TheWeekInCongress.com
Week Ending March 4, 2005
HR 27 Job Training Improvement Act of 2005
BRIEF
This is the second round for the bill which was blocked in 2004 by the Minority due to provisions including the one that raised questions about the application of civil rights laws to faith-based organizations involved in training programs who do not want to hire employees of a different religion.
In other provisions the bill impacts the makeup of State Workforce Investment Boards; increases the range of services offered by One Stop Career Centers; combines funding streams; leaves qualifications of an employment trainer up to the States; expands nationally the Personal Reemployment Accounts pilot program ($3,000 for 13 weeks. About $1,000 per month, the $3,000 would be to purchase job training and services, child care, housing assistance, transportation.).
The bill would also protect the “rights” of faith-based groups “to participate in the nation’s job training system”. Bill supporters and supporting documents assert that the 1964 Civil Rights Act {The Act} “…makes clear that faith-based groups have the right to hire workers on a religious basis and that such hiring practices do not constitute discrimination.”. The interpretation of what is and is not allowed by the Civil Rights Act met with the argument that allowing for hiring decisions based on the applicant’s faith does not apply when taxpayer funds are in the mix. Bill supporters argue that President Clinton signed four bills into law since 1998 that did allow such hiring discrimination when taxpayer funds were in the mix. Opponents further held that the essence of anti-discrimination prevents qualified applicants from being rejected due to race, religion and other factors, but this bill allows faith-based organizations to reject a qualified applicant of a different religion because of their differing religious belief.
The question put to practical reality may well be, “should a faith-based organization receiving taxpayer funds be allowed to reject a qualified applicant and taxpayer because that applicant is not of the same faith?”
Funds for the Out-of-School Youth Program that now go to students in and out of school would be more focused on those who are out of school. The bill limits standards for performance accountability of these programs to four for adults and four for youths.
Adult education would assure a focus on reading, writing, speaking and math and ensure instructional practices are based on scientific research. Vocational rehabilitation aims to continue helping the disabled become employable.
Sponsor: Representative Howard P. McKeon (R-CA-25th)
Vote: Passed House 224 to 200, 9 not voting. (Mar. 2, 2005) (RC 48) A motion to recommit the bill with instructions failed 197 to 228, 8 not voting. (Mar 2, 2005) (RC 47)
Cost to the taxpayers:
## All Rights Reserved. © 2005 TheWeekInCongress.com No reproduction or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.
MORE INFORMATION
A FACT VERSUS FICTION REPORT FROM BILL SUPPORTERS
COMMENTS:
“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.”
Rep. Mark E. Souder (R-IN-3rd)
“I want to further elaborate on the last point in this amendment's attack on religious liberty in the United States, that in fact the interpretation in the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the language permitting religious organizations to staff on a religious basis in matters concerning employment when they receive Federal funds, in a unanimous decision.
“Finding that the exemption did not violate the establishment clause, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is ``a permissible legislative purpose to alleviate significant governmental interference with the ability of religious organizations to define and carry out their religious missions.''
“Even where the content of their activities is secular, in the sense that activities do not include religious teaching, proselytizing, or worship, and it is very important for everybody to understand, we all agree you cannot have prayer, you cannot proselytize, you cannot use government funds for anything but a secular purpose in job training, Justice Brennan, hardly a conservative, said that even if a religious organization is providing job training, which would be a secular thing, it is likely to be infused with a religious purpose. In other words, the motivation of the individuals probably is religious.
“He also recognized that churches and other religious entities ``often regard the provision of such services as a means of fulfilling religious duty and of providing an example of the way of life a church seeks to foster.'' He is perhaps one of the greatest liberal justices of all time. And then he recognized that preserving the title VII protections when religious organizations engage in social services is a necessary element of religious freedom.
“This attempt to redefine the Supreme Court in today's debate is unfortunate. It is, in my opinion, bigotry against many religious people in the United States who would like to provide assistance to the poor, who would like to leverage their funds, their volunteer time, their churches, but are being told that even though they accept everybody in, even though they cannot proselytize with it, that they are not welcome to participate, they are going to have their liberties taken away.
“For example, a case we often hear, well, they can set up a 501(c)3 or not have that reach, but Catholic Charities, an organization that historically has taken funds and it is often held up, the California Supreme Court just said that because Catholic Charities offers secular services to clients and does not directly preach Catholic values, it is therefore not a religious organization. Therefore, the court ruled that Catholic Charities must provide services contrary to their religious principles.”
Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA)
“I rise in opposition to this amendment. The 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly protects the rights of religious organizations to take religion into account in 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 does not constitute discrimination under Federal law.
“The writers of that legislation understood that a church, a synagogue, a mosque all operate as distinctly religious organizations. They are, therefore, protected under the first amendment's right to the free exercise of religion.
“Why are we being asked today, then, to approve an amendment that revokes the constitutional right of faith-based communities to practice their religions freely? This amendment would revoke the constitutionally protected right of faith-based groups to maintain their religious nature and character through those they hire. By denying the rights of religious organizations to hire according to their principles, this amendment declares war between the government and faith-based organizations, it cuts services for people in need, it eliminates the role of faith-based organizations in our government efforts to help.
“I doubt that the gentleman from Virginia would support an amendment forcing him to hire staff who oppose his values and priorities as a legislator. Why then are we being asked to call it discriminatory when a Christian or Muslim charity wants to consider the beliefs of potential employees before hiring them? Such practices have been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. If this amendment passes, we might as well revisit the Civil Rights Act itself, since we would be rewriting it today.”
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA-6th)
“There has been some discussion about previous language that many Members on the other side of the aisle have adopted in previous bills, four pieces of legislation under the Clinton administration. President Clinton himself said that no discrimination with employment in the bills that were adopted, and we have heard about them, the welfare reform, the community renewal tax relief, Community Services Block Grant, substance abuse. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) himself said that there has been no discrimination since 1965.
“Well, the exact identical language in this bill was in those. If there is this incredible occurrence that is happening out there with this remarkable discrimination, where are the examples under those bills? Where are the examples of discrimination under those bills that have exactly the same language as this bill that we are promoting here?”
“H.R. 27 would allow faith-based organizations to discriminate not just on the basis of a person's religious affiliation, but also on how closely they follow the tenets of that religion. This would include religious beliefs on medical treatments; procedures; marriage; pregnancy; gender; and, yes, even race.
“Under this bill, if a woman providing workforce rehabilitation services in a faith-based organization was found to be using birth control, she could be fired, demoted, or not promoted. Or if a faith-based organization frowned upon women working outside the home, they could deny a woman a job just because of her gender or even deny it to her husband for allowing such a breach.”
“Mr. Chairman, this debate is about one question that each Member and each American should ask himself or herself. This is the question: Should any American citizen have to pass someone else's private religious test to qualify for a tax-funded job? I think the vast majority of Americans would answer that question, absolutely not.
“Should the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who is the author of this bill, have to come to me if I get a $5 million job computer training grant from the Federal Government under this bill, should the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) have to come to me and answer a 20-point religious questionnaire? Should the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) have to say whether or not he believes in Jesus Christ, whether or not he believes in evolution, whether or not he believes in the literal interpretation of the New Testament?
“I do not think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) should have to answer those kinds of questions to me as a recipient of a $5 million job training grant. And without the Scott amendment, that is exactly what could happen under this bill.
“For those who oppose the Scott amendment, let me say what you are endorsing. You are saying it is okay for a church associated with Bob Jones University, at least based on its past philosophy, it can take a $1 million job training grant and pay for a sign that says, No Jews Or Catholics Need Apply Here For a Federally Funded Job. Do you really think that is right?”
“Current law prohibits sponsors of job training programs from discriminating in hiring based on race or religion. This amendment will keep the law the way it has been since 1965. We have heard some comments about title VII. Title VII gives the religious organization an exemption to discriminate with its own money. It was never intended to apply to Federal money.
“In any event, there has been no discrimination in job training programs with Federal money, whether it is faith-based sponsored or otherwise since 1965.
“Speakers have suggested that religious organizations have barriers to participation. They do not say what the barrier is. The barrier is that you cannot discriminate in employment with the Federal money. Any program that can get funded under this new language in the bill could be funded anyway under the traditional funding, no discrimination, if the sponsor would agree not to discriminate in employment. That has been the rule since 1965.”
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
“Yesterday President Bush called on Congress, and let me quote, ``to judge faith-based groups by results, not by their religion.''
“Well, current law does judge faith-based organizations by results, not by their religion. But sadly, the supporters of H.R. 27 would allow federally-funded job training programs to judge job applicants by their religion, not by their results.
