John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment. I appreciate her willingness to work with us on her amendment, to put it in a form that we think is acceptable. And while these activities are clearly allowed under the bill, the specific training that is outlined here, I think is, in fact, needed not only in her State of California, but all across the country, as we look at a lot of high skilled jobs that are out there, but yet no one to fill them. And I think if you look at vocational and technical education in a broader sense is intended to help provide the type of skills necessary in today's economy. We think the gentlewoman has a good amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, while I am not opposed to the amendment, I would like to claim the time in opposition to it.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. Let me just thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) for his amendment and thank him for working with us on this language. It is similar language to what is in the Senate bill. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) is a valued member of our committee, and we have worked closely on a number of issues, and we are glad to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. Clearly those who take technical and vocational education programs ought to have the ability to take those credits and that time that they have invested in that program and be able to move on, if they choose, into, whether it is a 2-year school or a 4-year school. What we have seen in the past, many students who were in vocational schools, technical schools, and who may have then decided to change their minds, did not have the ability to move on to get that 2-year degree or to get that certificate they may be looking for, or even a 4- year degree. And I think that the articulation agreements that would be permissible under this bill, with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu's) amendment, are growing from State to State. I know in Ohio, all of the State-sponsored schools now have an articulation agreement, a transfer of credit policy, as well, which I think will help facilitate students who want to continue their education at various schools. And I think the allowable use of funds in this amendment will, in fact, help students all over the country, and I am pleased to support the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu's) amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, while I do not object to the gentleman's amendment, I would like to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have referenced the fact that our fiscally responsible budget may, in fact, require changes to how we fund various education programs. While we will have plenty of time to debate those issues when we get into the appropriations process, I think all of my colleagues realize the Perkins program providing for vocational and technical education around the country is widely popular with Members on both sides of the aisle. I have no doubts, no doubts that the funding called for in the President's budget, the funding that is authorized in this bill will, in fact, happen, just to set the record straight. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a member of the committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act. The bill has received strong support from educators, school administrators, principals, and vocational and technical education advocates around the country. In this bill, we are protecting the role of States and local communities, and we are asking for results in exchange for the money we are already spending at the Federal level. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) wrote a good bill and deserves great credit for his commitment to this issue. He produced a bill that has received bipartisan support in the committee while still fulfilling our principles for reform. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for their hard work and cooperation in bringing this bill forward today. This bill will improve vocational and technical education by focusing on academics without expanding the Federal role in education. We streamline bureaucracy and give more money to local communities. H.R. 366 reduces the share of funds going to State administrative activities and targets more funding to the local level. We also streamline funding by consolidating the Tech-Prep program with a basic State grant. The bill also focuses on success at the local level. Under the bill, local communities will establish achievement targets; and to reward increased academic achievement, States and local communities can receive incentive grants for success. Above all, we maintain local control. The bill continues to move away from the so-called ``School to Work'' model of the past and maintains our commitment to ensuring that States and local communities have the final say when it comes to the educational choices for their students. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation, which will help States and local communities strengthen and improve vocational and technical education and help ensure academic success for students. I urge my colleagues today to join me in voting ``yes'' on the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of the bill and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of our committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a member of the committee and an educator and someone who knows more about this probably than most Members of Congress.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Utah for his kind words, and Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule which will allow for debate on an important piece of legislation, the Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act. The Vocational and Technical Education for the Future Act is a bipartisan bill that helps States and local communities improve educational opportunities for their students. This bill was crafted in cooperation with Members on both sides of the aisle, and with the support of numerous vocational and technical education leaders. I am going to applaud the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for producing this bill in a bipartisan manner and with the support of educators around the country. This bill fulfills our principles for reform by focusing on academic achievement for students and by preserving local control for States and communities. H.R. 366 will improve vocational and technical education by focusing on academics without expanding the Federal role in education. We streamline bureaucracy and give more money to local communities. We also streamline funding by consolidating the Tech-Prep program with the basic State grant. Like other important education reform efforts, including No Child Left Behind and the Individuals With Disabilities and Education Act, the bill ensures equitable treatment for private school students. We ensure students and families are not denied access to programs because they choose to attend a private school. Above all else, the bill recognizes the