Ally’s Act

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 85, I call up the bill (H.R. 447) to amend the Act of August 16, 1937 (commonly referred to as the ``National Apprenticeship Act'') and expand the national apprenticeship system to include apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, and pre-apprenticeship registered under such Act, to promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 447, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 447, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant and lasting hardship for our Nation's workers. Millions of people are still without work, and at least 7 million of the jobs lost during the COVID-19 pandemic will not come back. During this historic economic downturn, we must use every tool we have to help workers find jobs and prepare them for high- quality jobs and employment opportunities of the future.

The most successful of these tools that we have, without question, is our registered apprenticeship system. Each year, hundreds of thousands of workers count on registered apprenticeships to learn in-demand skills, earn wages that grow along with those skills, and receive nationally recognized credentials that lead to rewarding careers. Registered apprenticeships are so successful that 94 percent of apprentices are employed upon completion and they earn an average starting wage of more than $70,000 a year.

Yet Congress has not reauthorized the National Apprenticeship Act since it was first passed as part of the New Deal in 1937. Simply put, we have left our Nation's very best workforce development initiative underresourced at a time when we need it most.

In response, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021 invests $3.5 billion in our national apprenticeship system; ensures consistency and quality across apprenticeship programs; increases opportunities for diverse groups of workers who have not traditionally been included in the apprenticeship system; and expands registered apprenticeships in emerging sectors, such as healthcare, manufacturing, finance, and technology.

This investment alone will create an additional 1 million apprenticeship opportunities--I am so excited to say that--and it will yield more than $10 billion in benefits to taxpayers through higher tax revenue and decreased spending on social safety net programs. There is no better policy, Mr. Speaker, than helping people get great training for great jobs.

Construction trades and their industry partners have long proven that the registered apprenticeship model works. That is why trade groups, industry associations, labor unions, and other stakeholders supported both Democrats and Republicans in overwhelmingly voting for this bill last November. Now we must come together again to pass the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021 so that workers across the country and across industries can benefit from registered apprenticeship opportunities.

Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not recognize Representative Pocan of Wisconsin, who sponsored the Leveraging Effective Apprenticeships to Rebuild National Skills Act, or the LEARNS Act; and Representative Bonamici of Oregon, who authored the PARTNERS Act; and former Representative, our dear colleague, Susan Davis of California, who shepherded this bill in the 116th Congress, for all of their significant contributions to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Jerry Nadler for the courtesy of providing for discharge of the portion of the bill within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, February 1, 2021.

Hon. Bobby Scott,

Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), who is a member of the Committee on Education and Labor and a person whose life embodies the value of apprenticeships not just to our industries, but to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), a hardworking member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), a member of the Committee on Education and Labor, and a scholar of the history of apprenticeship in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone), a colleague who knows a little bit about how to help business in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to discussing with my colleague a program that allows workers to unionize in the United States as freely as they do in Europe, and we achieve the same level of unionization those countries with larger numbers of apprenticeships have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), a member of the Committee on Education and Labor and the chairwoman of the Subcommittee for Workforce Protections.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan), a member of the Committee on Education and Labor and my esteemed colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), another colleague with direct experience of the value of registered apprenticeships to our companies and our workers, and a member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Suozzi), co-chair of the Labor Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild), a dynamic member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that the grants in Title II do not have mandatory partners. They require partners to the extent practicable in a given situation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Mrvan), a member of the Committee on Education and Labor, and a new champion

for workers in this House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jones), another new and valued member on the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning), another new member of the Committee on Education and Labor and a native Michigander.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has been fighting for workers and small businesses in this House for decades.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a champion of the economic development of workers and of businesses at the local, State, and national level.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to the debate back and forth, I feel like it hasn't covered much of what is so exciting about this bill.

When I was the chief workforce officer of the State of Michigan, it was during the implosion of the auto industry and then the Great Recession. Michigan had the highest unemployment rate of any State for 49 consecutive months. It was in that difficult circumstance that I had to try to help Michigan workers train and get new skills for new opportunities.

There was a Senator from Illinois around that time; his name was Barack Obama. And he got a piece of legislation passed that said that States could use half a percent of their SAFETEA-LU money, their money for highway construction, to help train the workforce of the future, more women, more people of color, more poor people.

So, I worked with the apprenticeship directors of the highway industry, with people advocating for more opportunities for people of color, and we created pre-apprenticeship programs that helped new people get apprenticeships and a road to the middle class in this country by building our roads.

Mr. Speaker, the point is, we had to do that on our own. The registered apprenticeship system didn't offer us guidance. It certainly didn't offer us funding. This bill does so much to modernize and open up our apprenticeship system.

It facilitates pre-apprenticeship programs. It facilitates youth apprenticeship programs. It specifically encourages innovation and the birthing of new apprenticeship programs in a wide array of new industries. Mr. Speaker, despite the rhetoric, it is quite bipartisan.

Mr. Speaker, I thank some Representatives who have done a lot to help bring this bill to fruition, including Representatives Norcross, Brian Fitzpatrick, Suzanne Bonamici, David McKinley, and Don Bacon, all of whom have provided critical leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 85, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 1.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of en bloc amendment

No. 1, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

These amendments will add ``ethnicity'' alongside race and gender to the definition of ``nontraditional apprenticeship population'';

Expand outreach to title I schools and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families programs to promote awareness of apprenticeship opportunities;

Clarify State plans' inclusion of nontraditional apprenticeship industries and occupations;

Add childcare to the range of transition assistance options included for formerly incarcerated people in apprenticeships;

Add ``media and entertainment'' and ``early childhood, elementary, and secondary education'' to the list of nontraditional apprenticeship industries eligible for support;

Make Job Corps Centers eligible for funding to run apprenticeship programs;

Ensure that States facilitate the exchange of best practices between grant participants;

And clarify the type of national, regional, and industry intermediaries eligible for intermediary grants.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments make meaningful improvements to the bill, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this en bloc.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush), my new colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my esteemed colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from North Carolina for continuing to educate me on the process of the House as I learn.

I am reminded by Representative Bush's amendment of my experience attending graduations from pre-apprenticeship programs and seeing whole families turn out, seeing people turn out with their children to celebrate the graduation from a pre-apprenticeship program that allows people, returning citizens, people with disabilities, people who have been excluded from economic opportunity before, to get into an apprenticeship that can transform their lives, that can rocket them into a middle-class life with a great wage and great benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support these en bloc amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 85, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 2.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of amendments en bloc No. 2. These amendments will add the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the Department of Justice as an agency the Office of Apprenticeship shall coordinate with to ensure alignment of apprenticeship programs and mentorship programs for individuals who are exiting the juvenile justice system.

They will add agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, computer science, environmental protection and conservation, and hospitality and tourism to the list of nontraditional apprenticeship industries and occupations supported by this bill.

