Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 27) 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, the question is when is the Congress going to stop letting American businesses and workers down? It is time to roll up our sleeves and chart a path to economic freedom. It is time to govern.

Today the Republicans again ask us to consider a bill with provisions that will make its mark by missing the mark. It inflates government bureaucracy and deflates workers' opportunity. American business needs the best, most qualified workers on earth, but this bill does nothing to reach that goal.

Workers, especially the working poor, need a credible realistic road to economic freedom. This bill is a dead end. Our workforce is in trouble. The ``L.A. Times,'' which I will enter into the Record an article from the ``L.A. Times,'' recently reported that the volatility of income for the working poor has doubled in recent years. Income among the working poor now fluctuates by as much as 50 percent annually. One cannot buy a home with a wild fluctuation like that. One cannot plan for their children's college education with income swings like that, and they are lucky to put food on the table.

Mr. Chairman, we need to rethink the systems we have in place to help workers and employers maximize productivity and profitability. We continue to pursue open trade to open our domestic market to foreign competition, but we are not employing the same vigor toward pursuing the means to ensure that our workforce can compete and be the best trained and equipped in the world. This issue, investing in our workforce, transcends social and economic status.

I represent the 7th District of Washington, Seattle, where the economy is driven by manufacturing as well as by innovation and the service industry. Everyone in these industries is competing for their jobs against someone overseas. Making the proper investments and systems to helping the working poor obtain access to job training and education is even more important.

The so-called Personal Reemployment Accounts compel, compel, unemployed workers to take the first job they can get and forego current job training opportunities. Instead of economic independence, this bill produces economic surrender. We can do better.

We ought to significantly invest in continuing education training programs for people in industries that are challenged by global competition. Furthermore, we ought to seriously consider wage insurance. This would enable the working poor to move into jobs that may begin by paying a little less but have greater opportunities for wage growth and economic stability down the road. This bill, even without the bad provisions such as Personal Reemployment Accounts and the provisions that allow workplace discrimination based on religion, does nothing to meet the new challenges that workers and businesses that rely on them face in the new global economy.

The question again, Mr. Chairman, is when will you tell your chairman to start taking these responsibilities seriously rather than playing politics, as we are here today, putting the same bill before us that we have put here before, we know it is not going anywhere, it is a waste of time, and it does nothing for the workers? This is not even an election year.

[From the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 2004]

The Poor Have More Things Today--Including Wild Income Swings

(By Peter G. Gosselin)

``The poor are not like everyone else,'' social critic

Michael Harrington wrote in the 1962 bestseller ``The Other

America,'' which helped shape President Johnson's War on

Poverty.

``They are a different kind of people,'' he declared.

``They think and feel differently; they look upon a different

America than the middle class.''

How then to account for Elvira Rojas?

The 36-year-old Salvadoran-born dishwasher and her partner,

warehouse worker Jose Maldanado, make barely enough to stay

above the official poverty line--$18,810 last year for a

family of four. But by working two, sometimes three, jobs

between them, they are grabbing at middle-class dreams.

Rojas and Maldanado live in a two-room apartment in

Hawthorne but have china settings for 16 tucked in a wooden

hutch. Their two young daughters receive health coverage

through Medi-Cal but get many of their clothes at Robinsons-

May.

The family struggles to meet its monthly bills but has

taken on a mountain of credit card debt. They have used

plastic to buy a large-screen TV and other luxuries but have

also relied on it to cover bare necessities such as rent and

emergency-room visits.

``That's why I'm really poor even though I work so hard,''

Rojas said with a rueful laugh.

Some see circumstances like Rojas' as testament to the

economic strides that America has made over the last

generation, rather than a reflection of its failures.

``We've won the War on Poverty,'' asserted Robert Rector,

an influential analyst with the Heritage Foundation, a

conservative Washington think tank. ``We've basically

eliminated widespread material deprivation.''

But if deprivation is no longer as big a problem, that

hardly means all is well. In many ways, Rojas is the new face

of the working poor, suffering not so much from a dearth of

possessions as from a cavalcade of chaos--pay cuts and

eviction notices, car troubles and medical crises--that

rattles her finances and nudges her family toward the

economic brink.

In this way, Rojas and millions like her are not--as

Harrington described them--fundamentally different from most

other Americans; they are remarkably similar.

Indeed, today's working poor are experiencing an extreme

version of the economic turbulence that is rocking families

across the income spectrum. And the cause, no matter people's

means, is the same: a quarter-

century-long shift of economic risk by business and

government onto working families.