importance of maintaining local control. We are continuing to move away from the so-called ``School to Work'' model of the past, and we are maintaining our commitment to ensuring States and local communities have the final say when it comes to educational choices for their students. The bill was approved by the Committee on Education and the Workforce by a voice vote. I look forward to similar bipartisan support for this legislation today. Vocational and technical education is a vital component of our Nation's educational system. State and local communities use Perkins funding to help prepare youth and adults for the future. Each year, millions of students enrich their secondary and post- secondary educational opportunities through participation in vocational and technical education. In fact, nearly all students, 96 percent, leave public high school having taken some vocational education courses. Further, nearly half of all high school students and about one-third of college students are involved in vocational programs as a major part of their studies. Perhaps as many as 40 million adults, one in four, engage in short-term, post-secondary occupational training. The bill before us will build on the framework of the Perkins program by protecting the role of States and local communities, and asking for results in exchange for the money that we are already spending at the Federal level. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule. I support the underlying bill. I believe that H.R. 366 will help States and local communities to strengthen opportunities for their students and improve vocational and technical education programs. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on passage of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman once again yielding me this time, and I am glad that our friend from D.C. was here to honor the contributions of charter schools, because clearly here in D.C. charter schools have had a significant impact on providing educational opportunities for children who, in many cases, are stuck in some very, very bad schools. Now, I appreciate the support of the charter schools week resolution by my friend from D.C., but let me try to answer part of the charges that were outlined in terms of her opposition to other forms of school choice. We know that in our large urban centers, we have a difficult time educating low-income children who need our help the most. No place is more evident than right here in the District of Columbia, where we spend over $13,000 per student and have some of the worst schools in all of America. We have similar problems in other large urban districts and, clearly, charter schools have been an opportunity for some students to escape these dreadful schools and have a chance. All of us know that without a chance at a decent education, none of us would be here, but without a decent education, many of those children will never ever have a chance at the American dream. I have always believed if we are to reform education in America, if we are going to give every child and every parent of a child a chance at a good education, the way to do that is to provide more choices and more options for parents around the country so that they can choose schools that they believe are in their best interest. In some communities, charter schools might be the answer. Here in the District of Columbia, clearly they are growing. Dayton, Ohio, part of my congressional district, probably has more charter schools per capita than any large urban center in America. And it is providing a very good opportunity for students to escape the Dayton public schools and enter the charter school of their choice. But it should not be the only choice. There are a lot of parochial schools, private schools, Christian schools all over America that parents want to choose. We all know that if you have money, you have choice. Middle income, higher income, you have all the choice you want because you can get your child into the school you think is best for them. But if you are poor and you cannot move, you have no choice. And if there is not a charter school in your particular neighborhood, you do not have any choice. You are stuck, stuck and condemned to an education that will never help lift you out of poverty and never give you a chance at the American dream. That is why other forms of choice, I think, are important. That is why I and others were involved in helping the mayor here in the District of Columbia and other parents here in the District who wanted a scholarship program. We provided $15 million to help some low-income children get into a private school and it has helped. It has helped about 1,100 children here in the District in giving them another option. I think, frankly, it is a good option. I was at two of those schools this morning. I was at St. Francis DeSalles Elementary School, and I was at St. Anthony's Elementary School, both over in the northeast part of town; and both schools, part of the 13 schools that make up the city's Center Consortium. These are 13 very poor Catholic schools here in the District, who I have been involved with over the last few years to help raise them private money to help provide scholarships, to help keep those schools open in those very poor neighborhoods. Last week, I visited four schools in the southeast part of town, in Anacostia. I did not realize Anacostia was as large as it is, but it is very large and it is very poor. And the fact that those schools are there provide more children more choices, more opportunities to have a chance. I saw kindergartners this morning reading at a first-grade level at both of these Catholic elementary schools. Yes, they have some students that are there because they get D.C. scholarships; others are there because of the generosity of an awful lot of people who want to keep these schools open and provide a choice for those parents and those students. It is this competition from the public schools, the charter schools, the private schools that I believe will make our school system better and will help all of them. Growing up in sports and growing up in a large family, I know a little about competition, and competition makes all of us better. I believe that the increased competition we are seeing in the provision of an education, especially in the K through 12 arena, has in fact made all of education better. Do we have a long way to go? We certainly do, but I believe that charter schools are playing an integral role in providing that competition. I think parochial schools, private schools, and Christian schools play a role in that competition as well. The more we can do to encourage parents to have more choice about where their kids can go to school, I think the better off those children will be and the better off our society will be.