They will add opportunities to partner with veterans service organizations throughout the bill, increase flexibility and innovation by allowing demonstration projects in the national apprenticeship system, and direct the Office of Apprenticeship to cooperate with the Department of Justice and State departments of corrections to promote access to apprenticeship programs for individuals in correctional institutions and to assist returning citizens to transition into apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this bloc of amendments, the majority of which are bipartisan, that will strengthen this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would just like to point out something that I also think has not been emphasized enough in this discussion, which is how cost-effective this bill is--these amendments only make it more so--and how it will improve the fiscal situation of the United States.

We will have more tax revenue when more workers earn more money and get more good jobs. We will have less people who need public assistance. This bill not only provides tremendous opportunities for American workers to earn and learn and avoid debt while they are getting their credentials to get great jobs, but also really it is a very prudent and wise investment on behalf of the American taxpayers.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 85, I rise to offer amendments en bloc No. 3.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of amendments en bloc No. 3.

These amendments will ensure the availability of user-friendly materials, including materials in diverse languages, as part of the outreach required by this bill.

They will add a representative of the Federal Communications Commission as an ex officio member of the National Advisory Committee on Apprenticeships.

They will strengthen States' efforts to ensure that low-income individuals have equal access to apprenticeships.

They will clarify the inclusion of renewable energy in the list of nontraditional apprenticeship industries and occupations supported in this bill.

They will promote access to grants made under this bill for minority- , veteran-, and women-owned businesses.

They will increase support for apprenticeship hubs and workforce development organizations that support nontraditional populations and dislocated workers.

They will increase the ability of pre-apprenticeship programs to offer stipends to participants.

And they will encourage employers to participate in apprenticeship programs that target individuals with language barriers.

Again, Madam Speaker, just reading the list of these wonderful amendments offered by our colleagues shows the spirit of innovation and outreach that this bill represents. I urge you to support this bloc of amendments that will strengthen the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Strickland).

Madam Speaker, the tired rhetoric about big labor, big labor, big labor, the organizations that workers create and pay for themselves to advocate their interests; yes, there is a lot of support for this bill from the labor movement.

This bill is also endorsed by our mayors, by the National League of Cities. It is also endorsed by our community colleges, their national associations. It is also endorsed by multiple industry associations, including associations representing areas that don't have a lot of apprenticeships that hope to have more. And it is endorsed by many equity organizations such as the National Urban League.

I also want to point out something else. No company or group of companies has to register their program. They are perfectly free, in this land of the free, to set up a training program, to pay for it themselves, to partner with labor organizations or colleges, to

even use the word apprenticeship. Nobody has to register their apprenticeship. They are free to do whatever they want.

This is about the Federal Government developing and nurturing training programs that we can proudly say meet high standards to give real opportunities to preserve these kinds of statistics we are talking about: People who complete an apprenticeship earning an average of $70,000 a year; 94 percent of people who complete apprenticeships getting good jobs.

Also, some of my colleagues keep saying that all registered apprenticeships are controlled by the Federal Government. That is simply not true. Half of the States have State apprenticeship agencies, including the great State of North Carolina.

In this bill, we codify their important and autonomous role and, for the first time ever, we provide annual funding because States have been so successful at expanding apprenticeships through Department of Labor grants.

Again, for the first time, we streamline the registration process and create an in-the-box apprenticeship program to make it easier for small and medium-sized businesses to get in this game.

Madam Speaker, this bill is such a wonderful improvement on an already wonderful job training program. I urge everyone to support these en bloc amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment changes the word ``and'' to ``or,'' as my colleague from Arkansas pointed out, and it may seem like a small change. But, instead, it inadvertently could take away the employers' seat at the table for apprenticeship grant partnerships. Let me explain why.

Although my Republican colleague likely introduced this amendment to ensure that apprenticeship grantees do not have to partner with labor unions, the unintended consequence of this amendment is that it also ensures that applicants would not have to partner with an industry or sector partnership at the expense of only partnering with a union.

Those in support of this amendment may not realize that nothing about this amendment prevents partnerships with labor organizations as industry or sector partnerships, as defined in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, or WIOA, require three key stakeholders: Representatives of multiple businesses or employers, including small and medium-sized employers, labor representatives, and education or training programs.

Any way you slice it, this amendment does not actually meet the Republican goal of attacking labor unions but, instead, attacks small and medium-sized employers that could be part of these grant programs.

At a time when small and medium-sized businesses across this country are struggling to get back on their feet, thanks to the mismanagement of this pandemic by the Trump administration, the last thing we need to do is take away their ability to benefit fully from the apprenticeship grants that are part of this bill.

I would urge my colleague to withdraw this shortsighted amendment and ensure that we are doing everything we can to help small and medium- sized businesses and education partners have a seat at the table for these apprenticeship grants. And if he does not, I would urge my colleagues to support small businesses and vote ``no'' on this amendment.

And finally, let me just say that I think my colleague eloquently explained the situation where the practicable language was written for. If

there aren't any unions around you are not going to be able to partner with unions, and so it is really not a problem.

So this amendment doesn't do what it is intended to do. It is harmful, and I urge people to oppose it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let me just explain a little more for folks at home who may not be obviously reading all of the details of this, the many pages of this bill, what we are talking about.

This is about who is eligible to apply for grants, certain grants under this bill; and it says that to be eligible to apply for a grant under this title an eligible entity shall demonstrate a partnership with two or more of the following, and then it lists quite a number of different groups that they can partner with, State and local workforce development boards, education training providers, State apprenticeship agencies, Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations, industry partnerships, Governors, labor organizations, community-based organizations, two or more, two or more.

And then it says these words: To the extent practicable--a qualified intermediary; and to the extent practicable, it shall be part of an industry or sector partnership and partner with a labor or joint labor- management organization.

That is all it says. And the idea of changing that ``and'' to ``or'' would fundamentally change it. It would reduce the level of collaboration, and it would possibly eliminate the industry or sector partnership from the grant application or a labor organization.

But since WIOA requires the labor organizations, it is not going to do what they think it does. It is a bad idea. It is not well crafted. I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, first, I include in the Record a letter from the Manufacturing Institute in support of the bill.

Manufacturing Institute,

February 2, 2021.

Hon. Bobby Scott,

Chairman of Ed & Labor Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon Brian Fitzpatrick,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Scott and Representative Fitzpatrick: On

behalf of The Manufacturing Institute (MI), the workforce

development and education partner of the National Association

of Manufacturers, I am writing to express our support of H.R.

477, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021.

Manufacturers' top challenge continues to be the ability to

attract and retain a qualified workforce, as noted in the

NAM's Quarterly Manufacturers Outlook Survey. At the end of

2020, there were nearly 500,000 open jobs in manufacturing.

The current health crisis in our country has left millions

without jobs and exacerbated the need for individuals to

receive training for the careers that are available now and

in the future.

Registered Apprenticeship programs are one tool that can be

utilized to support the

business community in closing the skills gap and helping

individuals enter a rewarding career. The National

Apprenticeship Act of 2021, in addition to Congresswoman

Slotkin's (D-Ml-8) amendment, addresses many of the

challenges that manufacturers have long experienced in the

Registered Apprenticeship system by streamlining the

registration and approval process and providing a more direct

means of support for the companies and education partners

that wish to create or expand Registered Apprenticeship

programs.

