Workforce development bill passes
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers criticized for a lack of productivity are hailing an adult education and job training bill the House passed on Wednesday as evidence that Congress can get something done.
The bill, which the House cleared for President Obama's signature on a 415-6 vote, would authorize $58 billion over six years for federal workforce development programs. It would eliminate 15 programs technically still on the books though most had become dormant in recent years.
House lawmakers had passed an earlier version of H.R. 803 last year. The Senate, after months of negotiations, passed an amended version in June.
The vote was made at an opportune moment for Republicans, who hold the chamber's majority and have endured criticism for refusing to schedule votes on immigration legislation, tax law changes or a replacement for the 2010 health-care law they've voted to repeal more than 50 times.
House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, penned a rare scathing letter to the editor in the Capitol Hill newspaper Politico demanding an apology for a report that blamed House Republicans and Senate Democrats for combining to do almost nothing to improve the economy.
“Anyone who thinks, says, or writes that the House of Representatives isn't focused on jobs and the economy is lying, or simply not paying attention,” Boehner wrote.
Republicans say jobs bills they've passed are sitting idle in the Democratic-led Senate. Senate Democrats, in turn, say House Republicans refuse to take up bills that would pass the House because they might need Democratic votes to do so.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- CIA admits Senate was spied on
- FDA will regulate labs’ ‘high-risk’ test devices
- House GOP balks on young immigrants bill
- Congress considers dangers of driving high
- Credit-card-stealing virus ‘Backoff’ virtually undetectable, Homeland Security warns
- CEO shot, wounded in Chicago, apparently by demoted executive
- Museum sleepover for adults sells out
- Stoned volunteers test drug, alcohol effect on driving
- Law enforcement, intelligence agencies want to ‘like’ you on social media
- Annapolis Marine capain could be 1st to perform as part of Blue Angels team
- Data on impact of Colo. gun law, background checks questioned