[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 51 (Thursday, April 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3938-S3940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 2021. A bill to provide for regional skills training alliances, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


             the technology skills partnership act of 1998

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today, joined with Senator Lieberman, I 
am introducing legislation to provide our nation's workforce with the 
information technology and computer skills it needs to meet the 
emerging and rapidly changing requirements in our various technology 
sectors. I am delighted to have my distinguished colleague from 
Connecticut--whose efforts on behalf of the high technology sector and 
its workforce have been second to none--join as an original co-sponsor 
of the Technology Skills Partnership Act of 1998. The purpose of the 
Technology Skills Partnership Act is to establish regional initiatives 
to provide the skills that industry and workers require to remain 
competitive in the global, high technology marketplace.

  The United States is currently the world's science and technology 
leader. Technical innovation, which according to a 1995 report by the 
President's Council of Economic Advisors has been responsible for more 
than half of America's productivity growth over the past fifty years, 
has positioned us at the forefront of the global economy. In my view, 
we could not have achieved this status without the most skilled, 
innovative, and competitive workforce in the world. The high tech 
global economy is evolving at such a rapid pace however, that if we 
fail to keep our workforce honed and highly skilled --whether in 
advanced computer programming or computer based manufacturing 
technology --we risk losing this edge.
  A growing number of industries throughout the country are reporting 
serious difficulties in hiring workers with appropriate computer and 
information technology skills. Recent reports have estimated up to 
190,000 unfilled information technology jobs in the United States due 
to a shortage of qualified workers. Many businesses point to the lack 
of skilled workers as a primary reason for their limited 
competitiveness and growth.
  In my own State of Maryland, the high technology sector currently 
faces an estimated lack of 10-12,000 workers with appropriate 
technology skills. A recent Maryland Department of Business and 
Economic Development survey indicates that 80% of firms which hire 
manufacturing or skilled trades workers, reported significant 
difficulty in finding applicants with the required skills for 
technology intensive jobs. The same survey indicates that more than two 
thirds of businesses hiring computer technicians, engineers, analysts, 
or other technical or laboratory personnel experienced difficulty 
finding qualified workers. It also mentions that fifty-five percent of 
firms that hire college-level scientist or technical program graduates 
reported the same difficulty and that 62% of these firms reported that 
their need for hiring these types of graduates is expected to increase 
over the next five years.
  Without the appropriate skills for the new economy, hundreds of 
thousands of American workers face stagnation in their jobs or worse. 
While well intentioned, most existing training programs are not 
structured in a way which addresses this problem from the perspective 
of industry and directly prepares our workers for these types of 
positions. To help meet the demand in this regard, a unique approach 
which is flexible enough to address the fluctuations and transitions of 
our high technology economy is required. In order to train and educate 
new entrants to the workforce, workers dislocated by economic change, 
and workers already in the workplace facing increased demands for 
higher levels of technology related skills, we must establish an 
industry driven framework which recognizes and addresses this need on a 
continuum. Without such a framework, this country and its workers stand 
to lose significant ground in the global economy.

  While some post-secondary training institutions have reached out to 
industry and become more customer-focused, more still must identify 
ways to respond directly to the changing skills and needs of employers. 
Many community colleges, and even four-year colleges and universities, 
lack the resources to purchase up-to-date equipment on which to train 
workers in relevant knowledge and skills. In addition, while some 
colleges and universities have been able to establish partnerships with 
some larger firms that have human resource departments, building 
partnerships and a two-way dialogue with small and medium-sized firms 
has proven more difficult.
  Relevant, focused and systematic training and upgrading of infotech 
skills is essential to linking and transitioning our supply of skilled 
American workers to the powerful and emerging demand of today's high 
tech economy. Without direct participation by industry, however, and an 
understanding of regional dynamics which help us identify specific 
solutions to address specific industry and regional needs, a 
significant portion of the U.S. workforce will be left behind.
  Mr. President, having the appropriate information technology skills 
is becoming more and more important in all sectors of our economy, not 
only in high and biotech industries and the manufacturing sector, but 
also in the so-called low-tech industries. More than half of the new 
jobs created between 1984 and 2005 require or will require some 
education beyond high school. The percentage of workers who use 
computers at work has risen from 25% to 46% between 1984 and 1993. 
Moreover, firms today are not only using more technology, but are also 
reorganizing production processes in new ways, such as cellular 
production, use of teams, and other high performance structures and 
methods requiring higher levels and new kinds of skills.
  According to the American Society for Training and Development, 
company spending on training has not kept up with today's evolving 
needs. In 1995, American businesses spent $55 billion a year upgrading 
the skills of their employees, 20 percent more than a dozen years ago. 
However, the number of employees has increased by 24 percent, meaning 
that private-sector spending hasn't kept pace. In order to bridge this 
gap, we need to pool our resources and coordinate our perspectives on 
this matter.
  Most firms, but particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, have 
limited capacity to engage in significant and sustained workforce 
development efforts. Managers and owners of most firms are simply too 
busy running their business to develop training systems, especially for 
new or dislocated workers. Firms also often lack information on what 
kind of training their firms need and where to get it. As a result, 
most firms forego training initiatives and instead try to hire workers 
away from other companies in related fields.
  Moreover, because workers are so transient, individual employers are 
reluctant to bear the burden of training employees, be they new or 
incumbent workers, simply due to the likelihood is that the employee 
will leave and go to work for a competitor. In light of this 
possibility, many firms simply cannot envision an adequate return on 
the investment for paying to train their employees. This, coupled with 
an increasingly competitive global marketplace, is one reason why many 
larger companies that once supported in-house training programs have 
since eliminated these efforts.

