mr. chairman , i rise today in support of the gentleman from virginia 's ( mr. scott ) xz4003641 amendment to h.r. 27 . 
twenty-three years ago , the workforce investment act was first enacted . 
it established a commonsense clause prohibiting job discrimination on the basis of religion . 
wia then was originally designed to provide funding for secular social services . 
clearly , it did not intend to permit government-funded job training programs to engage in religious discrimination when making an employment decision , which is exactly what this bill purports to do . 
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 . 
it is simply unamerican to set the clock back on the safeguards provided to protected classes , including religion , sex , race , ethnicity , and sexual orientation . 
h.r. 27 would remove these important protections , allowing faith-based organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion , even regarding the secular social services they provide . 
this bill contains the first ever major rollback of civil rights protections that were established over 40 years ago , and many of us , including myself , have profited from those protections and from those rights granted to us 40 years ago . 
this is an unconscionable change of federal law , and i can not support a bill with such provisions . 
mr. chairman , i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the scott amendment and voting `` no '' on the final passage of this bill that endorses a federal rollback of decades-old civil rights and privacy protections . 
