Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 803) to reform and strengthen the workforce investment system of the Nation to put Americans back to work and make the United States more competitive in the 21st century.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We could have had a bipartisan bill, and that seems to be the real shame here. This has been historically a bill that has not been hyperpartisan as the one that's before us today, the one by which the parties have generally sat down together and considered each other's opinions in order to come to the best solution, but it didn't happen.

The underlying bill arbitrarily eliminates and consolidates all the programs and collapses them into one. It tries to substitute that, I guess, for an analysis of what ought to be done. It relies on the comments of a GAO report that said some of the programs may have overlapped somewhat, but it did not reach the conclusion that they were duplicative or that they didn't serve necessary and unique populations.

Instead, the majority has seized on that to collapse all of the programs together and to freeze the funding instead of doing what our bill would do, which is to provide for data and analysis in consideration of what programs ought to be sustained; to make them justify how they're improving and serving the populations; and to determine whether or not there need to be changes or whether some do, in fact, need to be terminated or consolidated. That process has been avoided and ignored throughout.

It's interesting to note that the administration is invoked from time to time as being opposed not just to this year's version but to last year's version, which was fairly identical and that it indicates that it doesn't meet the administration's goals set out for training in this country.

The underlying bill would dissolve youth training programs. I've heard comments about the seriousness of being involved with youths who are out of work, but the underlying bill dissolves youth training dedicated funds and other service delivery priorities, like to veterans and the disabled. It also has virtually no support amongst all of the people who are really involved in workforce development in this country. There was very little, if any, consideration of their views and their input into that despite the labor they put in and the policy decisions that they help make day in and day out. The substitute has broad support. It did go out and listen to the stakeholders on that, and it did get their opinions and incorporated them, and that's why a bipartisan discussion amongst Members would have benefited the bills on that.

We have better accountability. The main bill abdicates to the Governors who have taken Federal policy responsibility here where it's deserved. There are many, many, many other reasons to oppose this bill that we will get into when we talk about the substitute.

Madam Chairwoman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Thank you very much.

I understand that much in the manager's amendment is technical and clarifying corrections, but it does make one notable substantive change to the underlying bill as it pertains to the designation of local workforce investment areas.

Current law calls for automatic designation of a local workforce area with a population of 500,000 or more. It also ensures that the voices of local elected officials, businesses, and workforce development officials, among others, are heard. That's a good thing.

Now, the underlying bill--the so-called SKILLS Act--radically changed this. It repealed the automatic designation that I just mentioned, and it essentially empowered the Governor to designate an entire State as one local workforce area if that Governor chose to do so. This is not viewed as sound policy.

Two days ago, the Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Workforce Boards sent a letter to the House leadership that expressed concerns with this particular provision. Specifically, they wrote:

H.R. 803 undermines existing governance structures by

virtually eliminating the input of local elected officials in

the decisionmaking process.

They also said:

H.R. 803 fails to promote intergovernmental collaboration

between State and local officials by eliminating prior

provisions relating to automatic designation of local

workforce development areas, effectively allowing State

boards to designate local areas in consultation with the

Governor, without considering input from local stakeholders.

Now, I think this mistake has been recognized, and we can see that by this manager's amendment where there is an attempt to try and address this situation. But it is further evidence of the deficiencies of a hyperpartisan bill that neglects the opportunity to sit down with others and work through these issues so that we can come up with the best solution on that. Now they're trying to get out of this hole they created by proposing a sort of solution in the manager's amendment that is still inadequate and certainly is worse than current law.

The manager's amendment provides an application process for local boards. So instead of being automatically designated if there are 500,000 in the population or more, they have to apply to be designated as a local workforce area. But that application still has to be approved by the State, which could totally reject it. And that's only for a period of 3 years, so they have to keep going through this process periodically. If I were a mayor or a business person who is chairing a local board, I don't think I would be very pleased with this provision--and in fact they're not.

I'm not sure how creating an unnecessary and bureaucratic process where locals would have to reapply continuously for their designation every 3 years squares with my Republican colleagues' supposed concern about duplication in the workforce.

Later this morning, we will be offering a substitute amendment that retains current law and protects the local individuals' role in the workforce system. Certainly, if we had the opportunity for a bipartisan bill, we could have worked through this issue and come up with what would be the best solution. This is just one example of the important policy provisions in this bill that could have been addressed in that way. This could have been a bipartisan bill, and we could have got the best product, and we didn't.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is an attempt to deal with the problem that was in the underlying bill, as pointed out by that letter, but an attempt that mirrors the process for the last session and this session. They didn't consult anybody. They didn't talk to anybody. They didn't say what would be the solution. They just went out and arbitrarily decided that, again, having once messed up, they thought they were the repository for all knowledge on this subject and went about setting on a course that still falls short.

Yes, current law allows for Governors to work with the consultation of others to set local designated areas, but areas of 500,000 population or more are already designated, and that's the point at issue here.

I think we've seen an example of the process--just deciding that all knowledge is reposited in one section; not wanting to discuss with others. We understand.

This could have been a good bill. This could have been a bill that went through the House, was taken up by the Senate, and then went on to the President's desk--a bill that the public could have been proud of, a bill that everybody could have got behind, but we didn't. We see a failed process, so we end up with a failed part of the provision of the original bill, and another failed attempt to fix it because there's no reaching out and no attempt.

Last time we had some hearings, very brief. Then we had a vote where partisan votes went all the way down the line. This time we have one hearing the day that the bill was filed, two out of three witnesses say they didn't read the bill, an immediate markup, where we chose not to go through the same faux hearing process of having all of the amendments just shot down on a partisan vote.

We're here. We always have been here. We want to work this through. This was not a hyperpartisan issue--it's just been made to be one.

I reserve the balance of my time.