Protections that Americans, especially poor ones, once

relied on to buffer them from economic setbacks--affordable

housing, stable jobs with good benefits, union membership and

the backstop of cash welfare--have shriveled or been

eliminated. These losses have been only partially offset by

an expansion of programs such as the earned-income tax credit

for the working poor and publicly provided healthcare.

For the most part, the poor have been left to cope on their

own, scrambling from one fragile employment arrangement to

the next, doubling up on housing and borrowing heavily.

``Families up and down the income distribution are bearing

more economic risk than they did 25 or 30 years ago,'' said

Johns Hopkins University economist Robert A. Moffitt. ``But

the increase has been especially dramatic among the working

poor.''

As a result, their earnings are jumping around like never

before.

During the early 1970s, the inflation-adjusted incomes of

most families in the bottom fifth of the economy bounced up

and down no more than 25% a year. By the beginning of this

decade, those annual fluctuations had doubled to as much as

50%, according to statistics generated by the Los Angeles

Times in conjunction with Moffitt and researchers at several

other major universities.

For a family with an income at the 20th percentile--or

roughly $23,000 a year in inflation-adjusted terms--that has

meant recent annual swings of as much as $12,000. Twenty-five

years ago, those swings tended to be no more than $4,300.

The Times' figures are based on the Panel Study of Income

Dynamics, a database funded by the National Science

Foundation and run by the University of Michigan. In contrast

to most economic indicators, which involve taking random

samples of different Americans at different times and

comparing the results, the panel study has followed the same

5,000 nationally representative families and their offshoots

for nearly 40 years.

In supplementing conventional statistics with the panel-

study data, the newspaper has sought to explain why Americans

in rising numbers report being less financially secure, even

as the nation has grown richer overall.

In a nutshell, The Times has found that behind the upward

march of most economic averages are increasingly frequent

instances of financial setback and hardship for a large swath

of the population. Even those in the top-10 percent bracket--

making well over $100,000 a year--have seen their incomes

grow more volatile and therefore prone to steep dives.

But for the country's 20 million working-poor families, the

findings are particularly sobering: They now run the risk of

seeing their incomes slashed by half in any given year.

That's almost double the volatility experienced by families

in the middle of the economic spectrum, the newspaper's

findings show.

``The only way to improve your life if you're poor is to be

very prudent and make very, very few mistakes like getting

fired or splurging and ending up with a lot of debt,'' said

Christopher Jencks, a Harvard University authority on

poverty. ``Most people aren't that prudent.''

Finding a Foothold

Elvira Rojas headed for the U.S. at age 21 in search of two

things that were in short supply in her native EI Salvador:

peace and prosperity.

Combatants in that country's bloody civil war engaged in

firefights outside her family's home in Acajutla, and

Maldanado had received death threats because of his role as a

former military man. In addition, Rojas discovered that the

only job she could get with her high school diploma from El

Instituto Nacional was at the local fish-packing plant.

The pair arrived in L.A. in May 1989. She quickly found

work cleaning houses with two of Maldanado's aunts. He landed

a job at a Hawthorne dry-cleaning plant. Between them, they

made about $200 a week.

But with the average rent on a one-bedroom apartment in the

city then running about $600, they could not afford a first

foothold in their new country--a place of their own to live.

``I felt bad in the beginning because I had nothing,'' Rojas

said. ``I wanted to go home.''

With nowhere else to turn, they moved in with one of

Maldanado's aunts, her five children and four cousins in a

two-bedroom house on Firmona Avenue in Hawthorne. They slept

on the kitchen floor.

As the couple began to make more money, they moved into a

succession of other apartments. Each was a little larger than

the last but still crammed with relatives.

Rojas and Maldanado had few alternatives. During their

first years, they were effectively excluded from Federal rent

subsidies or State help because they were illegal immigrants.

In 1991, the two gained legal status under a program that

allowed people fleeing war in their homelands to be counted

as refugees. But their new standing was thrown into question

in 1994, when California voters approved Proposition 187. The

initiative was designed to cut off state assistance to

undocumented immigrants, but many legal ones interpreted the

measure as a blanket ban aimed at them too.

Rojas, for one, took no chances; she never applied for

housing assistance--or almost any other kind of aid--although

it appears from her Social Security records and tax returns

that she would have qualified. ``I didn't want to be a burden

on the government,'' she explained.

It's probably just as well. By the mid-1990s, the state and

federal governments were winding down most of a six-decade-

long drive to help poor families meet their housing needs.

That effort had begun under President Franklin D. Roosevelt,

who decried the conditions gripping America. ``I see one-

third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished,'' he

said in 1937.

