mr. speaker , i congratulate the gentleman from utah ( mr. bishop ) xz4000291 as a new member of the committee on rules for his work today on his first rule that he is bringing to the floor of the house . 
today we are considering a rule that would allow for consideration of the reauthorization of the workforce investment act . 
the workforce investment act , enacted in 1998 , brought together some 60 federal job-training and retraining programs , and put them together and we created these one-stop shops all across america . 
they are intended to be able to provide training and retraining for american workers who are out of work or workers who simply want to improve their skills so they can move up the economic ladder . 
by and large , these one-stop shops have worked very well , but as we reauthorize this law , it is our obligation to take a look at what is working , what could work better , and as we bring this reauthorization forward , there are some important changes that we are bringing to the floor with it . 
mr. speaker , we want to provide more flexibility for the local workforce boards to do their work by consolidating the funding stream . 
we want to ensure that more of the funding that is available for this act goes down to the local county boards , or , in some cases , multiple county jurisdictions . 
in this bill , we also renew the vocational programs for those who have disabilities , an important part of our workforce . 
i think all of us know if we are going to be successful in the 21st century , that america has to do a better job of training and retraining our workforce . 
the days of going to work for one employer and being there for most of your career are , by and large , over . 
people are going to change jobs multiple times during their career , and we have to have available to them the kinds of services where they can improve their skills to take that new job of tomorrow . 
the reauthorization program that we have today , i think is a good one . 
there is one amendment that we will debate that we have had considerable debate on over the last several years in this congress and considered in the committee twice during the markup of this bill . 
it is on the faith-based language . 
members are going to hear an awful lot about it today , but let me give the parameters . 
the 1964 civil rights act , the landmark legislation which prevented discrimination in america , allowed for one exception in hiring and that exception was granted to religious organizations where we grant them an exemption if they wished to only hire people of their own faith . 
that is the law . 
it has been the law since 1964 . 
we believe that faith-based providers who may want to offer services , job training services or retraining services , ought not to be denied their rights under the 1964 civil rights act just because they want to help the neediest of the needy and help the poor improve their skills and get a job . 
this is a great debate which has gone on for several years . 
we allow faith-based providers in this bill to provide services without giving up their protections in the 1964 civil rights act . 
some believe , and it is certainly their right to have a different opinion , believe that faith-based organizations , even though they have this right , ought to be forced to give it up in order to take federal funds to help the poorest of the poor . 
now i would argue those who really do believe that is the case ought to go back and amend the 1964 civil rights act , title 7 , and not try to do it in this bill . 
but this provision , and again , we will have ample time to debate it later , i think this provision helps organizations who want to go out and help the needy in their community . 
it gives them the tools to do it without having to set up a new organization , or denies them the ability and the rights that they have under the 1964 civil rights act . 
i think that we have a fair rule before us . 
i think it will provide for a very meaningful debate today on this reauthorization . 
i would urge my colleagues to support it . 
