Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1261) to enhance the workforce investment system of the Nation by strengthening one-stop career centers, providing for more effective governance arrangements, promoting access to a more comprehensive array of employment, training, and related services, establishing a targeted approach to serving youth, and improving performance accountability, and for other purposes.

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

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

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

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. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

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

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. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

Under the bill 80 percent of the funds are, under formula, to go to the local boards. This would bring that to 85 percent. I do think it gives the local boards more certainty over exactly the kind of funding that they should expect from year to year, would reduce the amount of dislocation or expectation as to what is coming in. I think he makes a valuable contribution, and we would be pleased to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman does make an important contribution to the bill and clarifies that these out-of-work homemakers and single mothers do in fact play a role and do need services and should in fact be considered in a higher level as funds are being distributed to the local boards, and I ask Members to support the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me ask my colleagues to support the gentlewoman from Ohio's amendment. I think for those States that do not provide the technical assistance to the local boards, they need that help, especially in terms of the financial integrity of the funds that they are dealing with. I do believe that the Department is in a position to do that. I would obviously think the sharing of best practices, that forum needs to occur, and somewhere at the Department of Labor is the most likely place for it to occur.

I should note with regard to the other amendment that the gentlewoman had offered that was not made in order under the rule dealing with the financial integrity of the monies that move from here to the States, that we do clarify the issue of obligations versus expenditures, which we think is an important step in ensuring that there is a clear picture of what the drawdown numbers are, which today I do not think is as clear as it could be.

We will continue to work with the gentlewoman as we get into conference at some point with the Senate in terms of ensuring that these Federal funds are used for their intended purpose.

With that, I would urge my colleagues to support the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

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

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. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong opposition to this bill. In 1998 the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and I brought a bipartisan WIA bill to this House. Unfortunately, this is not the case today. The key failure of this legislation is that it does not respond to the economic realities that American families are facing today. We have 8.8 million individuals who are out of work. These are real people with names. We have growing budget deficits projected to top a half trillion dollars this fiscal year. Most alarming is the fact that three unemployed individuals are competing for every job.

In light of these dire economic conditions, I have grave concerns about the bill before us today. This bill unravels the very fabric of our Federal job training system. First, the proposal would eliminate the employment service, the program which matches those looking for work with jobs. The bill also block grants our job training programs. As our economy continues its downturn, it is extremely shortsighted to eliminate the function that matches jobs and individuals looking for work.

I must stress how disappointed I am that the Committee on Rules did not make either of my amendments in order to extend unemployment benefits. The House is not responding to the needs of the American workers by denying the debate on these amendments. The families of unemployed workers are struggling to ensure that they can afford their rent and put food on the table. We should not ignore the needs of these families. Where is the compassion of this Congress? I certainly can see the conservatism, but I do not see the compassion.

This bill also allows governors to take funding from veterans programs, programs serving individuals with disabilities, and other partner programs to fund one-stop infrastructure costs by also eliminating their seat on local workforce boards.

I am aware that an amendment may be offered today to cap the amount of funds that can be taken, but this amendment is deficient. This amendment is inadequate and will still place these programs and the services they provide at risk.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, this legislation repeals existing civil rights protections. Under current law faith-based organizations do receive Federal funds and do an admirable job providing job training services. Unfortunately, the Republican bill would allow for these organizations to refuse to hire individuals due to their faith for positions paid for with Federal dollars.

Mr. Chairman, this bill does not respond to the needs of unemployed individuals and individuals with disabilities seeking to return to the workplace. In fact, it undermines the progress we have made under WIA thus far. I regret that the Committee on Rules has prevented us from responding to the real needs of American workers.

I urge opposition to final passage of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Again, I regret we do not have a bipartisan bill. I regret that we did not get in the Committee on Rules the ability to offer the extension of unemployment benefits which are so sorely needed in this country. I regret the fact that we have chipped away at civil rights protections which are so precious in this country.