In the years that followed, a booming private sector

largely solved the food and clothing problems. And a

combination of financial market innovations and federal power

applied through a battery of agencies--the Veterans

Administration, the Federal Housing Administration, Fannie

Mae and Freddie Mac--greatly expanded home ownership,

especially among the middle class. But that still left what

to do for poor families, most of whom could afford only to

rent.

Washington's first answer was to have the government build

and run housing projects. Some worked. But many degenerated

into vertical ghettos, victimized by disastrous design,

racial and economic segregation, drugs and crime.

In 1974, President Nixon and Congress turned to another

solution: the Section 8 program. Instead of putting up

buildings itself, the government would subsidize private

developers to construct housing and give poor families

vouchers to rent apartments in the open market. But developer

subsidies produced cost overruns and political scandals in

the 1980s and were largely phased out.

That left only the vouchers, which recently have been cut

back. In all, the amount of money that Congress and the

president have authorized to be spent on housing assistance

has plunged by nearly two-thirds in the last 25 years, from

an inflation-adjusted $82 billion in 1978 to $29 billion last

year.

Washington's latest answer has been more laissez-faire:

offer tax breaks for the creation of low-income housing but

otherwise leave it to the marketplace to decide how much gets

built. In hot housing markets such as Southern California's,

little has.

``We've produced tens of thousands of units recently, but

the well's been dry for so long we should have been producing

hundreds of thousands,'' said Jan Breidenbach, executive

director of the Southern California Assn. of Non-Profit

Housing, which represents many of the region's developers of

low-income housing.

In the absence of substantial government help--and with

housing prices soaring beyond the reach of even the middle

class--most working-poor families have been left to fend

for themselves.

By 1997, Rojas and Maldanado thought they had succeeded in

doing that. He was making $5,800 a year at the dry-cleaning

plant. She was making more than $12,000 dashing between a

part-time job at an airline linen service on Prairie Avenue

in Hawthorne and a temporary position with Kelly Services,

packing magazines, perfume and shampoo in samplers for

direct-market mailings.

In the fall of that year, the couple, with another of

Maldanado's aunts and her children, moved into a white stucco

bungalow on Burin Avenue in Inglewood, not far from Los

Angeles International Airport.

Although the house sagged in the middle and had drainage

problems, it featured two kitchens and two living rooms,

plenty of space for each family. The place cost Rojas and

Maldanado $550 a month. That was more than 30% of their

earnings, a level the government considers the outer limit of

affordable, but it was still something they could bear.

The bungalow ``felt good because there were not so many of

us,'' Rojas said. ``It was the most room I've ever had.'' The

following year, the two families celebrated Christmas by

stringing sparkling lights along the structure's faded blue

eaves and inviting neighbors for a party.

Heading West for Work

Albert Grimes arrived in Los Angeles a few years before

Elvira Rojas did, similarly hungry to start over.

He came from Cleveland, where his family was a pillar of

the African American community. His father, ``Big Joe''

Grimes, had returned home from World War II and used the GI

Bill to buy a house. He opened a barbershop, founded a youth

marching band called B.J.'s Raiders and became a kingmaker of

sorts in Cleveland politics.

Albert's uncle, Walter Dicks, ran the municipal workers

union and helped the younger Grimes find a job right out of

high school on a city sanitation truck. It paid about

$15,000, equal to about $30,000 in today's dollars.

But Albert was laid off during one of Cleveland's periodic

fiscal crises. In 1985, at the age of 29, he left home and

headed West. He had no trouble finding work with one of Los

Angeles' big employers.

For most of the postwar era, working Americans could count

on big business even more than big government to provide

safeguards against economic risk. In a reverse of the current

passion for temps, outsourcing and lean workforces, corporate

America felt it had a civic duty to offer full-time jobs with

good wages and solid benefits, even to those like Grimes with

no college education.

``Steady, year-round employment is so right from the

standpoint of the employer, so right from the standpoint of

the workers and so right for the country as a whole . . .

that it is hard to see why we manufacturers have not made

more progress in its application,'' Procter & Gamble Co.

President Richard Deupree told a 1948 audience.

As the decades passed, Los Angeles became the hub of the

nation's aerospace industry; a second home to U.S.

automakers, after Detroit; and a major financial center.

Among the region's largest employers: Lockheed Corp.,

McDonnell Douglas Corp., General Motors Corp., Goodyear Tire

& Rubber Co., First Interstate Bank and Security Pacific

Bank.

By the late 1970s, the typical L.A. County workplace had

nearly 30% more employees than the U.S. average, according to

government statistics--a situation that translated into a

high level of economic security.

``There is a close correlation between firm size,

employment stability and generous compensation,'' said UCLA

economist Sanford Jacoby, who has written extensively about

the new risks that working people face. ``Big firms

underwrote the creation of America's--and Southern

California's--blue-collar middle class.''

