Washington, D.C. – Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (R-TX), a member of the House Rules Committee, delivered the following remarks when he managed today's Rule Debate on H.R. 7309, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; H.R. 6531, the Targeting Resources to Communities in Need Act; and S. 2938, to name a post office after Joseph Woodrow Hatchett. 

As prepared for delivery:

"Today’s rule provides for consideration of three bills: H.R. 7309, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; H.R. 6531, the Targeting Resources to Communities in Need Act; and S. 2938, to name a post office after Joseph Woodrow Hatchett. The latter two bills failed on suspension last week and must now be considered under a rule."

"We were also expecting to consider H.R. 7688, the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Amendment Act, but after hour and hour and hour of debate in the Rules Committee, the Democrats had to pull it for lack of support within their own party. Perhaps they realized that there is no evidence of price gouging, as evidenced by Secretary Granholm’s statement in a recent Energy and Commerce Committee hearing where she said, “I’m not sure anyone is saying there is wholesale gouging.” Let us focus instead on increasing domestic production rather than blaming an industry suffering supply and demand difficulties that are significantly influenced by global factors and government regulation. 

"The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act reauthorizes programs from the 2014 bill of the same name but does not make needed reforms to workforce development programs. 

"Instead, it increases government control, adds onerous requirements to program administration, and decreases flexibility and the ability to achieve results – pulling people out of poverty and enhancing the labor market. 

"First, this bill authorizes $78 billion over six years. Without making workforce development programs more efficient and tailored to the actual job market, this funding will further exacerbate the inflation crisis. The bill expands the size of state and local workforce boards, making room for organized labor. It also introduces federal definitions of job quality, a determination that should be made by employers. How is a federal agency in Washington, D.C. best equipped to determine the job quality for someone working in Krum, Texas, a town of around 4,000 people in North Texas? 

"This bill also requires burdensome equity reports. If our goal is to pull people out of poverty and get them into the workforce, then every eligible person should have the opportunity to access these programs, not just those who meet certain criteria. 

"Finally, this bill maintains the current Job Corps system without adapting to the changing needs of eligible youth and continues the inflexible apprenticeship system. I have long been concerned that many young people do not always recognize their best path to prosperity. For example, many students are conditioned to believe they can only get a good job by attending a four-year university. Meanwhile, a licensed plumber or electrician can often make more than someone with a university degree. Apprenticeships have been a good way for someone to learn these special trades; however, the program structure is left-over from the Depression era and needs to be updated to meet today’s vastly different work environments.  

"Another concern I have is the amount of student loan debt burdening our labor force. Flexible training or certificate programs could lead to less debt by giving job seekers alternatives to the traditional four-year university. 

"Additionally, we should be looking at ways to encourage private employers to provide student loan repayment programs for their employees, perhaps through a tax credit or other incentive. The federal government has a student loan repayment program, and it is a significant incentive for many young people to join public service. 

"The Republican substitute amendment would have added flexibility into many programs and reformed our workforce development systems to ensure employee skill development is aligned with employer needs. A huge factor in successful programming is knowing the programs are meeting actual needs.

"The Republican amendment would have ensured states and localities could use funding to survey employers to understand the most in-demand skills. 

"In a post-Covid world, employers and employees have adapted to different styles of training and working environments. The Republican amendment encourages workforce boards to provide services virtually to meet the changing needs of today’s workforce. We should be inserting flexibility into these programs rather than maintaining the status quo that were developed decades ago. 

"Unfortunately, the Republican amendment was defeated during the Education and Labor Committee markup and will likely be defeated when considered on the House floor.

"Continued partisanship is not the path forward when it comes to equipping our workforce for the modern labor market."

###