“Under H.R. 27, a faith-based grantee could refuse to hire the best qualified person for the grant or even fire its best worker because they are not the right religion. That is wrong, it is unconstitutional, and it is bad policy.
“When people who desperately need a job seek help, they do not care about the religion of the person helping them, they do care that the person helping them was hired because he or she was the best qualified person, and they do care that the person helping them is not concerned about their religion. But when the people providing help are hired because of their own religion, it is naive to think that religion will not permeate the help that they provide, no matter what H.R. 27 says.
“The proof of this slippery slope is in the President's words. In talking about a hypothetical federally-funded Methodist alcohol treatment center, he said that the policy should be that ``all are welcome, welcome to be saved so they become sober.''
“I support every American's right to seek salvation through their religion, but our only interest in federally-funded programs should be whether they provide qualified services for which they are funded. No, this amendment does not discriminate against religion, it protects people from discrimination because of their religion.
“In closing, I will correct a third misunderstanding, that the faith community opposes this amendment. A wide range of faith-based organizations support this amendment because they recognize that it is not an attack on American religious freedoms, but a defense of those freedoms.”
Rep. Chris Van Hollen ( D-MD-8th)
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not say in any way that religious organizations can take taxpayer dollars and then discriminate in their hiring based on religion when they are providing services based on those dollars. The issue is very simple. Taxes are paid by Christians, by Jews, by Muslims, by people of all denominations. We are now using those resources to provide to faith-based organizations, and what the bill would allow people to do is to say to somebody who is coming to apply for a job to provide job training services, you know what, we know you are qualified, we know you have a great education, know you can do a good job in providing job training services, but you are the wrong religion. We do not want you because you are Christian, we do not want you because you are Jewish, we do not want you because you are the wrong religion. That is a terrible message to be sending to people throughout this country. In fact, it is a great irony that in a bill that is designed to provide job training to help more people get jobs, we would put in a provision that would deny someone an opportunity to get a job providing job training based on their religion.”
“President Reagan, who signed the original version of this legislation 23 years ago, did not think it was necessary to allow employment discrimination with Federal funds. No one should ever be told that they cannot hold a job simply because they profess the wrong faith. And why is this necessary? Are religiously affiliated charities unable to participate in federally social services programs? Is there a single Member of this House who has not held secure government funds for such programs? For Catholic Charities? The Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies? The Jewish Federation, and countless others? We all get these funds. That is no secret.
“The only thing required of these organizations is that they play by the same rules as everyone else. They cannot make professing religious faith a precondition of receiving social services paid for with the taxpayers' dollars, and they cannot discriminate in employment when those jobs are paid for with taxpayers' dollars.
FICTION: The bill allows faith-based providers to discriminate with federal funds, undermining civil rights protections.
FACT: The landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act has made clear for decades that when faith-based organizations hire employees on a religious basis, they are exercising their civil liberties and not “discriminating.” H.R. 27 simply gives faith-based groups the same protections in WIA programs that they already have in other federal initiatives, such as welfare reform and the anti-poverty Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program, because of legislation signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton that protected these rights for faith-based groups. President Bush has called on Congress to protect these same rights for faith-based groups in other programs that serve Americans in need of assistance, such as WIA.
H.R. 27 would allow faith-based providers to participate fully in WIA’s one-stop career center system without relinquishing their religious identities. For example, a Catholic organization that hires Catholic individuals for its staff or other individuals who share the mission and values of the organization would be protected against bogus claims that it is “discriminating.” Religious organizations have this right under Title VII of the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act. Unfortunately, some federal programs today have infringed upon that right, creating a disincentive for faith-based groups to bring their talents and compassion into the job training system, where they could be a great asset for Americans in need of help. H.R. 27 protects this right for faith-based groups willing to lend a hand in the WIA system, much as the welfare reform law signed by President Clinton protects those same rights for faith-based groups willing to lend a hand in welfare reform.
Faith-based providers cannot be expected to sustain their religious mission without the ability to employ individuals who share the tenets and practices of their faith or who are dedicated to upholding the values of the organization because it is that faith and values that motivates them to serve their neighbors in trouble. Such practices were upheld by a unanimous United States Supreme Court decision (Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos) in 1987. Simply put, faith-based providers who are willing to help provide job training and other critical social services shouldn’t be denied the opportunity.
