To amend the National Trails System Act to improve the efficiency and fairness of acquiring railroad rights-of-way for interim use as public trails by applying the procedures applicable to other Federal real estate acquisitions.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. The 109th Congress convened 2 months ago. The Committee on Rules has reported eight rules, including the one we are considering today. None of these rules, not a single one, has been open. The Republican majority is zero for eight on open rules. It is an abysmal record and just continues to prove how out of touch with America, and with the democratic process, this leadership really is.

I oppose this rule and I oppose this bill. The Republican leadership seems to think that the job picture in this country is rosy, but they could not be more wrong. They seem to think jobs are popping out of the woodwork, but it is clear our workers need job training assistance in order to compete in the 21st century workplace.

When we think that the Republican leadership cannot be any more out of touch with the challenges facing working Americans, they bring the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005 to the floor today.

Let us look at the facts. Every day over 85,000 people in this country lose their jobs. Under this administration's watch, the Nation has lost 2.8 million jobs, and 4.3 million formerly middle class Americans have been pushed into poverty. President Bush's failed economic policies have produced a 5.2 percent unemployment rate.

Let us be clear. This slightly lower unemployment rate does not signal a rebounding labor market. In addition to the 8 million Americans who are currently unemployed, there are 5 million unemployed workers who want to work but have given up looking for jobs simply because there are no jobs out there for them. Beyond that, there are 4.5 million people who have accepted low-wage, part-time work simply because they cannot find full-time employment in this weak economy. The real unemployment rate would skyrocket to 9.3 percent by merely including these workers.

And not only are millions of American workers looking for jobs, but the long-term unemployment rate, workers who have been jobless for 6 months or more, is the highest in more than 20 years. Despite these startling statistics, this administration has continued to resist efforts to extend unemployment benefits for the 3.5 million workers who have exhausted their coverage.

The Republicans have mismanaged this economy, and American workers are paying the price through lower pay, reduced benefits, and in too many cases job loss. As if this were not enough, the Republican leadership is trying to enact broad, sweeping changes to the Workforce Investment Act. This bill will do nothing to create new jobs, reduce the number of unemployed people in this country, or sufficiently training workers for jobs. Frankly, this bill is a slap in the face to American workers. Contrary to what we will hear from the Republican leadership, the Job Training Improvement Act will actually make it harder for the unemployed to obtain employment and reemployment training.

Specifically, H.R. 27 would eliminate the employment services system, a program which provides critical job assistance to those unemployed workers hardest hit with the job loss of recent years. In my home State of Massachusetts, this program provides services to nearly 165,000 jobseekers each year, and it has successfully helped 75 percent of them retain employment in less than 6 months.

In addition, this bill block grants adult and dislocated worker 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 of the rhetoric that we hear about supporting our troops and providing for our veterans, we should find this provision particularly disturbing. 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, 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 at 30 percent the use of funds for services targeting low- income youth, those considered most likely to drop out of school.

If that were not bad enough, this bill also abandons a core principle of our Constitution by repealing civil rights protections written into current law.

Twenty-one years ago, then-Senator Dan Quayle sponsored legislation that provided civil rights protections against religious-based employment discrimination in programs that receive Federal funding. These protections were extended to secular as well as religious organizations. President Reagan signed that bill into law. It is not every day that I praise Dan Quayle, but the nondiscrimination provision he offered is good policy which has served us well. This provision received strong bipartisan support when the Workforce Reinvestment Act was reauthorized in 1998.

However, the Job Training Investment Act shreds these protections by allowing religious organizations to receive Federal funding for job- training activities and social services while also employing religious- based discriminatory practices. In other words, this bill would allow a religious organization that discriminates based on religion, like a Bob Jones University, to get taxpayer money and use that Federal funding to legally discriminate on religious grounds when hiring staff to carry out the job training programs and services in this bill.

But let me be clear, the right of churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious organizations to remain free from government intervention has long been protected under the law, and I am sure my colleagues join me in support of this protection. Congress has always exempted faith-based organizations from antidiscrimination provisions in programs funded by their own money, and we are not proposing that a church or synagogue or mosque be forbidden from using religious criteria in deciding who to hire as a minister or rabbi or imam.

However, that same church, synagogue or mosque should not be permitted to apply for and receive Federal funding for job training and then, as written in this bill, be exempted from Federal civil rights protections. Faith-based institutions should be required, like all other recipients of Federal funds, to adhere to basic civil rights laws, and I cannot even begin to count the number of institutions that have contacted my office in the last few days asking to be held to those same standards.

Last night in the Committee on Rules, I heard my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) talk about a return to discrimination practices that forced these men and millions of other African Americans to drink from separate drinking fountains and eat at separate lunch counters from white Americans.

How can anyone justify abandoning one of our Nation's most fundamental principles? How can Members believe this is the right position for Congress to advocate? How can Members believe this provision is moral? I certainly cannot find it in myself to do so. This provision is offensive, it is ugly, it is wrong, it is unacceptable. But beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is unconstitutional and unAmerican.