The National Apprenticeship Act of 2021 improves an

established model of training and work-based learning that

can help to close the skills gap that manufacturers face. We

appreciate the bi-partisan agreement that has been reached on

this bill and we support its passage.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Lee,

Executive Director.

Madam Speaker, this amendment undermines the core premises behind the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021, which would create 1 million more registered apprenticeship, pre- apprenticeship, and youth apprenticeship opportunities over the next 5 years.

Registered apprenticeships represent a proven earn-and-learn program. Ninety-four percent of those who complete their apprenticeships are employed upon completion, and they have an average starting salary of $70,000.

This substitute amendment is nothing less than an attack on the successful registered apprenticeship system. It makes deep cuts to funding in H.R. 447, which will result in sparse growth in new registered apprenticeships, while diverting scarce funds to untested and unproven programs run by third parties.

Instead, it gives the Secretary of Labor and State apprenticeship agencies open-ended authority to waive the quality and accountability standards in this act. Authorizing funding for a program without guardrails is not an approach Congress should be taking when working with the executive branch of either party.

Allow me to address the specifics of the substitute amendment.

First, it allows the Secretary of Labor to divert funds for unproven and untested programs, like the Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs, or IRAPs, created under the Trump administration. Unlike registered apprenticeships, there has been no evaluation of unregistered programs like IRAPs--none. When DOL proposed the creation of IRAPs, it received over 300,000 comments in opposition.

Congress should not be opening the spigots of taxpayer money for programs that lack broad public support, especially when there is no evidence that programs that do not meet registered apprenticeship standards are effective at all. This is an irresponsible use of taxpayer money.

Democrats are, in fact, leading on innovation. For example, an amendment offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas), which was included in the en bloc amendments, allows the Secretary of Labor to fund innovation in apprenticeships by allowing demonstration projects in nontraditional sectors, subject to the recommendation of the National Advisory Committee on Apprenticeships appointed by the Secretary. These projects could even help with the COVID-19 response.

Second, the substitute amendment slashes funding for apprenticeship grants from $3.5 billion to $1.1 billion over the next 5 years. It cuts State apprenticeship formula grants from $475 million to $385 million over 5 years. States have asked us for funding certainty so they can scale up their apprenticeship efforts and have been documented to be an engine of success for the growth of apprenticeships.

This cut is a 77 percent reduction in total funding, resulting in only 219,000 new apprenticeship opportunities. This is an easy choice: 219,000 apprenticeship opportunities versus nearly 1 million apprenticeship opportunities that the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021 provides.

We all agree that apprenticeships are a pathway to the middle class, so why would we want to eliminate the rungs of opportunity for hundreds of thousands of apprentices?

Third, this amendment eliminates the interagency agreement with the Department of Education to create stronger alignment between the education system and the national apprenticeship system. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle often talk about wanting to create pathways for students to pursue alternatives to a 4-year degree, but this amendment eliminates provisions of the National Apprenticeship Act that do that in a way that is sought by our institutions of higher education.

As I mentioned earlier, our community colleges strongly support the act as it is. Some say we are creating a one-size-fits-all approach with this bill, but that isn't true either. We include new apprenticeship models, such as competency-based and hybrid options, and expand youth apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeships, something employers have consistently requested.

This amendment is a step in the wrong direction. At a time when at least 7 million people have permanently lost their jobs due to the mishandling of the pandemic, and when the economy is facing a deep recession, the underlying bill is focused on getting people back to work with the best skills possible.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 477, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021, which impedes the ability of businesses and employers to fill in-demand jobs.

Legislation deserves a proper, thorough, and bipartisan examination, which is why the House has long established procedures to do just that. Those procedures respect the majority and minority and ensure that both sides are represented.

Democrats are ignoring these procedures and bringing this bill straight to the floor, steamrolling the committee of jurisdiction. Time and again Speaker Pelosi has shown more interest in ``our way or the highway'' governing than upholding the deliberative process of the people's House.

Rushing a bill to the House floor without committee consideration simply because we have gaveled in a new Congress and need something to fill the time on the floor isn't a sustainable path forward under any circumstances. This is particularly frustrating considering the bipartisan agreement that our Nation's apprenticeship system needs to be updated to provide more opportunities for hardworking Americans.

H.R. 447 closes pathways to work for students and job seekers at a time when our Nation is in desperate need of getting more Americans back to work. In recent years, steps were taken to increase the number of high-quality apprenticeships and introduce innovation into work- based learning programs. For example, the Trump administration created Industry Recognized Apprenticeship Programs, IRAPs, which provide another avenue for companies seeking skilled workers who want to develop programs with more input from other industry leaders rather than from the Federal Government.

Democrats like to say that IRAPs are ``untried'' or ``untested.'' Other words for that are ``new'' and ``innovative.''

This bill would take away opportunities for the 131 IRAPs that have been recognized in the last 4 months, the vast majority of which are for nursing credentials. Limiting nursing credentials during a global pandemic is idiotic.

By prohibiting these innovative programs, the bill assumes that a registered program that worked for one employer will meet the diverse needs of every business across the country, regardless of size or industry.

In fiscal year 2019, 252,000 individuals entered apprenticeships, but only 81,000 graduated from the registered system. In fact, there have been, on average, over 190,000 new apprenticeships every year since 2015, but only 81,000 graduate in a year from the registered system. That is a graduation rate of 43 percent, at best. Yet Democrats refer to this program as the ``gold standard.''

Lord help us if this is the gold standard.

Clearly, there is room to improve the registered system, make space for employer-led innovation, and get more Americans back to work. Instead, Democrats assume that simply throwing more taxpayer dollars at a broken system will lead to the creation of a million new apprenticeships. But they have failed to address the underlying problems with the system and, along the way, are shutting down a new, more flexible option that businesses have already found appealing.

Stifling innovation and doubling down on an 80-year-old system that favors union-driven apprenticeships will hurt our efforts to get more Americans back to work. Yet language included in the legislation favors grant funding for entities partnering with unions. Turning the bill's grant program into a union slush fund would also block countless potential for participants from accessing grant money.

Even worse, H.R. 447 will force job creators to deal with overly prescriptive requirements, additional bureaucracy, and time-consuming paperwork on top of the one-size-fits-all approach. It is no wonder this stifling environment has discouraged new and small businesses from participating in the registered apprenticeship system.

Employers know best what skills their employees require to excel in the workplace. That is why Republicans believe Congress should encourage employer-led innovation in the apprenticeship space. Unfortunately, today's legislation falls woefully short.

We know that apprenticeships will play a defining role in closing the skills gap and putting more Americans to work, but only if employees and job creators are given the flexibility to innovate and develop high-quality earn-and-learn programs without overreach from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the aisle says that these grants are not restricted to union programs, or programs that are associated with unions. But the language in the bill is ``to the extent practicable programs should be connected with the union.'' That term is not defined.