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 218, to recognize charter schools and their students, parents, teachers and administrators across the United States for their ongoing contributions to education. This week is the Sixth Annual National Charter Schools Week and a great opportunity for Congress to honor charter schools and those involved in the role they play in reforming and improving our Nation's public education system. Charter schools are public schools that agree to improved academic achievement and accountability in financial and other operations, in exchange for increased flexibility and independence. Greater autonomy allows charter schools to focus on increasing academic achievement for individual students, rather than complying with bureaucratic paperwork. Charter schools are subject to all the same No Child Left Behind achievement goals as other public schools, but with greater flexibility in how they improve student success. Increased flexibility allows charter schools to use varied educational methods and techniques while accounting for results. Almost 3,300 charter schools serve around 900,000 students in 40 States, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico; and nearly 40 percent of these charter schools have waiting lists. Charter schools are adept at meeting the specific needs of the local communities in which they are located and are particularly devoted to serving low-income communities. Nationwide, almost half of charter schools serve students considered at-risk or who have previously dropped out of school. Charter school students share similar demographic characteristics with students in all public schools, and charter schools serve significant numbers of students from low-income families, minority students, and students with disabilities. Because charter schools often serve students with limited access to educational options, these innovative public schools allow many parents and students freedom of choice that otherwise would not be available. And studies show that the increase in educational options, including access to charter schools, is improving outcomes for students. According to the Center for Education Reform, 15 studies show that students frequently enter charter schools significantly below grade level. These students will then progress at or above the gains being made in surrounding districts, demographically comparable schools, or at the State average. In December, Harvard University released a comprehensive, long-term study comparing student academic achievement at charter schools and traditional public schools, and I will enter the executive summary of that report in the Record at this point and share just one of the most compelling facts. Achievement in Charter Schools and Regular Public Schools in the United States: Understanding the Differences (By Caroline M. Hoxby) abstract This study compares the reading and mathematics proficiency of charter school students to that of their fellow students in neighboring public schools. Ninety-nine percent of all elementary students in charter schools are included in the study. The charter schools are compared to the schools that their students would most likely otherwise attend: the nearest regular public school with a similar racial composition (the ``matched'' school). Compared to students in the matched regular public school, charter students are 5.2 percent more likely to be proficient in reading and 3.2 percent more likely to be proficient in math on their state's exams. Students in charter schools that have been in operation longer are more likely to have a proficiency advantage over their peers in the matched regular public school. In reading, the advantage is 2.5 percent for a charter school that has been operating 1 to 4 years, 5.2 percent for a school operating 5 to 8 years, and 10.1 percent for a school operating 9 to 11 years. Also, charter school students are more likely to have a proficiency advantage if their school has funding that is at least forty percent of that enjoyed by regular public schools. The results suggest that charter schools are especially likely to raise the achievement of students who are poor or Hispanic. executive secretary This study compares the reading and mathematics proficiency of charter school students in the United States to that of their fellow students in neighboring public schools. Because charter schools are public entities, their students take state exams. Thus, this study is based on schools that enroll approximately 99 percent of elementary students who attend charter schools. The charter schools are compared to the schools that their students would most likely otherwise attend: the nearest regular public school with a similar racial composition (the ``matched'' school). Compared to students in the matched public school, charter students are 5.2 percent more likely to be proficient in reading and 3.2 percent more likely to be proficient in math on their state's exams. Charter schools that have been in operation longer have a greater proficiency advantage over the matched public schools. For example, in reading, the advantage is 2.5 percent for a charter school that has been operating 1 to 4 years, 5.2 percent for a school operating 5 to 8 years, and 10.1 percent for a school operating 9 to 11 years. The results show that charter schools are especially likely to raise the achievement of students who are poor or Hispanic. This is a useful finding because charter schools serve students who are disproportionately likely to be minorities or poor. Charter school students are more likely to have a proficiency advantage if their state has a strong charter school law that gives the schools autonomy and that ensures that charter schools get funding equal to at least 40 percent of the total per-pupil funding of regular public schools. In states where charter schools are well-established, charter school students' advantage in proficiency tends to be greater. For instance, in Arizona, fourth grade charter students are about 10 percent more likely to be proficient in reading and math than students in the matched regular public schools. In California, the corresponding proficiency advantages are 9 percent in reading and 5 percent in math. In Colorado, the corresponding proficiency advantages are 12 percent in reading and 14 percent in math. North Carolina is the only state in which charter students' proficiency is statistically significantly lower, by 4 percent, in both reading and math, compared to students in the nearest public school. In addition, Texas' charter students appear to be statistically significantly less proficient in math (not reading). By adjusting for schools that serve at-risk students, the study focuses on regular charter schools that are expected to meet the same standards as traditional public schools. The study's ``matching'' method compares charter schools to public schools that are likely to share the same neighborhood, same economic conditions, and the same population of students and parents. The selection of a neighboring public school as the point of comparison ensures that the groups of students being compared are as similar as possible. It is also likely that the public school selected for comparison was the school that most of the charter school students would have attended, had there been no charter school. A national study like this