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) will offer an amendment to strike this offensive provision from the bill. I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting for the Scott amendment. It is important that we oppose discrimination at every turn, and this is an important vote.

Mr. Speaker, many Democrats offered several high-quality amendments in the Committee on Rules yesterday. Unfortunately, the majority has continued to stifle the democratic process by denying common sense amendments to this bill.

Just because the Republican leadership allowed the Scott amendment to be considered on the floor today does not make this a good rule. Once again, let me remind my colleagues and the American people watching at home that the Republicans have not reported one single open rule this year.

Mr. Speaker, this is an unfair rule, poor policy-making and a bad bill. It is truly a tragedy when a Nation that prides itself on democracy and equality considers and will most likely pass a bill that would permit employment discrimination in federally-funded programs. It is a slippery slope from here on out, and I fear this may just be the beginning. 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 myself such time as I may consume.

I would just reiterate that what we believe is that taxpayer money should not be used by faith-based organizations to discriminate against people based on religion. What we feel is that this provision in this bill is offensive and it turns the clock backwards on civil rights.

Mr. Speaker, I include for printing in the Record a letter opposing this bill signed by 67 religious organizations and civil rights organizations that have great concerns not only with the provision on religious-based employment discrimination but on a whole series of other provisions.

February 28, 2005.

Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations are

writing to urge you to vote against H.R. 27, the Job Training

Improvement Act, unless it is modified to address the

concerns outlined in this letter; and to oppose any effort to

expand the block grant authority in the bill along the lines

of the Administration's ``WIA Plus'' proposal.

H.R. 27 fails to make meaningful improvements to the

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) that would enhance the

training and career opportunities of unemployed workers.

Instead, the legislation would eliminate the dislocated

worker training program, undermine state rapid response

systems, end the federal-state labor exchange system, roll

back protections against religious discrimination in hiring

by job training providers, and potentially undermine the

stability of other important programs.

In particular, we are concerned about the following

provisions in H.R. 27:

New Block Grant

H.R. 27 consolidates into a single block grant the WIA

adult and dislocated worker programs with the Wagner-Peyser

employment service program and reemployment services for

unemployment insurance recipients. In doing so, it will

eliminate job training assistance specifically targeted to

workers dislocated by off shoring and other economic changes,

pit different types of workers against each other, and lead

to future funding reductions. The block grant also eliminates

the statewide job service, which provides a uniform statewide

system for matching employers and jobseekers, replacing it

with a multiplicity of localized programs that would have no

incentive or ability to cooperate and function as a

comprehensive labor exchange system. Eliminating the

employment service, which is financed with revenue from the

unemployment insurance (UI) trust fund, breaks the connection

between the unemployment insurance program and undermines the

UI ``work test,'' which ensures that UI recipients return to

work as quickly as possible.

Infrastructure and Core Services Funding

A principal criticism of WIA has been the substantial

decline in actual training compared to its predecessor, the

Job Training Partnership Act. While there are various reasons

for the reduction in training, including the sequence of

services requirement in current law, the use of WIA resources

by local boards and operators to build new one-stop

facilities and bureaucracies, without any limitation, has

contributed substantially to the decline in training. This is

despite the fact that many WIA partner programs also

contribute operating funds to one-stop operations.

H.R. 27 gives governors even broader discretion to transfer

additional resources from the WIA partner programs to pay for

WIA infrastructure and core services costs--without any

assurance that more training would result. These programs

include the vocational rehabilitation program, veterans

employment programs, adult education, the Perkins post

secondary career and technical education programs,

unemployment insurance, trade adjustment assistance,

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and, if they

are partners, employment and training programs under the food

stamp and housing programs, programs for individuals with

disabilities carried out by state agencies, including state

Medicaid agencies, and even child support enforcement. By

relying on funding transfers from these programs to

guarantee resources for WIA infrastructure and core

services, H.R. 27 will disrupt and weaken services

provided by these non-WIA programs, which also will face

substantial pressures for funding reductions in the next

few years.

The infrastructure and related provisions start the

commingling of funds from these non-WIA programs. In doing

so, they transform the original one-stop idea of a better-

coordinated workforce system into a mechanism for reducing

resources for and block granting these programs in the

future. A more effective and simple solution to ensuring

adequate training services would be to require that a certain

percentage of WIA funds be used for training as provided in

previous job training programs and to create a separate WIA

funding stream for one-stop operations, if necessary.

Personal Reemployment Accounts

H.R. 27 includes permanent and unlimited authority for the

Secretary to conduct ``personal reemployment account'' (PRA)

demonstratious even though the Department of Labor recently

initiated a PRA demonstration without strong interest among

the states. Although nine states could have participated,

only seven are doing so.

Since this demonstration already is in process, we see no

justification for this provision and can only surmise that it

is an attempt to implement PRAs more broadly, despite a lack

of Congressional support for a full-scale program in the

past.

Unlike current WIA training programs, the PRAs would limit

the cost of training that an unemployment insurance recipient

can receive and would bar that individual from WIA training

services for a year after the PRA account is established.