I would hope that somewhere along the line, before this bill is finally finished, that we get a bill that we can have support for on both sides of the aisle, but we cannot do that today.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition although I am not in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Kline amendment makes marginal improvements to the bill, but it does not reduce the funding that can be taken from veterans programs and programs serving individuals with disabilities. Instead, the Kline amendment puts this funding, and the services which it provides, at risk. I have two letters from leading organizations representing veterans and individuals with disabilities. Let me read from the letter from the National Rehabilitation Association:

``The Kline amendment would, we regret to say, have the unintended consequence of diverting deserving dollars from individuals with disabilities who want to work to fund a one-stop system which remains to this day largely inaccessible both programmatically and physically to individuals with disabilities.''

Let me also read a part of the letter from the Paralyzed Veterans Association of America:

``This amendment will not protect the disabled veterans outreach program and local veterans employment representatives services because the authorizing language for those programs sets no specific limits on administrative costs. As a result, the full amount of money appropriated for DVOPs and LVERs could, ostensibly, be directed by Governors to be used for one-stop infrastructure expenses.''

Clearly, this amendment does not address the critical issues of this legislation. It does, however, make marginal improvements. For that reason, I will not oppose it, but wish that we could get together at some point and try to improve the language.

National Rehabilitation

Association,

Alexandria, VA, May 8, 2003.

Dear Representative: As President and Executive Director of

the National Rehabilitation Association, respectively, we

have continuing concerns regarding the one-stop funding

structure being proposed for mandatory and additional

partner's participation in H.R. 1261 and in the

proportionality approach to that funding embodied in the

Kline amendment which was made in order under the Rule

granted yesterday to this bill.

The National Rehabilitation Association was established in

1925 and is the longest-serving and one of the strongest

advocates in ensuring the rights of individuals with

disabilities are respected and realized. Our mission is to

promote ethical and excellent practice in the field of

vocational rehabilitation.

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) comprises in Title IV

programs administered under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,

as amended. The Public VR Program, as it is commonly known,

is an accountable, eligibility-based employment program

dedicated to the education, job training and counseling,

career placement and independence of individuals with

disabilities, including those individuals with significant

disabilities.

The Public VR Program, being the productive partner that it

is and always has been, continues to partner at the one-stops

on a cost-allocation basis, consistent with OMB guidelines.

The Kline amendment would, we regret to say, have the

unintended consequence of diverting deserving dollars from

individuals with disabilities who want to work to fund a one-

stop system which remains to this day largely inaccessible

both programmatically and physically to individuals with

disabilities.

The impact on individuals with disabilities is clear: If

individuals with disabilities cannot get through the door of

the one-stop shops, or do not find meaningful access to

employment information once inside, these individuals will

not become employed and may be forced to seek public

assistance in lieu of advancing or initiating a career.

H.R. 1261 reneges on a promise by Congress to safeguard the

separate funding stream of the Public VR Program, and in

doing so, exposes the Public VR Program to a one-stop system

that does not have a proven or uniform track record of

accountability, according to a recent General Accounting

Office (GAO) Report, and other well-respected organizations.

Both H.R. 1261 and the Kline amendment do not appreciate

that the one-stops do not now have--nor have ever had--the

qualified staff who provide comprehensive services and

supports that individuals with disabilities require in

seeking the dignity of work in an increasingly one-size-fits-

all employment environment. These requirements include

qualified rehabilitation counselors and other qualified

professionals employed by accountable State Agencies, in

conjunction with their Community Rehabilitation Program

Partners (CRPs), who include private providers, employers

and businesses.

Most importantly, the Kline amendment does not define the

term ``proportionality'' and, accordingly, we are unsure of

how and if this approach would work to the benefit of all

individuals with disabilities who want to work.

Relatedly, the Public VR Program does not have a separate

line item funding stream for administrative costs or a cap on

administrative costs, which we believe, further complicates

participation of the Public VR Program at the one-stops other

than on a cost-allocation basis.

