[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 32 (Tuesday, March 21, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1519-S1521]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Robb, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bayh, 
        and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 2261. A bill to encourage the formation of industry-led training 
consortia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                    industry training consortia act

 Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today, along with several of my 
colleagues, I am introducing the Industry

[[Page S1520]]

Training Consortia Act to provide our nation's workforce with the 
information technology and computer skills it needs to meet the 
emerging and rapidly changing requirements of our various technology 
sectors. The purpose of this legislation is to assist our business 
sector in establishing a national technology training infrastructure to 
provide our workforce with the skills it requires to remain competitive 
in the global, high technology marketplace.

  The United States is currently the world's science and technology 
leader. We have achieved this status largely because we have had the 
most skilled, innovative, and competitive workforce in the world. 
Indeed, technical innovation, according to a report by the President's 
Council of Economic Advisers, has been responsible for more than half 
of America's productivity growth over the past fifty years. But 
technology is evolving so rapidly that some of our workers are being 
left behind. If we fail to keep them honed and highly skilled we risk 
losing our competitive edge.
  Having the appropriate information technology skills is becoming more 
and more important in all sectors of our economy, not only in the 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.
  A growing number of industries throughout the country are reporting 
serious difficulties in hiring workers with appropriate computer and 
information technology skills. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has 
estimated that between 1998 and 2008 we will need 2 million more newly 
trained and skilled Information Technology workers. That's an average 
of 200,000 additional workers a year.
  In my own State of Maryland, we currently face an estimated shortfall 
of 10-12,000 workers with appropriate technology skills. A Maryland 
Department of Business and Economic Development survey indicates that 
80% of firms which hire manufacturing or skilled trade 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 scientists 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.
  While well intentioned, many existing training programs across the 
country are not structured to address this problem head on, from the 
perspective of industry. And 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 needs of our employers. Our community colleges, and 
even four-year colleges and universities, cannot shoulder the entire 
burden of continually reassessing skill needs and providing up-to-date 
training and equipment with which to train workers in relevant 
knowledge and skills. Some colleges and universities have been able to 
establish partnerships with larger firms that have human resource 
departments, but building partnerships with small and medium-sized 
firms has proven more difficult.

  Many 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 they need and where they can get it. As a result, most 
forego training initiatives and instead try to hire workers away from 
other companies in related fields.
  And because workers are so mobile, individual employers are reluctant 
to bear the burden of training employees, whether they are new or 
incumbent workers, simply due to the likelihood that they will leave to 
work for a competitor. Without an adequate return on the investment for 
paying to train their employees, coupled with an increasingly 
competitive global marketplace, many larger companies have begun to cut 
back on their in-house training programs.
  A unique approach, one flexible enough to address the fluctuations, 
transitions and emerging needs 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 need an industry driven training infrastructure.
  The legislation I am introducing would establish working groups 
across the country in which employers, public agencies, schools, and 
workers 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 exist and provide the skills that industry and workers 
require to remain competitive and on the cutting edge.
  Specifically, it would authorize a grants program--to be overseen by 
the Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Department of 
Labor,--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 groups. The Department of Commerce would be authorized to 
budget $50 million annually for this purpose and funds would be 
allocated through a competitive grants process, with each consortia of 
firms as applicants.
  This legislation will allow industries to identify their own skills 
needs and build these consortia around their common requirements. 
Alliances would serve to harness the expertise of state and local 
officials, educational leaders, regional chapters of trade associations 
and union officials and pool the resources available among these 
entities. But each group would be predominantly made up of industry, 
and would be industry driven. Indeed, if we are going to address what 
is becoming a skills crisis in this country, our businesses 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 have banded 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.
  With these grants, this approach can grow and flourish. 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 unanimous consent 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:

[[Page S1521]]

                                S. 2261

       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 ``Industry Training Consortia 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

       In this Act:
       (1) Employer.--The term ``employer'' includes a business.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce.

                         TITLE I--SKILL GRANTS

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation 
     and coordination with the Secretary of Labor and the 
     Administrator of the Small Business Administration, shall 
     provide grants to eligible entities described in subsection 
     (b). The Secretary shall provide the grants to encourage 
     employers to form consortia to share the cost of providing, 
     and reduce the risk of investing in, employer-led education 
     and training programs for employees that meet employer needs 
     and market demand in specific occupations, for purposes of 
     strengthening United States competitiveness.
       (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 
     employers (or nonprofit organizations that represent 
     employers) who are in a common industry or who have common 
     skill needs; and
       (B) may consist of representatives from 1 or more of the 
     following:
       (i) Labor organizations.
       (ii) State and local government agencies.
       (iii) Education organizations.
       (2) Majority of representatives.--A majority of the 
     representatives comprising the consortium shall be 
     representatives described in paragraph (1)(A).
       (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.

       To be eligible to receive a grant under section 101, an 
     eligible entity shall submit an application to the Secretary 
     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 develop an 
     employer-led education and training program (which may be 
     focused on developing skills related to computer technology, 
     computer-based manufacturing technology, telecommunications, 
     and other information technologies) necessary to meet 
     employer needs and market demand in specific occupations.
       (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 
     industry and other employers;
       (B) development of a sequence of skill standards that are 
     correlated with advanced industry or occupational practices;
       (C) development of curriculum and training methods;
       (D) purchase or receipt of donations of training equipment;
       (E) identification of education and training providers;
       (F) development of apprenticeship programs;
       (G) development of education and training programs for 
     incumbent and dislocated workers and new workers;
       (H) development of the membership of the entity;
       (I) development of internship, field, and technical project 
     experiences; and
       (J) provision of assistance to member employers in their 
     human resource development planning.
       (2) Additional requirement.--In carrying out the program 
     described in subsection (a), the eligible entity shall--
       (A) provide for development and tracking of performance 
     outcome measures for the program and the education and 
     training providers involved in the program; and
       (B) prepare and submit to the Secretary such reports as the 
     Secretary may require on best practices developed by the 
     entity through the education and training program.
       (c) Administrative Costs.--The eligible entity may use not 
     more than 10 percent of the amount of such 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) the entity 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 employers 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--
       (1) to pay for Federal administrative costs associated with 
     making grants under this title, including carrying out 
     activities described in section 106; and
       (2) to develop and maintain an electronic clearinghouse of 
     information on industry-led training consortia programs.

     SEC. 106. INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       The Secretary shall distribute information and provide 
     technical assistance to eligible entities on best practices 
     developed through the education and training programs.

     SEC. 107. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2001, 2002, 
     and 2003.

                       TITLE II--PLANNING GRANTS

     SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Labor, shall provide grants to States 
     to enable the States to assist employers, 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.

       To be eligible to receive a grant under section 201, a 
     State shall submit an application to the Secretary 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 the State 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 $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.
                                 ______