This is the wrong way to go. With long-term unemployment at

historically high levels, there is a much greater need for

continued unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed

who have found it so difficult to become reemployed.

Religious-Based Employment Discrimination

H.R. 27 repeals longstanding civil rights protections that

prohibit religious-based employment discrimination by job

training providers. These protections have been included in

job training programs, which received bipartisan support,

since 1982. At no time have the civil rights provisions

prohibited religious organizations from effective

participation in federal job training programs. This rollback

of civil rights protections is especially incongruous in a

program designed to provide employment and career

opportunities in an evenhanded manner and should be rejected.

WIA Plus Proposal

The Administration has proposed giving Governors authority

to merge five additional programs into the WIA block grant.

The proposal would eliminate specialized assistance to

unemployed, disabled and homeless veterans, critical job

training services for workers under the Trade Adjustment

Assistance Act whose jobs have been outsourced or lost to

foreign competition, and specialized counseling and

customized help for people with disabilities through state

vocational rehabilitation agencies. These individuals would

have to compete with each other for a declining share of

resources without the protections and requirements under

current law. Furthermore, the proposal abrogates

accountability for the expenditure of federal taxpayer

dollars by eliminating program reporting requirements. We

strongly urge you to oppose any effort to adopt this

misguided plan.

In summary, H.R. 27 strays far from the appropriate mission

for federal job training programs of enhancing training

opportunities for workers and providing skilled workers for

employers. We strongly urge you to oppose this legislation

unless amendments are adopted to delete the block grant, PRA

demonstration and religious-based discrimination provisions

and to modify the infrastructure provisions as recommended.

American Association of People with Disabilities.

American Civil Liberties Union.

American Counseling Association.

American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE).

American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial

Organizations (AFL-CIO).

American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME).

American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

American Humanist Association.

American Jewish Congress.

American Psychological Association.

American RehabACTion Network.

Americans for Democratic Action (ADA).

Americans for Religious Liberty.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU).

Association for Career and Technical Education.

Baptist Joint Committee.

Brain Injury Association of America.

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Training.

Campaign for America's Future.

Center for Community Change.

Communications Workers of America (CWA).

Council of State Administrators for Vocational

Rehabilitation (CSAVR).

Easter Seals.

Equal Partners in Faith.

Goodwill Industries.

Institute for America's Future.

Interfaith Alliance.

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace

Workers.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

International Union of Painters and Allied Trades.

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good

Shepherd.

National Alliance For Partnerships in Equity.

National Association of State Directors of Career Technical

Education Consortium.

National Association of State Head Injury Administrators.

National Council of Jewish Women.

National Education Association.

National Employment Law Project.

National Head Start Association.

National Immigration Law Center.

National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.

National League of Cities.

National Organization for Women.

National Rehabilitation Association (NRA).

National WIC Association.

National Women's Law Center.

NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.

OMB Watch.

Paralyzed Veterans of America.

Patient Alliance for Neuroendocrineimmune Disorders;

Organization for Research and Advocacy.

Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Union.

Professional Employees Department, AFL-CIO.

Protestants for the Common Good.

Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

The Arc of the U.S..

United Cerebral Palsy.

Unitarian Universalist Service Committee.

United Auto Workers (UAW).

United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries.

United Mineworkers of America.

United Steelworkers of America.

USAction.

Welfare Law Center.

Wider Opportunities for Women.

Women Employed.

Women Work! The National Network for Women's Employment.

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

I would just say to the gentleman who just spoke that we believe that there are many religious organizations, many faith-based organizations that do incredible work, and they will still be able to do incredible work. What we object to, quite frankly, is the use of taxpayers' money to basically subsidize discrimination. It is not just a concern that those of us who are speaking here have; I submitted a list of close to 70 civil rights and religious organizations that have objections to this provision, including the African American Ministers in Action; American Jewish Committee; the American Jewish Congress; Americans for Religious Liberty; the Anti-Defamation League; the Baptist Joint Committee; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Episcopal Church, USA; the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church; the National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; National Council of Jewish Women; NETWORK, a national Catholic social justice lobby; Presbyterian Church USA; Protestants For the Common Good; Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; Texas Faith Network; the Interfaith Alliance; Union for Reform Judaism; United Universalist Association of Congregations; United Church of Christ Justice & Witness Ministries. They go on and on and on. This is a concern that many of the faith-based organizations all across this country share with us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I pledge to work with her and other interested members of the New York delegation during conference on this legislation to identify and remedy any governance problems which New York may have under this bill. However, it is not clear that the language that the gentlewoman offered in committee that is included in S. 9 fixes the problem in New York and could have other unintended consequences in New York and other States.

So my goal is to ensure that the mandatory partners contribute to the cost of the one-stop infrastructure without causing constitutional problems for States. And as I suggested, I will continue to work with the gentlewoman to achieve this.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, what we have before us is the Reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act. It was first passed in 1998. These one-stop centers that have been created all over the country to help the people gain skills and to increase their skills are a critical part of what we need to do if we are going to have a successful economy over the next 10, 20 and even 50 years.

