Providing for Consideration of H.R. 803, Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong SKILLS Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. 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).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. 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).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source