S. 3784Senate115th Congress (2017-2019)In Committee

Investing in Tomorrow's Workforce Act of 2018

AI-Generated Summary

Updated April 16, 2026 at 12:37 AM UTC

The Investing in Tomorrow's Workforce Act of 2018 aims to help workers whose jobs are threatened by automation. It directs a federal study of training barriers, creates a grant program for partnerships to develop and pilot new training solutions, and expands existing workforce‑development law to include automation‑related training, with extra funding for the effort. The bill targets displaced workers, state and local workforce agencies, and employers in sectors facing rapid technological change.

Key Provisions

The Comptroller General must study the barriers and opportunities for retraining workers in industries likely to lose jobs to automation, collecting data on affected occupations, wages, demographics, employer training practices, and access to benefits and transportation.
The Secretary of Labor may award competitive, up‑to‑three‑year grants to “eligible partnerships” (state or local workforce boards, economic development groups, and other partners) to run pilot projects that train workers displaced or at risk of displacement by automation.
Grant priorities favor partnerships in areas with high concentrations of automation‑vulnerable industries, projects that help workers stay in or move to in‑demand sectors, provide transportation or other benefits, and develop shared curricula.
Grant funds can be used for the training itself, equipment, employer staffing, job‑search assistance, stipends, and integrated education‑training services, with required reporting on participant outcomes and best practices.
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act is amended to explicitly add training programs for workers displaced by automation and to authorize an additional $40 million per fiscal year for 2018‑2020 to support national dislocated‑worker grants.

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

1 earlier action

SenateIntro Referral Latest Action

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S7928-7930)

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee

December 19, 2018

View full timeline

SenateIntro Referral

Introduced in Senate

December 19, 2018

SenateIntro Referral

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S7928-7930)

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee

December 19, 2018

Floor Debate

3 members

What members said about S. 3784 on the floor

1 Republican2 Democrats

Sen. Thomas R. CarperD-DE · Dec 19, 2018

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…

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

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.

Sen. Orrin G. HatchR-UT · Dec 19, 2018

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.

Sen. Richard J. DurbinD-IL · Dec 19, 2018

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Sen. Richard J. DurbinD-IL · Dec 19, 2018

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Introduced in SenateIssued December 19, 2018

115th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 3784

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

December 19, 2018

Mr. Durbin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

To address the needs of workers in industries likely to be impacted by rapidly evolving technologies.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Investing in Tomorrow's Workforce Act of 2018.

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.

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)).

GAO study on barriers to and opportunities for retraining workers

(a)

Study

(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.

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.

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—

(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.