Former President Bill Clinton signed four laws that explicitly allow religious organizations to retain their right to staff on a religious basis when they receive federal funds. Those laws are: the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (through the Children’s Health Act of 2000); the Community Services Block Grant Act of 1998; the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996 (welfare reform law); and the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000.
FICTION: Consolidating the three adult WIA programs would result in fewer services for job seekers.
FACT: Consolidating the three adult WIA programs will enable more job seekers to be served, with no reduction in services. States and local communities must be given greater flexibility to tailor job training systems to their own unique needs. Currently, the three WIA adult job training programs (WIA adult, WIA dislocated worker, and Wagner-Peyser employment services funding streams) provide similar services to similar populations. Overlap among the three adult training programs has contributed to the growth of a confusing patchwork at the state and local level, resulted in resources being squandered, and reduced the amount of money available for employment and training services. As Bush administration officials have told Congress, consolidating these three adult programs (which is reflected in H.R. 27, the Job Training Improvement Act) into a single grant would streamline program administration at the state and local level and reduce current duplication and inefficiency. It would also give states and local authorities greater flexibility to target the most appropriate services to serve the unique needs of individuals.
Consolidating the three adult program funding streams will eliminate duplication while maintaining all employment service functions within the one-stop delivery system. Under current law, both WIA and the Wagner-Peyser Act provide funds for services to connect job seekers with available jobs, including job search and placement assistance. Many one-stop career centers offer such services through self-serve computer stations where individuals may access job listings, write a resume, and more. All adults are eligible for these services, regardless of income. Under WIA, these are called “core services,” while under Wagner-Peyser they are called “labor exchange services.” Although each program has a different term, the services are essentially the same. H.R. 27 incorporates as core services two services specifically identified in Wegner-Peyser – appropriate recruitment services for employers and the administration of the work test for the unemployment compensation system – to ensure WIA’s core services under the consolidated state grant will maintain all the services formerly provided under the three separate programs.
FICTION: Republicans are working to cut funding for job training programs.
FACT: The Republican goal is not to reduce funding for job training programs, but rather to ensure more workers are served for the money we are already spending. WIA is a discretionary program, so funding depends on the appropriations process. While the appropriators ultimately will determine the allocation of those dollars, sufficient funds have been available in past years to enhance job training services through the one-stop delivery system. For the consolidated adult grant, the bill authorizes the same amount in FY 2006 the three individual programs received in FY 2005. In addition, by consolidating programs and reducing bureaucracy and inefficiency as provided in H.R. 27, local one-stops will have even more flexibility to provide training and other resources to Americans looking to take advantage of these opportunities. In a time of war and increased spending on mandatory entitlement programs, Republicans are committed to prioritizing funding for effective programs that provide critical training services available through the one-stop delivery system.
FICTION: The bill allows governors to take all of the funds from one of the partner programs and use it to run one-stop career centers.
FACT: Under current law, all mandatory partner programs (such as vocational education, veterans’ employment and training, and adult education, to name a few) are supposed to contribute a portion of their funding, to be determined at the local level, to the cost of operating one-stop career centers, so-called infrastructure costs. However, not all mandatory partners are currently making their contributions to help fund the operating costs at local one-stops, and the process has proven to be cumbersome, taking time and resources away from job seekers. As a result, many one-stops have faced significant funding uncertainty and have been forced to use federal WIA funds to pay for infrastructure costs, thereby reducing the funds available for job training services.
To simplify this process and provide a more stable source of funding for one-stop centers on a statewide basis, the Job Training Improvement Act places the responsibility for negotiating infrastructure costs with the state’s governor, with input and consultation from state workforce investment boards (on which partner programs are represented and have input). The governor will then allocate funds to local areas for certified one-stop career centers, which will provide a more stable stream of funding to help operate one-stops in each state. Partner programs’ contributions must be proportional to the programs’ participation in the system, and they must come from programs’ administrative funds and not program service dollars. Because of these protections, the mandatory partners’ contributions for infrastructure costs are expected to be a very small percentage of the programs’ funds, proportionate to the programs’ contribution to and use of the one-stop system.
In exchange, as members of the state board, partner programs will have new input into one-stop centers’ operations, ensuring consistent, quality services across states. This change will also simplify the process by relieving each one-stop from having to negotiate infrastructure costs with each individual program partner, provide a more stable source of operating funding for one-stop centers, and establish a more coordinated approach to addressing the individual workforce needs of local communities.