What we have done in this reauthorization is tried to make these one- stop centers work even better. We believe that by consolidating the three separate funding streams, three different sets of employees, three different sets of books, we can gain more flexibility for the local workforce boards and thereby freeing up more dollars to be used to actually train workers.

We believe strongly that the youth services money here ought to be directed for the most part to out of school youth, a population that is vastly underserved and we do that in this bill. We also believe that faith-based providers, especially in large urban centers, can provide a very necessary outreach to help those who are really needy have an opportunity to get the kind of training and retraining they need to become productive members of our society.

I think what we have here is a very good bill. And while my friends on the other side of the aisle have some disagreement, I think all of us understand that by and large, this is a good program, that the bill before us is worth the support of my colleagues and I would ask them to do that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is being offered by my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), would strike all of the positive reforms for youth that are included in H.R. 27. Under current law, funds for the WIA youth program are spread too thinly, as they fund programs that both serve in-school and out-of-school youth.

In the White House, the Disadvantaged Youth Task Force has proposed targeted Federal youth training funds to serve the most in need and to reduce the duplication of services amongst Federal programs. There are a large number of programs today designed to deal with in-school, at- risk children, and there is really only one program in WIA that is targeted at out-of-school youth.

What we tried to do in this bill was to strike a balance by requiring that 70 percent of the youth program funds go to out-of-school youth, a population that is by and large ignored and that I think these funds ought to be targeted to. We do allow the local workforce boards to use up to 30 percent of their programs for in-school youth; but there are other programs, a half a dozen other programs, targeted at these at- risk children who are in school.

So as a way of trying to bring more synergy to an effort to help out- of-school youth, I think the language we have in the bill strikes the right balance.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to correct the record.

The gentlewoman who just spoke says that we eliminated a preference for veterans in this bill. The fact is that there is a preference for veterans written into the law. That has not changed at all.

Secondly, the gentlewoman said there are block grants in the underlying bill. There are no block grants. As a matter of fact, the targeting of funds to the local workforce boards in this bill is more structured than it is today under current law, so that at least 75 percent of the funds available back to the States must go to the local workforce investment boards.

Lastly, the gentlewoman said that we have discrimination in this bill. I would just remind the gentlewoman that when our predecessors wrote the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they recognized in title VII that religious organizations ought to be protected in their hiring so that they would not be required to hire anybody that shows up, but could, if they wanted to, only hire those people within their faith.

Now, if people want to disagree with title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they certainly have that right. They may go to the Committee on the Judiciary and change that law, but let us not try to do it in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), a member of the committee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds, the balance of my time, to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), who I know has been pressed for time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment by my friend from Virginia would actually work against the neediest citizens in our local communities. Faith-based organizations such as churches, synagogues and other

faith-based charities are a central part of the fabric of local communities across America. Many of these faith-based institutions provide assistance to the hardest-to-serve individuals because they often go where others will not and serve those others prefer not to serve, and go out of the way to meet people where they are rather than where we would want them to be.

President Bush noted yesterday at a speech that one of the key reasons why many faith-based groups are so effective is the commitment to serve that is grounded in the shared values and religious identity of their volunteers and their employees. In other words, effectiveness happens because people who share faith show up to help a particular organization based on that faith to succeed.

I agree with President Bush that many faith-based organizations can make a vital contribution to Federal assistance programs. Yet this amendment would deny faith-based institutions their rights, under the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act. Considering the proven track record of faith-based providers in meeting the needs of our citizens, why would we want to deny them the opportunity to help in Federal job training efforts?

Unfortunately, in some Federal laws, these faith-based organizations have been stripped of their hiring rights and must relinquish their civil liberties if they choose to participate in Federal service initiatives.

The landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly protects the rights of religious organizations to take religion into account into their hiring practices. In fact, the Civil Rights Act made clear that when faith- based organizations hire employees on a religious basis, it is an exercise of the organization's civil liberties and not discrimination under Federal law.

Those organizations willing to serve their communities by participating in Federal programs should not be forced to compromise their religious liberties in order to serve those in need. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 upheld the rights of faith-based institutions and held that it was constitutional for these groups to take religion into account when making hiring decisions.

Former Democrat President Bill Clinton himself signed four laws explicitly allowing faith-based groups to staff on a religious basis when they receive Federal funds. Those laws are the 1996 Welfare Reform Law, the 1998 Community Services Block Grant Act, the 2000 Community Renewal Tax Relief Act, and the 2000 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Act.

President Bush has worked tirelessly to remove the barriers that needlessly discourage faith-based groups from bringing their talents and compassion to Federal initiatives that help Americans in need. And just yesterday, again, he called on Congress to send him the same language protecting religious hiring that President Clinton signed on four other occasions.

The underlying bill answers the President's call and takes advantage of the positive role that faith-based institutions play in our communities in serving those who are most in need. We should not be denying faith-based providers the opportunity to serve the neediest of our citizens. And I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Scott amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly says that religious organizations in their hiring can hire people of their own faith. Period. That is what it says. It does not say whether you take Federal money or you do not take Federal money. It says that a religious organization can take religion into account in terms of their hiring. Period.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

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

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we keep our eye on the target here. The bill before us seeks to help Americans who need job training services or retraining services to help them have an opportunity to participate and succeed in the economy of the 21st century. The question is how best do we deliver those services.