The untested, unproven proportionality approach advanced by

the Kline amendment simply does not--and cannot--protect the

millions of eligible individuals with disabilities who will

benefit from the comprehensive services and supports that

only the Public VR program can provide individuals with

disabilities who want to work.

The Public VR Program has been doing more with less for

years. Presently, there are

37 State Agencies on an Order of Selection, which places a

priority of service on those individuals with the most

significant disabilities. The waiting lists for the holistic

services and supports that only the Public VR Program can

provide individuals with disabilities increase everyday.

While the Public VR Program has served and secured

employment for millions of eligible individuals with

disabilities for decades, because of years of woeful

underfunding, the following State Agencies cannot now serve

all of the thousands upon thousands of eligible individuals

with disabilities who seek the dignity of work and the

comprehensive services that only the Public VR Program

provides individuals with disabilities include, by Region:

Region I--Connecticut General, Maine General and Blind

Agencies, Massachusetts General Agency, Rhode Island and

Vermont General.

Region II--New Jersey General; the Virgin Islands.

Region III--Delaware Blind Agency, Maryland, Pennsylvania

and West Virginia General Agencies.

Region IV--Georgia and Kentucky General and Blind Agencies,

Mississippi, North Carolina, General Agency and Tennessee.

Region V--Illinois, Minnesota General, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Region VI--Iowa General, Kansas, Missouri General, Nebraska

General.

Region VIII--Colorado; North Dakota.

Region VIII--Colorado, North Dakota.

Region IX--Arizona, California, Hawaii.

Region X--Oregon Blind, Washington State General Agency.

As we mentioned previously, these are the State Agencies

that maintain continually-increasing waiting lists for

eligible individuals with disabilities who want to share in

the American Dream by having a career, owning a home, being

able to support a family and living independently in their

communities.

While having a career is the primary goal of the Public VR

Program, this can only become a reality with a solid plan for

employment developed with and supported by the Public VR

qualified professionals in conjunction with the individual.

The Kline amendment does not and cannot solve the problems

that individuals with disabilities continue to confront at

the one-stops.

Just think about it. The Public VR Program is funding the

administration of an inaccessible one-stop program--which is

absent qualified staff and accountability--with funds

designated for supporting the poorest group in our society

with the highest unemployment rate and the majority of the

community living below the poverty line.

Given the continuing, critical concerns the disability

community at large has with the absence of accessibility,

accountability and qualified staff at the one-stops, the

National Rehabilitation Association cannot and will not

support H.R. 1261.

Respectfully Submitted,

L. Robert McConnell, Ph.D.,

President.

Michelle Vaughan, MBA,

Executive Director.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I am very familiar with the group that he is seeking to serve here. In the City of Flint, Michigan, we have people who really have a sense to find themselves during that period in their life, and I think extending this to age 24 is a reasonable thing for us to do and will make sure that we give those people in that age group that second chance to find themselves and to set goals for themselves. So I think this will be something that will add immeasurably to the bill, and I am very happy that the gentleman has offered the amendment and certainly urge everyone to support the amendment.

I know the gentleman from Atlanta has been up to my city and I have been to his city. We have seen youth in this group.

Mr. Chairman, as designee of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have discussed this amendment with the majority, and we have agreement upon this.

This amendment simply would increase the amount of funding going to local areas by a statutorily defined formula.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this motion responds to the economic realities that American families are facing today. We have 8.8 million individuals who are out of work. We have a growing budget deficit of about a half trillion dollars. Most alarming is the fact that three unemployed individuals are competing for every job.

In light of these dire economic conditions, this motion responds to America's needs by extending UI benefits. This motion would extend UI benefits for 26 weeks for newly unemployed workers and 13 weeks for those who have exhausted their benefits. Mr. Speaker, over 42 percent of those individuals who have exhausted their benefits are still unemployed under the present economic conditions.

Mr. Speaker, nearly 9 million workers are unemployed. The current UI extension expires at the end of this month, only 24 days from now. Where is the compassion of this House? How can we leave our Nation's families guessing as to when their next meal will be coming?

