John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate my friend and colleague from Georgia for his amendment and make it clear that I support his amendment. The amendment ensures that States and local areas have flexibility in creating their own out-of-school youth program. For instance, a State may find it beneficial to allow youth who begin participating in an out-of-school youth program to continue in the program beyond the 21st birthday in order to complete the program. Often 22-, 23- and 24-year- olds have many of the same basic educational and job training needs as youth under the age of 21. And I think that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) aligns the eligibility age with other programs serving youth, including JobCorps and Youth Build, and this will allow greater coordination amongst programs serving youth and could ease the transition for these youth into employment and self-sufficiency programs. So I congratulate the gentleman for his amendment and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. Let me again thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and all the Members who have helped to work to put this bill together. I want to congratulate the members of our staff, Sally Lovejoy, Krisann Pearce, Stephanie Milburn, Melanie Looney, Travis McCoy, Elisabeth Wheel, and James Bergeron of the gentleman from California's (Mr. McKeon) staff. They have done a great job in helping us bring this bill here today. Though the legislation is important for us as legislators, we have a chance today to provide out of work Americans with more than just a temporary fix. We can provide them with the tools they need to get and keep a job. Some of my colleagues have talked about the need to extend unemployment insurance. Indeed, providing unemployed workers with assistance while they are out of a job is critically important, and that is why we supported and continue to support appropriate extensions of unemployment insurance. However, the legislation before us today is an opportunity to provide job seekers with what they really need to get back on their feet. We can provide them with the tools, the training and the resources that will help them find meaningful and permanent employment. As the old cliche goes, if you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. You teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime. The reason that we all know this cliche is because it happens to be true. We have an opportunity to provide unemployed Americans with access to job training and skills that they need to provide permanent security for themselves and their families. H.R. 1261 addresses the real hardships that unemployed Americans are facing by strengthening programs and targeting most of the needed help by expanding the number of providers that can serve job seekers. The legislation before us today happens to receive strong support from the States that are administering the programs, the local workforce boards who are directly providing these services to job seekers and the businesses who actually hire the workers. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has pointed out, ``As economic growth accelerates, the need for skilled workers will only increase. The Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act provides increased flexibility and strives to create programs that are responsive to businesses' needs now and in the future.'' The backbone of a strong economy is a well-developed workforce, and providing job seekers with the skills and training they need to thrive will strengthen our economy and they are also needed to help us spur economic growth. So I urge my colleagues to support this important bill, and we look forward to entertaining the number of amendments that have been made in order.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) makes a valuable contribution to the bill. I believe Members ought to support the amendment, and we would be happy to include it.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me clarify some of the remarks that my good friend from Wisconsin was making during his presentation. Right now we have taken the 63 Federal job training-retraining programs back in the late 1990s and ran them into three funding streams to the States. What we propose to do in this bill is to reduce that to one funding stream. This idea of we are block granting this to the States and giving full discretion to the governor is just not true. Under the bill, we require that half of the funds go directly to the local boards. Of the half that stays at the State, the State must use 50 percent of that money to assist and provide services to local boards. So when we begin to look at how this program will be enhanced, at least 75 percent of the money will be spent by our local boards. The other 25 percent is given to the governors based on their need to react to unemployment problems, sudden unemployment problems somewhere else in the State where additional assistance may be needed. In the bill we also provide much more local control by our local boards. Our vision when we started this was to give local businesses and local community leaders the ability to control what happens in terms of how these monies are spent and the types of services that are provided. I do believe that it is going to result in not only better services, but better outcomes for our workers. Let me make one other point that has been referred to several times where we eliminate the funding in this bill for in-school youth activities. There are a tremendous number of programs already designed to deal with in-school youth who could possibly be in danger or risk of dropping out. We should focus the limited youth resources we have in this bill to out-of-school youth or in-school youth outside of school time because there is not as much money as we would like to spend in these programs. There are sufficient programs for in-school youth during the school day. We are trying to better target our resources to get better results for those at-risk students who may in fact be thinking of dropping out of school.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I support the Vitter amendment, but let me just clarify for Members what we are doing here in the reauthorization of WIA. This is nothing more than a fine-tuning effort, further streamlining the funding stream, further clarifying that we expect the local boards to get most of the money to provide the resources, and to give the local boards the flexibility to provide high quality services to men and women in their communities who have needs. I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) says we need to consider what the needs are in the local communities and is in fact a valuable contribution. But no one should believe that we are doing a complete overhaul of the Workforce Reinvestment Act. These one-stop shops around the country by and large have begun to work very well. What we are trying to do here in this reauthorization is to make those changes to help the one-stops do a more effective job in their local communities, and to provide the governors and the local boards with the kind of flexibility they need to look at the broad needs of the workforce, whether it is training, retraining, preparing people for better jobs in their communities. We believe that the underlying bill does in fact make this much more likely because services will be offered more efficiently, the use of the resources will be more efficient. Thus, we believe that the outcomes, the results of all of this, will give us better services and better outcomes at home.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining on each side?