The Department of Labor can arbitrarily deny grants to nonunion programs. There is no accountability for this. In fact, there is very little accountability in this bill at all. And the American people want to know where their hardworking tax dollars are being spent. This is just a lousy bill and we ought not to be passing it in these conditions.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As my other colleagues have pointed out, millions of workers will need reskilling due to the pandemic-related job loss and displacement, not to mention the devastating executive orders signed by President Biden which eliminated in one day hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The World Economic Forum discusses this issue at length in their recent report titled: ``The Future of Jobs Report 2020.'' In the report, they point to a double disruption scenario impacting workers due to both automation and COVID-19 workplace disruptions.

This double disruption is further reinforced in their findings that 84 percent of employers are set to rapidly digitalize working processes. And, again, as I mentioned, they don't even take into consideration what President Biden has done to eliminate hundreds of thousands, and it could be millions of jobs.

The demand for reskilling workers is high, and we will be left chasing the need of our workforce with the current one-size-fits-all approach this bill seeks to enshrine into law.

As in-demand skills evolve into the years to come, the skills gap will continue to grow in the absence of forward-thinking reform. Again, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join Republicans in creating new apprenticeship pathways through innovative models such as the industry-recognized apprenticeship model. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, would you clarify how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs, IRAPs, which would be eliminated by this bill represent a new apprenticeship model that puts employers in the driver's seat to create programs that meet the unique needs of their workers.

This new, innovative model was spearheaded by President Trump's Department of Labor. Currently, 80 percent of apprenticeships are employer-led and are not a part of the registered apprenticeship model. The registered apprenticeship model is riddled with burdensome red tape which discourages countless businesses from participating.

IRAPs, on the other hand, give job creators the freedom to break away from the Washington-knows-best model and connect workers, families, and communities with fulfilling careers.

This bill looks backwards and relies solely on a model created during the Great Depression. We should be looking forward and not closing opportunities for new models that reach more workers and industries like the industry-recognized apprenticeship model.

Mr. Speaker, there is bipartisan agreement that the National Apprenticeship Act is in desperate need of an update. But the bill before us fails to deliver for students, workers, or job creators.

While Democrats continue with this ill-advised legislation, Republicans will continue working hard to inject innovation and flexibility into the apprenticeship model so that more Americans, many of whom have been put out of work by this very administration, can get back to work.

I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the en bloc amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding my great affection for the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester), I have to highlight at least one amendment in the en bloc that I am concerned with.

The amendment offered by Representative Escobar would add Job Corps Centers to the list of education providers that may be considered as partners for program sponsors as they are developing their program.

I understand Mr. Levin thinks this is a great idea, and it is well- intentioned, I am sure. But I do not believe we should be adding more responsibilities to a program that has consistently failed to do that which Congress has already authorized it to do.

For decades, this federally funded program has struggled to ensure the safety and security of students. There is ample documentation about the deficiencies in Job Corps. In fact, over 30 different government reports and audits have raised concerns over the safety and security of participants.

Until we have resolved the underlying problems with Job Corps, I do not believe we should encourage more individuals to participate in the program by listing this as an available option.

The other amendments are largely minor changes to the bill that do not redeem the underlying policy or do anything to seriously reform and improve our apprenticeship system.

While I wish we could have a serious debate about the opportunity for additional reforms in this space that would be supported by a large number of Republican Members, it is clear that Democrats are unwilling to have that conversation today.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the en bloc amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, no one on our side disagrees that millions of people in this country now and in the future need constant education and the opportunity to gain new skills.

Mr. Speaker, we all support apprenticeships. I want to tell a little story about how long I have been involved in helping to create apprenticeships. I have a brother who is 8 years younger than I, and it took me 7 years to finish college. I had just barely finished and was working at a new resort in North Carolina, Beech Mountain. He was a senior in high school, and he came to me and said: I don't want to go to college, but I don't want you and mom and daddy to be ashamed of me.

We have created a system in this country where we think people have to have a baccalaureate degree to be successful. That is not true.

I asked my brother what he wanted to do, and he said: I want to be a carpenter.

I said: That is about the most honorable profession in the world. Some famous people were carpenters.

So, I went to my boss. I don't know how I knew this, but I said: My brother would like to be a carpenter. We are desperate for carpenters, electricians, and plumbers here. Could we set up a carpentry apprenticeship program?

We did that with the help of a local junior college, community college, contractors, and AGC. We set up a carpentry apprenticeship program. Seventeen guys, mostly recent high school graduates, enrolled in it.

Three-and-a-half years later, my brother and three other guys graduated with their journeyman license. Now, I consider that a great success. I have been interested in apprenticeships since 1969. I saw how successful they were.

Those are the kinds of programs that we need to be fostering in this country. My brother went on to be an engineer with the telephone company. He never got a bachelor's degree, but he showed me how to use my first computer, taught me how to use it, set it up for me.

My brother is a very successful man, a lot smarter than I am, but he did that by using his skills, his brain. And he continues to educate himself.

What we need is constant education, the opportunity to learn new skills, but this bill and these amendments don't advance the cause. We need to stop looking backward 80 years and look forward to the needs of a modern economy.

Yes, the President hit the ground running. He sure did. He eliminated thousands of jobs in his first week, and he continues to eliminate jobs with wrongheaded policy. This bill and many of the actions of our colleagues indicate how beholden they are to union bosses.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the en bloc amendment and ``no'' on the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this en bloc incorporates eight amendments with bipartisan support. I want to highlight a few amendments from this en bloc in particular.

First, the amendment offered by Mr. Feenstra from Iowa will ensure that the Departments of Labor and Justice collaborate on technical assistance to support the development of related instruction that is aligned with the mentoring program administered by the Department of Justice.

Second, several amendments add industries to the list of nontraditional apprenticeship industries and occupations.

Modernizing the 80-year-old National Apprenticeship Act ought to include apprenticeship opportunities within a variety of sectors. Far too often, society paints apprenticeships as only applying to the trades, which is unfortunate. While there are certainly valuable pathways within those fields, we need to expand the horizons of what apprenticeships are capable of providing for workers.

This is also why I think it is important to call these professions rather than the trades. A broader policy should not be limited by how it has traditionally been viewed or how we speak about it.

Third, the amendment offered by Mr. Lamb from Pennsylvania and Mr. Taylor from Texas includes veterans service organizations in several key places. Because apprenticeships recognize and build on prior knowledge and skills, veterans stand to benefit greatly from these opportunities and should be engaged in the system as much as possible.

Unfortunately, I do need to highlight one amendment that could be much stronger. Our Democrat colleagues have obviously recognized that the underlying bill does nothing to promote innovation in apprenticeships but, instead, simply doubles down on the status quo.

So several Members have offered an amendment allowing for ``demonstration projects'' to promote innovation. Mr. Speaker, this is insulting. This Chamber deserves a real debate as to how to promote innovation within apprenticeships and work-based learning.

Republicans offered amendments to do just that, but they were not made in order. Representative Allen offered an amendment specifically to protect existing industry-driven apprenticeships currently operating out of the Department of Labor. Representative Thompson offered an amendment to create additional innovation in work-based learning.

