or to count the successes of those programs in their outcome 
measures, the very thing that we ought to be doing through these 
Workforce Investment Boards. As a result, very few WIBs even offer 
these programs, depriving aspiring entrepreneurs of valuable resources 
to help them thrive.
  That's why in the last Congress I introduced legislation to fix the 
guidelines for self-employment training. Our goal would make it easier 
for Workforce Investment Boards to offer these programs in the local 
community and expand access to training for aspiring entrepreneurs.
  I would like to thank Mr. Tierney, Mr. Hinojosa, and Mr. Miller for 
including my legislation in their amendment that will be considered 
tomorrow. Job training and reemployment issues always have been, and 
always should be, bipartisan. So it's very sad that this rule and the 
underlying bill have come to the floor under a strictly partisan 
process and that they will actually harm the very programs that they're 
designed to support.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Ms. FOXX. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Indiana, a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, Mrs. 
Brooks.
  Mrs. BROOKS of Indiana. I would first like to thank the leadership of 
Congresswoman Foxx.

[[Page 3637]]

  I stand here today not just as a Member of Congress but as a former 
community college administrator. As senior vice president and general 
counsel for Indiana's largest public college system, I led statewide 
workforce education and training efforts aimed at putting thousands of 
Hoosiers back to work. I also served on Indiana's State Workforce 
Board, which administers the funds set forth in the SKILLS Act.
  My experience in the workforce development arena taught me a very 
important lesson: Americans of all ages and backgrounds have the 
ability to be anything they want to be, but they need a flexible 
support system that prioritizes people and not bureaucracy.
  This is bureaucracy and this is what our current system looks like. 
That's why Congress must pass the SKILLS Act. We have a chance to 
empower millions of individuals to lead more fulfilling lives by 
finding meaningful work, and we must take that chance now. This is the 
time to choose people over paperwork and workers over waste.

                              {time}  1630

  My own district is home to several global manufacturing and life 
science leaders. I recently sat down with employees from Dow 
AgroSciences, headquartered in Zionsville, Indiana. One by one, its 
employees told me we have to make better, smarter investment decisions 
in workforce development and education for our Nation to succeed and 
for our companies to succeed.
  How can we be a Nation that spends over $18 billion a year on job 
training programs--over 47 job training programs--and yet have almost 
3.6 million jobs going unfilled? So we have jobs that are unfilled 
because we have a system that doesn't work. This isn't good enough for 
America. We can do better, and the SKILLS Act can take us on that path.
  The SKILLS Act can and will put people back to work. It is leaner. It 
provides a roadmap for success that can fuel a 21st century workforce. 
It removes roadblocks that prevent workers from receiving in-demand 
training, and it gives local leaders the flexibility to provide more 
funding to high-performing programs. Every step of the way, it ensures 
more of every dollar we spend goes to training people rather than to 
the government bureaucracy administering all of the 47 different 
programs today.
  House Republicans are ready to show we can put skilled American 
workers over government bureaucracy by passing the SKILLS Act. I 
support passage of this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. POLIS. I'd like to inquire of the gentlelady from North Carolina 
if she has any remaining speakers.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, we do have additional speakers.
  Mr. POLIS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to now yield 3 minutes to another 
distinguished colleague from Indiana (Mr. Messer).
  Mr. MESSER. I thank the gentlelady from North Carolina. Thank you for 
your hard work on this very important bill.
  I rise today in support of the rule to H.R. 803, the SKILLS Act. This 
critically important legislation, introduced by Dr. Foxx, will reform 
and strengthen our Nation's workforce investment system.
  Back where I come from in Indiana's Sixth Congressional District, the 
number one issue is jobs. Though there are 12 million Americans looking 
for work, most folks would be surprised to know that 3.6 million jobs 