Under the Workforce Investment Act, we set up these one-stop centers all over the country. They have in fact been wildly successful. But we also know that there are pockets of poverty, pockets of people in very dire straits, that are not going to come walking into a one-stop shop. We also know that there are organizations out there that as part of their faith, part of the mission of their faith, go out and help those in need.

Now, what we are trying to do is to make sure that these services get to the people that they need. So in this bill we include protections for those faith-based organizations who may want to participate in this program, give them the opportunity to do that without, without giving up their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

It is a very simple question that we are down to here. My friends on the other side of the aisle, by and large, want to say if you take one Federal dollar in the pursuit of helping others under this program, you have to give up your rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That is the whole point here.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, so the debate here boils down to one of two issues, you believe that if these faith-based organizations want to participate in these programs that they have to give up their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

We believe and the majority of this House has believed on a number of occasions as we have had this vote, that faith-based organizations who want to help the neediest of the needy should in fact be able to have their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It is just as simple as that.

So I would ask my colleagues as they look at this bill and look at this amendment to support the work that we have done, to allow these groups to participate. They do good work. There is no reason why that they cannot partner with the Federal Government to help us in our effort to help the neediest of the needy, and to help improve the prospects for job training and retraining to help all Americans participate in the 21st century economy and give them a chance to succeed at the American dream.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote against the Scott amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us tell the truth about what has happened in job creation in America. Over the last 17 months, 2.7 million new jobs have been created in America. Our economy is strong and our economy is getting stronger. If we look at the underlying bill that we have before us, veterans have a preference to services above all others.

What the gentleman from Michigan proposes here is a brand new program similar to a trade adjustment program that provides up to 2 years of unemployment-type benefits and provides unlimited access to training. But the fact is that unemployed workers have access today, people coming back from Iraq who are unemployed have access to services, and those who may have their jobs lost through outsourcing have, in fact, access to services.

But what also happens under the gentleman's amendment is that they get a preference in this bill. The gentleman creates a new preference here above other types of people who may have lost their jobs. The underlying bill, in fact, will provide more services to more unemployed workers and workers who want to increase their skills who may not be unemployed.

But when we look at this, this is a new program. This is an authorization. There is no appropriation. We all know it will probably take 2 to 5 years for this type of program to be implemented. The fact is I think it is a cruel hoax on those who may be unemployed, who may fall into one of these categories to think that they are going to be eligible for unemployment-type assistance or be eligible for unlimited

training when, in fact, there is no appropriation and the fact is the program will take years to implement.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and support the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 126 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 purposes of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 126 is a structured rule providing for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report, and for the time specified in the report. And finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in strong support of this rule and support of the underlying resolution legislation, H.R. 27, the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005. The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Subcommittee Chairman McKeon) and the committee members from both sides of the aisle are to be commended for their diligence and hard work in putting together a comprehensive measure reauthorizing vital job training programs while, at the same time, providing for improvements of those programs aimed at providing greater flexibility, accountability, targeting Federal dollars where they will be most effective and where there is the highest demonstrated need.

Mr. Speaker, my favorite movie of all time has always been ``Inherit the Wind.'' I still think it is Spencer Tracy's greatest role. But in that he, playing the character of Henry Drummond, talks about the other main character, Matthew Harrison Brady, who was a well intentioned, yet flawed, character. And in talking about his death, Drummond says of Brady, a giant once lived in that body. But Matt Brady got lost because he was looking for God too high and up too far away.

Federal Government is a lot like Matt Brady. We are well intentioned, the greatest of desire to serve; but we oftentimes get lost and allow too many people to fall through cracks and harm people because we try to solve problems from too high up and administer programs from too far away.

From this isolated Hall, we often concoct specific standards that fail people who have the needs but do not fit our preconceived standards. Last Wednesday in my district at a town meeting, I met a young lady by the name of Micaela, who offered me also this five-page letter of her efforts and her concerns. She is in need of vocational rehabilitation services, but does not quite fit our standards we have designed.

In her letter she said in her years of trying to receive services that she was told she had too many disabilities, too few disabilities. You could not visually see her disability. She was too young, too old, and too rare of a circumstance. You name it, she had heard it. And she has also been basically told that I am not worth helping, hiring, or even listening to.

Oftentimes the Federal Government, in fact, not oftentimes. The Federal Government's only advantage is that of uniformity. By definition we can deal with people only as objects on a factory conveyor belt designed to meet the Federal factory specifications.

But if we truly believe that people are each individuals, that they have a spark of divinity, that individual needs are there that require individualized

help, then we do not need uniformity. What we need is creativity, efficiency, and caring; and that can only be done effectively on the State levels, which is why this particular bill has gone from several years ago, 63 programs, has now taken three funding streams and tried to bring it into one so they could help individual people by trying to apply 70 percent of the funding that has been given to students to those who have been unserved and out of school, to create a demonstration project for personal reemployment accounts to meet individual needs to be addressed by that individual, and to present the President's community college program and tie them all together to give local governments the ability to work with individuals so that Micaela here does not slip through the crack by definition.