Mr. Speaker, this motion deserves the support of the House today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1261, and I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman, for his support and his leadership on this bill, and the committee in general.

Simply put, H.R. 1261 will help strengthen America's economy. For example, this important bill includes amendments to Title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, which provides for the Nation's one- stop workforce development system. The bill also contains the Adult Basic Education Skills Act, which reauthorizes State programs for adult education. It also would reauthorize the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which provides services to help individuals with disabilities become employable and achieve full integration into society.

Last week the Department of Labor released updated economic figures showing that the Nation's unemployment rate for April rose to 6 percent, its highest level since the 2001 recession, matching the rate that occurred this past December. With the April decline of 48,000 jobs, the fall in payroll employment over the past 3 months reached 525,000 jobs. Payroll employment has declined by 2.1 million jobs since the beginning of the recession.

With hundreds of thousands of Americans searching for new jobs, we must take action to strengthen the job training opportunities for American workers.

The Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003 builds upon and improves systems created in the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, which consolidated and integrated employment and training services at the local level in a more unified workforce development system. One of the hallmarks of the new system is that, in

order to encourage the development of comprehensive systems that improve services to both employers and job seekers, local services are provided through a one-stop delivery system. At the one-stop centers, assistance ranges from core services, such as job search and placement assistance, access to job listings, and an initial assessment of skills and needs, intensive services such as comprehensive assessments and case management, and, if needed, occupational skills training.

Even though States and local areas have created comprehensive services and effected one-stop delivery systems, there have been challenges with the system. H.R. 1261, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003, goes even further and addresses some of the challenges of the current system. For example, the bill streamlines unnecessary bureaucracy, increases effective cooperation among workforce development partners and places an increased emphasis on basic skills and adult education programs.

This bill aims to streamline current WIA funding in order to provide more efficient and results-oriented services and programs by combining the adult, dislocated and employment service funding streams into one funding stream. This will eliminate administrative duplication that remains in the system, improving services for individuals.

There is a need to increase the financial contribution of the mandatory partners in the one-stop career centers while at the same time increasing the service integration among the partner programs. This includes serving special populations, like individuals with disabilities who have unique needs, through the one-stop system.

There is also a need to simplify the local and State governance processes and to strengthen the private sector's role by ensuring greater responsiveness to local area needs. We accomplish this by removing the requirement that one-stop partner programs have a seat on the local boards. This will provide for greater representation and influence by local business representatives who currently are frequently frustrated that they are not able to connect with, or access, resources from the local boards.

We are also strengthening the membership requirements and role of the State board to increase support for partner usage in an effort to create a more coordinated approach to addressing the workforce needs of each community.

Additionally, we need to increase training opportunities by providing for greater flexibility in the delivery of core, intensive, and training service. Individuals will have the opportunity to receive the services that are most appropriate for their needs.

In short, this bill aims to empower individuals in improving their careers by strengthening the infrastructure of the one-stop delivery system, improving accountability, enhancing the role of employers, and increasing State and local flexibility.

The bill also includes the Adult Basic Skills Act to reauthorize State programs for adult education. This bill places more of a focus on the delivery of the basic skills of reading, writing, speaking, and math. Additionally, we have sought to ensure that instructional practices are based on scientific research. Provisions have been included to increase accountability for States and local providers to have measurable improvement in basic skills and GED graduates and those entering higher education.

The bill also makes improvements to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which provides services to help persons with disabilities become employable and achieve full integration into society. The Vocational Rehabilitation title of this bill enhances and improves transition services, which promote the movement of a student served under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act from school to post-school activities, which we passed last week.

H.R. 1261 will strengthen our workforce development system to aid those Americans most in need of help getting back to work.

I am pleased to support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave), one of our outstanding new freshmen.

