[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 200 (Wednesday, December 19, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7927-S7930]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CARPER (for himself and Ms. Murkowski):
  S. 3779. A bill to establish a voluntary program that strengthens the 
economy, public health, and environment of the United States by 
reducing emissions from wood heaters, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Wood Heater 
Emissions Reduction Act, or WHERA, which I am introducing today with my 
good friend (Ms. Murkowski), the senior Senator from Alaska.
  In 2005, my dear friend, former Senator Voinovich, came to me with a 
great idea--the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, or DERA. DERA didn't 
roll back emissions standards for diesel engines, but instead created 
an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant program to incentivize 
the use of newer diesel technology. Together, and joined by many of my 
colleagues that are still serving in the Senate today, we established 
one of the most successful clean air programs on the books. This 
program is one that is loved by retailers, manufactures, States and 
health groups alike.
  As many of my colleagues know, I'm someone that is always trying to 
find out what works and do more of it. When my staff explained to me 
the public health challenges that residential wood heaters present to 
communities, especially rural communities across this country; I knew 
the challenges were very similar to the ones we faced with diesel 
engines in 2005. I knew if DERA could be a successful program to 
retrofit or replace old diesel engines, we could use the program as a 
framework to replace residential wood heaters.
  Like the eleven million old diesel engines that were on the road a 
decade ago, there are over eleven million homes that use wood as a 
primary or secondary heat source, and a majority of those homes are 
located in rural

[[Page S7928]]

areas. These residential wood heaters, such as woodstoves, pellet 
stoves and wood furnaces, often have a long life-span, some lasting 
more than fifty years. Due to this long lifespan, industry estimates 
that six million residential wood heaters in operation today do not 
meet 1988 EPA Clean Air Act emission standards, much less the current 
emissions standards implemented in 2015.
  Collectively, older residential wood heaters are a major source of 
air pollution in the United States, especially in rural areas. 
According to EPA, older, inefficient residential wood heaters can 
produce a deadly mix of particulate matter (or PM), carbon monoxide, 
volatile organic compounds (which contribute to ozone), black carbon 
(which contributes to climate change) and air toxics (such as benzene 
and formaldehyde). This pollution builds up inside and outside the home 
and contaminates the air we breathe. This pollution can trigger asthma 
attacks and cause lung damage, cancer, and other significant health 
problems, including death.
  As other industries clean up their air emissions, older, inefficient 
residential wood heaters stand out among the largest sources of PM 
pollution. EPA data indicate that nation-wide, inefficient residential 
wood heaters emit five times more PM pollution than the U.S. petroleum 
refineries, cement manufacturers, and pulp and paper plants combined. 
In Delaware alone, older wood heaters are the second largest source of 
PM pollution in the state, contributing more than highway vehicles, 
electric utilities and the petroleum industries combined. In Alaska, 
inefficient woodstoves and wood heaters play a significant role in the 
classification of Fairbanks as a nonattainment area for fine 
particulate air pollution.
  Fortunately, technology made and sold in the U.S. can dramatically 
reduce the pollution that is emitted from residential wood heaters and 
the amount of wood needed to heat a home. Wood heaters being made today 
that meet EPA's strictest emission standards emit at least 70% less PM 
and save consumers twenty to forty percent in heating costs from gained 
efficiencies. If we could encourage all homeowners to use the latest 
residential wood heater technology, it could have a massive beneficial 
effect on public health. EPA has determined that replacing just one 
old, inefficient wood heater is equivalent to taking five dirty diesel 
engines off the road and the monetized public health benefits from 
replacing the Nation's old, inefficient residential wood heaters would 
be up to $126 billion per year. Baser on all that we know, it is clear 
that replacing older stoves for newer, cleaner burning stoves will 
result in cleaner air, lower healthcare bills and lower costs for 
consumers.
  Unfortunately, as with old diesel engine owners, most homeowners are 
not aware of the health problems associated with their old wood heaters 
or cannot afford to buy a new wood heater on their own. This means that 
newer, cleaner heaters are not getting into homes fast enough. The 
Carper-Murkowski Wood Heater Emissions Reduction Act attempts to solve 
this problem.
  WHERA authorizes a five-year grant program at EPA to incentivize the 
removal and replacement of old, inefficient residential wood heaters 
for more efficient, clean-burning heaters. Specifically, WHERA funding 
targets incentives to: (1) scrap or recycle old wood heaters; and (2) 
replace them with new, efficient, clean burning and properly installed 
heaters that at least meet EPA's most stringent wood heater emission 
standards. Using the successful Diesel Emissions Reduction Act as a 
model, WHERA allows States, Indian tribes, territories, and local air 
quality agencies to compete for Federal dollars to fund wood heater 
change-out programs that work for their communities.
  WHERA also supports retailers and manufacturers with the transition 
to cleaner, more efficient residential wood heaters. WHERA incentivizes 
homeowners to buy the best available residential wood heater products--
when they might not otherwise do so--giving financial incentives for 
retailers and manufacturers to sell and make the best products. 
Overall, the residential wood heater industry has been supportive of 
such wood heater change-out programs at the State and local level.
  Because rural areas and tribal areas have a disproportionate need, 
WHERA also requires that Indian tribal and rural communities are fairly 
represented in funding allocations and that Indian tribal governments 
receive at least 4% of total funding under the program.
  My friend from Alaska and I feel that we've put together a program 
that will be as, or more, successful than the DERA program. Replacing 
outdated wood heaters with new clean-burning heaters that meet EPA 
emission standards will reduce toxic air pollution and particulate 
matter, protect public health, and support American jobs. This 
legislation is a true win-win-win, and one that I commend to my 
colleagues for their serious consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 3784. A bill to address the needs of workers in industries likely 
to be impacted by rapidly evolving technologies; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3784

