Rail Passenger Disaster Family Assistance Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and to the bill, and let me say just when we think that the Republican leadership of this House could not be any more out of touch with reality they bring this bill to the floor today, and today's contribution is the so-called Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003.

Let us review some of the basic facts of the failed economic policies of this President and of this Congress. Those policies have led to a 6 percent unemployment rate, the highest in years. There are more unemployed people in this country today than at any point since July of 1993. Of the 8.8 million people who are out of work in America, nearly 2 million have been out of work for 27 weeks or more. The average length of unemployment is now approximately 20 weeks, the highest since 1984.

Mr. Speaker, the economy is ailing and Republican policies are failing, and every day the people of America are the ones who are suffering. And how does the majority propose to help the unemployed in this country? First, by proposing a misguided tax scheme. The President and the Republicans claim that their tax bill will create a million jobs. No serious economist or no serious person believes that.

But even taking them at their word, each new job under their plan would cost $550,000 in lost revenue, about 17 times the salary of the average American worker. Talk about waste, fraud and abuse. On the other hand, every dollar we spend on unemployment benefits will boost the economy by $1.73. That is what is called growth, not that the Republican majority knows anything about that.

The second part of their plan is to cut job training, disability, and veteran employment, and adult learning programs to hurt the very people we should be helping.

The Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003 we are considering here today does nothing to help create jobs or to reduce the number of unemployed people in this country.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve much better. Contrary to what we will hear from the majority, this bill actually makes it harder for the unemployed to get employment and reemployment training.

The SEIU, in an open letter to every Member of this body, said that ``The primary task of the workforce development system must be to connect unemployed or underemployed workers with family-sustaining jobs that provide good wages and benefits and afford economic self- sufficiency.'' They are right. But if they are a young person who needs employment training while looking for their first job, this bill will not help them. If they are an adult who needs reemployment training and assistance as they look for a new job, this bill is not going to help them.

Specifically, this bill block-grants adult, dislocated worker, and employment service funding streams. It allows States to use funds from the Disability and Veteran Employment and Adult Learning programs to fund expenses at the Workforce Investment Act's centers. The result of this provision will be more bureaucracy and less training for the disabled and veterans.

Given all the rhetoric we hear in this place about veterans, this provision is unacceptable. We should be doing everything we can to help veterans find employment instead of slashing the Disability and Veteran Employment and Adult Learning Programs.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the bill eliminates existing protections and safeguards against low quality and potentially fraudulent job training providers and permits States to allow

these providers to receive Federal funding. It caps the use of funds for services for low-income youth, those considered most likely to drop out of school at 30 percent.

Mr. Speaker, many Democrats offered several good amendments in the Committee on Rules yesterday. Unfortunately the majority has decided to stifle the debate on these important issues by denying these Members the opportunity to offer most of these amendments here on the floor.

One of the amendments offered in committee and denied by the majority was an extension of unemployment benefits for workers who have lost their jobs. Unemployment benefits expire at the end of this month. Too many unemployed workers simply cannot find work because the jobs are not there. These people desperately need the unemployment benefits traditionally supplied by the Federal Government in difficult times. It is flat wrong that the majority refuses to allow a vote on the extension of these important benefits. But if that were not bad enough, this bill also attacks the Constitution by repealing civil rights protections that are written in the current law.

Twenty-one years ago, then-Senator Dan Quayle sponsored legislation that provided civil rights protections against employment discrimination based on religion in programs that receive Federal funding. President Reagan signed that bill into law. It is not every day that a Democrat like me praises the good work of Dan Quayle, but the nondiscrimination provision he offered is good policy that has served us well.

And this provision received strong bipartisan support when the Workforce Reinvestment Act was reauthorized in 1998. But the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003 before us today shreds these protections by allowing religious organizations to receive Federal funding under the bill for job training activities and social services and then to discriminate in hiring based on religion. In other words, this bill would allow a religious organization that discriminates based on religion, like Bob Jones University, to get taxpayer money for Federal job training programs.

This provision is unconstitutional, unacceptable and offensive. An amendment to remove this provision was offered in the Committee on Rules and, like other substantive amendments, was not made in order.

Mr. Speaker, this is a lousy bill. Yesterday the Committee on Rules majority got into a debate over whose responsibility it is to deal with the unemployment benefits issue. Some said the Committee on Education and the Workforce, others said the Committee on Ways and Means. But I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, do they not go home to their districts? Do they not listen to their constituents? Do they not know that their constituents care more about jobs and a strong economy than about jurisdictional cat fights? This is outrageous and they know it.