Rather than allowing that debate to take place and Members to vote on these proposals, Democrats blocked consideration of those amendments and offered this do-nothing fig leaf of an amendment instead. Even the limited authority for demonstrations must still be approved by an advisory committee with heavy labor representation, giving union bosses veto power over any new ideas that might threaten their hold on apprenticeships. In the absence of real innovation, fake innovation is better than no innovation, but we could do better.

Despite my frustrations with Democrats' refusal to debate serious proposals to modernize the apprenticeship program, on balance, this en bloc amendment offers good ideas worthy of support. I support the en bloc amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I find it intriguing that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they are passing legislation that is cost- effective when they are anticipating millions of jobs and generating lots of revenue, especially when they are denying that they are taking money from hardworking taxpayers who want to have apprenticeship programs that are not controlled by the Federal Government, and not allowing those taxpayers--those employers--to tap into a system that has grant programs for them where they are creating real jobs not controlled by the unions. It is just intriguing to me that they could be doing that.

I don't know if I will be here 5 years from now or if Mr. Levin will be here 5 years from now, but I sure hope somebody does a check on the promises that are being made here for all the wonderful things to come as a result of this bill. And I predict that those ``investments'' that are the income being taken from hardworking taxpayers are not going to produce what is being predicted by our colleagues. So it is intriguing for me to hear that. I do hope somebody will be around to check on it and give a report on it.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to highlight a couple of amendments in the en bloc that I have some reservations about and that I think would benefit from additional discussion if this bill is taken up in the Senate.

First, Moore amendment No. 15 creates a new reporting requirement on ``State agencies.'' I don't think new reporting requirements will achieve our goal of increasing employer engagement in the registered apprenticeship program when the underlying bill doubles down on the reasons employers choose not to participate in the first place.

But I would at least encourage my Democrat friends to clarify if they mean for that reporting requirement to apply only to ``State apprenticeship agencies'' or if they truly want to empower the Department of Labor to demand reports of any and every State agency it chooses, regardless of that agency's involvement in apprenticeship programs.

Second, Payne amendment No. 18 may well make it harder to engage small- and medium-sized employers by requiring grantees to have demonstrated expertise in engaging specific types of small- and medium- sized businesses.

Madam Speaker, to be absolutely clear, I believe we should take reasonable steps to encourage grantees to partner with small businesses owned or controlled by women, minorities, or veterans. The underlying bill does this.

Unfortunately, the Payne amendment actually requires demonstrated success in this area, which would likely shrink the pool of grantees significantly, particularly in locations that already offer fewer apprenticeships programs. This is a well-meaning amendment, but as well-intentioned as it is, I hope the Senate will take another look at how to increase the participation of minority-, women-, and veterans- owned businesses without creating requirements that will reduce apprenticeship opportunities.

The balance of the amendments are unobjectionable. They are unobjectionable because they mostly don't do anything noteworthy. In some cases they repeat provisions already in the bill. In other cases they add additional items to existing laundry lists. In short, these amendments are fine. They don't make the bill better in any substantive way, but they don't make it worse.

But, Madam Speaker, the fact that the majority is spending our time on mostly meaningless amendments highlights the fundamental flaw in this bill and process. We are on the floor debating amendments that don't do much, while amendments that could have made significant improvements to the bill were blocked by the Democrats from consideration.

We have talked repeatedly during this debate about how the Democrat bill eliminates existing work-based learning programs at the Department of Labor, mostly nursing apprenticeship programs, at a time our economy, particularly the healthcare sector, needs all the help it can get.

Representative Allen offered an amendment to remedy this flaw in the bill, but my Democrat friends were afraid of taking that vote. So we aren't considering that proposal today.

We have talked repeatedly about how this bill doubles down on the existing flaws of the current 80-year-old system while offering no opportunities for employers or workers to pursue meaningful innovation in the work-based learning space.

Representative Thompson offered an amendment to fix that problem in the bill, but Democrats didn't want to take that vote either.

We have talked repeatedly about how this bill seeks to protect big labor at the expense of workers in desperate need of high-quality apprenticeship programs. Representative Keller offered an amendment and Mr. Perry spoke of this inequity in his floor amendments. The amendment from Mr. Keller would have put union and nonunion apprenticeship programs on equal footing. Democrats won't let the people's House weigh in on that issue.

Madam Speaker, I am going to support this en bloc amendment, but I hope at some point we will have an honest debate about how to truly improve this bill to provide workers the apprenticeship opportunities they need, or at least to protect the apprenticeship opportunities they currently have.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, our colleagues talk a lot about the fact that 94 percent of people who complete apprenticeship programs get jobs immediately, but they never talk about the gold standard they call the registered programs, which graduate only 43 percent of the people who enter them, so I think they are very selective in the statistics that they use.

Madam Speaker, expanding funding and giving funding to State apprenticeship offices, in my opinion, is just a hook for more Federal control. And everything about this underlying bill is to have more and more control at the Federal Government level, which enhances the role of unions in apprenticeship programs. That is not the way we should be going.

Our colleagues have not noticed, I think, how quickly the workforce is having to adapt to, particularly, technological changes that are occurring in our country. These programs change very, very little over time because of the hidebound unions and the hidebound system that we have.

We need the employers on the ground who are dealing with creating new jobs all the time in new industries to be able to tap into their taxpayer dollars that are coming into the Federal Government, which are denied to them unless they are hooked to a union. That is wrong, and we need fair systems.

As Mr. Keller and Mr. Perry have pointed out, even the standards set for industry programs that are controlled by unions are different than they are in the private sector. There are more regulations on the private sector than on the union programs.

This is not a good way for us to be going in the year 2021. We need innovation. We need to be forward-looking, not backward-looking.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding.

Currently, the underlying bill favors grant funding for entities that partner with unions. This would block countless potential participants from accessing these funds and would further cement the program in the way it has been since the 1930s.

If we want to reach 1 million apprenticeships in this country, I fail to see how limiting access by creating earmarks and kickbacks will achieve that goal.

The amendment offered by Representative Hill would make it optional for grant applications to partner with unions. If the majority truly believes that this is not a requirement intended to push more workers into unions, this should be no more than a technical clarification.

Although it would not redeem the underlying bill, this amendment would be a step in the right direction toward opening more apprenticeship opportunities for Americans. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Representative Stefanik, a distinguished member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Modernizing the apprenticeship system in this country is more important now than ever, as millions are in need of reskilling.

This amendment would drastically improve the Registered Apprenticeship Program while also permitting DOL to pursue models of work-based learning outside the registered system, such as Industry- Recognized Apprenticeship Programs.

The exclusion of this amendment would stop this innovative progress and scrap the 131 IRAPs that have already been recognized, the vast majority of which are for nursing credentials.

Unlike the Democrats' narrow-minded bill, Representative Stefanik's amendment recognizes the needs of students, workers, and job creators.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise with great promise to support H.R. 447, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021, and thank the manager. I thank the chairman for investing $3.5 billion over 5 years in expanding opportunities and access to registered apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, and pre- apprenticeships.