  The legislation I am introducing would establish regional working 
groups across the country in which employers, public agencies, schools, 
and labor unions can pool resources and expertise to train workers for 
emerging job opportunities and jobs threatened by economic and 
technological transition. It will help develop targeted consortia of 
industry, workers and training entities across the country to assess 
where and what gaps in this regard exist and provide the skills that 
industry and workers require to remain competitive and get ahead.
  Specifically, it would authorize a grants program--to be overseen by 
the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and 
Technology--and provide up to a $1 million federal match, for every 
dollar invested by state and local governments and the private sector 
for these working

[[Page S3939]]

groups. The Department would budget $50 million annually for this 
purpose and funds would be allocated through a competitive grants 
process, with each consortia of firms as applicants.
  Through a sector based approach, this legislation would direct 
meaningful participation in building an alliance by ensuring that each 
consists of at least 10 firms. These alliances would allow for 
participation from state and local officials, educational leaders, 
regional chapters of trade associations and union officials. However, 
each would be predominantly made up of industry, and as I have 
mentioned, would be industry driven. Indeed, if we are going to address 
the skills crisis in this country, industry must have a leadership role 
in establishing the means by which we continue to build and upgrade the 
skills of workers in technology related fields.
  Smaller scale versions of the types of skills alliances which my 
legislation proposes to develop have already shown promise. In 
Wisconsin, metal-working firms got together with the AFL-CIO in a 
publicly sponsored effort that used an abandoned mill building as a 
teaching facility, teaching workers essential skills on state-of-the-
art manufacturing equipment. Rhode Island helped develop a skills 
alliance among plastics firms, who then worked with a local community 
college to create a polymer training laboratory linked to an 
apprenticeship program that guarantees jobs for graduates. In 
Washington, DC telecommunications firms donated computers, and helped 
to set up a program to train public high school students to be computer 
network administrators and are now hiring graduates of the program at 
an entry-level salary of $25,000-30,000.
  Each of these initiatives is an investment in our workforce for the 
21st Century. If we are to truly transition the U.S. worker to a 
technology based economy, we must ensure that these best practice 
examples become standard practice. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
ensuring the swift enactment of this legislation. I ask that a copy of 
this legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2021

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Technology Skills 
     Partnership Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

       For purposes of this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the 
     Secretary of Commerce.
                         TITLE I--SKILL GRANTS

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce, acting through 
     the Director of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, and in consultation and coordination with the 
     Secretary of Labor, shall provide grants to eligible entities 
     described in subsection (b) to assist such entities to aid 
     workers in improving job skills necessary for employment in 
     specific industries.
       (b) Eligible Entities Described.--
       (1) In general.--An eligible entity described in this 
     subsection is a consortium that--
       (A) shall consist of representatives from not fewer than 10 
     businesses (or nonprofit organizations that represent 
     businesses) in a common industry; and
       (B) may consist of representatives from 1 or more of the 
     following:
       (i) Labor organizations.
       (ii) State and local government.
       (iii) Education organizations.
       (2) Majority of representatives.--A majority of the 
     representatives comprising the consortium shall be 
     representatives described in paragraph (1)(A).
       (3) Additional requirement.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable, each of the businesses, organizations, and 
     governments whose representatives form an eligible entity 
     under paragraph (1) shall be located in the same geographic 
     region of the United States.
       (c) Priority for Small Businesses.--In providing grants 
     under subsection (a), the Secretary shall give priority to an 
     eligible entity if a majority of representatives forming the 
     entity represent small-business concerns, as described in 
     section 3(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)).
       (d) Maximum Amount of Grant.--The amount of a grant 
     provided to an eligible entity under subsection (a) may not 
     exceed $1,000,000 for any fiscal year.

