John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I pledge to work with her and other interested members of the New York delegation during conference on this legislation to identify and remedy any governance problems which New York may have under this bill. However, it is not clear that the language that the gentlewoman offered in committee that is included in S. 9 fixes the problem in New York and could have other unintended consequences in New York and other States. So my goal is to ensure that the mandatory partners contribute to the cost of the one-stop infrastructure without causing constitutional problems for States. And as I suggested, I will continue to work with the gentlewoman to achieve this.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is being offered by my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), would strike all of the positive reforms for youth that are included in H.R. 27. Under current law, funds for the WIA youth program are spread too thinly, as they fund programs that both serve in-school and out-of-school youth. In the White House, the Disadvantaged Youth Task Force has proposed targeted Federal youth training funds to serve the most in need and to reduce the duplication of services amongst Federal programs. There are a large number of programs today designed to deal with in-school, at- risk children, and there is really only one program in WIA that is targeted at out-of-school youth. What we tried to do in this bill was to strike a balance by requiring that 70 percent of the youth program funds go to out-of-school youth, a population that is by and large ignored and that I think these funds ought to be targeted to. We do allow the local workforce boards to use up to 30 percent of their programs for in-school youth; but there are other programs, a half a dozen other programs, targeted at these at- risk children who are in school. So as a way of trying to bring more synergy to an effort to help out- of-school youth, I think the language we have in the bill strikes the right balance. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, what we have before us is the Reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. It was first passed in 1998. These one-stop centers that have been created all over the country to help the people gain skills and to increase their skills are a critical part of what we need to do if we are going to have a successful economy over the next 10, 20 and even 50 years. What we have done in this reauthorization is tried to make these one- stop centers work even better. We believe that by consolidating the three separate funding streams, three different sets of employees, three different sets of books, we can gain more flexibility for the local workforce boards and thereby freeing up more dollars to be used to actually train workers. We believe strongly that the youth services money here ought to be directed for the most part to out of school youth, a population that is vastly underserved and we do that in this bill. We also believe that faith-based providers, especially in large urban centers, can provide a very necessary outreach to help those who are really needy have an opportunity to get the kind of training and retraining they need to become productive members of our society. I think what we have here is a very good bill. And while my friends on the other side of the aisle have some disagreement, I think all of us understand that by and large, this is a good program, that the bill before us is worth the support of my colleagues and I would ask them to do that.

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 just to correct the record. The gentlewoman who just spoke says that we eliminated a preference for veterans in this bill. The fact is that there is a preference for veterans written into the law. That has not changed at all. Secondly, the gentlewoman said there are block grants in the underlying bill. There are no block grants. As a matter of fact, the targeting of funds to the local workforce boards in this bill is more structured than it is today under current law, so that at least 75 percent of the funds available back to the States must go to the local workforce investment boards. Lastly, the gentlewoman said that we have discrimination in this bill. I would just remind the gentlewoman that when our predecessors wrote the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they recognized in title VII that religious organizations ought to be protected in their hiring so that they would not be required to hire anybody that shows up, but could, if they wanted to, only hire those people within their faith. Now, if people want to disagree with title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they certainly have that right. They may go to the Committee on the Judiciary and change that law, but let us not try to do it in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), a member of the committee).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment by my friend from Virginia would actually work against the neediest citizens in our local communities. Faith-based organizations such as churches, synagogues and other faith-based charities are a central part of the fabric of local communities across America. Many of these faith-based institutions provide assistance to the hardest-to-serve individuals because they often go where others will not and serve those others prefer not to serve, and go out of the way to meet people where they are rather than where we would want them to be. President Bush noted yesterday at a speech that one of the key reasons why many faith-based groups are so effective is the commitment to serve that is grounded in the shared values and religious identity of their volunteers and their employees. In other words, effectiveness happens because people who share faith show up to help a particular organization based on that faith to succeed. I agree with President Bush that many faith-based organizations can make a vital contribution to Federal assistance programs. Yet this amendment would deny faith-based institutions their rights, under the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act. Considering the proven track record of faith-based providers in meeting the needs of our citizens, why would we want to deny them the opportunity to help in Federal job training efforts? Unfortunately, in some Federal laws, these faith-based organizations have been stripped of their hiring rights and must relinquish their civil liberties if they choose to participate in Federal service initiatives. The landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly protects the rights of religious organizations to take religion into account into their hiring practices. In fact, the Civil Rights Act made clear that when faith- based organizations hire employees on a religious basis, it is an exercise of the organization's civil liberties and not discrimination under Federal law. Those organizations willing to serve their communities by participating in Federal programs should not be forced to compromise their religious liberties in order to serve those in need. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 upheld the rights of faith-based institutions and held that it was constitutional for these groups to take religion into account when making hiring decisions. Former Democrat President Bill Clinton himself signed four laws explicitly allowing faith-based groups to staff on a religious basis when they receive Federal funds. Those laws are the 1996 Welfare Reform Law, the 1998 Community Services Block Grant Act, the 2000 Community Renewal Tax Relief Act, and the 2000 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Act. President Bush has worked tirelessly to remove the barriers that needlessly discourage faith-based groups from bringing their talents and compassion to Federal initiatives that help Americans in need. And just yesterday, again, he called on Congress to send him the same language protecting religious hiring that President Clinton signed on four other occasions. The underlying bill answers the President's call and takes advantage of the positive role that faith-based institutions play in our communities in serving those who are most in need. We should not be denying faith-based providers the opportunity to serve the neediest of our citizens. And I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Scott amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let us tell the truth about what has happened in job creation in America. Over the last 17 months, 2.7 million new jobs have been created in America. Our economy is strong and our economy is getting stronger. If we look at the underlying bill that we have before us, veterans have a