are unfilled simply because prospective employees lack the necessary 
knowledge and training needed for that job. The SKILLS Act works to 
address this problem.
  Folks in my district are tired of the failed Obama economy. Too many 
times parents have had to come home and tell their children that 
they've lost their job and they don't know how they're going to pay 
their bills, or send them to college, or get their car fixed. Too many 
times in recent years young people have been unable to find a job--or 
at least find a good-paying job that lets them start their journey of 
life.
  Unfortunately, our Nation's job-training system has been failing 
these hardworking taxpayers. The more than 50 separate programs offered 
under the current system costs taxpayers $18 billion annually. Most of 
these programs are duplicative and not as effective as they should be. 
This has led to taxpayer dollars being wasted, employers being unable 
to hire adequately trained workers, and workers not getting the skills 
they need to succeed.
  We must do better. The SKILLS Act will eliminate and streamline 35 
ineffective and redundant programs to ensure workers are getting the 
skills they need to fill available jobs. The SKILLS Act will eliminate 
wasteful duplication and empower State leaders, local elected 
officials, and job creators to make the necessary decisions to ensure 
workers receive training for jobs in high demand. This bill will 
guarantee job creators a stronger role in workforce development 
decisions and ensure taxpayer dollars aren't wasted on broken 
bureaucracies. Most importantly, these changes will help workers find 
good-paying jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, the SKILLS Act strengthens our workforce investment 
system, provides smart stewardship of taxpayer dollars, and gives us 
the opportunity to do better right now. I urge my colleagues to support 
this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. POLIS. I'd like to inquire of the gentlelady from North Carolina 
if she has any remaining speakers.
  Ms. FOXX. Yes, we do, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. POLIS. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have continued to malign what they call a ``political process.'' 
Regular order, Mr. Speaker, is not political process.
  The SKILLS Act has been posted online for nearly a month. The Higher 
Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee held a legislative 
hearing on this bill on February 26, and a full committee markup last 
Thursday. Unfortunately, the Democrats opposed the open transparent 
process of markup and instead requested that members of the committee 
hold closed-door negotiations. During the markup, the Democrats 
ultimately walked out and refused even to offer amendments. This is not 
what the American people asked for in the 2012 elections. They asked us 
to work together in a transparent, bipartisan way to address our 
country's challenges, and we gave our colleagues that opportunity. They 
refused it.
  Last year, the committee accepted four Democrat amendments during 
consideration of the Workforce Investment Improvement Act, the 
predecessor of the SKILLS Act. These four amendments are retained in 
the base text of the SKILLS Act, hardly a partisan approach.
  My Republican colleagues and I on the Education Committee have shown 
we're willing and ready to work with our Democrat colleagues, and it's 
unfortunate that they instead chose a partisan walkout.
  In contrast, under Democrat control in the 110th and 111th 
Congresses, the House considered 66 bills that were referred to the 
Education and Workforce Committee, but received no committee 
consideration before being brought to the House floor.
  The SKILLS Act has gone through an open and transparent process, and 
it is unfortunate that Democrats have been unwilling to participate in 
regular committee process.
  Additionally, the rule before us today provides consideration of six 
amendments, including all amendments submitted to the Rules Committee 
by Democrats that were not withdrawn before the Rules Committee 
hearing. As I stated before, the Democrat substitute amendment was made 
in order with extended debate time. This exceedingly fair rule is a 
culmination of a transparent, regular order which allows my colleagues 
across the aisle multiple opportunities to argue for their approach.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Again, I'd like to inquire of the gentlelady if she has 
any remaining speakers.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it appears now that we do not have any 
additional

[[Page 3638]]

speakers, and if the gentleman from Colorado is prepared to close, I 
will also be prepared.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, particularly at a time of economic stagnation, recovery 
from a recession, skills are a more important piece than ever to ensure 
that Americans can compete in the 21st century workforce.
  We all know that many of the jobs that helped Americans earn a solid 
place in the middle class in the 20th century are not necessarily going 
to be the same jobs that will allow Americans to live in upwardly 
mobile middle class lifestyle in the 21st century. There are new growth 
sectors, new opportunities, and yes, new challenges as well.
  One of the keys to both our prosperity as a Nation as well as the 
prosperity and growth of the middle class is to make sure that 
Americans have the skills they need to compete in the 21st century 
economy. When we match those skills to the people who need to have them 
to support their families, we're talking about all American families. 
We're talking about veterans. We're talking about the disabled. We're 
talking about those who don't have a high school diploma. We're talking 
about immigrants.

                              {time}  1640

  We need to make sure that each of these groups that traditionally has 
had and does have a higher unemployment rate than Americans as a whole 
can receive the type of training, education, and skills that they need 
to support their families and give back to the rest of us--a hand up, 
rather than a hand out. That is what workforce investment is all about.
  Both Democrats and Republicans agree it's long overdue for us to 
update and strengthen the Workforce Investment Act. It was written in 
1998. The world was different in 1998. I don't think any of us saw the 
degree with which the economy would change. We've, since 1998, had many 
new technology jobs, the Internet has grown to a mainstream phenomenon, 
we've had a banking crisis, we've had two wars, and we're on our third 
President since 1998. Things have changed a lot. Things have changed a 
lot.
  I'm amazed, Mr. Speaker, when I meet people now that were born in the 
1990s and they're in the workforce. It's absolutely incredible to think 
about. And, yet, we're still operating under a law that doesn't reflect 
the changing needs of the American workforce. It is time for Democrats 
and Republicans to work together--to work together--to reauthorize the 
Workforce Investment Act.
  The President has stated that he doesn't support this bill, he 
wouldn't sign this bill. We need to work together, Democrats and 
Republicans, to come up with a framework that works. Yes, we all know 
that a committee markup process is part of that process; but so, too, 
is establishing the base bill, a process from which Democrats were 
excluded.
  Former Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Buck McKeon said 
that he ``would like to see us work in that same mode where we really 
try to work together. I don't think it is the Republican bill or the 
Democratic bill, but it should be all of our bill.''
  Unfortunately, with regards to where this bill is today, Republicans 
did not choose to regard this wise advice of the former chairman in how 
this bill was formed and brought to the floor. Now, again, while 
neither House Democrats or committee Democrats or the President support 
the underlying bill, I'm hopeful that the Republican leadership's 
desire to move this bill to the floor indicates the start of a process 
to finally reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act.
  It's not an issue of left or right. It's an issue of updating the 
Workforce Investment Act to reflect the changing needs of our economy 
and the changing set of skills that Americans need to support 
themselves.
  I'm hopeful that with the continued work of Dr. Foxx, Chairman Kline, 
Ranking Member Miller, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and other esteemed 
Members of this body that Republicans and Democrats will work together 
both making concessions to improve the Nation's workforce investment 
system and improve the route to the middle class for working families 
across our country.
  Workforce investment and training to address the skills gap are 
critical to this economy as a whole. We have a long way to go to 
strengthen and, yes, streamline our workforce training and investment 
programs. There are some good ideas with regards to streamlining 
workforce investment that are contained in this bill that can form a 
basis for bipartisan support, but we still have a long way to go. We 
need to work across the aisle to invest in our future and take care of 
fellow citizens to make sure that they have the ability to support 
themselves.
  I look forward to continuing this process with Members on both sides 
of the aisle, with members of the committee and Members of the House at 
large. Yet the process and bill before us currently is flawed.
  Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill. 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The world has changed greatly since 1998 when this legislation was 
first authorized and even since 2003 when this legislation was last 
reauthorized.
  I'm very concerned that my colleague has said that this legislation 
is flawed and that we did not participate or provide a bipartisan 
process. This is an example of Democrats blaming Republicans for what 
they themselves do. We gave our colleagues every opportunity to come 
help fix the flaws in this legislation through regular order. They 
chose not to do it.
  The President said in his 2012 State of the Union Address:

       It is time to turn our employment system into a 
     reemployment system that puts people to work.

  With 12 million Americans looking for work, the SKILLS Act makes 
commonsense reforms to a broken workforce development system to remove 
inefficiencies and ensure that individuals are able to get the 
education skills they need to find a job.
  Now the President is saying that he will veto this legislation, and 
yet it does exactly what he asked us to do. This is another example of 
the President saying one thing and doing another.
  The SKILLS Act takes a crucial step forward in the fight to eliminate 
red tape and create a more effective system to better serve and prepare 
Americans to compete in the 21st-century workforce. I hope the 
legislation will see swift approval in the House and Senate and the 
SKILLS Act will be on the President's desk in the coming weeks to see 
if he, indeed, will veto the bill that he asked for.
  Mr. Speaker, the SKILLS Act will build a more dynamic and responsive 
workforce development system, give priority to well-paying, in-demand 
industries, expand opportunities at community colleges, and--most 
importantly--treat all job seekers as individuals. These changes are 
critical at a time when the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 
more than 3.6 million open jobs are going unfilled because there aren't 
enough skilled candidates. Let's reform these programs to serve 
employers and individuals in an effective and efficient manner.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying 
bill. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous 
question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of the resolution, if ordered; 
and approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 191, not voting 15, as follows:

[[Page 3639]]



                             [Roll No. 70]

                               YEAS--225

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--191

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bilirakis
     Broun (GA)
     Castor (FL)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Culberson
     Gardner
     Hanna
     Himes
     Lynch
     Markey
     McHenry
     Napolitano
     Smith (WA)
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1712

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 14, 2013, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 70 due to being sick. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on ordering the previous question 
on H. Res. 113--``Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 803) to 
reform and strengthen the workforce investment system of the Nation to 
put Americans back to work and make the United States more competitive 
in the 21st century.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226, 
noes 191, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 71]

                               AYES--226

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--191

     Andrews
     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro

[[Page 3640]]


     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Broun (GA)
     Castor (FL)
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Culberson
     Gardner
     Hanna
     Himes
     Lynch
     McHenry
     Napolitano
     Smith (WA)
     Westmoreland


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1719

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, March 14, 2013, I was 
absent during rollcall vote No. 71 due to being sick. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 113--``Providing for 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 803) to reform and strengthen the 
workforce investment system of the Nation to put Americans back to work 
and make the United States more competitive in the 21st century.''

                          ____________________