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the father of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), another alumni of our committee. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my colleague and new member of our committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), for his important contribution. Many of us believe that the language was sufficient in the bill, but clearly there were questions raised about how the determination was going to be made over how much each of the participating partners were going to contribute to the infrastructure. The amendment that is offered here does in fact make it clear to the Governors that there is a proportionate share that each of these groups will contribute. Why is this necessary? Unfortunately in some parts of the country, some groups just decided they were not going to be participating partners. Our goal here is to have one-stops where all of the providers of services are there. We are talking about providers of services that are funded by the Federal Government. They need to be participating. What we do here is to make sure that they have a financial commitment to the well-being of these one-stops as well. The gentleman from Michigan makes a point that not all of these mandatory partners have administrative funds. Most of them do. Their participation in the funding of the infrastructure would come from their own administrative funds. But the one point that he did bring up was the veterans programs. They have administrative funds and it is done by regulatory process as opposed to being outlined in statute. And so we believe that because each of these groups has administrative funds by some means, the Governors and the statewide WIA board would take that into consideration in terms of what the proportionate share of costs should be for each of these groups. I do think the gentleman from Minnesota makes an important contribution, helps clarify the bill, and we should support his amendment.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is about helping job seekers find meaningful employment. And we know the one-stop shops have worked. And the underlying bill seeks to fine-tune that process, to make it more effective in helping more people find and keep meaningful employment. Now, the motion to recommit is about the issue of unemployment insurance, something that is not in the purview of our committee. Now, Members in this House on both sides of the aisle have worked together to extends unemployment benefits on a regular basis, and I have full confidence that we will continue to do that if the need persists. We are going to continue to meet our commitment and our resolve in this Congress to help those who are in fact unemployed. But let me just point out that if anyone thinks that the motion to recommit is going to result in one unemployed worker getting one additional dollar this year, they are wrong. This does not extend unemployment insurance through the unemployment insurance system. It would take the money and send it to the local one-stops, who have no system for distributing unemployment, and require them to distribute the money. I will guarantee you there is not one dime that would flow to one unemployed worker within 2 years under this mechanism that was set up within the rules of the House in order to try to get this issue on the table today. And if there is something that is even worse than that, in the motion to recommit it refers it back to the committee and we are promptly to deal with it. For those of you who are not that familiar with the nuance, that means the bill is dead forever. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as we stand here today, hundreds of thousands of Americans are searching for good, stable new jobs. The unemployment rate in April rose to 6 percent. As the economy works toward recovery, hundreds of thousands of Americans are searching for jobs and careers that can help them ensure security and safety for their families. The President has made it clear that we need more jobs and we need a stronger economy. The backbone of economic growth is a strong workforce. As we move towards enacting the President's jobs and growth initiative this week, we also have a chance to strengthen job training opportunities for American workers. The legislation before us is H.R. 1261, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act. I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the subcommittee chairman, for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. The bill would reauthorize and strengthen the Workforce Investment Act, or WIA, major legislation passed 5 years ago that provided important reforms to Federal job training programs. Prior to 1998, the Nation's job training system was a mess. It was fragmented, contained overlapping programs, and did not serve anyone very well, job seekers or employers. WIA consolidated employment and training services at the local level and produced a more unified workforce development system. WIA provides funding for States and local communities to establish one-stop shops for workers seeking new jobs and new careers. Through the WIA system, job seekers now have access to labor market information, job counseling and job training to help them get back on their feet. WIA has generally worked well, but it could work even better. Duplication and confusion are keeping the WIA system from reaching its true potential for American workers. Duplication of services under the current law results in significant resources being squandered, resources that could be used to help those in need at a time when they need the help most. Overlap in training programs under the current WIA law has contributed to the growth of a confusing patchwork at the State and local level. Governors and State and local officials need the flexibility to target these resources toward the unique needs of the men and women in their communities. The legislation before us would give our Nation's Governors and communities new tools to meet the unique needs of these people that they serve. It would streamline the bureaucracy to give workers better access to WIA benefits. Congress has an obligation this year to improve worker access to these WIA benefits and provide Americans with an even stronger job training system at a time when it is needed most. State and local communities should be given greater flexibility to tailor their WIA systems to their own unique needs. Currently, the WIA adult, WIA dislocated worker, and Wagner- Peyser funding streams serve very similar populations. Combining these funding streams into a single grant, as proposed in this bill, would result in more effectiveness at the State and local level and significantly greater efficiency for workers searching for new jobs and new careers. It would also give States and local authorities greater flexibility to integrate WIA with their welfare-to-work programs. The bill also strengthens adult education by focusing on core skills such as reading and math. Workers need these building blocks to thrive in a knowledge-driven economy. Lastly, I would note that the bill allows faith-based institutions to be included in the Federal worker relief system. Faith-based institutions have a proven track record of helping people find jobs, but they are essentially barred from the current WIA system simply because they have religious identities, and this is unfortunate and unnecessary because under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and as amended in 1972, faith-based organizations are already explicitly allowed to hire on a religious basis. These outdated barriers should be removed to ensure that every available resource is being committed in the effort to help Americans find jobs. The bill before us simply reiterates the existing exemption that religious organizations have had for more than three decades under the civil rights laws. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and as amended in 1972 reads as follows: ``(These requirements) shall not apply . . . to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.'' This portion of the Civil Rights Act, which has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, explicitly allows faith-based organizations to hire on a religious basis and any Federal legislation governing Federal social service funds should continue to protect the rights of religious organizations to do so. The measure before us simply applies the same standard to the Workforce Investment Act so that every available resource is being tapped to help Americans find jobs. If we do not make this change, we are essentially telling out-of-work Americans that they deserve something less than 100 percent of our support. I think that would be a horrible message to send. Workers and families are the backbone of our economy. The backbone of economic growth is a strong workforce. Congress has an obligation to improve worker access to the benefits that the Workforce Investment Act offers and to provide Americans with an even stronger job-training system again when it is needed most. Passing this bill will send another clear message to the American people that we are taking action on jobs and the economy. And again I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for his excellent work in bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1261.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about the reauthorization of the Workforce Reinvestment Act and we will get into a broader debate about that once we pass this very fair rule that we have before us. But as we can see, the debate is coming down over an issue of whether faith-based organizations can maintain, maintain their Title VII religious exemption. When we wrote the civil rights laws in this Congress back in the 1960s, we made it clear that religious organizations could, in fact, discriminate in hiring for their church and church-related services, and the only thing that we do in this bill is to allow those organizations to continue to be faith-based organizations. They can provide services in terms of providing job training or retraining, and they can maintain, they can maintain their Title VII exemption. Now, we are hearing all of this noise about this is the first time and this is such an abridgement. Let me just point out for my colleagues that there are a number of programs that allow organizations to accept Federal dollars and to maintain their religious identity. They are the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, Title V of the abstinence education grants, Older Americans Act, the job opportunities for low-income individuals, abandoned infants grants, child abuse and neglect discretionary grants, runaway and homeless youth basic center programs, religious organizations can take Federal money and keep their Title VII exemptions which allow them to hire whom they want to hire within their organizations. Now, if this is not enough, how about the four bills that President Bill Clinton signed into law that allow these same organizations to take Federal dollars and continue to maintain their Title VII exemption. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Act, the Community Services Block Grant Act, the Personal Responsibility of Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act, and the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act all allow organizations to take Federal money and to maintain their Title VII exemption. Now, this is a debate that has been going on in this Congress over the last several years since President Bush made the case that faith- based organizations, which are integral in many of our inner city communities, that we ought to allow these organizations to provide services. And the big debate that we have here is that people want to say, well, yes, we want them to provide services, but if they take one Federal dollar in providing their services, they ought to give up all of their civil rights protections. Hogwash. These organizations are doing wonderful things in many communities in America and we should not deny them the civil rights protections that were granted to them in 1965 just because they take a Federal dollar in the pursuit of their mission of trying to help people in their own communities. So I would ask my colleagues and urge my colleagues to support the rule today and support this bill and to support allowing faith-based organizations to do the job they are doing in many of our communities.

Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the Congress in 1965 when they wrote the civil rights laws decided to allow these organizations to maintain their right to hire whom they please. All we are trying to do with this bill today is to allow that to continue.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me again thank my colleague, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and all of the members on our committee who have played an important role in bringing this bill to us today. I also want to congratulate the members of our staff, including Sally Lovejoy, Krisann Pearce, David Cleary, Melanie Looney and Elisabeth Wheel; Sarah Rittling, a staff member of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); and Jacqueline Norris, a staff member of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), for all of their hard work and dedication over the last year or so as we were bringing this bill together. Mr. Chairman, this is a very difficult piece of legislation. It has been very difficult for Congress to deal with it ever since they first brought it up in 1975. But I think that Members on both sides of the aisle have worked closely together to craft a bill that will help special needs children all across our country. I think it is important to note that that is our goal here. It is to make sure that children with disabilities get the free and appropriate public education that they are entitled to in the least restrictive manner. We believe that the bill that we have before us today does, in fact, provide that, and does not weaken any safeguards for those children or their parents. Let us not forget the importance of the requirements under No Child Left Behind where school districts are going to have to focus in on results for these children. This is a huge shift in dynamics for how schools are going to have to deal with their IDEA children. As a result, being able to change the paperwork requirements, to ease those for classroom teachers, to make the process more simple for school districts and administrators to enact, will not diminish the services for these students, because these same schools are going to have to show results for these children. So this is a very big change, and I do believe it will lead to much better results for our special needs children. The last point I would make is this is a bipartisan bill. We will talk about more of it as we get into the amendments.

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