preference to services above all others. What the gentleman from Michigan proposes here is a brand new program similar to a trade adjustment program that provides up to 2 years of unemployment-type benefits and provides unlimited access to training. But the fact is that unemployed workers have access today, people coming back from Iraq who are unemployed have access to services, and those who may have their jobs lost through outsourcing have, in fact, access to services. But what also happens under the gentleman's amendment is that they get a preference in this bill. The gentleman creates a new preference here above other types of people who may have lost their jobs. The underlying bill, in fact, will provide more services to more unemployed workers and workers who want to increase their skills who may not be unemployed. But when we look at this, this is a new program. This is an authorization. There is no appropriation. We all know it will probably take 2 to 5 years for this type of program to be implemented. The fact is I think it is a cruel hoax on those who may be unemployed, who may fall into one of these categories to think that they are going to be eligible for unemployment-type assistance or be eligible for unlimited training when, in fact, there is no appropriation and the fact is the program will take years to implement. I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and support the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, again I want to thank the gentleman for his work on this issue. I will continue to work with him and the Department to ensure that we have the necessary information to carefully monitor the participation of high school-aged students in adult education programs.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the author of the bill, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for raising this issue. Data on young adults participating in adult education programs is important information for our committee as well as for the adult education programs and for school districts to keep in mind as we work to raise our high school completion rates. And it is my understanding that this is information that the Department already collects but has not been a focus in program reporting.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as we stand here today we continue to see significant progress toward greater economic opportunity and prosperity across the country. More than 2.7 million new jobs have been created over the last 17 months, and the unemployment rate has fallen to 5.2 percent, the lowest level since September 2001. Our economy is strong and it is getting stronger. The backbone of a strong economy is a well-trained and highly skilled workforce, and it is absolutely critical for workers to have the education and skills necessary to adapt to new opportunities and to move into higher wages. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed with this view when he testified before the Committee on Education and the Workforce last year. The chairman said, ``We need to increase our efforts to ensure that as many of our citizens as possible have the opportunity to capture the benefits of the changing economy. One critical element in creating that opportunity is the provision of rigorous education and ongoing training to all members of our society.'' Chairman Greenspan this morning testified before Congress and talked about the need to do a better job with our education system and better training and retraining of American workers. The bill before us, the Job Training Improvement Act, would achieve this objective by strengthening the Nation's job training system. In 1998, Congress established a system of one-stop career centers aimed at providing one convenient central location to offer job training and related employment services. While these reforms have been generally successful, the Workforce Investment Act system is still hampered by bureaucracy and duplication that prevents it from being as effective as it could be for workers and their families. Our bill includes a number of reforms aimed at strengthening our job training system and better engaging the business community to improve job training services. Our bill includes a number of reforms. First, requiring State and local workforce investment boards to ensure the job training programs reflect the employment needs in local areas. Secondly, allowing training for currently employed workers so employees can upgrade their skills and avoid layoffs. Third, encouraging the highest caliber providers, including community colleges, to offer training through the one-stop system, and leveraging other public and private resources to increase training and opportunities. The bill also includes other important reforms. First, it consolidates the three adult WIA training programs, giving States and local communities greater flexibility and enabling more job seekers to be served with no reduction in services. In addition, it targets 70 percent of the youth grant funds to out- of-school youth, an underserved population that faces significant challenges in finding meaningful employment. The bill includes a proposal passed by the House last year introduced by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) to create personal reemployment accounts of up to $3,000 to help unemployed Americans purchase job training and other employment-related services, such as child care, transportation services and housing assistance, giving them the flexibility they need in order to gain meaningful employment. In addition, it includes the President's community college proposal to strengthen the partnership between local businesses, community colleges, and the local one-stop delivery system. Later today, we will consider an amendment from my colleague from Virginia to strip the faith-based provisions from this bill, an amendment that would deny faith-based providers their rights under the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act. When we considered this bill in committee, we twice rejected it on a bipartisan basis, and I urge all Members to vote against it today. The 1964 Civil Rights Act made clear that when faith-based groups hire employees on a religious basis, it can exercise the group's civil rights liberties and not discriminate under Federal law. In 1987, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld this right. As my colleagues can see from the chart that I have next to me, former President Bill Clinton signed four laws allowing faith-based groups to staff on a religious basis when they receive those Federal funds. Those four laws are the 1996 welfare reform law; the 1998 Community Services Block Grant Act; the 2000 Community Renewal Tax Relief Act; and the 2000 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Act, all allowing faith-based providers to preserve their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Our Nation's faith-based institutions have a proven track record in meeting the training and counseling needs of our citizens. Why would we want to deny them the opportunity to help in Federal job training efforts? President Bush repeated this call to empower faith-based providers both during his State of the Union address and again yesterday. I can think of no better place to start than to protect the rights of faith-based groups who are willing to lend a helping hand in providing job training and other critical social services to the most needy of our citizens. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for his work in putting this bill together, a bill that is supported by a broad and diverse coalition of groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Workforce Boards, the National Workforce Association, the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom and the Salvation Army, amongst others. We are part of a dynamic economy that is constantly creating new and different types of jobs, so the knowledge and skills of each job seeker is absolutely critical in determining their success or failure. If we are going to help them succeed, then strengthening our job training programs is essential. The bill, I believe, accomplishes that goal. Unfortunately, the only plan that my colleagues on the other side have put forward to address the needs of American workers is the status quo. Their plan fails to reduce duplication and inefficiency, it fails to give States and local communities more flexibility, and it fails to take advantage of the positive role that faith-based institutions play in our communities and the success they have in providing critical social services to those most in need. Mr. Chairman, the status quo is no plan at all. I ask my colleagues to support the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 27.