Mr. Speaker, this is an unfair rule and it is a bad bill, and I urge my colleague to think of the unemployed in their districts and ask themselves does this bill help my constituents? The honest answer is no. I urge this House to defeat the rule and vote against the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), whose important amendment was denied yesterday in the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire how much time each side has?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how many more speakers the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) would like to yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) so the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) can continue this dialogue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I will urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the Van Hollen amendment that was offered in the Committee on Rules last night and defeated on a party-line vote.

This very worthy amendment restores current law, which prohibits the use of Federal funds to discriminate in hiring based on religion. It will do this by striking the offending language from the bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is astounding to me that in the 21st century we would turn back the clock and allow American taxpayer dollars to be used to discriminate against our own citizens based on their religious beliefs.

This is 2003. I had hoped that we had moved beyond refusing to hire someone because they are Catholic or Jewish or Muslim or Presbyterian or whatever. This bill returns us to the bad old days.

The Van Hollen amendment would strike this offensive provision, and it deserves a vote by this House. This bill

is supposed to be about helping our unemployed workers, not about giving taxpayer money to organizations that discriminate. It is absolutely critical that we put aside partisan differences and give Members the chance to delete this language.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can take up this vital amendment. I want to point out that a ``no'' vote will not stop us from considering this legislation. However, a ``yes'' vote will deny us the opportunity to vote on this terrible language. This is the only opportunity that the House will have to strike this provision from the bill.

Again, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 221 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 221 is a structured but fair rule providing for

the consideration of H.R. 1261, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general debate, it will be in order to consider only the amendments printed in the report accompanying this resolution, by the Member designated and debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent.

In total, this rule makes eight amendments in order, three offered by Republican Members and five offered by Democrat Members.

Finally, the rule permits the minority a motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report.

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest experiences for a Member of Congress is when we can acknowledge that a particular policy or plan that we have passed has been successful. Today is one of those times as we reauthorize the landmark 1998 Workforce Investment Act. In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act to reform the Nation's job training system. At that time it was fragmented, duplicative and ineffective to both job seekers and employers. The path from unemployment to a job was long and winding and treacherous and often led to a dead end. There were many areas for improvement and we found them. What followed was a plan that consolidated and integrated employment and training services at the local level in a more unified work force development system. Today we can clearly see the positive results.

For example, if we take a snapshot view of the program from 2000 to 2001 we see 1.1 million individuals receiving intensive training from programs and services offered and millions more accessing self-service job listings and placement assistance through the one-stop centers and 82 percent of unemployed workers finding a job, up from 76 percent the previous year, increased employment rates for low-income adults rising from 69 percent to 76 percent, and higher diploma attainment rate for youth jumping from 35 percent to 54 percent. What a wonderful accomplishment. Few can dispute this evidence of success. Few can discount the millions of lives that have been changed with greater independence and greater self-worth.

So today we will build upon these achievements and pass the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003.

First, in this plan Congress goes even further in streamlining bureaucracy. Finding a new or better job is no small task, and workers will welcome few barriers allowing them to take full advantage of the employment assistance.

Second, the package strengthens essential components such as adult education with vital reading and math skills. An adult education system should focus on improving results for those most in need of help, those who have already been left behind who have not attained the core skills that they need. By improving adults' basic reading and math skills and providing limited English proficiency lessons, this plan goes even further in equipping workers with tools and training necessary to enter the 21st century workforce.

This bill also enhances the landmark flexibility and local involvement that Congress provided to States and communities in the 1998 law. More duplicative programs and services have been identified and consolidated, saving money and precious resources. State and local officials receive even more flexibility to target Federal resources toward the unique needs of their own communities.

Finally, reauthorizing this plan helps strengthen America's economy by helping more workers find better jobs. The One-Stop Career Center system that provides job training and career information gives workers a necessary bridge to rejoin the workforce or retraining for better jobs. Such services are immeasurable and an investment into America's workforce.

Tomorrow this body will consider a jobs and growth package aimed at stimulating businesses and better jobs. Tomorrow we consider how to create new jobs. But today we consider how to strengthen the worker, how to equip the worker with the knowledge and the skills needed to succeed in those new jobs. An unlimited supply of jobs would not do America's economy any good without a qualified worker for each and every one of them. Strengthening America's economy requires both good jobs and good workers, and today I ask my colleagues to remember that when considering this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness and the man who has earned the nickname of the Father of One-Stop Career Centers.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, we do not have any other speakers on the floor. There may be more coming; but if the gentleman is prepared, we can close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

(Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, we are reserving our time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

In conclusion, this is a fair rule which allows us to move on to the task at hand, strengthening the workforce and equipping the worker with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed.