(Mrs. MUSGRAVE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the vice chairman of the subcommittee and one of the great leaders on the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), another new member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, in 1998 we joined together in a bipartisan fashion to pass the Workforce Investment Act. We had 150 Federal job training programs, and that did not work. We cut it down to 60. We took those 60 Federal programs and block granted them out to the States and in that legislation set up the one-stop shops. The regulations were finally written in about 2000. The one-stops have been set up. They are starting to do their job. This bill now gives us a chance to take the final three programs we were not able to consolidate last time, consolidates them, gives more money to the local areas, gives more authority and responsibility to the local areas.

The one-stops that I visited with the local governments boards are doing a great job. We need to give them additional help. That is what we do in this bill. It is unfortunate, as we can see from this debate, that we were unable to do this bipartisan. It was not our choice. We had the committee. We gave everybody the opportunity. We had full debates on a lot of the things that they are complaining about now, and we won on committee votes. It is important now that we really think about the workers and how we can help them and get this bill passed.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise to offer this bipartisan amendment which contains a number of changes to improve the underlying bill that will help millions of unemployed Americans find jobs.

The amendment revises the formula for allocation of funds to States under the consolidated adult funding stream. The amendment includes a hold harmless provision for States so that in each year each State will receive at least what that State would have received under the current formulas for the three adult employment and training programs. It also creates a two-part formula reflective of the population to be served while minimizing the large swings from year to year in funding among States.

The amendment revises the factors for the youth formula for allocation of funds to States to better reflect available data on youth. It also clarifies that the new formula applies only to funds appropriated in excess of the level of funds appropriated in 2003. While better targeting the resources, this provision will ensure that States are not adversely affected by this formula revision.

The amendment makes TANF a mandatory partner in the one-stop career center system unless the governor of the State notifies the Secretaries of Labor and of Health and Human Services that the governor does not want the TANF program to be a mandatory partner. Including TANF in the one-stop centers will help provide a continuum of services for welfare participants. Individuals no longer receiving cash assistance will be able to continue to access job search, counseling and training services available through WIA. This continuity should help individuals become self-sufficient.

The amendment reinstates the requirement that youth providers be selected by competitive process, unless the local board determines that there are insufficient numbers of eligible providers of youth services in the local area involved.

The amendment clarifies that State-recognized tribes may continue to participate in the WIA program for Native Americans.

The amendment provides that the National Institute for Literacy is under the direction of an interagency group, composed of the Department of Education, the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services. This is current law.

The amendment makes additional clarifying, technical and conforming amendments to Titles I and II.

These amendments, Mr. Chairman, will ensure that workers have better access to the benefits included in the bill. As with the rest of the bill, these improvements will help hundreds of thousands of Americans who are searching for good and stable new jobs.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

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

How much time do we have left?

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, although I do not oppose the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I stated, we do not oppose the amendment. We feel that it will improve the bill. This amendment ensures that administration of entities providing adult education and literacy activities are included in the membership of each local board. The composition of the local workforce boards have been streamlined in H.R. 1261, and it is important that participants in adult education are represented on the local boards alongside superintendents of the local secondary school system and the presidents and chief executive officers of secondary educational institutions.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for picking this up and offering the amendment, and we would be happy to accept the amendment.

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

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. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 1261. This is the wrong bill being considered at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. This bill fails to extend unemployment benefits, it fails to create jobs, and it fails to stimulate the economy.

This economy is in the grips of a devastating economic stagnation, and it is now clear to everyone that the President's economic policies have utterly failed to date to create new jobs, they fail to stimulate new business growth, and they have richly succeeded in turning historic Federal surpluses into staggering deficits.

Unemployment is at 6 percent. That means that almost 9 million Americans are officially unemployed and another 9 million are either working part time because they cannot find full-time work or they are so completely discouraged that they have stopped looking for work. The Department of Labor's own data shows that there are three job seekers for every job available today. And yet this legislation comes forth and begins to unravel what has been a carefully constructed job-training program over the last 20 years on a bipartisan basis. It does so by undermining the ability of workers who are dislocated and others to get the services that they need to go back into the job market. But it also does it because of the insensitivity of this administration, because in this year, in this last year, as hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Americans join the ranks of the unemployed, this administration and this Congress cut $650 million of the programs under WIA. The President's budget this year suggests another $200 million in cuts.

