[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.
____________________