As for Grimes, he found his way to Sears, Roebuck & Co.'s

massive warehouse at Olympic Boulevard and Soto Street, where

he was hired as a merchandise handler represented by the

Teamsters. He did well for himself there. His Social Security

records show that his income rose steadily--from $12,000 in

1987 to $20,000 in 1990 (or nearly $28,000 in today's terms).

On top of that, his health care was covered.

But in 1992, Sears stumbled, the result of a failed

strategy to sell everything from socks to stocks. Grimes,

then on leave with a bad back, soon found himself out of a

job.

It was a particularly bad time to be without work. The

combination of recession and steep cuts in defense spending,

brought on by the end of the Cold War, walloped Southern

California. Unremitting pressure from low-cost foreign

producers and wage competition from new immigrants such as

Rojas took a severe toll on unskilled workers like Grimes.

Any chance that he would be rehired by Sears soon

evaporated when the company's warehouse and adjacent store

were damaged in the L.A. riots. The warehouse was eventually

shuttered.

By the time the region bounced back, the nature of

employment had changed. Gone were many of the corporate

giants that had delivered a generation of blue-collar

security. In their place were tens of thousands of relatively

small employers whose job-generating capacity is now

regularly praised by the nation's leaders but whose

instability, often-low wages and meager benefits are less

remarked upon.

Government figures show that the average size of a

workplace shrank by 18% nationally between its late-1970s

peak and last year. The slide was even steeper in L.A.

County, with the average size of a workplace plunging 50% to

10 workers. This trend, according to Jacoby, ``is one of the

most important and least appreciated reasons why so many

people are having a tough time making a go of it today.''

For several years, Grimes all but vanished from the regular

economy. He, his chronically ill girlfriend and the couple's

young son lived off a mix of workers' compensation,

disability payments and her welfare checks.

In 1995, he resurfaced, this time as a security guard and--

befitting the U.S. economy's free-market transformation--a

self-employed entrepreneur. ``I set myself up as a

corporation,'' he said proudly.

With the help of a friend, Grimes persuaded a string of

businesses in a run-down neighborhood along Bixel Street near

downtown to hire him.

For three years, he watched over a dental office, a parking

garage, a liquor store and a methadone clinic. His earnings

climbed from $5,600 when he launched his venture to more than

$27,000 two years later. He bought himself a used Pontiac

Grand Am, a washer and dryer and a Rent-A-Center living room

set.

Then in 1998, he found out how risky the life of an

entrepreneur can be: The city bought up the properties along

Bixel Street to make way for the Staples Center.

The businesses that employed Grimes closed. Demolition

crews flattened the buildings and, along with them, Grimes'

income. His earnings that year went clear to zero.

High Hopes

As Grimes' world caved in on him once more, Rojas'

prospects were looking up.

She was still shuttling between her jobs at the airline

laundry service and as a packer of sundries when one of

Maldanado's cousins told her that the dishwashing department

at the Wyndham Hotel on Century Boulevard near LAX was hiring

for the 4-to-midnight shift.

The full-time position paid more than $7 an hour and,

because the workers were represented by Hotel Employees and

Restaurant Employees Local 814, it came with holidays and

family health insurance. The latter would prove particularly

important when Rojas suffered a miscarriage in 2001, and her

health plan picked up the tab for more than $5,000.

Rojas saw the job as a turning point. Until then, virtually

everything she had in her life had belonged to her in-laws.

``If we used dishes,'' she remembered, ``they were theirs. If

we watched TV, it was theirs.''

But all that would change when she went to the Wyndham. ``I

knew at that point I would have my own things,'' she said.

By 1998, as Rojas and Maldanado's income more than doubled

to $26,000 ($30,500 in today's dollars), the couple began

assembling the pieces of a middle-class life.

Rojas bought china by Royal Prestige. She purchased a hutch

from Levitz Furniture in which to display the dishes. She and

Maldanado acquired a couch, a bed and a dining table. They

shelled out for two large-screen TVs and signed up for

satellite-dish service.

They bought a 1987 Plymouth Sundance to go with their aging

blue Toyota Camry. And they traveled.

``We would go to Las Vegas and Disneyland,'' Maldanado

recalled. ``We had more money to spend.''

When the first of the couple's two daughters was born the

following year, Rojas was so eager for her to be part of the

fabric of America that she resisted entreaties to name her

Maria after five of Maldanado's aunts, and instead gave her

the name Katherine. She would make a similar choice when

their second child was born last May, rejecting Maldanado's

suggestion of Elvira in favor of Melane.