Prior to coming to Congress, I had the opportunity, like many of you, of serving in the State legislature, and I was a teacher for a long time. In that position, or those positions, I witnessed firsthand the years of oftentimes Federal programs and mandates shoved on States, on local school districts, on local units of governments with this one- size-fits-all uniform approach. What was often, too often, left out were, quite frankly, the bona fide local needs. A uniform Federal approach stifles innovation with the heavy hand of Federal regulations and professionalism.

The philosophy behind H.R. 27, therefore, is to give Governors as the chief political officer of the States the flexibility over job training programs to promote economic development and jobs based upon local needs, and that way, the States become responsive to employment and to job markets.

Recently, I attended a community college, a community technical college in my district. And I was amazed at the benefits I saw of partnerships with local private industry, government contractors, and local employers coming together. In their diesel program, to find the kinds of materials that were provided by the industry, they have to get hands-on experience for first-rate technicians. And in program after program in that particular college, I saw, through innovation and hard work, the community college has been able to leverage the State and Federal dollars and to attract private contributions for equipment and training that met the need of training qualified workers in the high- tech future.

Vocational rehabilitation services in State after State does the same thing. But these type partnerships are not just allowed in this bill. They are encouraged under this legislation, which is vital in helping provide workers for the competition of the 21st century.

H.R. 27 is strongly supported by a coalition of community colleges which authorizes $250 million for community-based job training grants to strengthen the role of those communities' colleges and to promote the United States' full workforce potential.

We face a 21st-century challenge in an ever-changing technology and the aging American workforce. We must provide States, local workforce boards, Governors flexibility to fit real people with real skills for real jobs. And they vary in need from State to State. We must allow them the opportunity to work together as they see fit to help people like Micaela.

I further support H.R. 27 because it targets Federal funds to groups of youths who are presently underserved, because it provides for individual self-help efforts.

I would like to point out also that H.R. 27 builds upon legislation passed in the 108th Congress, namely H.R. 1261, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003, which was passed by this House.

There may be some who would oppose this bill because it respects both the letter and the spirit of existing law. If there is a problem with existing law, this is not the proper venue for that discussion.

Let us not, in the debate over the rule or the bill, lose focus and lose sight of our goal, which is to help the Micaelas of this Nation who need services, which are and will continue to be distributed fairly without precondition.

It is significant that we not confuse services rendered with the desire of some to sanitize and regulate legally diverse practices, reaffirmed in a rare moment of sanity by the courts, which do not impact the rendering of those employment services. Others beside sanctioned-government programs care and help and are effective, and we ought to forget the old pattern of confrontation and pointless attacks on groups that we see as different; we should join for the common goal of helping people.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule, supporting a bill that has been discussed and amended in committee through regular order. The rule allows for three specific amendments to focus discussion on key elements of the proposal. I am looking forward to riveting debate on this bill, with the realization our goal is to help the Micaelas of this world who have been hurt because there have been programs which are too high, too far away, and forgot our purpose of helping real people. I urge adoption of the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

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

May I respond simply to the arguments about our veterans because they are so important to us. Let me reiterate that H.R. 27 does not harm worker-retaining programs for veterans. Not one dollar from this account comes that is meant to help veterans with their training. The programs that we already have in place, specifically the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program, the Local Veterans Employment Representative Program, the Vocational Rehabilitation Program, already are required to contribute to the infrastructure of these one-stop career center programs. Any money that would come to the one-stop center would be coming out of their administrative funds, not from the money going directly to the training of veterans. That is an area that was specifically covered in this bill.

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

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

In closing, my friends on the other side have had numerous objections to provisions in H.R. 27. They have a right to do so and I expect it will be warmly discussed in the ensuing discussion of the bill itself. I believe strongly in the ability of our States, Governors, local boards, workforce boards, to be creative and innovative. There is no omniscient power that we have here. People can think for themselves in other parts of this country. And the essence of our government demands that we give them the opportunity to succeed without the benevolent help of the Federal Government.

Our job, might I remind my colleagues, is to make sure the Micaelas of the world never slip through the cracks. I believe, and I have confidence in the ability of local governments to be creative and effective, and I think so does H.R. 27. What we have today is a confusing patchwork of employment, training services. The duplication of those reduces the amount of money we get to use to help Micaelas. Many amendments that we will be discussing

on the floor have also been discussed in committee. A lot of other amendments were heard in the committee. This was fully discussed in committee and voted upon.

