S-5263-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Sponsored by David McCormick (R-PA)
What it does
This bill would amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) in two ways. First, it would require the Secretary of Labor to collect and annually distribute to states and local areas evidence-based best practices for addressing the workforce and economic effects of high rates of substance use disorder. Second, it would create a new category of National Dislocated Worker Grants to fund employment and training activities related to the prevention and treatment of substance use disorder — including addiction treatment, mental health treatment, and pain management — in areas where demand for such services exceeds available state and local resources.
Who benefits
Workers displaced or underemployed due to widespread substance use in their communities. Long-term unemployed individuals in high-overdose areas. Healthcare workers and job-seekers pursuing careers in addiction treatment, mental health, or pain management. Local workforce boards and training providers in hard-hit communities who would gain access to federal grant funding. Communities in states like West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania with historically high overdose rates. Employers in those regions who face workforce shortages partly attributable to substance use disorder.
Who is hurt
States and localities that do not qualify under the "higher-than-average demand" threshold would not be eligible for the new grants, potentially widening resource disparities between regions. Existing National Dislocated Worker Grant recipients may face increased competition for a fixed pool of funds if no new appropriations accompany the bill. Taxpayers would bear any additional federal spending, though the bill does not specify a funding amount. Workers with substance use disorder who are not classified as "dislocated" or "long-term unemployed" may fall outside the eligibility criteria.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the opioid and addiction crisis has directly shrunk the American labor force — the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta has estimated that opioid use disorder alone reduced labor force participation by roughly 1 percentage point — and that existing workforce programs lack targeted tools to address this specific cause of unemployment. They contend that combining workforce development with addiction and mental health treatment funding addresses both the supply of trained healthcare workers and the demand created by displaced workers, making it a cost-effective, dual-purpose intervention in communities with the fewest resources to respond on their own.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates a new grant category without specifying an appropriation, meaning it may produce no additional funding and simply add administrative complexity to an already layered workforce system. They contend that substance use disorder treatment is primarily a healthcare and public health function better addressed through existing HHS and SAMHSA programs, and that routing it through the Labor Department's workforce infrastructure risks duplicating services, diluting expertise, and diverting WIOA resources away from the broader population of dislocated workers the program was designed to serve.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to attach conditions to federal grants under the Taxing and Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1). This bill operates squarely within that framework by creating a voluntary grant program — states and localities choose whether to apply. No constitutional tension is apparent, as participation is optional and the bill does not compel state action, avoiding the Spending Clause coercion concerns identified in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012).
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (Secretary of Labor) gains discretionary authority to award grants and define eligibility criteria; Congress retains oversight through the appropriations process and WIOA reauthorization cycles.
Historical precedent
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (2014) and its predecessor, the Workforce Investment Act (1998), have previously used National Dislocated Worker Grants to respond to specific economic dislocations, including natural disasters and mass layoffs, establishing a precedent for targeted grant categories within the broader workforce system.