The new job let Rojas dream about owning a house where, she

said, ``my daughters can have their own rooms'' and ``maybe

one day I can take care of my grandchildren if I have some.''

Meanwhile, any thought of returning to Central America

faded away. ``Here,'' said Rojas, ``my family will go a lot

farther than in El Salvador.''

In the summer of 2000, the Wyndham's owners announced that

they were closing the hotel for renovations. Rojas remembers

hearing ominous rumblings that more would change than the

color of the lobby--something about the parking attendants'

jobs being contracted out.

But she was not worried. To tide her over during the

shutdown, Local 814 had steered her to a job at a unionized

Burger King at LAX. The fast-food outlet offered a wage-and-

benefit package almost as good as what she was making at the

Wyndham.

About a year after it had closed, the hotel on Century

Boulevard reopened. Only now, the sign outside read

``Radisson.'' The Wyndham name wasn't the only thing that was

gone either. So too was the union--part of a broader trend

sweeping corporate America for more than two decades. Unions,

which represented 17 percent of the nation's private-sector

workforce in the early 1980s, counted only 8 percent as

members by last year.

Rojas could have her dishwashing job back. But instead of

$8.89 an hour, her top wage at the Wyndham, she said, she'd

be pulling down only $7.50 at the Radisson, with no employer-

paid family health insurance. She signed on anyway and, to

make ends meet, kept her job at Burger King as well.

It was hard running between two jobs again, but the

family's income finally seemed to be stabilizing. As it

turned out, their financial roller-coaster ride had only just

begun.

Shrinking Welfare

For the poor, the most dramatic of all the safety-net cuts

that the government has engineered in the last 25 years came

in 1996.

That's when a Republican-controlled Congress passed and

President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act, overhauling the nation's

cash welfare system.

The law sought to push people off the dole and into work.

In doing so, it essentially reversed the poverty-fighting

strategy that Washington had pursued since the 1960s in which

poor Americans were promised a certain minimal standard of

living. By last year, the law had reduced the nation's

welfare rolls by 3 million families, or one-half, and had

sliced inflation--adjusted welfare spending by about $10

billion, or one-third.

These numbers, though, are about all the experts can agree

on. Advocates have hailed the measure as a spectacular

success, saying it has increased the incomes of many poor

people while triggering a steep drop in poverty among black

children. Critics have denounced it as a failure, saying that

many people are poorer today than they were before the law

was changed.

For its part, Grimes' household has remained largely

unaffected by the law's ``work first'' requirements. That's

because California has maintained relatively generous

benefits and because Grimes' domestic partner, Jacqueline

Harvey, has a chronic intestinal disease and is exempt from

work requirements. She has thus continued to collect benefits

off and on from the state's cash welfare program, CalWORKs.

She now receives $583 a month.

But Grimes, in the meantime, has been staggered by another,

lesser-known element of the 1996 act--a significant

toughening of child-support enforcement rules. This part of

the law built on other efforts undertaken since the 1970s to

go after absentee parents and compel them to help finance

their kids' upbringings.

Grimes and Harvey's son, Albert Jr., was born in 1988. Nine

years later, when the elder Grimes applied for custody of a

nephew, the Los Angeles County district attorney's office

sued him for child support for Albert Jr. The D.A. took

action even though Grimes, Harvey and their son had always

lived together and, they and several relatives say, Grimes

always helped raise the boy.

Nonetheless, Grimes declined to challenge the county, which

won a court judgment

against him. Grimes said he thought that he had to go along

with the support order to obtain custody of his nephew and to

ensure that Harvey would continue receiving publicly funded

healthcare. It's also unclear whether counting Grimes as a

parent in the house would have jeopardized the size of

Harvey's welfare checks.

Whether a mix-up or not, the effect on Grimes' finances has

been devastating. California courts not only have imposed

high monthly support payments--often unrelated to a parent's

ability to comply--but also have added interest at a 10

percent annual clip to past-due amounts.

A recent study commissioned by the state found that past-

due child-support payments in California have soared to

almost $17 billion from $2.5 billion in the last decade. Most

of that money, moreover, is earmarked for state coffers--not

for the children who need support.

``The system was largely about welfare-cost recovery, not

helping families,'' said Curtis L. Child, who stepped down

recently as head of the state Department of Child

Support Services, which was created in 2000 to remove

enforcement power from county district attorneys and

restructure the system. ``In imposing these huge judgments

on fathers, we're confronting these men with an awful

choice: Go underground, which is just what child-support

enforcement was intended to stop, or let themselves be

financially ruined.''