No normal person would confuse being given an opportunity to have your amendment shot down on a party-line vote as a bipartisan process.

I remind the gentlewoman that it was her party, Mr. McKeon, who correctly stated it's the majority's obligation to reach across the aisle and seek compromise on that because they're the ones with the gavel on that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, but will not be opposing the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Essentially, I would like to reserve some time for someone we are expecting down to talk on that. But I do make note that in the gentleman, Mr. Young's, Dear Colleague letter regarding this particular matter, he makes note that the underlying bill does not accommodate the needs of this particular population, and that's why the necessity existed for him to bring this amendment that we support to the floor. But it's another example of how the process should have improved this bill all along had it been done in a bipartisan, consultative manner, as we had all hoped it would be.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I would like to make the point that obviously there are certain populations within our society that deserve particular attention because they have unique needs. You don't accomplish that by arbitrarily taking all the programs and lumping them together without a full analysis and determination of which ones would be better served on that basis and which ones wouldn't. I think it further establishes our point that we made throughout.

I congratulate the gentleman on his amendment and support it fully.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the balance of my time to a Member having arrived to speak on the amendment.

I yield the remaining time to the gentlelady from Hawaii, Representative Gabbard.

Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairwoman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

This amendment is offered in its entirety as a substitute for the underlying bill and the manager's amendment to it. I do it because I strongly believe that this is, in fact, a better proposal than the existing one, but would have preferred what could have been the best result in this bill, which would have been one where all of the Members had had consultation and where all of the negotiations had occurred and we were able to bring forth a bill with concessions by both sides to get a bill that would have been assured of passage in the Senate, or close to that, assured the President's signature and assured the support of the broad public.

Instead, just as in the last session, we end up with a proposal that ignores sound proposals from both sides and that goes with a hyper- partisan approach, and that's not going to serve the country or this process at all. Having a chance to present 18 amendments,

as was done in the last session, and having them all essentially shot down on a party-line vote is not an excuse or a substitute for having a process in which we really try to work out our differences and make reasonable concessions.

This bill that's before us today by the majority party was filed on February 25. A so-called ``hearing'' occurred on February 26, the very next day, at which two of the three Republican witnesses admitted they had never read the bill. Instead, of programs that exist right now, this bill proceeded with their arbitrary consolidation or elimination without any evaluation of their efficacy, of their effectiveness, of whether or not they ought to be consolidated or changed or terminated or kept intact as they are.

Reliance was made on the GAO report, which did not say anything about consolidating. All it said was that some of the programs duplicate some aspects and that only five programs had had a full evaluation, which would have begged the question for more hearings, more thorough evaluation, more data, and more consultation with the people involved-- the stakeholders--to, in fact, come to a conclusion of just how, and if, consolidation should have happened.

We've seen from some of the amendments made today, even by Members of the majority, that they thought that some of the populations should have gotten more attention than the base bill gives them. Essentially, here, we have a public policy that is dictated, not by Washington in the underlying bill, but is advocated to Governors so that instead of being accountable for the decisions we make of who we think needs job training in this country and what the national needs are, the Republican bill would just abdicate that to Governors, and they could decide to serve or not serve entire populations and afford them an opportunity to get the training that we believe as legislators they need.

This bill, as amended by the manager's amendment, creates a one-size- fits-all: it eliminates separate training funds for youth; it silences the voices of the community colleges, labor, economic development groups, and community-based organizations; it eliminates supported employment programs, like the Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program; it eliminates the priority of service delivery for low-income adults and out-of-school youth.

Perhaps that's why so many groups have expressed serious concern about this underlying bill. Groups like the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Workforce Boards, Corporation for a Skilled Workforce, Goodwill Industries International, and so many others have expressed concern for this underlying bill or have expressed approval for the substitute that we offer. It's why the administration has filed a statement opposing this bill, just as it did last year, saying it doesn't meet the administration's goals and urging the Republicans to work with us to make a better bill on that.

Mr. Chairman, we could have had the best of all alternatives. We could have had a good bill for the American people. We could have had a bill that took the best aspects of all the proposals and put them together with consultation and presented that for the approval of this House, then had a signed signature by the President, and then had the support of the American people. Unfortunately, that process was not followed, and the arbitrary process was endured by all of us on that part.

I ask that the Members support this substitute as being better than the underlying bill; and then hopefully, we could get back to getting the best bill, which would be one done by collaboration and cooperation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a coauthor of the substitute amendment.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

I thank the Chair, first of all, for having the discussion on time. Apparently, the time was a little bit confused on that.

I ask unanimous consent that both sides be awarded an additional minute.

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

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

The previous speaker, I don't know if he stayed or left or anything like that, but he talked about the environment being set. The environment of this was set in the hyperpartisan nature of the last session's presentation of the bill similar to this and of a bill this time giving no right to consult.

Showing up to participate in a so-called markup process where every vote would have been on a partisan basis and moved on, as it was last time, is not the issue. The issue is whether or not people reach across the aisle. As our Republican friend Buck McKeon had indicated, it's the majority's responsibility to, in fact, do this.

It's one thing to listen; it's another to comprehend. GAO's report, if one listened to it being read on that, indicated that there were a number of programs, but only five have been evaluated. It would have begged for an evaluation that we never had about what we were going to do with the programs on that. It talked about the fact that some might have overlapped, but said nothing about programs needing to be eliminated or terminated or saying that they were duplicative on that. We needed to determine that.

The underlying bill fails on a number of reasons, as I stated earlier. The amendment improves that. But again, the best bill would have been a bill where people sat down, member to member, worked out their differences, and presented to the American public, and for the President's signature, a bill that was bipartisan in nature and served both the employers and the prospective employees.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills, or SKILLS Act.

For the last 40 years, the reauthorization of the Federal job training legislation has had the support of Democrats and Republicans. Members on both sides of the aisle know that the passage of this bill is critical to our Nation's recovery and future competitiveness.