FICTION: Personal reemployment accounts “voucherize” the job training system and undermine the unemployment insurance system.
FACT: Personal reemployment accounts (PRAs) provide new choices in services that specifically target hard to employ people and provide them with new flexibility and resources to purchase job training, child care, transportation, housing assistance, or other expenses to help in finding a new job. PRAs are a voluntary option that may be chosen by workers who feel it best meets their unique needs, whether it’s job training, transportation, or other services. PRAs are similar in concept to the individual training accounts used by individuals at many one-stop career centers to access current job training services. PRAs supplement, but do not replace, unemployment insurance benefits and provide unemployed workers with additional choices and flexibility in their job search.
FICTION: The bill eliminates job training opportunities for students by unnecessarily focusing the youth grant funding to serve out-of-school youth.
FACT: H.R. 27 aims to serve the most at-risk youth, particularly out-of-school youth such as dropouts, court-involved youth, and youth aging out of foster care, and therefore targets 70 percent of the youth grant funds to out-of-school youth. These youth are currently underserved and face significant challenges in gaining employable skills and finding employment. No other state- and locally-operated federal funding stream is dedicated toward addressing the needs of the out-of-school youth population. While maintaining the focus on out-of-school youth, the bill permits states and local areas to use up to 30 percent of their youth funds to serve in-school youth during non-school hours. Numerous other programs, largely run through the Department of Education, exist to serve in-school youth during school hours. These include: Title I grants to improve education for the disadvantaged, Reading First, Neglected and Delinquent grants to local educational agencies, Safe and Drug Free state grants, bilingual education instructional services, dropout prevention, special education grants to states through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and vocational education.
FICTION: The current employment service program (Wagner-Peyser) is operated by state employees, and since this program is being consolidated in the state grant, H.R. 27 forces states to lay off these employees.
FACT: The bill ensures the same proportion of funds that currently support locally delivered activities will continue to support local activities provided through the one-stop centers. Former employment services functions will be incorporated in the core services provided at one-stop career centers. The bill gives states the flexibility to determine how best to use their resources to deliver services at the local level. H.R. 27 also specifies that states may use funds to continue to employ state workers to provide these core services if they choose.
FICTION: States will lose money under this bill.
FACT: The bill protects current state funding levels while ensuring greater efficiency and flexibility in how those funds may be used. Since the Job Training Improvement Act combines three funding streams to serve adults, it was necessary to develop a new formula to allocate funds to states. H.R. 27 ensures in each year that no state would lose funds compared to what each state would have received under the current law formulas. Each state would receive the better of the two formulas. For the youth grants to states, the Bush Administration recommended adjusting the youth formula factors to better reflect the youth population to be served, and the bill incorporates this new formula. However, it will only apply to new money above 2005 levels appropriated for the program to ensure stability in funding for states.
FICTION: The consolidated adult grant diminishes funds for unemployed workers and pits different groups of workers against one another.
FACT: The consolidated adult grant under the bill contains a priority for unemployed workers. In addition, if funds are limited in a local area, it creates an additional priority for low-income individuals, including single parents, displaced homemakers, and pregnant single women. H.R. 27 would allow local areas to serve dislocated workers better than under current law. Current law includes limited flexibility to transfer funds between adults and dislocated workers funding. The bill would eliminate the need to obtain a waiver to spend a larger portion of funds on unemployed workers because the consolidated grant provides the flexibility to address the unique needs of each local area.
AMDT 12 to continue to apply opportunities to in-school youths. (70% of provision funding goes to out-of-school youth.
Sponsor: Rep. Dale E Kildee (D-MI-5th) Failed 200 to 222, 11 not voting (RC 44) (Mar.2, 2005)
AMDT 13 to allow unemployed workers to use their Personal Reemployment Account funds to cover the borrower guarantee costs of 7(a) loans (Small business loans)
Sponsor: Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY-12th ) Failed 202 to 221, 10 not voting. (RC 45) (Mar.2, 2005)
AMDT 14 to strike the provision that protects the hiring rights of faith based organizations when they participate in Workforce Investment Act programs
Sponsor: Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA-3rd). Failed 186 to 239, 8 not voting (RC 46) (Mar.2, 2005).
## All Rights Reserved. © 2005 TheWeekInCongress.com.
No reproduction or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.