In August 1997, Grimes was ordered to start sending the

county $173 a month in current payments, plus an additional

amount for past-due support totaling $4,900. When he fell

behind after his Bixel Street business collapsed in 1998, the

past-due total began to swell. It now tops $8,000.

Plastic Safety Net

In one great clap, the 9/11 terrorists brought down the

twin towers in New York, shattered Americans' sense of

security and shoved Elvira Rojas down the economic ladder.

It took her five days to reach Burger King after the police

and military sealed off the airport in the wake of the

September 2001 attacks. When she finally was allowed in,

Rojas found that her manager had cut her shift to just four

hours. Within a couple of weeks, she was laid off.

Things were little better at the nearly deserted Radisson.

Rojas' hours there were reduced to practically nothing.

Over the next 15 months, Rojas grabbed whatever hours she

could get at the hotel and worked a second job ironing

clothes at Hermosa Cleaners in Hermosa Beach. It was a tough

schedule even before she got pregnant in 2002. And still it

was not enough to keep her family's income from sliding

almost 20% from its 1998 high to less than $22,000.

So she and Maldanado turned to what has become one of the

few reliable safety nets left for many poor Americans: their

credit cards.

In May 2002, Rojas was rushed to the emergency room at

Robert F. Kennedy Medical Center in Hawthorne, where she

suffered a second miscarriage. This time, with only minimal

health insurance from the hotel, she said she had to put

$2,000 of her $4,000 medical bill onto her MasterCard.

``I didn't have the money otherwise,'' she said.

As the credit card industry emerged in the late 1950s and

'60s, some expressed concern that even well-provisioned

middle-class families would be unable to resist the lure of

instant credit. Betty Furness, President Johnson's consumer

affairs advisor, warned that credit cards were ``modern

traps'' that would turn Americans into ``hopeless addicts.''

But over the last 25 years, card issuers have not let up in

pushing their products. Instead, they have reached out for

ever more low-income households.

Federal Reserve figures show that among families in the

bottom fifth of the economy, the percentage of households

with credit cards has soared from 11% in the late 1970s

to almost 40%. Their average balance on those cards has

climbed, in inflation-adjusted terms, from about $825 to

more than $2,000.

Some analysts applaud the greater availability of credit.

Gregory Elliehausen, of the Credit Research Center at

Georgetown University, said the spread of cards and other

kinds of lending was part of a sweeping ``democratization of

finance'' that has allowed poor families to operate more

efficiently by, for example, buying decent cars to get to

work.

Economists Dirk Krueger of the University of Pennsylvania

and Fabrizio Perri, a New York University professor now on

sabbatical at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, say

families of all incomes increasingly rely on loans, rather

than on business and government safety nets, in times of

trouble. They borrow their way through the bad patches and

pay off their debts in flush periods.

The problem comes when there are no flush periods.

Some of the items purchased on Rojas' and Maldanado's

credit cards can seem frivolous or extravagant--the TVs, for

example, or a $150 set of sepia-toned studio photographs of

Katherine and her mom dressed in feather boas and gowns. But

most of the charges appear to fit the definition of safety-

net spending.

Beyond the emergency room charge, there was $130 for a new

fuel pump for Rojas' Toyota and $170 to repair the power

steering. There was $300 at the start of September to cover

rent and a $1,000 cash advance that Rojas said went to help a

brother bring his wife to the U.S. from El Salvador.

Chipping away at what's due on their cards is virtually

impossible. That's in large part because the interest the two

are charged is about double what a typical middle-class

borrower faces. By the time they cover that, there is little

left to reduce the balance.

Although the stated interest on the couple's most heavily

used cards, a pair of Direct Merchants Bank MasterCards,

ranges from 20.49% to 31.99%, a review of recent bills

indicates that they are consistently charged close to the

higher amount. (The Minnetonka, Minn., bank recently was

ordered by federal regulators to pay $3.2 million in

penalties for ``downselling''--offering low pre-approved

rates and then moving customers to higher-rate accounts

without fully disclosing the switch. It is not clear that

this happened to Rojas and Maldanado.)

Rojas and Maldanado now owe $14,592 on their four credit

cards--a burden that financial experts say is appropriate for

a household making about $100,000, but not one like theirs.

Falling Behind

In the spring of 2000, two years after Grimes' Bixel Street

business failed, he found a job as a security guard five

blocks away at Ernst & Young Plaza.

For a while after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, the

building's owners and tenants treated Grimes and his co-

workers with newfound respect. Managers listened to his

suggestions about how to improve safety at the 41-story

structure.

He was promoted to ``lobby ambassador,'' a sort of informal

emissary to the building, and then to lobby supervisor. His

annual earnings climbed back above $20,000, and he began to

imagine himself becoming a director of security.