I served on the State Board of Education in Colorado from 2000 to 2006, and I recall the prior authorization of the Workforce Investment Act that we're still operating under. It dates to 1998. It came up after 5 years, which was in 2003, and I remember being on the State board. In our State, like in many States, jurisdiction goes between both the Department of Labor and the State Department of Education. Under the State Department of Education, we have some of the adult literacy components and adult education components of workforce investment, and under the Department of Labor, we have other areas of responsibility.

We said, well, hopefully, Congress will act. That was in 2003-2004, but that Congress didn't act. We said, well, hopefully, Congress will act in 2005-2006. We still need a reauthorization, so let's hope Congress will act. Then I ran for Congress. I was in the next Congress from 2009-2010 with a Democratic majority. It didn't pass. In 2011- 2012, with a Republican majority, there was no WIA reauthorization.

So here we are now in the 113th Congress, and, unfortunately, we have a bill that lacks bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the Republicans have departed from the long history of bipartisanship in common areas of agreement, some of which were talked about by Dr. Foxx in her opening remarks: streamlining programs; reducing the number of programs that have been shown to be ineffective by the GAO; having a workforce investment system that's more nimble and able to react to changes in the economy, to changes in the employment sector, to changes in the types of skills that people need to succeed in the 21st century workforce. Unfortunately, we have a bill today which falls short in that regard.

Even though this bill gives great authority to Governors, I have word from my own home State's Department of Labor and Unemployment of its opposition to this bill. We have statements from many other disability advocates, youth groups, civil rights groups that are opposed to this bill. Workers with disabilities, disadvantaged youth, returning veterans, low-income adults, migrant workers, and minorities are all underserved populations that a workforce investment system is designed to serve, yet these are the very populations that stand to lose the most under the current bill.

Instead of encouraging collaboration between these programs and streamlining these programs and rewarding what works and stopping what doesn't work, this bill forces effective programs to compete with one another for State funding, putting an additional burden on State and local budgets in the process. Instead of prioritizing incentives for business, which could potentially leverage our Federal investment for colleges and local governments and workforce organizations to collaborate, this bill requires that only employers be represented on Workforce Investment Boards, leaving many other stakeholders on the sidelines.

Of course, meeting the needs of employers is the goal of the Workforce Investment Act, but when you look at the stakeholders that will deliver on that and match the people to the skills, you need to include businesses, colleges, local governments, and others who work in partnership with needs assessment, driven by the employment needs of the private sector, to help determine the outputs that are important for workforce training systems so that our economy can continue to grow and succeed.

Mr. Speaker, this bill hands a blank check to Governors with a message that says to go ahead and use Federal tax dollars however you like, you can eliminate services for the underserved, and yet we, the American taxpayers, are continuing to pay for it.

Look, we are custodians of taxpayer trust here in this body. Frequently, this body doesn't do a very good job of that with the deficits that we have, with the lack of any comprehensive way of reining in Federal spending and even with regard to the sequester, which, while it makes progress on reining in Federal spending, it does so in a non-discriminate way rather than with a thoughtful approach that would be in the interest of our country. Here we are just passing out dollar bills, throwing dollar bills to the States. Here comes Uncle Sam, ready to bail out Governors. They're playing the walnut game-- moving it over to this account and moving it to this account.

This is essentially a slush fund for State Governors, as it's currently constructed, at the expense of groups that traditionally have high unemployment, including veterans who so capably served our country, particularly during our two most recent wars--the Iraq War, which has wound down, and the Afghanistan war, which we hope winds down over the next couple of years--as well as the many veterans of prior conflicts, including the first Gulf War and the Vietnam conflict, who continue to suffer from unemployment at above average levels to this day.

In addition, this bill decreases the WIA State set-aside funding that facilitates targeted innovation and encourages interstate partnerships. My home State of Colorado has used this funding for a State energy sector partnership, provided scholarships to train over 20 Coloradans. It led to full-time employment, even leading to the creation of a new company.

This funding also allowed Colorado to form 10 strategy sector partnerships, which have leveraged more than three-quarters of a million in private financing and public financing towards incentives that will train over 1,200 Colorado job seekers in high-demand occupations. This vital funding would be slashed from 15 percent to 5 percent. I would add that, under the Democratic substitute, which we are grateful that this rule allows for, WIA State set-aside would be restored at the full 15 percent.

In addition, this bill would freeze authorized funding levels for WIA over the next 7 years. This freeze comes on top of the fact that WIA funding has already been cut in half since 2001. Let me say that again. WIA funding has been cut in half since 2001, at the very time when the changing needs of the global economy need to be matched so that Americans can keep up with the skills they need to compete in the 21st century economy. And while making a cut there could save a few dollars now, if we fail to invest in the future of bringing Americans along to ensure that they can have good jobs that our Nation depends on, this would have a profound negative impact on our budget and economy over time.

There are many ideas that a number of us have had to make this bill better. Many of them are included in the Democratic substitute, which is allowed under this rule and will be debated with extended debate time and discussed. However, many of us would have preferred an open rule. We proposed an open rule yesterday in the Rules Committee. Had an open rule been offered, I would have loved to bring forth a number of amendments, including one that is a bill I cosponsor with Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut that would make it easier for women to get training in jobs that they are capable of doing in fields that they are traditionally underrepresented in. There are many fields, while women have made great progress across the economy, where women only have a 2 or 3 or 4 percent presence that are high-paying jobs. We need to match women to the skills so they can fulfill those opportunities.

I also would like to see, if there had been an open process here on the floor

of the House of Representatives, a requirement that State and local workforce organizations both give some of their time and effort on promoting training to empower people to start their own companies through entrepreneurship and innovation. In addition to creating access to entrepreneurship training, we can focus on reducing the skills gap in computer science and information technology, fast-growing occupations, by providing education and training for the jobs of their future.