As I said earlier, an unlimited supply of jobs would not do our economy much good without workers to fill those positions. Strengthening America's economy requires both good jobs and good workers; and today, we are focused on the worker.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would pick this apart and stand in the way of progress for America's workers. Nothing new. We see it today, we will see it tomorrow, but I ask my colleagues to put America's workers first, support this rule, and pass the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, if people want a dictionary illustration of adding insult to injury, the Republicans are providing it. They do great injury today to the principle of nondiscrimination, and they have added to that the insult of not allowing this House to debate it.

As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) made clear, this is the first time we will be removing from the statute books an existing antidiscrimination provision, one that says you cannot take Federal money and then discriminate against some of the people who paid the taxes. If you are a particular organization, you can say, I do not care if you are Jewish and pay taxes or Catholic and pay taxes. I do not care if you are a Protestant and pay taxes, if you believe in abortion. I do not care if you are a Methodist and pay taxes, if you agree on evolution. We will exclude you.

It is appalling to me that they are going to be able to engineer this enormous regression in the principle of nondiscrimination without there even being a separate vote and debate. It is a tribute to the Republican majority, the most submissive body of elected officials gathered since the dissolution of the Supreme Soviet that they will ratify this decision to roll back a fundamental constitutional provision, a fundamental antidiscrimination public policy provision, and they will all march down and vote not to allow it to be debated.

The gentleman from Ohio is right. In 1965 there was an exemption for religion organizations, and it was expanded in 1972. A Senator said at the time, ``This is to keep the hands of Caesar off of the place of God.''

Now we are talking about the hands of Caesar coming to the religious institutions bearing money. And we were

saying this, if you as a religious institution want to preserve your autonomy, hire only whom you want, that is your right. But do not tell Americans of all religions to pay taxes and then take those tax dollars and say, but you are the wrong religion. You are the right religion but the wrong doctrine. And that is what this does.

It removes it from the statute books. The law now says you cannot discriminate based on religion. People have said, well, we need this so that religious organizations are not denied funds because of their name. Well, in the first place, that is up to the current administration. What is George Bush saying? Stop me before I discriminate again? If he does not want to discriminate, he has a good way to stop discriminating.

You know the person who went to the doctor and he said, Doctor, it hurts when I go like this. The doctor said, Do not go like this.

Mr. President, do not go like this. Do not discriminate. But do not take people's tax dollars and say you can only hire your own.

The question is two fold: Do we maintain the principle that if you take Federal money, if you are a religious organization and to be autonomous, that is fine? By the way, for secular purposes, remember by definition the religious group can only take Federal money for secular purposes. It would be unconstitutional as everyone acknowledges to give tax dollars to a religion for religious purposes. So the question is can a religious organization take money for secular purposes and discriminate? And we are told, well, wait, it is important for them to hold together.

It seems to me the worst thing being said about religious organizations are the people who say, you know what, if you want Baptist or Jews or Mormons or Catholics to help other people, you better not make them associate with nonbelievers. They can only help people find jobs, they can only give job training as long as they are free from the spiritual pollution of having to teach these jobs alongside nonbelievers. That is a condemnation of religion that I hope this House will not engage in, compounded by a denial of democracy on the floor of the House. To bring forward such an important issue and use your submissive majority to prevent debate is contemptible.

Mr. Speaker, if I had an indefensible point I would not yield either, despite all the time they have.

If, in fact, a religious organization get money for job training, they have a right to refuse to hire someone who does not believe in job training. If they have hired because they are going to try and fight drug addiction, they do not have to hire someone who is for drug addiction.

If the gentleman thinks I am going to yield him after he refused to yield to me when he has all the time and I do not, let him get some more time from his side which has the extra time and is sitting on it, and I will debate him.

The fact is that any organization has the right to deny people a job if they disagree with the job for which they are being hired. So, no, you do not have to hire someone who disagrees with what you are being hired for. That is totally not the case. And by the way, this law about discrimination does apply across the board.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

As a new Member of this House, I was appalled that one of the first actions we took in the Committee on Education and the Workforce was to adopt a provision that strikes at the heart of religious liberty in this country. The underlying bill contains a provision that takes us down a very dangerous road in this country, a road of religious bigotry and intolerance; and even worse, it uses taxpayers' dollars to promote that intolerance.

What am I talking about? Under current law, if you receive Federal funds to run a job training program in this country, you are not allowed to discriminate in your hiring based on religion. I think that makes sense to all Americans. If you are receiving Federal dollars for a program you are running, you should not be able to say to a perspective job applicant, I am sorry, you are the wrong religion. But that is what this does.

Here is a chart that shows what current law is. This was a law that was language originally signed into law by President Reagan. It was most recently adopted again by this body in 1988 as part of the last reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. It has a prohibition of discrimination language, and it prohibits discrimination in employment based on religion, existing law.