``My goal was to have a facility of my own,'' Grimes said.

``I thought I should have a situation where I'm in control.''

But for most of the last year, Grimes has been anything but

in control.

In February, after a dispute with their landlord, he and

his family were evicted from their apartment on Fedora

Street, where they had lived for several years. All that he

was able to save from the place were three mattresses, two

chairs and a Sony PlayStation.

By April, he had run through several thousand dollars

paying for a $90-a-night motel room while he looked for a new

apartment. He and Harvey eventually rented a two-room

Hollywood walk-up for $875 a month, or more than 40% of their

combined income. Before long, he fell behind again on his

court-ordered child-support payments.

In July, things took another turn for the worse. After a

series of clashes with his boss, Grimes was ordered out of

the Ernst & Young tower and told he would be reassigned.

Instead, he quit. For the time being, he is working for the

Service Employees International Union on a campaign to

organize security guards in the city's high-rise offices.

Grimes is determined to recover from the latest round of

reverses. He dreams about what his father had--a house, a

secure job--and is convinced he'll fare as well someday.

``I'm trying,'' Grimes said, ``to get back to what he had.''

Another Eviction

A month after Grimes was forced out of the Ernst & Young

tower, Rojas and her family were evicted from the Burin

Avenue bungalow where they had lived for seven years. A

developer is preparing to raze the place and put in half-

million-dollar townhouses.

It's not clear how long they could have afforded to stay

there anyway. A week before they moved, Maldanado was laid

off from the dry-cleaning plant to make way, he said, for new

immigrants who were willing to work for less. He has since

gotten a new job, packing items at a warehouse, for minimum

wage.

The family's new apartment is so small that the bedroom is

a single mass of mattresses and cribs. The hutch and couches

fill the living room to overflowing. And the cabinets in the

kitchenette are so stuffed that Rojas must store her supply

of infant formula in her car trunk.

But the couple has plans--to turn around the slide in their

income, to look for a house, to make sure that the girls

continue all the way through school. ``I don't want them

to be struggling like us,'' Maldanado said.

Rojas is making other plans as well. Soon after arriving in

the U.S., she took out a loan to finance her future at the

Inglewood Park Cemetery. She now owns two plots at the

cemetery's Mausoleum of the Golden West, and recently signed

papers to pay $82.79 a month for the next five years to buy

two more. By the time Rojas is finished, she will have spent

more than $12,000 in total. But she's convinced it's worth

it.

``Now if I die, I won't have to worry about my funeral,''

she said. ``I won't leave my family with a financial

burden.''

The Source of the Statistics and How They Were Analyzed

The Times used the Panel Study of Income Dynamics for its

analysis of family income volatility.

The panel study has followed a nationally representative

sample of about 5,000 families and their offshoots for nearly

40 years and is the most comprehensive publicly available

income and earnings database in the world. It is run by the

University of Michigan and principally underwritten by the

National

Science Foundation. The families' identities are kept

confidential.

The Times employed techniques for gauging income volatility

that were developed by economists Robert A. Moffitt of Johns

Hopkins University and Peter Gottschalk of Boston College.

The Times also consulted with Yale University political

scientist Jacob S. Hacker, who has conducted his own analysis

of income volatility among households in the panel study and

has published results linking it to economic risk.

The Times employed two Johns Hopkins graduate students,

Xiaoguo Hu and Anubha Dhasmana, to help generate the data.

Moffitt guided them and advised the newspaper.

The Times' analysis looked at five-year increments from

1970 to 2000 and examined the annual fluctuations in each

family's income.

For example, for a family whose income rose by $5,000 over

a five-year span, the paper examined the journey from the

lower number to the higher: Did the change occur in steady

$1,000 annual increases? Or did the family's income take a

big jump in one year and plunge in another?

The Times' basic finding is that the fluctuations in annual

income that individual families have experienced have grown

larger over the last three decades.

Based on the panel-study sample, The Times estimated the

annual income swings, up or down, for 68% of all U.S.

families--those who did not have the most extreme

fluctuations. As a result, the newspaper's conclusions don't

rest on cases outside the mainstream: the movie star whose

career dries up overnight, say, or the hourly worker who

wins the lottery.

To zero in on working families, The Times focused on men

and women 25 to 64 years old whose households had some

income. To analyze the working poor, the paper ranked

families by their average income during each five-year

period. It then concentrated on those in the bottom one-fifth

of income earners and especially those right at the 20th

percentile.

The average annual income of panel-study families at the

20th percentile is close to the government's official poverty

line for a family of four most years.