Democrats have introduced their own workforce reauthorization bill, the Workforce Investment Act of 2013, which would streamline programs, maintain strong protections for veterans and other vulnerable populations, and create stronger accountability for employment outcomes while recognizing and expanding the central role community colleges play in job training.

Again, I'm pleased that this rule makes the Democratic substitute in order. I wish that it was an open rule that allowed for a full discussion of the many ideas that come from the entire body of membership.

It will take both sides working together on this bill, with Dr. Foxx's effort, Ranking Member Miller's effort, Chairman Kline's effort, Ranking Member Hinojosa's effort, to create a reauthorization that will stand the test of time, replacing the 1998 law that we all continue to operate under in a world that has changed significantly since then.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

I have to take a moment to correct the gentlelady from North Carolina, my colleague, Dr. Foxx, who quoted, ``The lady doth protest too much,'' saying it was from Canterbury Tales. It is actually from Shakespeare's Hamlet. I'm sure the gentlelady, upon further reflection, will concur.

I will add this bill, like Hamlet, is indeed a tragedy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

I'd like to inquire of the gentlelady from North Carolina if she has any remaining speakers.

Again, I'd like to inquire of the gentlelady if she has any remaining speakers.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, particularly at a time of economic stagnation, recovery from a recession, skills are a more important piece than ever to ensure that Americans can compete in the 21st century workforce.

We all know that many of the jobs that helped Americans earn a solid place in the middle class in the 20th century are not necessarily going to be the same jobs that will allow Americans to live in upwardly mobile middle class lifestyle in the 21st century. There are new growth sectors, new opportunities, and yes, new challenges as well.

One of the keys to both our prosperity as a Nation as well as the prosperity and growth of the middle class is to make sure that Americans have the skills they need to compete in the 21st century economy. When we match those skills to the people who need to have them to support their families, we're talking about all American families. We're talking about veterans. We're talking about the disabled. We're talking about those who don't have a high school diploma. We're talking about immigrants.

We need to make sure that each of these groups that traditionally has had and does have a higher unemployment rate than Americans as a whole can receive the type of training, education, and skills that they need to support their families and give back to the rest of us--a hand up, rather than a hand out. That is what workforce investment is all about.

Both Democrats and Republicans agree it's long overdue for us to update and strengthen the Workforce Investment Act. It was written in 1998. The world was different in 1998. I don't

think any of us saw the degree with which the economy would change. We've, since 1998, had many new technology jobs, the Internet has grown to a mainstream phenomenon, we've had a banking crisis, we've had two wars, and we're on our third President since 1998. Things have changed a lot. Things have changed a lot.

I'm amazed, Mr. Speaker, when I meet people now that were born in the 1990s and they're in the workforce. It's absolutely incredible to think about. And, yet, we're still operating under a law that doesn't reflect the changing needs of the American workforce. It is time for Democrats and Republicans to work together--to work together--to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act.

The President has stated that he doesn't support this bill, he wouldn't sign this bill. We need to work together, Democrats and Republicans, to come up with a framework that works. Yes, we all know that a committee markup process is part of that process; but so, too, is establishing the base bill, a process from which Democrats were excluded.

Former Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Buck McKeon said that he ``would like to see us work in that same mode where we really try to work together. I don't think it is the Republican bill or the Democratic bill, but it should be all of our bill.''

Unfortunately, with regards to where this bill is today, Republicans did not choose to regard this wise advice of the former chairman in how this bill was formed and brought to the floor. Now, again, while neither House Democrats or committee Democrats or the President support the underlying bill, I'm hopeful that the Republican leadership's desire to move this bill to the floor indicates the start of a process to finally reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act.

It's not an issue of left or right. It's an issue of updating the Workforce Investment Act to reflect the changing needs of our economy and the changing set of skills that Americans need to support themselves.

I'm hopeful that with the continued work of Dr. Foxx, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and other esteemed Members of this body that Republicans and Democrats will work together both making concessions to improve the Nation's workforce investment system and improve the route to the middle class for working families across our country.

Workforce investment and training to address the skills gap are critical to this economy as a whole. We have a long way to go to strengthen and, yes, streamline our workforce training and investment programs. There are some good ideas with regards to streamlining workforce investment that are contained in this bill that can form a basis for bipartisan support, but we still have a long way to go. We need to work across the aisle to invest in our future and take care of fellow citizens to make sure that they have the ability to support themselves.

I look forward to continuing this process with Members on both sides of the aisle, with members of the committee and Members of the House at large. Yet the process and bill before us currently is flawed.

Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 803.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 803, the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act, the SKILLS Act, and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Despite an increase in hiring last month, our Nation is still experiencing a jobs crisis. Twelve million Americans are searching for work. Nearly 5 million of these unemployed workers have been without a job for 6 months or longer. For many Americans, the hope of a new job grows more desperate the longer they are unemployed.

Jack Walerius has not had full-time work for more than 3 years and has lost count of the number of times he has applied for a job. He recently told CBS News:

From my perspective, from my eyes, I still see that we're

in a deep recession.

Today, we have an opportunity to advance reforms that will give workers like Jack a better chance to succeed. Our economy is extremely competitive and constantly changing. Unfortunately, the workforce training system has failed to keep up. It's not surprising when you consider the size of the bureaucracy that now exists.

This chart is a snapshot of the current job training system. It includes more than 50 programs spread across nine Federal agencies. President Obama described it as a ``maze of confusing training programs.'' I completely agree.

The current system is inefficient and ineffective. For individuals served through the Workforce Investment Act, less than one in five completed training. Fewer than half of those who received employment assistance such as job searches and resume writing were able to find work.

