i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time . 
mr. speaker , we have heard a lot about the amendment i will be offering . 
i will be offering it in conjunction with the gentlewoman from california ( ms. woolsey ) xz4004360 , the gentleman from maryland ( mr. van hollen ) xz4004150 , the gentleman from massachusetts ( mr. frank ) xz4001400 , the gentleman from texas ( mr. edwards ) xz4001180 , and the gentleman from new york ( mr. nadler ) xz4002890 in order to preserve and maintain civil rights protections as they currently appear in the job training laws . 
current law prohibits sponsors of job training programs from discriminating based on race or religion , and that policy goes back decades . 
for decades , our country has prohibited discrimination in hiring with federal funds . 
in 1941 , president roosevelt ordered a prohibition against discrimination in all defense contracts . 
in other words , since 1941 , our national policy has been that even if you can build better and cheaper rifles , the army will not buy them from you if you discriminate in employment . 
the civil rights act passed in 1964 , and it prohibited discrimination ; but it included an exception for religious organizations , but that exception was limited to the context of the religious organizations using their own money . 
in 1965 , president johnson banned discrimination in all government contracts without exception . 
in job training programs specifically , this congress passed in 1982 the job training partnership act with bipartisan support . 
in that act , congress included a nondiscrimination clause without exception , and that remains the statutory requirement in job training requirement programs today . 
that policy will change and discrimination will be allowed if my amendment is not adopted . 
so let us be clear . 
this is not a debate about religious organizations having the right to participate in job training programs . 
they already do . 
as the current law stands , and my amendment would keep that law intact , catholic , jewish , lutheran , baptist , and other religious organizations already get hundreds of millions dollars today to run job training and other federally funded programs . 
religious organizations do not need section 129 in the bill to sponsor federally funded job training programs . 
they need that section in order to discriminate in hiring with federal dollars . 
my amendment would delete section 129 and maintain the law against discrimination . 
moreover , mr. speaker , when the government refuses to prohibit discrimination based on religion , it can not effectively enforce laws against discrimination based on race or national origin . 
many churches are all virtually white ; others virtually all black . 
so if they restrict hiring based on their religious organization , they can effectively discriminate based on race . 
and if we do not enforce discrimination laws in federal contracts with secular programs , where is our moral authority to tell private employers who may be devoutly religious that they can not discriminate with their private money ? 
mr. speaker , for 40 years , if an employer had a problem hiring the best qualified applicant because of discrimination based on race or religion , that employer had a problem because the weight of the federal government was behind the victim of discrimination . 
the underlying , without my amendment , proposes to shift the weight of the federal government from supporting the victim of discrimination to supporting some so-called right to discriminate with federal funds . 
that is a profound change in civil rights protection . 
mr. speaker , we have heard the majority try to defend the discrimination with misleading and poll-tested rhetoric . 
for example , i read in a dear colleague that the bill is one that would `` restore hiring protections for faith-based organizations participating in federal job training programs. '' mr. speaker , section 129 does not restore anything . 
people have not been able to discriminate in federal contracts since 1965 and specifically not in any job training program since 1982 . 
if anything is being restored , it is the ugly practice of discrimination that existed before the 1960s . 
the dear colleague went on to say that congress needs to `` continue to uphold the basic civil right of america 's religious organizations to hire the staff they judge to be best qualified to carry out their programs and missions when they provide job training assistance. '' mr. speaker , the language fails to say that they can hire whoever they want to promote their religious missions with the church money . 
but with the federal money , they have got to hire the best qualified for the federal mission the tax dollars were appropriated to promote without discrimination . 
funds appropriated under this bill are not gifts or grants to churches . 
they are contracts for government services , and we should honor the tradition begun in 1941 , which prohibits discrimination . 
and , finally , mr. speaker , dear colleague talks about barriers that exist to prevent faith-based organizations from fully participating in government-sponsored programs , but it does not say what the barrier is . 
in fact , the only barrier is one can not discriminate . 
any program that can get funded under the underlying bill could be funded without section 129 if the sponsoring organization would agree not to discriminate in employment . 
as a representative said during the debate on the civil rights act of 1964 , he said , `` stop the discrimination , get the money ; continue the discrimination , do not get the money. '' employment discrimination is ugly . 
we can put lipstick on a pick , but we can not pass it off as a beauty queen , and we can not dress up `` we do not hire catholics and jews '' with poll-tested semantics and euphemisms and pass it off as anything other than ugly discrimination . 
mr. speaker , religious organizations actively supported the civil rights act 40 years ago . 
today they support the nondiscrimination provision in the workforce investment act the way it is and they oppose section 129 . 
mr. speaker , i urge my colleagues to oppose the bill unless traditional civil rights protections are included . 