Let me tell you that in this time of record unemployment, 10 million jobs lost in the United States, we need the opportunity to redirect and retrain the American public. I am a strong supporter of apprenticeship programs.

Colleges in my district, like HCC, have programs: independent electrical contractors, plumbers, masonry, that make a difference and have individuals making dollars that they have not made before.

I include in the Record two articles. The first one is from the ``Houston Chronicle,'' and the second article is entitled: ``Houston City Leaders Honor Students in Pre-Apprenticeship Program at TRIO Electric,'' both referencing Houston Community College.

[From the Houston Chronicle]

Interested in a New Career? Consider an Apprenticeship Union-sponsored

Programs Build Skills, Careers

Houston Community College is restoring an old high school

and converting it into college classrooms. And it's using

some of its own apprentices to do it.

San Jacinto Senior High was built in 1960, and the

community college is gutting it for new academic classrooms.

The project started about a year ago, and is scheduled to be

completed in October.

The eight apprentices--six plumbers and two pipe fitters--

are among the thousands of student workers in Houston who

spend their days doing construction and their nights hitting

the books. Houston's 11 union sponsored programs, including

the plumbers and the pipe fitters, last for five years; other

programs, such as ironworkers and glaziers, last three years.

But once the newly minted journeymen and women graduate,

they should have great skills and--if the economy

cooperates--a great career path.

Chuck Fell, president of CFI Mechanical, which is

installing the plumbing, heating

and air conditioning in the new community college building,

gave the group of apprentices a pep talk last week at the job

site.

``You are learning skills,'' Fell said to the plumbers and

pipe fitters who are spending their days assembling and

installing the massive piping systems and four hours a night,

two nights a week in school learning their craft.

Those skills can take you a long way, whether you opt to

stay working in the craft or move up to foreman,

superintendent or project manager, said Fell, who attributed

his own success and that of nearly all of his project

managers to their own apprenticeship training.

In-depth learning

``You could be an owner of a company,'' said Fell, who

became a plumber/pipe fitter apprentice in Orlando, Fla.,

after graduating from college with a degree in architecture.

He went to work for a mechanical contractor who suggested

that to really learn the business, Fell needed to become an

apprentice.

As part of that training, Fell spent two years at Walt

Disney World's Epcot Center installing the mechanical and

plumbing systems.

``Set your sights high,'' Doug Posey, director of

apprenticeship programs for Houston Community College, told

the apprentices. ``The opportunities are just incredible to

excel and to do great things.''

Posey recalled how he put himself through college as a pipe

fitter apprentice. He started his apprenticeship immediately

after high school and eventually ended up with a degree in

mechanical engineering from the University of Houston.

Pleased with program

While the concept of apprenticing yourself to a master

craftsman and learning a trade is centuries old, it's not

exactly a well-known career path today. But two apprentices

who are working on the CFI Mechanical project are glad they

discovered the old-fashioned way to learn a skill.

Jaime Moncivais, a third-year apprentice, said he would

never have heard about the program if it hadn't been for his

cousin and his uncle, who are foremen at the job site. He was

working for a small company for two years before he left to

join the program.

Moncivais is 23 and earns about $43,000 a year, plus health

insurance and retirement benefits, by working full time

during the day. After work two nights a week, he attends

class for four hours. That costs him $88 a semester.

``I'm enjoying it,'' said Moncivais, who says he's going to

get his state plumbing license before he decides what's next.

So does his fellow apprentice Rudy Flores, who said he was

drawn by the money. He estimates he earns about $50,000 a

year.

Flores, a fifth-year apprentice who has already received

his state plumbing license, found out about the

apprenticeship training program while working for a plumber

in Houston who was also a former apprentice.

He said he appreciates the intensive training of the

program that sets him and the other apprentices apart.

it sends a message

``We like to see institutions put their money where their

mouth is,'' said Richard Shaw, secretary-treasurer of the

Harris County AFL-CIO. ``It sends a message that you ought to

be training our students.''

Shaw has been critical of school districts and other

community colleges for not hiring their own graduates when

the schools need construction work.

Funding for the apprenticeship programs comes in part from

the state of Texas. But the bulk of the money comes from

contractors and union members.

For example, members of the plumbers union as well as

plumbing contractors each contribute 55 cents per work hour

for the training program.

HCC is the fiscal administrator of the union programs as

well as the two nonunion programs that train building

engineers and electrical workers.

Seeing if they like it

Calvin Speight, business manager of Plumbers Local Union

No. 68, said he has 60 apprentices starting in the fall and

another 30 the following semester.

In the meantime, they're working as ``provisionals'' to see

if they like the job. Apprentices must be 18 years of age and

either have graduated from high school or have a general-

equivalency degree.

Houston City Leaders Honor Students in Pre-Apprenticeship Program at

TRIO Electric

City leaders in Houston recently honored students in TRIO

Electric's Pre-Apprenticeship Program, with Mayor Sylvester

Turner telling them ``we believe in people like you.''

In proclaiming it ``TRIO Pre-Apprenticeship Partnership

Day,'' Mayor Turner recognized the company and their

education partners, specifically the leadership of the Spring

Branch Independent School District.

Turner also encouraged the 40 students in the program to do

the best for themselves and their families. Mayor Turner told

students that he had once served as an electrician's

apprentice where he learned skills that he uses to this day

as the chief executive of the nation's fourth largest city.

``Today is a great day in the City of Houston,'' Mayor

Turner said. ``Beau Pollock of TRIO Electric has the vision,

dedication and commitment to provide students with job

skills,'' he said. ``You are trailblazers,'' Turner told the

students, ``willing to work hard and learn work skills. In

Houston, we invest in human infrastructure because we believe

in people like you.''

Pollock, TRIO's President, thanked the students for

performing well on the job and proving the program could be a

success.

``I had a good idea to train students, yet you had to

perform,'' Pollock said. ``You performed and proved this was

a good idea.''

TRIO started their apprenticeship program in 2013, ``to

help meet a critical demand for electricians with technical

and leadership skills. Nearly 200 workers have taken

advantage of TAP. In 2017, TRIO started working with Spring

Branch ISD and Houston Community College (HCC) to establish

the TRIO Pre-Apprenticeship Program (TPAP) for high school

students. By the fall 2018 semester, more than 150 high

school students will be taking advantage of TPAP through

Spring Branch ISD, Austin ISD and Grand Prairie ISD. TRIO

Electric plans to expand TPAP to other areas of Texas and the

We need to be able to provide opportunities for young people, giving them the direction of where they can be a success.

I show these pictures of diversity in my district of individuals who are having the opportunity to be apprentices. Increasing participation in programs under the national apprenticeship program through technical assistance brings together industry sector leaders and experts, including employers. This is a new day.

As my colleague said, Congressman Lynch: I started as an iron worker and now I am in the United States Congress.

This opens the door of opportunity. Let's support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, on the Budget, and as a cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 447, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021, which invests more than $3.5 billion over 5 years in expanding opportunities and access to Registered Apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, and pre-apprenticeships.