To make matters worse, Federal mandates stifle the engagement and innovation of employers and State and local leaders. Onerous rules prevent workers from accessing the training they need when they need it. And taxpayer dollars are being spent with little accountability.

A bloated bureaucracy is standing between workers and the support they need. We've tried the Washington-knows-best approach, and it isn't working. It's time to move in a new direction. It is time for a workforce training system that empowers job creators to meet the demands of a dynamic economy. It is time to give State and local leaders greater freedom to serve their communities. It is time for a workforce training system that spends taxpayer money wisely. It is time to invest less

in bureaucracy and more in workers and training.

The SKILLS Act will help us reach these goals. The legislation replaces 35 ineffective and duplicative programs with a new Workforce Investment Fund. No more maze of programs. Instead, workers will get help through one simple and flexible source of employment support.

The bill strengthens the role of job creators, as well as State and local leaders, who know best the needs of their workforce. Doing so will ensure the skills workers receive can be applied to the jobs of today and the future, not the past.

The legislation also makes sure our most vulnerable workers-- including veterans, disadvantaged youth and individuals with disabilities--are being served. Finally, the SKILLS Act provides accountability over the use of taxpayer dollars. If a program demonstrates a pattern of failure, then taxpayers will know about it.

Madam Chair, for 10 years, Congress has talked about job training reform but has failed to make reform a reality. It is time to fix the broken job training system and help put more Americans back to work.

I urge my colleagues to support the SKILLS Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I'm very pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, the chairman of the Health Subcommittee, Dr. Roe.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby).

Madam Chair, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

I now yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Workforce Protections Subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada, a member of the committee, Dr. Heck.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), the chairman of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee on the committee.

Madam Chair, at this time I'm very pleased and honored to yield 1 minute to the distinguished House majority leader, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Madam Chair, can I inquire as to the time remaining on each side.

Madam Chair, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), a member of the committee.

I see our last speaker hasn't arrived on the floor, and I don't know that he will. So in the interest of keeping this moving, I'll reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We believe that the SKILLS Act is genuine, commonsense reform addressing a real problem that our Nation has faced for years. This authorization expired in 2003; and so under Republicans and Democrats, we've been unable to get legislation passed into law through the committee, through the House, and move it forward. There have been all sorts of reasons for this. Sometimes it was just recognized that it's too hard; but in any case, we haven't been able to move it. And that includes, frankly, under 4 years when the other side had the majority, chaired this committee, and in fact had a majority in the House and the Senate and the White House and were unable to move legislation forward.

So I appreciate the calls for bipartisanship. I'm not entirely sure why walking out of a markup engenders further bipartisan support. Nevertheless, that's what we're faced with.

This legislation was thoughtfully developed after the committee convened multiple hearings over the last 3 years, examined the testimony of dozens of witnesses, including Governors and State and local workforce investment leaders. This ongoing debate has been open and fair.

When we had this bill in the committee last year, amendments were offered by Republicans and Democrats. Amendments passed, as offered by Republicans and Democrats. We have to move this legislation forward. We can no longer afford the failed status quo that wastes taxpayer dollars and prevents people from getting the skills they need to get the jobs that are available today.

The SKILLS Act will strengthen the workforce training system, make our Nation more competitive in the 21st century, and help put Americans back to work.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 803, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, but I do not intend to oppose the amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the involvement of the gentleman. He's brought forward a good amendment. It will help veterans translate and hone their wartime skills to civilian use in an important and growing sector. A focus on advanced manufacturing training for veterans will allow our Nation's heroes to get relevant and important training while increasing their earnings potential, so we support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for bringing forward this very solid amendment.

We know that, under Republican administrations and Democrat administrations, departments are required by law to submit all kinds of reports, but there are no consequences, so they don't do it, and we have to do our job in the dark. I appreciate his recognizing this shortfall and for taking this step, and I support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

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

Despite the extraordinary mischaracterization of the bill and some pretty amazing straw men that have been put forward today, let's look at what we really have here. This chart shows the situation that we've got today. This myriad of programs, I would call this bureaucracy run amok. I might call it red tape, as one of the colleagues from the other side suggested I might call it. It is confusing at best.

And this is what the President had to say about it. He said: It's a maze of confusing training programs. He said that last year. I thought he meant it. I'm not sure about his statement today. Maybe he has changed his mind, but he called it a maze.

So what are we going to do about this maze, this red tape, this bureaucracy? We recommend simplifying it, making it easier to use, helping people get the training they need, not the bureaucracy for them to wade through. So we took the information from the Government Accountability Office. We looked at the statements coming from the administration and departments. We looked at programs that even the administration had recommended to stop funding, and we said: Let's make this simple. Let's make this easier. Let's let the local workforce boards who know their communities, with the employers in their communities, make it easier for people to get work, and we put together a bill that has one workforce investment fund. Not a maze, not confusing, less red tape, easier to use, something that the people who need work can use so that you don't have less than one in five who show up to that maze actually getting the training they need.

And what have the Democrats proposed? Well, let's take a look at that chart. They took the current system and they boldly eliminated one program that hasn't been funded since 2003, and they added six more. I don't see how that helps us get where we need to go. I don't see how that helps get the millions of unemployed back to work. I don't see how that helps employers who have 3.6 million openings get those jobs filled.

We need action here. That's what we believe our bill does. This is what their bill does. I recommend that we support the SKILLS Act and reject this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, can I now inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chief deputy whip, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire: The gentleman from Massachusetts has no other speakers and has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, interesting discussion today about what constitutes bipartisanship. I would just note, for the record, that when we attempted to reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act in the last Congress and we moved it through committee, amendments were offered by Republicans and Democrats, and amendments offered by Republicans and Democrats were included. In fact, some of those Democrat amendments are included in the underlying bill today.