     SEC. 102. APPLICATION.

       (a) Certain States With Multiple Consortia.--In a State in 
     which 2 or more eligible entities seek grants under section 
     101 for a fiscal year, as determined by the Governor of the 
     State, the Governor may solicit proposals from the entities 
     concerning the activities to be carried out under the grants. 
     If the Governor solicits such proposals, based on the 
     proposals received, the Governor shall submit an application 
     on behalf of 1 or more of the entities to the Secretary at 
     such time, in such manner, and containing such information as 
     the Secretary may reasonably require. The provisions of this 
     title relating to eligible entities shall apply to each of 
     the entities for which the Governor applies.
       (b) Other States.--In a State in which only 1 eligible 
     entity seeks a grant under section 101 for a fiscal year, as 
     determined by the Governor of the State, or in which the 
     Governor does not solicit proposals as described in 
     subsection (a), the Secretary may not provide a grant under 
     section 101 to the eligible entity unless such entity submits 
     to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require.

     SEC. 103. USE OF AMOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may not provide a grant 
     under section 101 to an eligible entity unless such entity 
     agrees to use amounts received from such grant to aid workers 
     in improving job skills (which may include skills related to 
     computer technology, computer-based manufacturing technology, 
     telecommunications, and other information technologies) 
     necessary for employment by businesses in the industry with 
     respect to which such entity was established.
       (b) Conduct of Program.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out the program described in 
     subsection (a), the eligible entity may provide for--
       (A) an assessment of training and job skill needs for the 
     industry;
       (B) development of a sequence of skill standards that are 
     correlated with advanced industry practices;
       (C) development of curriculum and training methods;
       (D) purchase or receipt of donations of training equipment;
       (E) identification of training providers;
       (F) development of apprenticeship programs;
       (G) development of training programs for dislocated 
     workers;
       (H) development of the membership of the entity;
       (I) provision of training programs for workers; and
       (J) development of training plans for businesses.
       (2) Additional requirement.--In carrying out the program 
     described in subsection (a), the eligible entity shall 
     provide for development and tracking of performance outcome 
     measures for the program and the training providers involved 
     in the program.
       (c) Administrative Costs.--The eligible entity may use not 
     more than 10 percent of the amount of a grant to pay for 
     administrative costs associated with the program described in 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 104. REQUIREMENT OF MATCHING FUNDS.

       The Secretary may not provide a grant under section 101 to 
     an eligible entity unless such entity agrees that--
       (1) it will make available non-Federal contributions toward 
     the costs of carrying out activities under section 103 in an 
     amount that is not less than $2 for each $1 of Federal funds 
     provided under a grant under section 101; and
       (2) of such non-Federal contributions, not less than $1 of 
     each such $2 shall be from businesses with representatives 
     serving on the eligible entity.

     SEC. 105. LIMIT ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

       The Secretary may use not more than 5 percent of the funds 
     made available to carry out this title to pay for Federal 
     administrative costs associated with making grants under this 
     title.

     SEC. 106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1999, 2000, 
     and 2001.
                       TITLE II--PLANNING GRANTS

     SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce, acting through 
     the Director of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, and in consultation with the Secretary of Labor, 
     shall provide grants to States to enable the States to assist 
     businesses, organizations, and agencies described in section 
     101(b) in conducting planning to form consortia described in 
     such section.
       (b) Maximum Amount of Grant.--The amount of a grant 
     provided to a State under subsection (a) may not exceed 
     $500,000 for any fiscal year.

     SEC. 202. APPLICATION.

       The Secretary may not provide a grant under section 201 to 
     a State unless such State submits to the Secretary an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary may reasonably require.

     SEC. 203. REQUIREMENT OF MATCHING FUNDS.

       The Secretary may not provide a grant under section 201 to 
     a State unless such State agrees that it will make available 
     non-Federal contributions toward the costs of carrying out 
     activities under this title in an amount that is not less 
     than $1 for each $1 of Federal funds provided under a grant 
     under section 201.