I thank Congressman Scott, the Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, for reintroducing this legislation which passed by a substantial margin in the 116th Congress as H.R. 8294.

This important legislation has the potential to yield $10.6 billion in net benefits to U.S. taxpayers in the form of increased workers productivity and decreased spending on public-assistance programs and unemployment insurance and which bring America's investments in apprenticeship more in line with countries around the world.

Mr. Speaker, the Registered Apprenticeship (RAs) system is America's most successful federally authorized workforce development program.

According to the Department of Labor, 94 percent of people who complete RAs are employed upon completion, earning an average starting wage of above $70,000 annually.

Yet, according to the most recent data, only 0.3 percent of the overall workforce in America have completed an apprenticeship.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation could not be more timely because during a time of record unemployment, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021 invests more than $3.5 billion over 5 years in expanding opportunities and access to Registered Apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships, and pre-apprenticeships.

The legislation also creates an additional 1 million new apprenticeship opportunities on top of the current expected growth of the apprenticeship system, an investment that not only will pay off for workers and employers, but also benefit the taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is critical to expanding the nation's workforce development system during our country's deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Specifically, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2021 authorizes $400 million for fiscal year (FY) 2022, increasing by $100 million annually to $800 million for FY 2026, to support the creation or expansion of registered apprenticeships, youth apprenticeships and pre- apprenticeship programs, including in nontraditional

apprenticeship occupations and for nontraditional populations.

This funding will also attract and encourage employer participation and recruitment for individuals with barriers to employment, including individuals impacted by the criminal justice system.

Additionally, to ensure that apprenticeship agreements and program registration to ensure consistency in quality standards and worker protections, H.R. 447 codifies and streamlines standards for registered apprenticeships, youth apprenticeship and preapprenticeship programs.

Also codified are the existing regulations and practices to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity to participate in programs under the national apprenticeship system, and to increase diversity in the occupations offered and the individuals participating in programs, especially in high-skill, high-wage, and in-demand industry sectors and occupations.

The legislation institutionalizes, and establishes by statute, the Department of Labor's (DOL) Office of Apprenticeship, and vests it with the following roles and responsibilities:

1. Increasing participation in programs under the national apprenticeship system through technical assistance and program recognition activities;

2. Bringing together industry sector leaders and experts, including employers, industry associations, joint labor-management organizations, labor organizations, education and training providers, credential providers, and apprentices to establish national frameworks to expand apprenticeships to new occupations and sectors; and

3. Improving data infrastructure to improve reporting and publicly disseminating information about apprenticeship programs.

Another strong feature of this legislation is that it codifies the roles and responsibilities of the State Apprenticeship Agencies (SAAs) by:

1. Authorizing annual funding for State Apprenticeship Offices and SAAs at $75 million for fiscal year (FY) 2022, increasing by $10 million annually to reach $115 million for FY 2026, with one-third of funds equally distributed to all States and outlying areas, and two- thirds of funds distributed via formula to SAAs; and

2. Requiring SAAs to submit plans for registered apprenticeship activities, which generally mirror existing state requirements under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act.

My concluding reason for supporting this important legislation is that it strengthens the connections between the Department of Education and Department of Labor through an interagency agreement to support the creation and expansion of youth apprenticeships, college consortiums, and data sharing agreements.

I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of the National Apprenticeship Act.

As the co-chair of the Skilled Workforce Caucus with my friend from Michigan, Congresswoman Brenda Lawrence, I have had the opportunity to see firsthand, professional training programs in my home State of Arkansas and in Michigan.

And, I want to thank my Democratic colleagues for their sincere effort to prioritize work training programs, however their efforts are flawed.

I have heard my colleagues in the Democratic majority say they want our legislation to reflect America and I share that goal.

I agree that we need legislation that reflects the where people work in our economy.

However, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, roughly 12.1 percent of Americans are employed by unions.

Frankly, this legislation does not reflect our country's workforce because it preferences one business model over another.

Rather than encouraging entities and businesses to be empowered to make training choices that are best for their industry, we are instead picking winners and losers.

As we move towards recovery from the COVID crisis, we need as wide of an approach to training programs as possible, and this bill is not the answer. Republicans, including myself have offered several amendments that will make a bad bill better. Please support my amendment change to this legislation. In that regard, I ask for unanimous consent to submit letters of support for my amendment.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the National Apprenticeship Act.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank my friend from Michigan and my friend from North Carolina for their leadership in promoting apprenticeship programs that benefit the American people.

Madam Speaker, my amendment is simple. It trades one word for another, but the impact is significant. The National Apprenticeship Act states, to the extent practicable, that the partnerships for funding under Title II be part of an industry or sector partnership and partner with a labor or joint labor-management organization.

My amendment changes ``and'' to an ``or.'' I am afraid that the unintended consequences of the word will be treated as a requirement for the Federal Government that entities requesting funding under Title II must partner with a union.

This bill, as written, allows the government to play favorites with Title II funding and, instead, we should encourage entities to be empowered to make choices that are best for the workforce in their area.

In my view, entities applying for Title II funding under the bill should be partnering with both non-union and union industry leaders. But I have no doubt that should this bill become law, bureaucrats at the Department of Labor will interpret the use of ``and'' in this section to mean that if you are not partnered with a union organization you will not receive funding. That is my concern.

My home State of Arkansas doesn't have a large union presence, like many States around the country, and this legislation would make it more difficult for entities in my home State to receive Title II funding.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record letters in support of my amendment from the National Association of Home Builders and the Associated General Contractors.

National Association of

Home Builders,

Washington, DC, February 3, 2021.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Leader McCarthy: On behalf of the

more than 140,000 members of the National Association of Home

Builders (NAHB), I write to share our views on H.R. 447, the

National Apprenticeship Act of 2021.

NAHB shares Congress's desire to align the national

apprenticeship system with the needs of a 21st century

workforce and ensure it better serves students, employers,

schools, and other stakeholders. For decades, NAHB's

workforce development partner the Home Builders Institute

(HBI) has offered skills development opportunities and career

and technical education to underserved, non-traditional, and

at-risk populations through its Department of Labor (DOL)-

recognized pre-apprenticeship curriculum. We appreciate the

Committee on Education and Labor's engagement with us last

Congress to address concerns we raised during the committee

process. This has, in our view, improved the bill.

However, we remain deeply concerned that the bill includes

ambiguous language requiring eligible entities seeking access

to robust new grant funding to partner with a labor or joint

labor-management organization ``to the extent practicable.''

Consequently, this provision could restrict bona fide,

respected training providers' access to grant opportunities

or force them to partner with organized labor groups with

which they have no purpose for affiliation. NAHB strongly

supports Hill Amendment #29 which clarifies that entities may

partner with an industry sector partnership or with a labor

or joint labor management organization to satisfy the grant

program's eligibility requirements. This will ensure access

to critical funds by a diversity of registered training

programs as employers seek to rebuild their workforces in the

pandemic-ravaged economy.

