BUILDS Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 11, 2025
Bottom line
The BUILDS Act establishes a federal grant program to boost the skilled workforce in critical U.S. infrastructure sectors through industry-led partnerships and comprehensive support for diverse job seekers.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the BUILDS Act, requires the Secretary of Labor to award competitive grants to eligible partnerships. These grants are intended to foster collaboration between businesses, labor organizations, and education providers within targeted infrastructure industries to improve worker training, retention, and advancement, particularly for individuals facing barriers to employment. The program aims to align workforce development with industry needs and support work-based learning programs.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is essential for addressing the persistent skills gap in vital infrastructure sectors, ensuring the U.S. maintains its economic competitiveness, and maximizing the return on federal infrastructure investments. They contend it creates clear career pathways and provides crucial support for individuals with barriers to employment, fostering a more inclusive and robust workforce.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns that the grant program could lead to inefficient allocation of federal funds, potentially duplicating existing workforce development initiatives without demonstrating unique added value. They might also argue that the specified industries, while important, may not represent the most critical areas for such a targeted and substantial federal intervention.
The bill is moderately detailed but structured logically, allowing an informed reader to understand its core mechanisms and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 4
Grants Authorized
This section authorizes the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with other relevant federal agencies, to award competitive grants to eligible partnerships. These grants come in two forms: implementation grants for new partnerships (up to $2.5 million) and renewal grants for existing ones (up to $1.5 million), each lasting up to three years. The Secretary must ensure geographic diversity in awards and prioritize renewal grants that demonstrate long-term sustainability and provide a non-Federal cost share.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that providing direct federal funding through competitive grants is an effective way to incentivize and scale up successful industry-led workforce development models, ensuring resources are directed to high-impact initiatives.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that competitive grant programs can be burdensome for applicants and may not always reach the areas of greatest need, potentially favoring partnerships with more grant-writing capacity.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the desire for federal investment in workforce development with the need for local and industry-specific solutions, using a competitive grant structure to achieve this.
Section 5(d)
Strategic Objectives for Grant Activities
This section outlines six mandatory strategic objectives that all grant-funded activities must aim to achieve. These include recruiting key stakeholders (businesses, labor, educators), identifying industry training needs, facilitating economies of scale in training, aligning educational curricula with industry demands, sharing information with state employment agencies, and attracting diverse jobseekers, including individuals with barriers to employment, by addressing their specific challenges.
Section 6(c)
Business Engagement Services
This provision mandates that grant funds be used to provide services that actively engage businesses in achieving the program's strategic objectives. These services include assisting businesses with registering apprenticeship programs, connecting them with education providers for curriculum development, designing work-based learning programs, facilitating transitional employment, training managers and mentors, conducting career awareness activities, and recruiting individuals eligible for additional workforce or human services (e.g., WIOA participants, SNAP recipients, TANF recipients) for work-based learning programs.
Section 6(d)
Support Services for Individuals with Barriers to Employment
This section requires grant funds to be used for comprehensive support services for individuals with barriers to employment participating in work-based learning programs for at least 12 months. These services are categorized into pre-employment (e.g., skills training, child care, transportation, job placement), early employment (first 6 months, including ongoing case management, continued training, mentorship, and potentially wages/benefits as employer of record), and ongoing employment services (to ensure program completion and retention).
Section 8
Authorization of Appropriations
This section authorizes the appropriation of $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2026 and for each of the subsequent four fiscal years to carry out the activities outlined in the Act. This provides the financial backing for the grant program and administrative costs.
The definition of 'work-based learning program' explicitly includes 'paid work experience and corresponding approved classroom instruction, delivered in an employment relationship that both the employer and worker intend to lead to continuing employment after the program ends.' It also specifies 'paid work experience' includes training by an employer while engaged in productive work.
Section 3(11)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms upfront, ensuring consistent interpretation throughout the Act.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this precise definition ensures that programs funded under the Act are high-quality, provide fair compensation, and are genuinely designed to lead to long-term employment, rather than temporary or unpaid training.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against clear definitions that ensure program quality and worker protections.
Estimated impact: Ensures that all work-based learning programs funded by the $2.5 billion authorization adhere to standards of paid work and career progression, impacting thousands of workers.
The Secretary of Labor is required to consult with the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Education, and the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the Army Corps of Engineers when awarding grants.
Section 4(a)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative mechanism to ensure interagency coordination and leverage expertise across relevant federal departments.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this broad consultation ensures that the grant program is well-informed by expertise across various infrastructure sectors and educational policy, leading to more effective and strategically aligned investments.
Case against: Critics might suggest that requiring consultation with so many agencies could introduce bureaucratic delays and complexities into the grant award process, potentially slowing down implementation.
Estimated impact: Influences the strategic direction and priorities of the entire $2.5 billion grant program by integrating diverse federal perspectives.
Applications must describe credentials proposed as performance measures, which 'shall be nationally portable,' 'recognized postsecondary credentials or, if not available for the industry, other credentials determined by the Secretary to be appropriate,' and 'related to the targeted infrastructure industry.' It also states they 'may be a registered apprenticeship program.'
Section 5(b)(6)
Why it matters:This is a technical requirement for program accountability and quality assurance, typically placed within application guidelines.
Case for: Supporters would argue that requiring nationally portable, recognized credentials ensures that the training provided leads to high-quality, transferable skills and legitimate career advancement, maximizing the value of federal investment for workers.
Case against: Some might argue that insisting on 'nationally portable' credentials could exclude valuable local or niche certifications that are highly relevant within specific regional markets or specialized trades, potentially limiting program flexibility.
Estimated impact: Sets a high standard for the quality and transferability of skills acquired through programs funded by the $2.5 billion authorization, affecting all participants.
As part of early employment services, eligible partnerships may use grant funds to provide 'wages and benefits for a period of not more than 6 months, during which the eligible entities shall serve as the employers of record of such individuals' (those with barriers to employment).
Section 6(d)(2)(E)
Why it matters:This is a specific operational detail of how support services can be delivered, rather than a broad policy statement.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this provision is critical for enabling individuals with significant barriers to employment to gain initial work experience and financial stability, reducing the risk of early program dropout and ensuring a smoother transition into full employment.
Case against: Critics might view this as an expansion of the federal role into direct wage subsidies, potentially distorting labor markets or creating a dependency on grant funding for employment, rather than fostering immediate, unsubsidized job placement.
Estimated impact: Provides direct financial support (wages and benefits) for up to 6 months for a subset of program participants, significantly reducing their initial financial burden and increasing program retention.