one is useful because it is comprehensive. Nevertheless, it is useful to complement studies like this one with studies based on randomization. Because many charter schools have more applicants than places, they routinely hold lotteries, which allow scientific, random assignment studies to be conducted. The key advantage of randomization-based studies is that the charter school students and regular public school students are comparable not only in terms of race, ethnicity, and income, but also on subtle dimensions like motivation and aptitude. Multiple studies based on randomization are underway. The first such study (Hoxby and Rockoff 2004) finds that a large system of Chicago charter schools raised math and reading scores by about 6 percentiles among students who entered in grade 5 or below. Because charter schools enroll only 1.5 percent of students, it is important to include nearly all of them in a study. Results based on only a small sample of charter school students (for instance, studies that rely on the 3 percent sample of the National Assessment of Educational Progress) cannot be used to draw conclusions about states' charter school policies. A study that relies on a 3 percent sample of 1.5 percent of American students is a study based on only 0.045 percent of students. In contrast, this study uses data that are sufficient for detailed investigations of charter school students' proficiency, nationwide. The study, completed by Harvard economics professor Caroline Hoxby, found charter schools overall are more likely to raise the academic achievement of students who are poor or minority, and show a larger effect on reading and math proficiency when they operate in areas that have a high percentage of students who are poor, African American, or Hispanic. Charter schools serve the very students who need help the most, and they are getting results. Charter schools have benefited from a strong degree of bipartisan support at the local, State, and national levels. This was evidenced in 2001 by the efforts of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress to expand access to charter schools through the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act. In the last 10 years, Congress has provided $1.5 billion to support charter schools through facilities' financing assistance and grants for planning, startup, implementation, and dissemination. Through this resolution honoring National Charter Schools Week, Congress is recognizing the continued success demonstrated by charter schools and acknowledging the benefits that charter schools provide to our local communities. Charter schools provide parents with a wider variety of educational choices. This not only helps the students who attend those charter schools but also helps to take some of the pressure off traditional public schools that might be struggling to improve. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), for introducing this resolution and urge my colleagues to join me in strong support for our Nation's charter schools.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Florida for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the budget for fiscal year 2006 and stand firmly behind our effort to exercise fiscal responsibility when it comes to spending taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. I came to Congress in part because I believed Federal spending had gotten out of hand. The Federal Government was growing by leaps and bounds, and as government grew larger, it was crowding out the private sector, the engine that drives our Nation's growth and prosperity. I was concerned about that, and I still am. We have done a lot of good things since the American people put a new majority in charge in 1994. We have repeatedly reduced the tax burden on families and entrepreneurs, we have reformed the welfare system, we have reformed elementary and secondary education. The government has continued to grow, and this budget is a chance for us to renew America's confidence and prove that we still have the courage to lead. I want to recognize my colleague, the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), for taking a firm stand against out-of-control Federal spending by crafting the resolution we have before us. He and the leadership on both sides have worked hard to bring us to this point. There is no question that this budget is going to require us to make some difficult choices. We are going to look closely at how we are spending taxpayers' money and how we can do better. I applaud the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for putting us on this path. It is time for us to get serious about fiscal discipline. Under this budget resolution, my committee is being asked to play a large role in reining in spending; and my response is that we want to be a part of the solution, and we will be part of the solution. The time has come to make the tough choices, because there is a bigger picture that we cannot afford to ignore. We are going to look at each program in our jurisdiction with a skeptical eye. Instead of asking why should we not spend more on this program, I think we are going to ask, why should we not spend less. Our committee has undertaken a bold agenda for reform in the last 4 years, and we will continue down that path into the future. We will be working to improve education from early childhood programs under Head Start, to helping students pursue a college education under the Higher Education Act, and we will continue to fight for secure access to health care and retirement security in a changing economy. However, we cannot allow ourselves to believe that our commitment to reform is measured by how much money we throw at the problems facing our Nation. Instead, we will judge our success by what we demand in return for our investment, which has always been about achieving results for American taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support a responsible budget that shows our resolve to rein in Federal spending. The budget is about setting priorities, and it is about showing leadership. I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for yielding me this time and congratulate the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and his ranking member and the leadership on both sides for coming together on this funding resolution. I could take Members back 12, 14 years ago when this committee funding resolution every year was a brawl. Having sat on the Committee on House Administration with some of my colleagues, there were times when the majority was getting 82 percent of the budget, sometimes 78 percent of the budget, and I always believed that it was fair for the minority to get at least one-third of the resources. It has really been a long struggle in bringing that about. I thought that when we were in the minority, I believed the same since we have been in the majority, and over these years I think we have accomplished an awful lot in terms of funding committees at a reasonable level, bringing comity and stability to the House. I just want to say to my two colleagues who brought this resolution to the floor today that they deserve the congratulations of all of the Members and the leadership on both sides as well.