[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY IN
AMERICA'S SCHOOLS
AND WORKPLACES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 4, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-1
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
92-960 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Duncan Hunter, California Ranking Member
David P. Roe, Tennessee Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Matt Salmon, Arizona Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Todd Rokita, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Northern Mariana Islands
Luke Messer, Indiana Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Bradley Byrne, Alabama Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
David Brat, Virginia Mark Pocan, Wisconsin
Buddy Carter, Georgia Mark Takano, California
Michael D. Bishop, Michigan Hakeem S. Jeffries, New York
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Katherine M. Clark, Massachusetts
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Carlos Curbelo, Florida Mark DeSaulnier, California
Elise Stefanik, New York
Rick Allen, Georgia
Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director
Denise Forte, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 4, 2015................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
Workforce.................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Statement of Witnesses:
Amiridis, Michael, Dr., Provost and Executive Vice President
for Academic Affairs, University of South Carolina,
Columbia, SC............................................... 24
Prepared statement of.................................... 26
Greenblatt, Drew, Mr., President and CEO, Marlin Steel Wire
Products, Baltimore, MD.................................... 47
Prepared statement of.................................... 49
Mishel, Lawrence, Dr., President, Economic Policy Institute,
Washington, DC............................................. 32
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Pence, Hon. Mike, Governor, State of Indiana, Indianapolis,
IN......................................................... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Additional Submissions:
Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut:
The Hartford Courant: Connecticut's Hiring Hasn't Been
This Good Since 1998................................... 84
Chairman Kline:
Democratic Subcommittee Assignments and Membership....... 5
Republican Subcommittee Assignments and Membership....... 3
Mr. Scott:
Chart: When it comes to the pace of annual pay increases. 11
Chart: Middle-class wages are stagnant................... 13
EXPANDING OPPORTUNITY IN AMERICA'S SCHOOLS AND WORKPLACES
----------
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kline, Wilson, Foxx, Thompson,
Walberg, Guthrie, Rokita, Messer, Brat, Carter, Bishop,
Grothman, Russell, Curbelo, Stefanik, Allen, Scott, Hinojosa,
Grijalva, Courtney, Fudge, Polis, Sablan, Wilson, Bonamici,
Pocan, Takano, Jeffries, Clark, Adams, and DeSaulnier.
Staff present: Lauren Aronson, Press Secretary; Ed Gilroy,
Director of Workforce Policy; Callie Harman, Staff Assistant;
Christie Herman, Professional Staff Member; Marvin Kaplan,
Workforce Policy Counsel; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Zachary
McHenry, Legislative Assistant; Daniel Murner, Deputy Press
Secretary; Brian Newell, Communications Director; Krisann
Pearce, General Counsel; Lauren Reddington, Deputy Press
Secretary; Molly McLaughlin Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce
Policy; Mandy Schaumburg, Education Deputy Director and Senior
Counsel; Emily Slack, Professional Staff Member; Alissa
Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director;
Alexa Turner, Legislative Assistant; Joseph Wheeler,
Professional Staff Member; Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern
and Fellow Coordinator; Austin Barbera, Minority Staff
Assistant; Amy Cocuzza, Minority Labor Detailee; Eamonn
Collins, Minority Education Policy Advisor; Denise Forte,
Minority Staff Director; Melissa Greenberg, Minority Labor
Policy Associate; Carolyn Hughes, Minority Senior Labor Policy
Advisor; Eunice Ikene, Minority Labor Policy Associate; Brian
Kennedy, Minority General Counsel; Brian Levin, Minority Press
Secretary; Richard Miller, Minority Senior Labor Policy
Advisor; Amy Peake, Minority Labor Policy Advisor; and Rayna
Reid, Minority Labor Policy Counsel.
Chairman Kline. A quorum being present, the Committee on
Education and the Workforce will come to order.
Before we turn our attention to this morning's hearing, I
would like to take care of an administrative matter. At the
committee's January 21, meeting we welcomed our new members to
the committee. Today, both the Republicans and Democrats have
completed assigning members to the subcommittees.
I ask unanimous consent on behalf of myself and Mr. Scott,
the committee's ranking member, to submit those assignments for
the record.
Mr. Scott. Without objection--
Chairman Kline. We will give you every opportunity.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kline. Without objection, the subcommittee
assignments are made.
Turning to our hearing, and Governor Pence is with us; he
will be joining here in just a moment, but I would like to go
ahead and get started.
So I am going to recognize myself for my opening comments.
Welcome, to witnesses and guests. I would like to extend a
special welcome to our former colleague, Indiana Governor Mike
Pence, who, I just mentioned, will be joining us shortly.
Last week, we were reminded once again of the persistent
challenges facing the American people. The Department of
Commerce reported that the economy grew a meager 2.6 percent in
the last quarter of 2014. According to the Wall Street Journal,
we have now experienced nine straight years of growth below 3
percent.
This anemic economy is hurting families across the country.
It is hurting nearly 9 million workers who remain unemployed;
it is hurting more than 6 million workers who need full-time
jobs, but can only find part-time work; it is hurting moms and
dads trying to pay the bills and put food on the table with
smaller paychecks.
As workplaces continue to struggle, so do the nation's
schools. One out of five students will drop out of high school
before receiving a diploma.
Making matters worse, far too many students graduate
without the knowledge and skills they need to pursue higher
education or compete in the workforce. Meanwhile, college costs
continue to soar and graduates are leaving college with too
much debt and too few job prospects.
These are tough problems that have been around for years,
and unfortunately, the President's policies are making them
worse. The administration continues to pursue new rules and
regulations that jeopardize employee rights, stymie growth, and
make it harder for employers to raise wages and create new
jobs.
A convoluted waiver system is creating more confusion and
uncertainty in K-12 schools, and flawed regulatory schemes will
deny students access to the college or university of their
choice.
Just this week, the President put forward a budget proposal
that calls for more spending, more taxes, and more borrowing to
create new government programs. Middle-class families are being
squeezed, and a larger federal presence in classrooms and
workplaces is not the answer.
The President wants us to double down on the failed
policies of the last six years. The American people deserve
better. We need to do better.
We must provide employers certainty and flexibility so they
can grow their businesses, create new jobs, and give workers
the raise they have earned. We must help more students pursue
the dream of a college degree without living in a nightmare of
debt and unemployment.
We must advance K-12 education reform that empowers parents
and places more control in the hands of teachers and local
decision-makers. We must modernize our pension system and hold
the administration accountable for policies that make it harder
for individuals to succeed in school and the workplace.
The American people are desperate to move the country in a
new direction. They are not willing to accept slow growth and
stagnant wages as the new normal.
They deserve bold solutions that will lead to a strong,
vibrant economy, more good-paying jobs, and higher incomes for
working families. These are the priorities shared by most
Americans and they must be our priorities as well.
In the coming months, we intend to advance responsible
reforms that will help make a difference in the lives of
students, employers, teachers, and working families. We have an
excellent panel of witnesses to tell us what is working and
what isn't and to help inform our efforts moving forward.
Again, I want to thank our witnesses for joining us, and I
look forward to our discussion.
Before I recognize Ranking Member Scott, I would like to
take just a brief moment to say a few words about one member
who is unable to join us today. Congressman Phil Roe recently
learned that a member of his family is battling a serious
illness and has taken some time to support his family. I ask my
colleagues to please lift up your prayers to Phil and the
entire Roe family.
With that, I will now recognize the committee's ranking
member, my colleague, Bobby Scott, for his opening remarks.
[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Good morning, and welcome to our guests. We have a distinguished
panel of witnesses, including the First Lady of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, Mrs. Dorothy McAuliffe. Mrs. McAuliffe, we are delighted to
have you with us this morning as we discuss important policies
affecting our nation's students and families.
Healthy meals are vitally important to a child's education. It's
just basic commonsense that if a child is hungry then he or she is less
likely to succeed in the classroom and later in life. That is why our
nation has long invested in services that provide low-income students
nutritious meals in schools. Those services are authorized through a
number of laws, such as the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch
Act and the Child Nutrition Act.