May I just, in closing, ask us not to lose sight that the goal is service and how to provide training for people which is given without any precondition. Hiring practices that are protected by existing law are that, protected by existing law. If we feel there is a problem with that, then we should attack the existing law, and there are venues to do that. This is not the venue in this particular bill. Faith-based institutions out there, which are not rich, are still nevertheless effective. They care. They have the same goal as we do. Our goal should be to try to join hands to help all the Micaelas in the world solve the problem of employment, retraining, and servicing, not to try to change our friends in other particular ways but to join together on a common front, in a common effort, to help people, not to harm people.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge adoption of the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I urge the body to adopt this rule and to pass the bill.

I will be addressing just one particular topic which has been controversial in committee discussions and will be the subject of an amendment later on, and that is turning the clock back on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and changing what it says. Those who are opposed to this bill on that ground believe that somehow it is wrong to allow religious institutions to receive Federal funds for programs that benefit the public at large, are not restricted to people of particular faith but are operated by organizations that are religiously based.

I have listened carefully to the debate in the committee. We have had this same debate several times in committee. I have yet to understand precisely what the objections are, but it seems that opponents are afraid of two things: one, that this provision in the bill somehow will allow these organizations to discriminate on other grounds in their hiring, which is, first, contrary to the Civil Rights Act, and second, I would say religious organizations are the least likely to discriminate on the basis of race or any of the other forbidden categories.

The other objection appears to be that somehow these churches are going to use this Federal money to try to proselytize, to get people in these programs and then they will say, okay, now isn't this wonderful, you should join this church.

I would like to say, that is also not true. It just does not happen. I can speak from my personal experience. When my wife and I moved to Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1966 to take on a new position, we looked for a church. In fact, we spent 3 months trying out different churches, looking, trying to find a certain something: we wanted a church in the inner city because we wanted to be able to contribute to solving the problems of the city of Grand Rapids, particularly in the inner city.

And so we joined Eastern Avenue Christian Reformed Church because of its location and because of the attitude of its people. They worked very hard in the community. As an example, they established a community center. There was none at that time either federally funded, State funded, or city funded. The church stepped in and started it. It was on the top story of a ramshackle building which housed a small convenience store in the lower floor. It grew slowly at first, but then took off. Today it is a large community center, one of the best, if not the best, in the city. They purchased a school which was being abandoned, filled up that

school, and they now have just successfully completed a $2.5 million capital drive to add on to their facilities and improve them.

Our church started that. We did have and still largely do have religious restrictions on the hiring of individuals, but the facility serves all people in that community. It has brought in medical care workers of all faiths to work and provide medical care and dental care for the recipients in that community.

We started a housing program which turned into the Inner City Christian Federation, and we spun off this organization as well as Baxter Community Center, but they are still largely faith-based organizations. ICCF, the Inner City Christian Federation, developed housing programs, and they had built many houses before Habitat for Humanity started in our community; but ICCF has built and remodeled more houses than almost any organization within the city that I am aware of. Again, it is faith-based. The employees are hired partially on the basis of their faith and their commitment to serving in the inner city and often work for less pay than they could get elsewhere.

Our church, not our individual congregation, but our denomination started a mental health institution, Pine Rest, years ago because the people of our church and of our community were not getting adequate mental care. Today it is one of the largest mental health hospitals in our Nation. It serves many people of different faiths and of no faith, but it is a faith-based institution because their treatment modalities are based, to a large extent, on our beliefs about the nature of people and their interaction with each other. It has been very successful. It has received millions upon millions of dollars of aid from the Federal Government, from the State through community mental health funds and from the local community.

No one has ever said a word about this, that using Federal money for this is improper. The reason is simply that Pine Rest provides services that really are unequaled anywhere else. And so they have received Federal dollars through Medicaid and through Medicare, and State dollars through community mental health. It is an outstanding operation.

Then, finally, something we have ongoing in our church right now. Every Saturday, I wish you could visit our church; you would see people of all races, all colors, all faiths walking in the church basement which we have stocked with food that we have collected from different stores, warehouses and so forth: produce, baked goods, and many different types of perishable food.

We have purchased a truck to go around and collect this on Fridays. And Saturday morning anyone from that city can walk in with no test of their faith, no means test, they can just walk in and say, I need some groceries, and they go through the line. We charge them roughly 10 cents on the dollar because we think it is a good thing for them to feel they have bought something; but a family of four can buy a week's worth of groceries for about $10. That is a good deal. It is staffed by people from our church and from other churches, and it is a very successful operation. If we adopt the Scott amendment, which we will be discussing later, we simply could not do that.

There is one other factor here as well, and that is every church that I am aware of does not have a surplus of money. The people that they hire have to do many different jobs. That is true in our church as well. We have hired individuals who work in the church. Those individuals not only operate programs such as the food program, or getting community centers started, but they also have duties within the church and by necessity, and clearly within the intent of the Civil Rights Act, they are performing religious duties. A church cannot go out and afford to hire a different person to run each different program. You have to be multifaceted to be on the staff of a church, and that is precisely what we have in our church.

For these reasons, and many others I could enumerate, I urge the Congress to pass this rule and this bill, and to defeat the Scott amendment, so that churches and faith-based organizations of other sorts can continue to do their good work for the people of this country without fear of their programs being damaged because they would have to hire additional personnel who do not have a faith compatible with the organization.