Look, there have been accusations all morning about how the SKILLS Act is going to stop training for all sorts of people, and we had various straw men here. It was women and people with disabilities and all manner of things that we were just going to shut out.

But as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, sometimes it's helpful to actually read the language. And so in the SKILLS Act, in the underlying bill, it insists that State and local boards put together a plan that has a description of how the local area and the State ``will serve the employment and training needs of dislocated workers (including displaced homemakers), low-income individuals (including recipients of public assistance such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), long-term unemployed individuals (including individuals who have exhausted entitlement to State and Federal unemployment compensation), English learners, homeless individuals, individuals training for nontraditional employment, youth (including out-of-school youth and at-risk youth), older workers, ex-offenders, migrant and seasonal farmworkers, refugee and entrants, veterans (including disabled veterans and homeless veterans), and Native Americans.''

It's in the bill. We believe that we have a choice in front of us today. We brought forth a bill that says we need to address these needs with this program. It's simple and straightforward, allowing these people the opportunity to go and directly get the training they need, to get rid of that confusing maze, to get rid of red tape, and allow people to get the training they need, including all these people.

What has been proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts to address these needs is this program--the current program, minus one, and six new programs. More complicated, bigger maze, more red tape, harder to use. It serves these very people poorly.

So I ask my colleagues to vote against the gentleman's amendment and support the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I seek time in opposition to the motion.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the passion of my friend and colleague, the ranking member on the Education and the Workforce Committee, on this and on so many issues.

It's no doubt personal incomes have been flat in recent years and unemployment remains high: 12 million Americans unemployed, some 22 million Americans underemployed. Unemployment among youth is extraordinarily high. People are trying to get into the workforce, and they can't get in. We need jobs out there.

The best approach right now is to get Federal spending under control and government out of the way of the Nation's job creators. Republicans are always willing to discuss responsible proposals that will promote economic growth and help people get to work. Since the motion to recommit would force this committee to advance a proposal that may hurt workers and job creators and increase unemployment, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 113 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 113 provides for a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 803, the Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills Act, also known simply as the SKILLS Act.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House will consider the SKILLS Act, which reauthorizes the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, of 1998. While these programs have continued to receive funding through the appropriations process, the WIA authorization expired in 2003.

WIA seeks to coordinate local employment services through a unified workforce development service and a one-stop career center delivery system. Reforming the Nation's workforce development system is critical, and in these difficult economic times, when roughly 20 million Americans are struggling to find adequate work, we cannot afford to delay action any longer. Delay is costly for those seeking to find work. Today, many unemployed and underemployed Americans have turned to Federal workforce education programs to develop the skills they need to be competitive for jobs, but instead of an easy-to- navigate, responsive system, many have found a complex bureaucracy unresponsive to their needs and concerns.

In January 2011, the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, identified 47 separate and distinct workforce development programs across nine different Federal agencies that cost taxpayers approximately $18 billion annually. The GAO report found that almost all of these programs were duplicative and overlapping, that only five of these programs had had any type of evaluation, and that those evaluations had not been very effective ones.

Through the Education and the Workforce Committee's oversight of the WIA system, even more programs have been identified, and the true number of Federal workforce development programs is greater than 50. We know this is a problem, and we all agree this needs to change. President Obama recognized the challenge of the current bureaucratic system in his 2012 State of the Union address. Let me quote the President directly:

I want to cut through the maze of confusing training

programs so that, from now on, people have one program, one

place to go, for all the information and help that they need.

These are among the many reasons I introduced the SKILLS Act earlier this year. This legislation streamlines 35 duplicative Federal workforce development programs, and it creates a single workforce investment fund to serve employers, workers, and job seekers.

The SKILLS Act establishes a dynamic, employer-driven workforce development system by ensuring that two-thirds of the State and local Workforce Investment Boards' members are employers, and it repeals 19 federally mandated board positions. This legislation expands decisionmaking at State and local levels so that these individuals can make the best decisions to meet the needs of their communities.

The bill also addresses the administrative bloat in Washington by requiring the Office of Management and Budget to identify and reduce the number of Federal staff working on employment workforce development programs that will be consolidated under this bill. The SKILLS Act holds these programs accountable for taxpayer dollars spent by requiring annual performance evaluations and by establishing common performance metrics.

The bill also allows States to determine eligible training providers, simplifying the bureaucratic process that has forced many community colleges and other providers out of the system, and it gives local boards the flexibility to work directly with community colleges to educate large groups of participants. Additionally, the SKILLS Act encourages these programs to focus on in-demand jobs and industries so that participants will be able to succeed in the workplace upon completion, and it ensures that funds are spent directly on services rather than on administration and bureaucrats. This bill improves transparency by requiring States and local areas to report annually on administrative costs.

Each day we delay is another day employers are not hiring the workers they need, another day unemployed workers are not receiving the best technical education and another day taxpayer dollars are wasted on red tape and well-intentioned but broken programs. We have a responsibility to move this process forward. The time to act is now.

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

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

I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Colorado, as he's on the Education Committee. And I certainly wish that he and his colleagues had stayed in the Education Committee markup on this bill and offered the many ideas he said that they had to make it better; but, unfortunately, they walked out and did not take the opportunity to offer those amendments in the committee.

I would now like to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. Speaker, I am used to hyperbole on this floor. I'm used to hyperbole from my colleague from Massachusetts, but I really think this one was a little over the top.

This bill does not kill the employment program with SNAP, and only 6.8 percent of the recipients of food stamps even participate in that program. So to say that this bill is going to create additional hunger in this country is really over the top a little bit.

The best way we can help people who are hungry in this country is to help them get a good-paying job, and that's what we need to be doing.

With that, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of a line from ``The Canterbury Tales'': The gentleman doth protest too much.

We're told that this is a partisan bill, that the efforts of the other side were in vain.

