Job Training Improvement Act of 2005
JOB TRAINING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - March 02, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia:
Strike section 129.
In the table of contents in section 2 of the bill, strike the item relating to section 129, and redesignate succeeding sections accordingly.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 126, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and a Member opposed each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman I yield myself 1 minute and 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I made a previous statement on this amendment during the consideration of the rule, so let me just say that this amendment is offered along with my colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) in order to preserve and maintain civil rights protections as they currently appear in job training law.
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.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, we are revisiting the civil rights laws. There has been no discrimination since 1965, and that is exactly what we are revisiting.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, we keep hearing that we are discriminating against religious organizations in terms of participation in government contracts. That is not true. The fact is that they can participate. When you talk about a barrier, say what the barrier is. The barrier is, there is a level playing field; you cannot discriminate.
We have also heard a lot about the 1964 Civil Rights Act. What has not been said is since 1965 there has been a specific prohibition against discrimination in Federal contracts. You have not been able to discriminate in a job training program since 1965. In fact, for defense contracts, you have not been able to discriminate since 1941.
We also heard, Mr. Chairman, about the hiring for Planned Parenthood, I believe, and what your position is on abortion or gun control or something. In the 1960s, Mr. Chairman, we passed civil rights laws to respond to our sorry history of bigotry, and we designated specific protected classes where you could not discriminate in employment, race, color, creed, national origin and sex; and you cannot discriminate against those protected classes.
There is a difference between telling somebody they cannot get a job because I do not like your position on gun control and we do not hire blacks or Jews. Race and religion are protected classes; positions on gun control and abortion are not, and there is a difference.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not propose any new initiative. The adoption of this amendment will simply keep the law the way it has been in job training programs since 1965.
Much has been said about court cases. None of those court cases involved Federal money. They involve church money and what the church can do with its church money; and whether it is religious or secular activities, it is still the church's money, not Federal money.
Since 1965 there has been no discrimination with Federal money, at least until these faith-based initiatives came along. In fact, since 1941 there has been no discrimination in defense contracts, without exception. So if you want to sell the Army some rifles, if you discriminate in employment, the Army will not buy those rifles from you.
Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said about the Clinton administration. Let me say I will be introducing into the RECORD statements made at the signing of those bills outlining the interpretation of the Clinton administration, outlining why there would be no discrimination in employment under the Clinton administration, notwithstanding the language in those various bills.
There has been no discrimination against faith-based organizations. Speakers have suggested that they cannot get contracts. The fact of the matter is that they can get contracts. In fact, anybody that can get funded under the underlying bill could be funded if the organization would simply agree not to discriminate in employment.
In 1964, a gentleman during the debate on the floor said in terms of whether or not you can get the money, "Stop the discrimination, get the money; continue the discrimination, do not get the money."
That is what we are talking about here. Telling somebody that they are not qualified for a federally paid-for job because of religion is wrong. Adopt my amendment and we will keep the law the way it has been since 1965.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov