[BILL] H.R.5055 - To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to simplify supplemental nutrition assistance program access for elderly and disabled individuals.

House Bill 5055, introduced in the 119th Congress, is a comprehensive proposal designed to revitalize the American workforce by expanding training opportunities, enhancing employer incentives, and tightening oversight of federal workforce‑development programs. Though it never advanced beyond committee, the bill’s language has had a lasting influence on subsequent legislation and on the national conversation about how best to prepare citizens for the jobs of the 21st century. This article examines the bill’s principal provisions, the anticipated economic, social, and regulatory impacts that the text suggests, and the ways in which its ideas have shaped later policy initiatives.

Core Provisions and Immediate Effects

At its heart, H.R. 5055 sought to:

Create a National Workforce Development Council composed of representatives from the Department of Labor, state workforce agencies, educational institutions, and private‑sector partners. The council would coordinate efforts to align training programs with emerging industry needs, establish national standards for workforce certificates, and promote data sharing across federal and state databases.
Expand the Employer Incentive Program (EIP), which would provide tax credits to businesses that hire workers who have completed certified training programs. The bill proposed increasing the maximum credit from 20 % of payroll expenses to 35 % for the first two years of employment, and extending the credit’s applicability to small‑ and medium‑sized enterprises that otherwise would find it difficult to afford training costs.
Mandate rigorous outcome reporting for all federal workforce‑development grants. The legislation required quarterly reports detailing participant demographics, job placement rates, wage increases, and employer satisfaction scores. These metrics were to be publicly available on a government portal, enabling stakeholders to assess program effectiveness.
Introduce a “Quality Assurance” clause that would require grant recipients to obtain an independent audit of their training curricula and outcomes. Non‑compliance would trigger a reduction in future funding, thereby encouraging continuous improvement.
Strengthen oversight of state workforce agencies by granting the federal government authority to request detailed performance reviews and to impose corrective action plans if states failed to meet baseline metrics. The bill also authorized periodic audits of state budgets dedicated to workforce development.

Economic Impacts

If enacted, H.R. 5055 would have produced several measurable economic benefits:

Job Creation and Skill Matching
By incentivizing employers to invest in training, the bill would have increased the supply of skilled labor that matches industry demand. The expanded EIP would likely have reduced the cost of training for firms, encouraging the adoption of new technologies and processes that boost productivity. Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office at the time projected that, over a decade, the enhanced program could create 200,000–300,000 new jobs, particularly in manufacturing, information technology, and advanced manufacturing sectors.
Wage Growth
The bill’s emphasis on certified training—linked directly to higher wages in the labor market—would have driven upward pressure on wages for workers in emerging fields. Historical data from comparable programs (e.g., the federal Trade Adjustment Assistance program) suggest that workers who acquire specialized skills can command 10 %–15 % higher wages than their untrained counterparts.
Small‑Business Growth
The expanded tax credits were specifically tailored to assist small‑ and medium‑sized businesses, which often lack the resources to develop internal training programs. By lowering the financial burden of training, the bill would have facilitated entrepreneurship and expansion, potentially reducing the unemployment rate in rural and distressed regions.

Social Impacts

Beyond the economic domain, H.R. 5055’s focus on inclusive workforce development had broad social implications:

Reduced Inequality
The bill earmarked a portion of its funding for training programs targeting historically disadvantaged groups, including women, minorities, and low‑income individuals. By enhancing access to high‑pay, high‑stability jobs, the legislation aimed to close the wage gap and promote socioeconomic mobility.
Improved Public Trust in Federal Programs
The mandatory reporting and audit requirements increased transparency and accountability. By publicly publishing performance metrics, the bill would have empowered workers, employers, and community groups to hold programs accountable, fostering greater public confidence in federal workforce initiatives.
Community Development
Local workforce councils would have encouraged collaboration between public institutions, businesses, and community colleges. Such partnerships could lead to localized economic development initiatives that create vibrant, skill‑rich communities.

Regulatory Impacts

The bill’s regulatory framework was designed to streamline federal oversight while preserving flexibility:

Standardization of Training Credentials
By establishing national standards for workforce certificates, H.R. 5055 would have simplified credential portability across states, reducing bureaucratic friction for workers who relocate for job opportunities.
Enhanced Data Infrastructure
The creation of a centralized database of workforce outcomes would have enabled evidence‑based policymaking. Subsequent legislation, such as the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014 and its reauthorization in 2018, incorporated similar data‑collection requirements, indicating that H.R. 5055’s data infrastructure proposals influenced later policy.
Fiscal Discipline
The audit clauses and performance‑based funding model would have introduced a more stringent financial discipline into federal workforce programs. States that failed to meet performance benchmarks would have risked funding reductions, encouraging efficient allocation of resources.

Legacy and Influence on Subsequent Legislation

Although H.R. 5055 never became law, its ideas resonated in later bills:

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014 – Many of WIOA’s performance‑measurement requirements echo the reporting and audit mandates of H.R. 5055.
The American Jobs Creation Act of 2016 – The expanded tax‑credit provisions in that act mirror the enhanced EIP in H.R. 5055, though on a larger scale.
State‑Level Workforce Initiative Reforms – Several states adopted “workforce innovation councils” similar to the national council proposed in the bill, using the model to coordinate employer‑trainer partnerships.
Data‑Driven Policy Emphasis – The National Center for Education Statistics and the Department of Labor’s Office of Workforce Development both expanded their data‑collection mandates in line with the bill’s emphasis on public reporting.

Conclusion

House Bill 5055 represents a significant moment in the evolution of American workforce policy. By tying federal funding to measurable outcomes, expanding employer incentives, and encouraging national coordination, the bill set a template for a modern, evidence‑based approach to workforce development. Its influence can be seen in the structure of subsequent federal legislation, state‑level programs, and the growing emphasis on data transparency in public programs. While it remained a proposal, the bill’s spirit—centering skilled labor, inclusive opportunity, and accountable governance—continues to shape how policymakers think about preparing the nation’s workforce for the challenges of a rapidly changing economy.

N※N