     SEC. 204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support as an

[[Page S3940]]

original cosponsor of my colleague Senator Sarbanes' bill, the 
Technology Skills Partnership Act of 1998. I am delighted that Senator 
Sarbanes has taken the initiative in developing this innovative 
approach to help solve one of the biggest problems this country is 
facing--an insufficiently skilled workforce. This bill has the bold but 
achievable goal of trying to change the mindset of U.S. companies in 
this country in favor of collaborating on training skilled workers for 
their industry.
  We are facing a shortage of skilled workers in this country. 
Estimates are as high as 190,000 unfilled jobs in the information 
technology industry alone. But it isn't just the high-tech industry 
that needs workers with high-tech skills. All industries now need 
workers with computer literacy, including what we might consider 
``lower-tech'' manufacturing and services such as auto repair shops.
  In the long-term, we need to improve our students' education in the 
math and sciences and attract more students into these areas. 
Universities need to attract more college students into scientific, 
engineering, and technical fields. Ultimately, a large part of the 
responsibility will lie with industry to attract workers into these 
careers by creating attractive career paths and financial rewards that 
can compete for the best students.
  In the short term, high-tech industry would like to raise H1-B visa 
caps. But we need to do something more than let foreign workers fill 
the gap in high-tech workers that now exists. We need to train our 
workforce with skills that fit industry's needs today. Industry must be 
a large part of the solution. Only with industry leading the skills 
training can we be sure that workers are being trained for jobs that 
actually exist. That is why this bill creates an industry-drive 
training program.
  Why does the federal government need to be involved? Because industry 
does not normally cooperate in training workers. Small companies, and 
90% of firms in the United States are small businesses, don't have the 
resources to invest in lengthy training. Larger companies used to 
provide training programs, but in the high-tech field, workers move 
quickly from one job to another chasing higher salaries. Many companies 
are reticent to invest in long-term training for employees that may 
quickly move on. Cooperation within an industry provides a solution to 
this problem.
  The government's role in this bill would be to provide the catalyst 
to bring the companies together to cooperate on training. The federal 
funds are matched dollar for dollar by, first, funds from the state 
and, second, funds from a consortium of 10 or more companies. The 
federal funds are meant only to start the process--federal funding ends 
after three years--and then the states and industry continue the 
cooperative training programs alone.
  Let me give you an example from my home state: Connecticut. A recent 
report prepared by Connecticut's Industry Cluster Advisory Board found 
that:

     . . . the demand for skilled manufacturing workers far 
     exceeds the number of students graduating from manufacturing 
     programs.'' There is a ``negative perception of manufacturing 
     as a career choice.'' People ``still think of manufacturing 
     as a dirty, low-paying environment with no hope for 
     advancement. Today, manufacturing is clean, and typically a 
     computer-based environment which pays an average annual wage 
     in the $30,000 range or more with appropriate skills and 
     training.''

  The report continues:

       Substantial investment in training is necessary for 
     companies to compete in this new environment. However, since 
     most precision manufacturing companies are small businesses--
     of the 750 in the Hartford region only 7.4% have more than 
     100 employees--companies that are dependent upon their 
     skilled workers for success are not prepared to support 
     worker training.

  The report says further:

       While Connecticut has a wealth of public technical training 
     resources, these traditional programs cannot meet the current 
     demand fast enough and do not have a direct link from 
     training to employment.

  By stimulating industry-led training, we can guarantee a direct link 
from training to employment that is missing is traditional public 
sector training programs. In addition, most public sector training 
programs are focused on unemployed, dislocated, or disadvantaged 
workers. This program is open to all workers, including incumbent 
workers who want to improve their skills and increase their 
opportunities for higher wages and advancement. Further, this program 
is specifically created to allow participation by small and medium-
sized companies.
  In the last few years, a small number of regional and industry-based 
training alliances in the United States have emerged, usually in 
partnership with state and local governments and technical colleges. In 
Rhode Island, with help from the state's Human Resource Investment 
Council, plastics firms developed a skills alliance. The Wisconsin 
Regional Training Partnership, metal-working firms in conjunction with 
the AFL-CIO, set up a teaching factory to train workers. While some 
partnerships have emerged around the country, there are documented 
difficulties in fostering this kind of collective action without some 
federal backing. Without some kind of support to create alliances, 
small- and medium-sized firms just don't have the time or resources to 
collaborate with anybody on training. In fact, almost all the existing 
regional skills alliances report that they would not have been able to 
get off the ground without an independent, staffed entity to operate 
the alliance. Widespread and timely deployment of these kinds of 
partnerships is simply not likely to happen without the incentives 
established by a federal initiative. This can help create successful 
models and templates that others can replicate across the nation.
  I am proud to support the Technology Skills Partnership Act of 1998 
and urge my colleagues to join me in taking this step toward an 
immediate, short-term solution to the shortage of skilled workers in 
our country.
                                 ______