       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 ``Investing in Tomorrow's 
     Workforce Act of 2018''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In 2014, the United States spent just 0.1 percent of 
     the Nation's Gross Domestic Product on labor market policies, 
     less than half of what the United States spent on labor 
     market policies 30 years ago.
       (2) The number of workers receiving federally supported 
     training has declined in the past 3 decades as advances in 
     technology have simultaneously shifted labor market demand 
     over time.
       (3) As much as 47 percent of all jobs in the United States 
     are at risk of being replaced by automation technology, and 
     job losses from automation are more likely to impact workers 
     making less than $40,000 annually.
       (4) Strong Federal investment in expanding training 
     services for workers whose jobs may be lost due to automation 
     could prepare the United States workforce to better adapt to 
     changes in the labor market and enter into skilled positions 
     in technologically-oriented occupations and industries.
       (5) A focus on preparing the workforce of the United States 
     for jobs that utilize advanced technologies could grow wages, 
     increase economic productivity, and boost the competitiveness 
     of the United States.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Automation.--The term ``automation'' means a device, 
     process, or system that functions without continuous input 
     from an operator, including--
       (A) advanced technologies, such as--
       (i) data collection, classification processing, and 
     analytics; and
       (ii) 3-D printing, digital design and simulation, and 
     digital manufacturing;
       (B) robotics, including collaborative robotics, and worker 
     augmentation technology;
       (C) autonomous vehicle technology; or
       (D) autonomous machinery technology.
       (2) Dislocated worker.--The term ``dislocated worker'' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 3 of the Workforce 
     Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102).
       (3) In-demand industry sector or occupation.--The term 
     ``in-demand industry sector or occupation'' has the meaning 
     given the term in section 3 of that Act.
       (4) Integrated education and training.--The term 
     ``integrated education and training'' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 3 of that Act.
       (5) Eligible partnership.--The term ``eligible 
     partnership'' means an industry or sector partnership, as 
     defined in section 3 of that Act, except that--
       (A) for purposes of applying paragraph (26)(A)(iii) of that 
     section, the term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 101 of the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001); and
       (B) the partnership shall include representatives of--
       (i) a State workforce development board or a local 
     workforce development board; and
       (ii) an economic development organization.
       (6) Local and state workforce development boards.--The 
     terms ``local workforce development board'' and ``State 
     workforce development board'' have the meanings given the 
     terms in section 3 of the Workforce Innovation and 
     Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3102).
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Labor.
       (8) Training services.--The term ``training services'' 
     means training services described in section 134(c)(3)(D) of 
     that Act (29 U.S.C. 3174(c)(3)(D)).

     SEC. 4. GAO STUDY ON BARRIERS TO AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR 
                   RETRAINING WORKERS.

       (a) Study.--

[[Page S7929]]

       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study of the barriers to providing, 
     and opportunities for improving, training for workers in 
     industries that have, or are likely to have, high rates of 
     job loss due to automation.
       (2) Contents.--In conducting the study, the Comptroller 
     General shall study--
       (A) considerations impacting, and strategies to improve 
     data collection with respect to, the workforce in industries 
     with high rates of job loss or a high likelihood of 
     automation in the United States, including considerations and 
     data collection strategies concerning--
       (i) industries and occupations most likely to be impacted 
     by automation, including--

       (I) the geographical location of those industries and 
     occupations;
       (II) the annual average wages of those occupations; and
       (III) demographic data on the race, gender, and age of 
     workers in those industries and occupations;