I believe the system as we have it now, and have had it since the 1964 Civil Rights Act, has worked, it has worked well, and I urge that we keep it that way and not adopt the Scott amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Mr. Scott along with Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Frank, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Nadler, to the base bill, H.R. 27. As I stated with respect to the rule, H. Res. 126, the party-line vote of 220-204 that we saw in the 108th Congress on the debate of the then H.R. 1261 should evidence the need for the most open debate over the deficiencies that lie within the provisions on the floor. The need for debate arises from disagreement. As representatives of the United States Congress, we all have a duty to fully debate the issues on behalf of our constituents. A restricted rule precludes that opportunity.

I support the Scott-Woolsey-VanHollen-Frank-Edwards-Nadler amendment to H.R. 27 to remove the provision allowing religious discrimination in employment from the underlying bill. A base bill purportedly designed to improve the opportunity to achieve adequate employment is no place to encourage discrimination. In fact, there is no place for religious discrimination in American law just as there should be no place in America for that kind of backwards thinking.

H.R. 27, in its current state, erodes fundamental civil rights protections for the unemployed and the underemployed by exempting faith-based organizations from compliance with the current non- discrimination law. Presently, under our country's existing laws, in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employing institutions using private funds were exempt from employment discrimination protections. However, WIA programs are federally funded and as such do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Title VII statute. Simply put: Public funds are not allowed to be used to encourage religious discrimination in employment and that should not change.

Each of my colleagues should understand that without this important amendment, we are advocating the notion that one's ability to provide employment to those who are in need is contingent on the religious institution to which the individual belongs. What if anything is accomplished by attempting to create religious hierarchies in the workplace? What benefit does that provide the employer? None. And thus the language allowing religious discrimination should be stricken from the bill. As should all language that does not add to the well being of job-seekers or employment services.

The Founding Fathers of this country found it necessary to say that no one should be unfairly judged or discriminated against on the basis of their religion. This Congress should do no less. We should not create law that does harm. We should not encourage discrimination of any kind, religious or otherwise.

Surely, this country prides itself on its diversity and its willingness to open its doors to people of different religions, races, and ethnic backgrounds. Yet on the floor of the people's House we are faced with an attempt by the Republicans to create a monolithic sub- culture within our employment training programs. Despite the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle, H.R. 27 as it currently reads will not only result in the loss of jobs for applicants who do not identify with their prospective employer's religious beliefs but more importantly it will cause the loss of quality workers.

The Scott-Woolsey-Van Hollen-Frank-Edwards-Nadler amendment will effectively retain civil rights protections for individuals who seek employment or employment training. This amendment simply retains their freedom of religious choice and their freedom not to be discriminated against due to their religion. This amendment adds nothing to the law rather it maintains current law. Without the addition of this proposal, however, the body elected to serve all of the people of this country will have endorsed employment discrimination with federal dollars. We simply cannot allow this to happen. We must do everything we can to preserve the fundamentals of Head Start. I urge my colleagues to vote to ensure that our job programs are not muddied and degraded by the promotion of religious discrimination. Therefore, I stand in full support of this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Tierney amendment, and I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for yielding me this time and also for his leadership. I also want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) for his leadership. I know he was very thoughtful in this amendment.

Particularly when we talk about these programs, what comes to mind, and I heard the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) be so eloquent in the Committee on Rules about the effectiveness and the importance of a training program, number one, for the new jobs of the 21st century. I am reminded of the fact that I spent a good part of my time as a locally elected official on the Houston City Council promoting the job training programs of our community that came down through the workforce board commissions in Texas.

When you eliminate summer jobs, you are literally undermining the opportunities for inner-city and rural youth to move to the next level of opportunity. You are extinguishing the right and the exposure that they have for career preparation. You go into these youth training programs and you look at the smiles on the faces of individuals who have come from experiences where there was no work, where their families are unemployed, and where there is no hope and opportunity.

I am very disappointed, in addition, to the cut in youth programs, and the fact that we are now getting rid of the veterans' preference for job training, actually cutting funds. What an outrage. With a million people having served in Afghanistan and Iraq; with the devastation of the impact of those returning veterans, with their emotional problems and injuries, and now we are suggesting to them that they are not worthy of a job preference.

Let me also say that when you block-grant these dollars, you block- grant job training away. That is what this program does; and in particular, it sends away this opportunity.

My last point is that I might beg to differ with the chairman of this particular distinguished committee. There is discrimination in this bill. And, frankly, I think we should follow the Kildee model, who said that he knew a priest in Detroit who had a job training program who made sure that there was no discrimination, whether someone is a Muslim, whether they are Jewish or Catholic or Protestant. A program that is based upon religion and allows someone to deny you the opportunity for a job or a training position under the auspices of being a particular faith and being in charge of that particular program is discrimination under title VII in the 1964 Civil Rights Bill or under any discrimination law that has been passed in America and that exists today.

Frankly, I believe this bill, even in its presence on the floor of the House, should go no further than this House; and I ask my colleagues to support the Tierney amendment, but to oppose the underlying bill.