But what this underlying bill does is it takes a big red X mark and crosses out ``religion.'' It is a green light in this country to allow organizations that receive Federal funds to say no, to give you the religion test.

Imagine if you were to open up your local newspaper and see a help wanted ad for a job training program, and it said Christians only need apply, Jews only need apply, or Muslims only need apply. In fact, it can say Baptists only, or Methodists only. We would be appalled. But even worse, we would be appalled if we saw that that ad in that newspaper was paid for with U.S. taxpayer dollars.

Imagine as an American citizen responding to an ad for a job with a job training program, and you are qualified and you go to the interview, and they say, Gee, you know, you are really qualified, in fact you provided job training services in the past, but, golly, you are just the wrong religion. You are not a Christian, or a Jew, or You are not a Muslim.

Or you could be the right religion, but they are allowed to interrogate you. They can ask you questions. How many times did you go to church? Or synagogue? What are your charitable contributions? Let's talk about your marriage and family life. They are allowed under this provision to probe into your personal life to determine whether you meet their ``religious test.'' And they can do it all with your taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker, that is not the America I know. I do not think that is the America most Americans know. It strikes at the heart of our constitutional protections for liberty.

I would just say I think the full House deserves an opportunity to at least debate this, so that all 435 members have an opportunity to vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on whether they want to use taxpayer dollars to discriminate.

Mr. Speaker, from listening to the other side, you would think that this was something that was run-of-the-mill, that we took away these protections every day and have in the past. That is just not true.

This is the first time this Congress will eliminate, delete language in our statutes, in our laws that expressly prohibits discrimination in these programs based on religion. It is the first time we will remove a protection that this body has decided is important and fundamental to American principles of operation of church and State.

As has been stated, this language was first signed into law in 1982 by Ronald Reagan. It was readopted in 1998 by this House of Representatives. And it continues to make sense to every American out there that their tax dollars should not go to discriminate when it comes to federal programs that are secular in nature.

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed that this full House is not given the opportunity to debate this full issue and vote up and down.

Mr. Speaker, it is a fundamental American principle that no citizen should have to pass someone else's religious test to qualify for a tax-funded job. The vast majority of American citizens agree with that principle, and yet this bill would violate that principle, that constitutional provision in the first amendment.

In my 12 years in the House, I have never been more deeply offended by the action of the Committee on Rules than with this rule. To deny the Members of the House of Representatives to debate the issue of religious freedom, to be able to apply for a federally funded job without having a religious test given to you by another citizen, to deny us even the right to debate that principle, an issue that Madison and Jefferson thought important enough to embed into the first 16 words of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, I find deeply offensive, not only to the Members of this House and this institution, but to the American people who agree

with the principle that you should not be able to discriminate against people based on religion in order to obtain a federally funded job.

I think we lose our moral authority in preaching to the Iraqi citizens about religious freedom and democracy if we, this week, this day in this House of Representatives, in America, vote to say an American citizen can be denied a job for which they are fully qualified, a job funded by their taxes, simply because they were Christian or they were Muslim or they were Jewish.

It is not right that an organization associated with Bob Jones University could get a $2 million job training program and put out a sign that says no Jews or no Catholics need apply here for a federally funded job.

If the Republican leadership of this House wants to defend the position that subsidizing religious discrimination in Federal job hiring is a good idea, then, okay. I will not defend that idea, but, if you do, I respect your right to try to debate that idea. But you have denied us even the opportunity to debate whether that idea is right or wrong, and that is deeply offensive.

We should vote against this rule and allow the House to debate this important American principle.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman's right to support this bill as written. In my opinion, it would discriminate against American citizens in job-hiring simply based on their religious faith. I think that is wrong.

But what I think is doubly wrong is that the Republican leadership in the House denied us the right to even have this honest debate on which the gentleman from Ohio and I would agree is a fundamentally important issue.

I would like to ask the gentleman, did he support shutting down our right to debate this issue?

Mr. Speaker, if there is any issue in Congress that should rise above partisanship, it should be the principle of religious freedom. I hope every Republican and Democrat in the House before voting on this rule asks his or herself this question: Is it right that an American citizen be denied a federally funded job simply because of his or her religious faith?

If you think that is right, then you should vote for this rule because that is what this bill does. It denies American citizens publicly funded jobs simply because of their choice of religious faith. If you agree with the vast majority of Americans that it is wrong to subsidize religious discrimination with federal tax dollars, vote ``no'' on this rule.

This is more important than sticking to the sacred alter of partisanship. The issue of religious freedom should rise above that alter of partisanship. And I hope my Republican colleagues will join with Democrats and all of us today to say we are going to stand up for religious freedom during the week we are preaching it to the Iraqi citizens.