The analysis looked at pretax income of all family members

from all sources, including workplace earnings; investments;

public transfers such as jobless benefits, food stamps and

cash welfare; and private transfers such as inheritances.

All amounts were adjusted for inflation, expressed in 2003

dollars.

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

Mr. Chairman, as we stand here today we continue to see significant progress toward greater economic opportunity and prosperity across the country. More than 2.7 million new jobs have been created over the last 17 months, and the unemployment rate has fallen to 5.2 percent, the lowest level since September 2001. Our economy is strong and it is getting stronger.

The backbone of a strong economy is a well-trained and highly skilled workforce, and it is absolutely critical for workers to have the education and skills necessary to adapt to new opportunities and to move into higher wages.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed with this view when he testified before the Committee on Education and the Workforce last year. The chairman said, ``We need to increase our efforts to ensure that as many of our citizens as possible have the opportunity to capture the benefits of the changing economy. One critical element in creating that opportunity is the provision of rigorous education and ongoing training to all members of our society.''

Chairman Greenspan this morning testified before Congress and talked about the need to do a better job with our education system and better training and retraining of American workers.

The bill before us, the Job Training Improvement Act, would achieve this objective by strengthening the Nation's job training system. In 1998, Congress established a system of one-stop career centers aimed at providing one convenient central location to offer job training and related employment services. While these reforms have been generally successful, the Workforce Investment Act system is still hampered by bureaucracy and duplication that prevents it from being as effective as it could be for workers and their families.

Our bill includes a number of reforms aimed at strengthening our job training system and better engaging the business community to improve job training services.

Our bill includes a number of reforms. First, requiring State and local workforce investment boards to ensure the job training programs reflect the employment needs in local areas. Secondly, allowing training for currently employed workers so employees can upgrade their skills and avoid layoffs. Third, encouraging the highest caliber providers, including community colleges, to offer training through the one-stop system, and leveraging other public and private resources to increase training and opportunities.

The bill also includes other important reforms. First, it consolidates the three adult WIA training programs, giving States and local communities greater flexibility and enabling more job seekers to be served with no reduction in services.

In addition, it targets 70 percent of the youth grant funds to out- of-school youth, an underserved population that faces significant challenges in finding meaningful employment.

The bill includes a proposal passed by the House last year introduced by the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) to create personal reemployment accounts of up to $3,000 to help unemployed Americans purchase job training and other employment-related services, such as child care, transportation services and housing assistance, giving them the flexibility they need in order to gain meaningful employment. In addition, it includes the President's community college proposal to strengthen the partnership between local businesses, community colleges, and the local one-stop delivery system.

Later today, we will consider an amendment from my colleague from Virginia to strip the faith-based provisions from this bill, an amendment that would deny faith-based providers their rights under the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act. When we considered this bill in committee, we twice rejected it on a bipartisan basis, and I urge all Members to vote against it today. The 1964 Civil Rights Act made clear that when faith-based groups hire employees on a religious basis, it can exercise the group's civil rights liberties and not discriminate under Federal law. In 1987, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld this right.

As my colleagues can see from the chart that I have next to me, former President Bill Clinton signed four laws allowing faith-based groups to staff on a religious basis when they receive those Federal funds. Those four laws are the 1996 welfare reform law; the 1998 Community Services Block Grant Act; the 2000 Community Renewal Tax Relief Act; and the 2000 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Act, all allowing faith-based providers to preserve their rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Our Nation's faith-based institutions have a proven track record in meeting the training and counseling needs of

our citizens. Why would we want to deny them the opportunity to help in Federal job training efforts? President Bush repeated this call to empower faith-based providers both during his State of the Union address and again yesterday. I can think of no better place to start than to protect the rights of faith-based groups who are willing to lend a helping hand in providing job training and other critical social services to the most needy of our citizens.

I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) for his work in putting this bill together, a bill that is supported by a broad and diverse coalition of groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Workforce Boards, the National Workforce Association, the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom and the Salvation Army, amongst others.

We are part of a dynamic economy that is constantly creating new and different types of jobs, so the knowledge and skills of each job seeker is absolutely critical in determining their success or failure. If we are going to help them succeed, then strengthening our job training programs is essential. The bill, I believe, accomplishes that goal.

Unfortunately, the only plan that my colleagues on the other side have put forward to address the needs of American workers is the status quo. Their plan fails to reduce duplication and inefficiency, it fails to give States and local communities more flexibility, and it fails to take advantage of the positive role that faith-based institutions play in our communities and the success they have in providing critical social services to those most in need.

Mr. Chairman, the status quo is no plan at all. I ask my colleagues to support the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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