Well, let me remind my colleague, he's one of the members of the committee that walked out of the committee meeting. When there was the opportunity for the Democrats to offer amendments, they did not do it. However, some amendments were offered before the Rules Committee, and we have all of the amendments that were submitted by the Democrats and not withdrawn that are going to be considered today.

The Democrat substitute amendment was made in order, and I appreciate Mr. Polis acknowledging that. And we've given them extended debate time. So it's not exactly as though we are shutting them out of this process.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from North Carolina, Congresswoman Ellmers.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Indiana, a member of the Education and Workforce Committee, Mrs. Brooks.

Mr. Speaker, we do have additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to now yield 3 minutes to another distinguished colleague from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

Yes, we do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have continued to malign what they call a ``political process.'' Regular order, Mr. Speaker, is not political process.

The SKILLS Act has been posted online for nearly a month. The Higher Education and Workforce Training Subcommittee held a legislative hearing on this bill on February 26, and a full committee markup last Thursday. Unfortunately, the Democrats opposed the open transparent process of markup and instead requested that members of the committee hold closed-door negotiations. During the markup, the Democrats ultimately walked out and refused even to offer amendments. This is not what the American people asked for in the 2012 elections. They asked us to work together in a transparent, bipartisan way to address our country's challenges, and we gave our colleagues that opportunity. They refused it.

Last year, the committee accepted four Democrat amendments during consideration of the Workforce Investment Improvement Act, the predecessor of the SKILLS Act. These four amendments are retained in the base text of the SKILLS Act, hardly a partisan approach.

My Republican colleagues and I on the Education Committee have shown we're willing and ready to work with our Democrat colleagues, and it's unfortunate that they instead chose a partisan walkout.

In contrast, under Democrat control in the 110th and 111th Congresses, the House considered 66 bills that were referred to the Education and Workforce Committee, but received no committee consideration before being brought to the House floor.

The SKILLS Act has gone through an open and transparent process, and it is unfortunate that Democrats have been unwilling to participate in regular committee process.

Additionally, the rule before us today provides consideration of six amendments, including all amendments submitted to the Rules Committee by Democrats that were not withdrawn before the Rules Committee hearing. As I stated before, the Democrat substitute amendment was made in order with extended debate time. This exceedingly fair rule is a culmination of a transparent, regular order which allows my colleagues across the aisle multiple opportunities to argue for their approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, it appears now that we do not have any additional speakers, and if the gentleman from Colorado is prepared to close, I will also be prepared.

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

The world has changed greatly since 1998 when this legislation was first authorized and even since 2003 when this legislation was last reauthorized.

I'm very concerned that my colleague has said that this legislation is flawed and that we did not participate or provide a bipartisan process. This is an example of Democrats blaming Republicans for what they themselves do. We gave our colleagues every opportunity to come help fix the flaws in this legislation through regular order. They chose not to do it.

The President said in his 2012 State of the Union Address:

It is time to turn our employment system into a

reemployment system that puts people to work.

With 12 million Americans looking for work, the SKILLS Act makes commonsense reforms to a broken workforce development system to remove inefficiencies and ensure that individuals are able to get the education skills they need to find a job.

Now the President is saying that he will veto this legislation, and yet it does exactly what he asked us to do. This is another example of the President saying one thing and doing another.

The SKILLS Act takes a crucial step forward in the fight to eliminate red tape and create a more effective system to better serve and prepare Americans to compete in the 21st-century workforce. I hope the legislation will see swift approval in the House and Senate and the SKILLS Act will be on the President's desk in the coming weeks to see if he, indeed, will veto the bill that he asked for.

Mr. Speaker, the SKILLS Act will build a more dynamic and responsive workforce development system, give priority to well-paying, in-demand industries, expand opportunities at community colleges, and--most importantly--treat all job seekers as individuals. These changes are critical at a time when the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that more than 3.6 million open jobs are going unfilled because there aren't enough skilled candidates. Let's reform these programs to serve employers and individuals in an effective and efficient manner.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Chair, the House today is considering Republican legislation that reauthorizes the Workforce Investment Act. Rewriting the Workforce Investment Act is an important task, and it should be taken seriously. It should be an opportunity to address some significant challenges in our economy, including how to educate and train a diverse workforce with the skills required to compete in a global market.

For 40 years, this task has been taken seriously by Members of both parties. Job training legislation was generally bipartisan. So I wish we were here to present a bipartisan bill on the floor. I wish we were here to discuss the product of months of bipartisan negotiations. I wish we were here to consider getting something done for the American people.

But that's not the point of today's exercise. Today, we are here to meet a deadline set by the majority leader as part of a rebranding strategy. This bill is a political product. It puts ideology over practical solutions and evidence-based reforms. It fails to take a thoughtful approach to what our workers and businesses need. It decisively walks away from the program's mission of helping our most disadvantaged workers. That is why I oppose this bill.

First, the bill eliminates and consolidates programs simply for the sake of elimination and consolidation. The populations served by these programs often face daunting challenges in the job market. Youth, older workers, farm workers, workers with disabilities, English-language learners, veterans and low-income workers are among those who face the greatest barriers to employment. Yet, programs that serve these populations are the very programs targeted by the Republicans.

Even worse, the bill eliminates the directive requiring these poorest workers to be given priority of service. With limited money, hard-to- serve populations will be left out in the cold. And we have yet to hear any credible evidence that eliminating these programs will save taxpayer money. We have yet to hear any credible evidence that these programs are duplicative, nor have we heard credible evidence that this approach will make the system work better.

In fact, the Government Accountability Office warned that this one- size-fits-all approach may make services less accessible to the many groups considered hard to serve. Second, the bill restructures the workforce system in a way that locks out key stakeholders and leaves the system vulnerable to favoritism.

