2013: Schweikert Effectively Voted Against Ensuring That The Proposed SKILLS Act Would Not Diminish Employment Protections, Training Opportunities Or Education Benefits Of Certain Seniors, Veterans, Women Or Young Americans. In March 2013, Schweikert effectively voted against an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would [have] clarif[ied] that nothing in the bill would repeal, deny or loosen employment protections, training opportunities or educational benefits for certain seniors, veterans, women or youth." The vote was on a motion to recommit the underlying bill to the House Education and the Workforce Committee and report the bill back with an amendment. This was part of a larger package that would have also raised the minimum wage to $10.10 in two years. The underlying bill was the House version of the SKILLS Act. The SKILLS Act reauthorized and overhauled 35 employment and job training programs into one funding stream for state and local use. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 184 to 233. [House Vote 74, 3/15/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/15/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/15/13; Congressional Actions, HR 803]
Amendment Supporters Argued That The Underlying Bill Unfairly Targeted For Elimination Programs Established To Protect Young Workers, Working Seniors, Farm Workers, Workers With Disabilities, English-Language Learners, Veterans And Low-Income Workers, And Would Have Eliminated The Workforce Investment Act Of 1998 Directive Requiring The Poorest Workers Be Given Priority Of Service. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) said, "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." [Congressional Record, 3/15/13]
The Obama Administration Opposed The Underlying Bill, Arguing It Would Downsize Employment Programs Protecting Those With Significant Barriers To Employment, Without Providing Critical Assistance To The People Those Programs Served. According to a Statement of Administration Policy, issued by the Office of Management, "While H.R. 803 takes some positive steps, the bill does not adhere to the Administration's key principles for reform. The bill would eliminate, or allow the consolidation of, many targeted programs, without providing the critical assistance needed by vulnerable populations such as veterans, low-income adults, youth, adults with literacy and English language needs, people with disabilities, ex-offenders, and others with significant barriers to employment. H.R. 803 would freeze funding for the next seven years and would fail to support efforts to innovate and replicate effective approaches." [Office of Management and Budget, 3/13/13]
Supporters Said The Proposed Amendment Would Ensure That, Even With Cuts Made By Bill, "The Poor Will Get A Better Shot At Better Jobs." According to the Congressional Record, Rep. George Miller (D-CA) said, "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." [Congressional Record, 3/15/13]
Opponents Said Proposed Amendment "May Hurt Workers And Job Creators And Increase Unemployment." According to the Congressional Record, House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN) said, "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." [Congressional Record, 3/15/13]