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate United Group Services, Inc., a local company out of Cincinnati, Ohio, that recently earned the prestigious Star award for the Voluntary Protection Program in Construction (VPPC) from the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) for its outstanding safety performance and processes. The award is the hallmark of OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) in which employees, management and OSHA all work together to implement safety and health programs that protect workers above and beyond those regulations established by OSHA. As the highest honor given by the VPP, the Star award is reserved for participants that exceed OSHA standards, thereby making them models for their specific industries. The original VPP program has been an OSHA standard since 1982, but until now has always excluded mobile workforce construction because it is site based and not company based. United Group has been involved with the new VPPC program since its inception in 2002. Approval into VPPC is OSHA's official recognition of United Group for the outstanding efforts of both its management and employees on achieving exemplary occupational safety and health. This award is truly representative of United Group's dedication and commitment to safety-- the company's #1 core value. It is also a testament to the teamwork and commitment to safety they demonstrate on a daily basis.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate, thank, and recognize my constituent Mrs. Belva Teaford. Belva is a testament to the innate goodness of human nature and the overwhelming positive effect one individual may have on the community. As a wife, mother, and tireless volunteer in Ohio's Eighth Congressional District Mrs. Teaford has quietly given much more than she has taken. Her work, throughout Darke County over so many decades is a constant source of pride and unconditional praise. As a volunteer for the Darke County Republican Party Belva's friendship and reassuring demeanor have helped guide countless candidates, myself included, to success. Yet, Belva's efforts stretch far beyond politics. She is, in the truest sense of the word, a humanitarian whose unyielding belief in the goodness of her neighbors has helped make Darke County a truly remarkable community. Belva's attitude, fierce determination, and community spirit are a constant source of energy for all those around her. So much of Belva's work is done quietly and without reward and it is my honor to take this moment and say thank you and it is with a great deal of personal joy that I congratulate Belva and wish her a very happy 90th birthday.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) as a new member of the Committee on Rules for his work today on his first rule that he is bringing to the floor of the House. Today we are considering a rule that would allow for consideration of the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. The Workforce Investment Act, enacted in 1998, brought together some 60 Federal job- training and retraining programs, and put them together and we created these one-stop shops all across America. They are intended to be able to provide training and retraining for American workers who are out of work or workers who simply want to improve their skills so they can move up the economic ladder. By and large, these one-stop shops have worked very well, but as we reauthorize this law, it is our obligation to take a look at what is working, what could work better, and as we bring this reauthorization forward, there are some important changes that we are bringing to the floor with it. Mr. Speaker, we want to provide more flexibility for the local workforce boards to do their work by consolidating the funding stream. We want to ensure that more of the funding that is available for this Act goes down to the local county boards, or, in some cases, multiple county jurisdictions. In this bill, we also renew the vocational programs for those who have disabilities, an important part of our workforce. I think all of us know if we are going to be successful in the 21st century, that America has to do a better job of training and retraining our workforce. The days of going to work for one employer and being there for most of your career are, by and large, over. People are going to change jobs multiple times during their career, and we have to have available to them the kinds of services where they can improve their skills to take that new job of tomorrow. The reauthorization program that we have today, I think is a good one. There is one amendment that we will debate that we have had considerable debate on over the last several years in this Congress and considered in the committee twice during the markup of this bill. It is on the faith-based language. Members are going to hear an awful lot about it today, but let me give the parameters. The 1964 Civil Rights Act, the landmark legislation which prevented discrimination in America, allowed for one exception in hiring and that exception was granted to religious organizations where we grant them an exemption if they wished to only hire people of their own faith. That is the law. It has been the law since 1964. We believe that faith-based providers who may want to offer services, job training services or retraining services, ought not to be denied their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act just because they want to help the neediest of the needy and help the poor improve their skills and get a job. This is a great debate which has gone on for several years. We allow faith-based providers in this bill to provide services without giving up their protections in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Some believe, and it is certainly their right to have a different opinion, believe that faith-based organizations, even though they have this right, ought to be forced to give it up in order to take Federal funds to help the poorest of the poor. Now I would argue those who really do believe that is the case ought to go back and amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act, title 7, and not try to do it in this bill. But this provision, and again, we will have ample time to debate it later, I think this provision helps organizations who want to go out and help the needy in their community. It gives them the tools to do it without having to set up a new organization, or denies them the ability and the rights that they have under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I think that we have a fair rule before us. I think it will provide for a very meaningful debate today on this reauthorization. I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BOEHNER

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.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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. 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