The legislation arbitrarily mandates that workforce boards increase business participation of the board from 51 percent to 67 percent. This will allow people in power to lock out key stakeholders, including labor, community-based organizations, community colleges, or people who work with youth or workers with disabilities. These stakeholders know how to get training to the people. And they provide a voice for the very people who need training and the very people looking for work.

The Republican bill will also allow Governors to remove local control so that local communities won't be able to direct their own workforce systems. Yet local communities working with local businesses, workers, and other organizations know best how to respond to their economic needs.

Finally, the Republican bill essentially turns funding into a block grant and freezes authorization levels for 6 years. We all know that this is a code word for cutting funding. That's what the Republicans have been doing in the CR, and that's what the Republicans have been doing in sequestration.

The Democrats have a different version. We agree that the current system is in need of significant reform. So don't believe the other side who falsely say that we want the status quo. The system should be improved in ways to maintain our Nation's commitment to expand opportunity for all Americans. We want to make job training programs more efficient and more effective. This can be accomplished by requiring unified plans that streamline and coordinate these services. Democrats want to ensure real accountability so everyone knows which programs work and which programs don't work.

Finally, we want to promote innovation in the workforce system by fully engaging community colleges. This can be done by ensuring that there are resources for community colleges to effectively respond to economic challenges and to meet future industry needs.

This should be Congress' way forward to strengthen the workforce investment system. Congress should not be dismantling the system and leaving those who need help the most at the back of the line. I'm disappointed that we have reached this point on this very important topic. For months, the Democrats have extended a hand to work together with the Republican majority.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the ranking member on a subcommittee of the Education and the Workforce Committee.

I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), one of the primary cosponsors of the Democratic alternative.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of the committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a member of the committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

I yield myself 30 seconds.

In closing, I think what's clear from the speakers on the Democratic side who spoke this morning is that it was really quite possible to have a bipartisan bill come to the floor of the

House out of our committee. We offered to enter into Member-to-Member negotiations. That offer was not taken up.

This bill was introduced 1 week in a hearing and reported the next. And the fact of the matter is I think there's a great desire on both sides of the aisle to make this a well-run, well-functioning program for the people who need it so they can get back into the workforce in the American economy. But, unfortunately, that didn't happen, and we're now left with a partisan bill, much like we were last year. I think, unfortunately, it's going to make it very difficult to get a good job- training bill to the President's desk for his signature.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, last week, I met a young man named Gregory Reynoso. He lives in Brooklyn. He is married, and they have a little girl who will soon turn 3 years old. He is a pizza delivery man. He makes $7.25 an hour, but he can't make ends meet. As Gregory told me, if he pays one bill, he can't pay another.

He told me: I'm delivering food to other people all day, but sometimes I need food stamps so my family can eat.

When I look at the bill before us, I think of Gregory and a million other hardworking Americans like him. The bill before us is not for him. He's low-income. Under this bill, he loses his priority of service even if he wanted to train to try to get new skills for a better job with better wages to provide for his family. With this bill, he wouldn't be able to. With this bill, we shouldn't ask what it does for people like Gregory but what it does to them.

Under the Foxx bill, seniors and youth no longer have wage protections. Low-income workers no longer get priority of service. The voices of labor and community colleges are squeezed off the Workforce Investment Boards, and the poor and disadvantaged get the shaft.

We propose this motion to do something different so that, no matter what happens with the adoption of the Foxx bill, the poor will get a better shot at better jobs, and those who are working in low-wage jobs will get a decent wage. This amendment raises the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. It indexes it to inflation, and gives tipped workers a raise for the first time in 20 years. For the first time in 20 years, they will get a shot at a raise and a decent wage for the work that they do in waiting on other people.

Without an increase in years, the working poor have been falling further and further behind. While corporate profits soar, while the Dow breaks new records, and while the CEOs take home 380 times the wages of average workers, the lowest paid workers are falling behind. If we vote to raise the minimum wage, we pump more than $32 billion into the economy, money into working people's pockets, money into Main Street small businesses, money spent locally, money that generates demand, and demand that generates jobs.

A minimum wage increase pays for itself. Some businesses might have to pay higher wages, but they'll see higher revenues thanks to higher demand. The number one complaint from small businesses, according to Steve Case, the founder of AOL, is that there are not enough customers on Main Street because they're not earning enough money. They can't spend on Main Street because they're not earning enough money. That's why business owners are coming out for the raise--large businesses, like the CEO of Costco--encouraging and supporting the minimum wage; small businesses, like the restaurant owner Andy Shallal who came out for the minimum wage; and business leaders like the CEO of the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce. In 2005, the chairman of the board of Walmart came out for the minimum wage because, like today, their customers don't have enough money to buy the necessities of life. So think what this means if they can have an increase in the minimum wage. Think what this means to those individuals.

Over two-thirds of the people in this country support an increase to the minimum wage. A majority of self-identified Republicans support an increase in the minimum wage. We must understand that this is a pay raise for 30 million Americans. Half of those workers are women in this country; 88 percent of those workers are at least 20 years of age; and 17 million children will live in families that will get an increase in the wages and the incomes to those families.

These hardworking Americans have suffered enough in the Great Recession. Enough of the attacks on Medicare, Head Start, and now job training. Let's do something different this time. Let's do something that's right. Let's reward work for people who go to work every day in very difficult jobs, in sometimes very dirty jobs, in sometimes very demeaning jobs. They work every day, and they go home poor. At the end of the year, they end up poor. They work 52 weeks--they end up poor. They work in tough jobs--they end up poor.

Now is your opportunity to reward work to provide them. Let's help these individuals. Let's help these families. Let's raise the minimum wage. It's time for $10.10 an hour. Vote ``yes'' on the final passage-- the vote for the minimum wage--and protect seniors, protect veterans, protect low-income workers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcements by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.