Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to the Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations package, which strikes all guidance related to the obligation of funds for the Affordable…
Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to the Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations package, which strikes all guidance related to the obligation of funds for the Affordable Care Act's navigator program. By passing this amendment, we can prevent further wasteful spending on this failed and very inefficient program.
For plan year 2017, navigators received a total of $62.5 million in grants and enrolled 81,000 individuals. Each of these enrollments cost taxpayers $767. Further, those 81,000 individuals accounted for less than 1 percent of all the enrollment in ACA plans for that year.
Arkansas does not use the Federal marketplace, but I think it is worth noting that according to CMS, only 2.3 percent of the people in my district purchased their healthcare on the exchange in 2017. Nationwide, less than 4 percent of the population bought Affordable Care Act plans. With a little bit of math, we come to the conclusion that we are spending $62.5 million to enroll less than three-tenths of 1 percent of the population.
The administration wisely decided that this money could be better spent elsewhere and cut funding for the program to a more reasonable level of $10 million. Yet for some reason, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to force the administration to spend $100 million on this, in my view, wasteful and ineffective program.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, well, we are all interested in having affordable healthcare, and that is why we have more market-based healthcare. If we open up this market and reduce constraints, then we will get more affordable policies.
I would submit to the Chair tonight that the reason people don't accept these policies is not due to a lack of advertising, Madam Chair, but due to the expense, complexity, and unaffordability of these plans.
In this regard, Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. David P. Roe). My good friend is the ranking member on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
Madam Chair, let me simply say that, simply put, at $768 per enrollee, the navigator program is a waste of taxpayer resources.
With ever-shrinking budget pressure, we are better off spending this money on NIH research or doing something that will help long-term health, as my friend Dr. Roe is interested in: drug abuse, mental health attention. Those are the issues that are facing this country and a better use of this money.
Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
Madam Chair, I would like to return to the topic today of apprenticeships that are so important to our workforce across this country.
My amendment would strip a portion of the bill that would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to only support Department of Labor- registered apprenticeship programs, a stipulation that has not been in place in previous bills regarding apprenticeship grant funding.
So, let me be clear. I support Department of Labor-registered apprenticeship programs. I am not here to speak ill of those programs because they do a good job of equipping workers across this country with the skills they need to be successful.
But I am here because I have a problem with the Congress telling the American public that the only way to fill the skills gap and create opportunities is through government-defined apprenticeship programs.
Right now, our economy is facing an enormous skilled workforce shortage. According to the Department of Labor, there are 7.4 million job vacancies, and, with our continued economic prosperity, that number will only grow.
I speak with businesses in my district on a regular basis, in all sectors. Many would like to expand, create new jobs; but a consistent message, Madam Chair, is they are not able to because
they cannot find workers with the necessary skills.
It is an unfortunate fact that the registered apprenticeship programs come up short of adequately skilling our entire workforce. For example, in the construction industry, which uses more registered apprenticeship programs than any other industry, only 26,000 people graduated from a registered apprenticeship program in 2018.
Currently, the construction industry employs nearly 7.5 million people, which means that less than 1 percent of the workers in that industry went through a registered apprenticeship program.
Economic estimates have the number of current job openings in construction at 444,000 in total. So, if we were to rely only on registered apprenticeship programs, it would take 17 years to fill those openings, Madam Chair.
That is why this amendment is so important: to offer flexibility and to let other industry-related apprenticeship programs also get grant funding.
We are not denying registered apprenticeship grant funding. We are just simply saying that nonindustry- registered grant funding should be effective. They are safe, efficient, and result in stackable and portable credentials.
Madam Chair, I would like to call on my friend from Kentucky, Andy Barr, a member of the House Financial Services Committee, a man who chairs the Republican Study Committee's American Worker Task Force, and ask him for his views.
Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).
Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
Madam Chair, let me say that I appreciate the in-demand job work that the committee has put in place in the bill. That is wonderful. And I appreciate my friend from Connecticut's passion for this topic. I share it. I support DOL-supported apprenticeships. That has nothing to do with it.
This simply says that we strike the word ``only'' and that, if there is a gap somewhere in a local economy in this country, we have the flexibility to have an industry apprenticeship receive a grant.
This is supported by the Associated Builders and Contractors, the general contractors, the equipment manufacturers, the electrical contractors, the home builders, the roofing contractors, so this bill has full support.
Madam Chair, I include in the Record their letters.
Associated General
Contractors of America,
June 12, 2019.
AGC KEY VOTE: Vote ``Yes'' on Hill Amdt. No. 38 to H.R. 2740.
Hon. French Hill,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Hill: On behalf of the Associated
General Contractors of America (AGC), I write to urge you to
support Rep. French Hill Amendment No. 38 to H.R. 2740, which
would allow federal grant funds to be used for apprenticeship
programs registered with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)
as well as industry-recognized apprenticeship programs.
Because workforce development is a critical issue for the
construction industry, AGC reserves the right to record your
vote on this amendment as a ``key vote'' for the education of
its membership.
All forms of apprenticeship, whether registered or
industry-recognized, are clear and
direct pathways to quality middle-class jobs. While the
construction industry is currently the largest utilizer of
apprenticeship trained workers, the industry continues to
experience a severe worker shortage. The U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey identified
404,000 job openings in construction at the end of April, the
highest total for any month since the series began.
To help alleviate these challenges, grow job opportunities
and meet economic demand, AGC believes it is vital to build
upon the past successes construction apprenticeship programs
have achieved and allow them every opportunity to recruit and
train new talent into the industry, including access to
valuable federal grants. Ensuring workers are properly
educated and trained is essential to the future of the
construction industry as well as the nation's infrastructure
and economic growth.
While certain segments of the construction industry utilize
DOL's registered apprenticeship program, not all do.
Consequently, all segments of the construction industry
should ultimately be able to benefit from any DOL grants
programs. Many contractors have developed their own
apprenticeship programs in the private industry-recognized
market. Industry-led apprenticeships in construction have
strict standards of accountability and methods to ensure
quality, with penalties for noncompliance. All these programs
should have access to the same federal grant programs
regardless.
AGC supports creating quality jobs and training the skilled
workers to fill them. As such, federal grants should be
available to all quality programs. Again, AGC reserves the
right to record your vote as a ``key vote'' for the education
of its membership.
Sincerely,
Jimmy Christianson,
Vice President, Government Relations.
Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote to offer flexibility for contract apprenticeships across this country, and I yield back the balance of my time.