So while they talk about the block grant and they talk about efficiencies, let us understand what they are doing. As the ranks of the unemployed grow in staggering numbers, there will be fewer resources available to help those individuals get back into the job market. There will be fewer resources available to help the 6 percent of Americans who are unemployed, to the 4 million Americans who are underemployed and are looking for longer hours.

Payroll employment has not been this depressed since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and why is that? Because there is not enough demand in the economy. But unfortunately tomorrow the Republicans will give us an economic program based upon tax cuts for the wealthy that most economists in the country have already said while they may agree with the tax cuts, it will not stimulate the economy. It is still questionable whether or not the Democrats will be able to put forth their program which economists tell us will create 1 million new jobs this year.

This legislation, because it is within the jurisdiction of the committee and our ability, could have also extended unemployment benefits for those who

are about to run out on May 31. But unfortunately the Republican leadership of the committee would not support that amendment and the Republican Committee on Rules would not make it in order.

So as we stand here in these dark times for unemployed American families who do not know yet whether or not unemployment benefits are going to be extended at the end of this month, where they will be playing with whether or not we will extend them, we know that within the Republican part the last time there was a huge amount of opposition to the extension of the unemployed benefits, that many people were lost because of the gap in that coverage. But this legislation is silent on that issue.

This legislation is like a narcotic. It wants to say we are moving around the structure of WIA, we are cutting the funding of WIA, but things are going to get better for the unemployed in this country. It is just simply not so because the Bush economy has been so terribly devastating to so many segments of the economy, whether it is in manufacturing, whether it is in high tech, whether it is in services, whether it is in transportation, whether it is in accommodations, and this President has yet to take a single step. Yes, he got his tax cut his first months in office. He has lost 2.5 million jobs since then, since then. That did not work. What he is suggesting is that we do more of the same. That is not an answer for these desperate families who are trying to hold themselves together through these dark economic times.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), a Member of the committee.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), an alumni of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would have the effect of providing an equivalent of 26 weeks of unemployment insurance to individuals who have exhausted both their State and their Federal extended benefits. The importance of this amendment is that it can provide a certainty to those people who are going to exhaust their benefits to know that these benefits will be there. We have tried in the Committee on Ways and Means yesterday to offer an amendment to send a message to these families. It was rejected. We tried in our committee. It was rejected. We tried in the Committee on Rules last night. It was rejected.

None of you, if you were in the situation of these families, would want to be taken up to the eve of the exhaustion of your benefits or, as we did a few months ago, we went past the exhaustion of the benefits. They exhausted on the 31st, and we went into January before we approved those benefits.

We owe it to these families. These families were working before their job disappeared. They are trying to provide for their families. They are trying to provide for their health care. They are trying to provide for their education and keep their house and keep their car. The least we can do is let them know in advance, but so far the Republican leadership has refused to do that.

The administration claims that they are still debating on whether or not they will extend the unemployment benefits upon exhaustion. Every member of our committee voted for this amendment. Every member of our committee on our side of the aisle spoke for this amendment because it is a compassionate thing to do. It is a decent thing to do, and it is a smart economical thing to do because this money to these families will enable them to participate in the economy and put demand into the economy. It is the minimum that we can do. We would like to just have a simple extension of the unemployments benefits, but so far there has been a deaf ear on the other side of the aisle on that matter.

So we would like to have this motion to recommit to succeed, to go back and to extend the equivalent of those 26 weeks to those individuals and to those families that are in dire straits. A million more families have exhausted their benefits than at this time in the last recession. The severity and the duration of this economic downturn is such, and this administration has yet to take a single step, a single step to help create jobs in this country, to help create the benefits for these individuals that they need.

That is what this amendment helps us to address. The first plan of this administration was a massive failure. They passed their big tax cut, a trillion dollars, and we have lost 2\1/2\ million jobs. We cannot just do more of the same. The American families that are under this economic stress in this job market in this lousy economy deserve better.