       (ii) employer-based training practices in those industries 
     and occupations;
       (iii) the frequency with which employers provide worker 
     training to address skills needs and react to changes in the 
     labor market; and
       (iv) projected job losses;
       (B) considerations impacting, and strategies to improve 
     data collection with respect to, the workforce in in-demand 
     industry sectors and occupations in the United States, such 
     as advanced manufacturing, information technology, and health 
     care, including considerations and data collection strategies 
     concerning--
       (i) industry sectors and occupations that may emerge or 
     become in-demand industry sectors or occupations as a result 
     of automation, including--

       (I) the geographical location of those industry sectors and 
     occupations;
       (II) the average annual wages of those occupations; and
       (III) demographic data on the race, gender, and age of 
     workers in those occupations;

       (ii) the skills and education needed to fill the positions 
     in those industries;
       (iii) employer-based training practices in those industry 
     sectors; and
       (iv) projected job gains;
       (C) barriers to, and opportunities for, retraining workers 
     in industries that have a high likelihood of being impacted 
     by automation;
       (D) the impact of the geographical location of workers and 
     their access to transportation on the ability of the workers 
     to access job training and related higher-skilled positions;
       (E) the impact of workers' access to other benefits and 
     services, including child care, paid sick leave, paid family 
     and medical leave, or a retirement plan, on the ability of 
     the workers to access job training and related higher-skilled 
     positions; and
       (F) how reduced Federal funding for job training programs 
     has impacted the ability of State and local governments, 
     employers, and communities to respond to changes in the labor 
     market, including rapidly evolving technologies.
       (b) Report.--On completion of the study required by 
     subsection (a), the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress a report concerning the results of the study.

     SEC. 5. GRANTS TO IMPROVE TRAINING FOR WORKERS IMPACTED BY 
                   AUTOMATION.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--From the amounts appropriated under 
     subsection (g), the Secretary of Labor shall award grants, on 
     a competitive basis, to eligible partnerships to support 
     demonstration and pilot projects relating to the training 
     needs of workers who are, or are likely to become, dislocated 
     workers as a result of automation.
       (2) Duration.--A grant awarded under this section shall be 
     for a period not to exceed 3 years.
       (b) Applications.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this section, an eligible partnership shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, 
     and containing such information as the Secretary shall 
     reasonably require.
       (2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall include a description of the demonstration or pilot 
     project to be completed with the grant funds, which 
     description shall include--
       (A) a description of the members of the eligible 
     partnership who will be involved in the demonstration or 
     pilot program and the services each member will provide;
       (B) a description of the training services that will be 
     available to individuals participating in the demonstration 
     or pilot project, which may include--
       (i) a plan to train dislocated workers from industries 
     likely to be impacted by automation and transition the 
     workers into regionally in-demand industry sectors or 
     occupations; and
       (ii) a plan to partner with local businesses to retrain, 
     upskill, and re-deploy workers within an industry as an 
     alternative to layoffs;
       (C) a plan to provide workers with technology-based skills 
     training, which may include training to provide skills 
     related to coding, systems engineering, or information 
     technology security, in addition to other skills; and
       (D) a description of the goals that the eligible 
     partnership intends to achieve to upskill workers and prepare 
     them for in-demand industry sectors or occupations.
       (c) Priorities.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to--
       (1) eligible partnerships that are located in an area with 
     a high concentration of--
       (A) industries with a higher likelihood of being impacted 
     by automation; or
       (B) industries included in in-demand industry sectors, as 
     determined under subparagraphs (A)(i) and (B) of section 
     3(23) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 
     U.S.C. 3102(23));
       (2) eligible partnerships--
       (A) with a plan to provide incumbent worker training--
       (i) to assist workers in obtaining the skills necessary to 
     retain employment or avert layoffs; or
       (ii) that allows a worker working for an employer to 
     acquire new skills that allow the worker to obtain a higher-
     skilled or higher-paid position with such employer; and
       (B) that partner with local employers that intend to 
     backfill the pre-training positions of the incumbent workers 
     by hiring new workers to fill those positions;
       (3) eligible partnerships that will provide workers with a 
     transportation stipend, paid sick leave, paid family and 
     medical leave, access to child care services, or other 
     employment benefits; or
       (4) eligible partnerships with a plan to develop a shared 
     training curriculum that can be used across local and 
     regional networks of employers and training providers.
       (d) Use of Funds.--An eligible partnership that receives a 
     grant under this section shall use the grant funds for 1 or 
     more of the following:
       (1) Providing training services under the demonstration or 
     pilot project, which may include training services that 
     prepare workers for in-demand industry sectors or 
     occupations.
       (2) Providing assistance for employers in developing a 
     staff position for an individual who will be responsible for 
     supporting training services provided under the grant.
       (3) Purchasing equipment or technology necessary for 
     training services provided under paragraph (1).
       (4) Providing job search and other transitional assistance 
     to workers in industries with high rates of job loss.
       (5) Providing a training stipend to workers for training 
     services.
       (6) Providing integrated education and training.
       (e) Report.--Not later than 1 year after an eligible 
     partnership's completion of a demonstration or pilot project 
     supported under this section, the eligible partnership shall 
     prepare and submit to the Secretary a report regarding--
       (1) the number of workers who received training services 
     through the demonstration or pilot project, disaggregated by 
     type of training service and the age, gender, and race of the 
     workers;
       (2) the number of such workers who successfully 
     transitioned into a new position following completion of the 
     training services;
       (3) the number of individuals who successfully transitioned 
     into an in-demand industry sector or occupation following 
     completion of the training services;
       (4) annual earnings data for individuals who have completed 
     training services through the demonstration or pilot project;
       (5) the percentage of individuals described in paragraph 
     (4) who are in education or training activities, or in 
     employment, during the second quarter after exit from the 
     training services;
       (6) the percentage of individuals described in paragraph 
     (4) who are in education or training activities, or in 
     employment, during the fourth quarter after exit from the 
     training services; and
       (7) any practices used by the partnership that should be 
     considered best practices with respect to training workers in 
     industries that have, or are expected to have, high rates of 
     job loss as a result of automation.
       (f) General Requirements.--An eligible partnership that 
     receives a grant under this section shall use the grant funds 
     in a manner that is consistent with the labor standards and 
     protections described in section 181 of the Workforce 
     Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3241) and 
     nondiscrimination provisions described in section 188 of such 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 3248).
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary for the first 5 full fiscal years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. EXPANSION OF WORKER TRAINING SERVICES.

