S-5401-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsored by Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
What it does
The bill would amend the Department of Energy Organization Act to require that the Secretary of Energy attach labor and community conditions to Department of Energy financial assistance (grants, loans, loan guarantees, cooperative agreements, and prize competitions). For construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair projects, it would require prevailing wages and at least 15 percent of labor hours worked by registered apprentices. It would also require every recipient and its contractors to certify neutrality on employee union organizing, and would require project labor agreements for contractors on Department facility projects costing over $1,000,000. Applicants for project funding would have to submit community benefits plans, and the Secretary would be required to seek to direct at least 40 percent of funds in listed programs to recipients committed to benefiting small or disadvantaged communities. Research and development recipients would have to agree to manufacture products substantially in the United States and could not move production overseas during the award and for 5 years after without approval. Violations would trigger corrective action, which may include withholding, recapturing, or ending funds, and the Department would publish compliance data. Other limits apply.
Who benefits
Construction and manufacturing workers on Energy Department-funded projects, who would receive prevailing wages and apprenticeship slots. Labor unions and registered apprenticeship and joint labor-management training programs, which would gain preference, project labor agreement work, and a neutral environment for organizing. Small or disadvantaged communities, which could see targeted funding and negotiated benefit agreements. Domestic manufacturers and their workers, who may gain from U.S.-production requirements and offshoring limits. Local governments, Tribal governments, and community groups that would gain a formal role in negotiating agreements.
Who is hurt
Businesses seeking Energy Department funding, especially small firms and non-union contractors, which would face added compliance, reporting, and certification costs and may be less competitive for awards. Contractors and subcontractors that would have to accept project labor agreements or labor neutrality as a funding condition. Applicants that rely on foreign supply chains or may need to shift manufacturing to the U.S. or seek approval to move it. Applicants in areas without disadvantaged-community status, which could receive a smaller share of funds. The Department of Energy, which would bear new administrative, monitoring, and rulemaking work. Taxpayers may bear higher project costs if the conditions raise bids.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal money should support good jobs, and that prevailing wages, apprenticeships, and project labor agreements are long-used tools for producing skilled workforces and steady project delivery. They contend that community benefits plans and the 40 percent goal direct funds to places bearing pollution and disinvestment, and that domestic manufacturing and offshoring limits keep the economic return of federally funded research in the United States. They point to public reporting and dashboards as accountability for how taxpayer dollars are used.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that these conditions would raise project costs, narrow the pool of bidders, and slow energy projects, especially for small and non-union firms that may lack capacity for plans, certifications, and reporting. They contend that requiring labor neutrality and project labor agreements as funding conditions favors organized labor and may conflict with national labor law. They also argue that the offshoring limits and the 40 percent community goal add broad secretarial discretion and administrative burden that could delay awards.
Constitutional context
Congress may attach conditions to federal funds under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), as upheld in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), so long as conditions are clearly stated and related to the federal interest. The labor neutrality and project labor agreement requirements may draw preemption arguments under the National Labor Relations Act, as in Building & Construction Trades Council v. Associated Builders (Boston Harbor, 1993), which allowed proprietary government use of such agreements, and broad Secretary discretion could face review under the major questions doctrine and Loper Bright.
Checks and balances
The bill would expand the Energy Secretary's authority over funding conditions, rulemaking, and enforcement, while Congress receives annual reports, the Labor Department keeps wage enforcement authority, and courts can review agency actions.
Historical precedent
The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 tied certain energy tax credit amounts to prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements, and the Davis-Bacon Act (1931) has long required prevailing wages on federally funded construction.