NAHB recognizes Congress's work to expand youth and adult

access to instruction in the skilled trades and believes the

National Apprenticeship Act of 2021 is a step in the right

direction. As the bill moves forward in the Senate, we look

forward to working together to modernize the national

apprenticeship system to ensure pre-apprenticeships remain a

viable training tool for residential construction.

Sincerely,

James W. Tobin III

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on Education and Labor.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my friend from Michigan. He, in the last Congress, in putting the word ``and'' into the act, said he wanted to give a shout-out to unions. Therefore, I think he has actually identified it very well, that this does improve flexibility and choice. I am concerned about the Department of Labor reading the ``and'' as essentially a directive. So I believe the ``or'' is important, Madam Speaker.

Americans are struggling with the COVID-19 crisis. Restrictions, as it relates to title II funding of this bill, unintentionally hurt the American people trying to get new jobs and opportunities. We need every angle to help our citizens get to a successful career.

I call on my colleagues to support this simple amendment, to change the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In closing, let me say this. Bottom line, in the construction industry, important to every one of our States, registered apprenticeships trained about 28,000 people a year, where the need is over 440,000 people a year in construction.

We need more flexibility. This amendment is flexible. It supports the American people.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bipartisan National Apprenticeship Act, which I am honored to co-lead with Chairman Scott.

Last summer, I held a roundtable discussion with apprentices and pre- apprentices from around northwest Oregon. I spoke with Melissa, who said that joining the Boilermakers Local 242 apprenticeship was a ``life-changing decision.'' And Lacy, who talked about her apprenticeship with Laborers Local 737; she said it ``made it possible to pay my bills and feed my kid.''

By supporting the National Apprenticeship Act, we will help more workers like Melissa and Lacy gain the skills and support services they need to provide for themselves and their families.

As our Nation recovers from the economic consequences of the pandemic, registered apprenticeships provide especially meaningful upskilling and reskilling opportunities for displaced and dislocated workers to help them secure good-paying jobs.

I am glad that my bipartisan PARTNERS Act is included to help small and medium-sized businesses develop registered apprenticeships and provide workers with support services like tools, work attire, transportation, childcare, and mentorship.

The legislation we pass today will help more Oregonians and Americans get the skills they need to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National Task Force on Tradeswomen's Issues in support of the National Apprenticeship Act.

[From the National Task Force on tradeswomen's Issues, Jan. 28, 2021]

Comments of the National Taskforce on Tradeswomen's Issues on the

National Apprenticeship Act Reauthorization

The National Taskforce on Tradeswomen's Issues (TWTF) is a

national coalition of women's organizations and tradeswomen

whose mission is to create access, opportunity and equity in

nontraditional employment and training for women. TWTF very

much appreciates the reauthorizing of the National

Apprenticeship Act (NAA) of 2021 (H.R. 447) in a way that

best protects apprentices and best serves other stakeholders

in the apprenticeship system. In particular, TWTF is deeply

grateful for the careful attention that H.R. 447 pays to

enhancing opportunities for women and people of color--

populations that have historically been too often unfairly

denied such opportunities because of their gender, race, or

ethnicity--to gain access to and retain high-skill, high-wage

jobs through registered apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships,

and youth apprenticeships. TWTF is also highly appreciative

of the significant investments that H.R. 447 makes to the

national apprenticeship system.

Our organizational members, such as Chicago Women in the

Trades, Oregon Tradeswomen Inc., Tradeswomen, Inc. (in

Northern California), ANEW (in Washington State),

Nontraditional Employment for Women (NEW) (in New York City),

and Nevada Women in Trades currently operate, and for years

have operated, pre-apprenticeship programs and other programs

for encouraging women's participation in the trades and in

other occupations in which women have not traditionally

worked. Together we have over 152 years of combined

experience in operating such programs.

Our organizational members also provide a wide range of

technical assistance services and resources that support

apprenticeship programs, employers, training providers and

the workforce system in enhancing equity for diverse

apprentices and potential apprentices through the National

Center for Women's Equity in Employment and Apprenticeship.

This technical assistance includes EEO planning guidance,

toolkits, best practice briefs, curriculum, staff training,

replicable program models, and other resources and strategies

that have proven successful in attracting and retaining women

in these fields. (The National Center for Women's Equity in

Employment and Apprenticeship was funded until 2020 in part

by a contract with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Office

of Apprenticeship (OA).)

TWTF's individual members--current and former tradeswomen--

have, in our scores of years of lived experience in all

aspects of apprenticeship and employment in the trades, seen

it all. A number of these individuals also serve in

leadership positions within apprenticeship programs and their

sponsors

and have intimate knowledge of registration, especially as it

relates to EEO/AA. We have known the exhilaration of

acquiring mastery of skills, the sense of accomplishment of

working with the tools, the pride of being part of building

something tangible and important, the comfort of genuine

mentoring and support from our co-workers and colleagues, and

the satisfaction of supporting our families with a living

wage and real benefits. We have also known the financial

struggle of being ``last hired, first fired'' and the sting

and humiliation of hazing, harassment, and discrimination.

Many, many of us have had successful careers in the trades;

many others have been unable to continue in those occupations

due to discrimination or other barriers. Indeed,

historically, tradeswomen have been at the forefront of work

to change conditions that prevent women from being fully

integrated into well-paid, blue-collar jobs.

These comments are informed by the experiences of both our

organizational and individual members.

TWTF is pleased to support H.R. 447 in general. In

particular, we support the bill's incorporation of certain

nondiscrimination and affirmative action standards for

apprenticeship programs currently codified in 29 CFR part 30;

the requirement that funded entities devote a minimum of 5

percent of grant funds to direct financial assistance to

apprentices, pre-apprentices, or youth apprentices for

supportive services; and the significant investments that the

bill makes in registered apprenticeship, preapprenticeship,

and youth apprenticeship programs and technical assistance to

make progress on equity and inclusion for women and people of

color.

However, we do have some critical concerns about some of

the language in the bill. For example--

Unlike current law, the bill does not clearly and

unambiguously require registered apprenticeship programs

(RAPs) to set goals for the proportions of their apprentices

who are women, Hispanics, African Americans, Asians, and

other racial categories that reflect those each of those

groups' proportions among the people in the areas they

recruit from who meet the minimum qualifications for the

apprenticeship. Nor does it clearly and unambiguously require

RAPs to take steps to target their recruitment, hiring, and

retention practices to the underrepresented group(s) if they

fail to meet those goal(s).

The bill is subject to the interpretation that it

completely preempts continuation or reinstatement of the

positive requirements that are in 29 CFR 30, the current law

but not clearly included in H.R. 447.

Some of the requirements for pre-apprenticeship programs

contained in H.R. 447 were designed for registered

apprenticeship programs but are not appropriate for pre-

apprenticeship programs.

Some of the conditions on grants to be awarded under the

bill may make it difficult for pre-apprenticeship programs to

receive funding under the bill.

We plan to work provide more detail on these concerns as

the bill moves forward in the Senate, and will ask that

Congress address them before the bill becomes law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott for his leadership.