       (a) Adult and Dislocated Worker Employment and Training.--
     Section 134(d)(1)(A) of the Workforce Innovation and 
     Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3174(d)(1)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (xi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (xii), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(xiii) training programs for individuals who are, or are 
     likely to become, dislocated workers as a result of 
     automation, including activities that prepare the individuals 
     for occupations in the technology sector.''.
       (b) National Dislocated Worker Grants.--Section 170 of the 
     Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (29 U.S.C. 3225) is 
     amended--

[[Page S7930]]

       (1) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by inserting ``advances in 
     automation technology,'' before ``plant closures,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to any 
     funds reserved under section 132(a)(2)(A) to carry out this 
     section, there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
     this section $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 
     through 2020.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 3793. A bill to acknowledge the rights of States with respect to 
sports wagering and to maintain a distinct Federal interest in the 
integrity and character of professional and amateur sporting contests, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court in 
Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 2018, struck down the Federal 
prohibition of State-authorized sports wagering schemes. I was one of 
four original authors of that prohibition, the Professional and Amateur 
Sports Protection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-559; 106 Stat. 4227, 
which found that ``sports gambling conducted pursuant to State law 
threatens the integrity and character of, and public confidence in, 
professional and amateur sports, instills inappropriate values in the 
Nation's youth, misappropriates the goodwill and popularity of 
professional and amateur sports organizations, and dilutes and 
tarnishes the service marks of such organizations.''
  Today, I joined with Senator Chuck Schumer to introduce the Sports 
Wagering Market Integrity Act of 2018, a comprehensive legislative 
response to the Murphy decision. This legislation is the product of 
nearly one year of discussions with stakeholders on all sides of the 
issue, the gaming industry, professional and amateur sports leagues, 
consumer advocates, data providers, law enforcement, and many others.
  I would urge my soon-to-be former colleagues and other Members of 
Congress, should they choose to take up this issue, to use the bill I 
have introduced today as a starting point for their work, but recognize 
that there is much work to be done, and I would anticipate that any 
final legislation might look very different from the bill that was 
introduced today. For example, the degree to which the Department of 
Justice or other Federal agencies need to be involved in overseeing 
state sports wagering regimes, the appropriate level of control that 
sports organizations should have over sports wagering, and the basis 
for requiring the use of so-called official league data continue to be 
open questions in my mind. I do not necessarily believe that those and 
other provisions introduced in the bill today reflect a final decision 
regarding the appropriate policy. But these provisions do flag many of 
the difficult issues to be considered as part of the sports wagering 
discussion. I would urge my colleagues not to be discouraged by the 
challenges and competing interests, and I look forward to being 
supportive of future congressional efforts to engage on this issue.

                          ____________________