In just a few short months, these laws and the programs they
authorize will expire, including the national school lunch and
breakfast programs, the Supplemental Nutritional Program for Women,
Infants, and Children or WIC Program, and several others. It's the
responsibility of this committee and Congress to reauthorize these
programs so that students and families receive the support they need in
the most efficient and effective way.
Why is that important? Because no child should go to school hungry
- it's that simple. Today's discussion is not about whether we agree on
this basic principle; I am confident we all do. Instead, our discussion
today is about beginning a larger effort we will continue in the coming
months to ensure the best policies are in place to help reach this
goal.
Last week, I had an opportunity to tour a school lunchroom at the
Prior Lake High School in Savage, Minnesota. Students and faculty
described what's working and what isn't working in federal nutrition
programs. As a result of our conversation, two important realities
became abundantly clear.
First, our school nutrition professionals are dedicated men and
women doing the best they can under difficult circumstances, and no one
should question their commitment to providing students nutritious
meals. Unfortunately, rules and regulations put in place in recent
years have made their jobs harder, not easier. The cost of the lunch
and breakfast programs for schools are going up, yet fewer meals are
being served. In fact, the number of children participating in these
programs is declining more rapidly than any period over the last 30
years.
Second, as we reauthorize these programs, we have to provide more
flexibility at the state and local levels. Those working in our schools
and cafeterias recognize that this has to be a priority. Even students
understand the urgent need for more flexibility.
During my visit to Prior Lake High School, I talked with a number
of students about their school lunch program. Right now, the federal
government determines the number of calories, vegetables, and grains
that are served to students, which means Washington is dictating how
much food every child is served at every school meal. That is one
reason why students are urging the school to drop out of the program.
Many children are bringing food from home or buying more food because
the portion sizes served at school are too small for a full meal. As
one student, Corinna Swiggum, noted, ``A lot of time, we're going back
and getting junk food, not healthy food.''
This isn't what these children want. This isn't what their parents
or school administrators want, and it's not what we want either. We
have to find a better way forward, one that continues our commitment to
healthy, nutritious meals for America's students, while giving state
and school leaders the flexibility they need to make it a reality.
Again, that is why we are delighted to have you here today Mrs.
McAuliffe. Through your ``Eat Smart, Move More'' initiative, you are
setting an example for other states to build upon. You are
demonstrating that promoting healthy lifestyles is not just a federal
priority, but a state and local priority as well.
Often we are told we need more federal involvement because states
can't be trusted to help those in need. But through your leadership,
you're demonstrating states can take the lead on tough issues in
partnership with the federal government. Thank you for your work on
this important issue, and to all our witnesses, thank you for
participating in today's hearing and working with us to strengthen
child nutrition support.
With that, I will now recognize the committee's ranking member, my
colleague Congressman Scott, for his opening remarks.
______
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And our thoughts and
prayers are with our colleague, Dr. Roe, and I wish his family
well.
Good morning, and I want to thank our witnesses for being
here for the first full committee hearing of the 114th
Congress, especially our former member from Indiana. Today's
hearing allows us to hear testimony from a distinguished panel
about steps that states and institutions of higher education
and business are taking to improve the well-being of students,
families, and workers in our country, and I look forward to
learning more from our witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out that I had hoped that our
first hearing would be to consider testimony on legislation
that was introduced yesterday, H.R. 5, which would reauthorize
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I am disappointed
that the majority has chosen to move forward on the
reauthorization without holding a single hearing.
Hearings provide the public with the opportunity to explore
the research and evidence that is critical to making evidence-
based policy decisions. When it comes to improving the academic
achievement of our children, we need the best research to help
form the basis for any reauthorization.
Failure to seek input from experts and various stakeholders
and embarking on an expedited process is a disservice to the
50-year bipartisan history of ESEA, and, more importantly, a
disservice to our nation's children. So tomorrow we will be
holding a forum on ESEA, to which all members of the committee
are invited. This forum will serve as one opportunity to
explore what works to improve education.
But on the issue of the opportunity for students and our
workers, our country has come a long way since the depths of
the Great Recession. Unemployment has dropped to 5.6 percent,
its lowest rate since 2008. The private sector has experienced
a record 58 consecutive months of job growth, and each of the
past 11 months the economy has added over 200,000 private
sector jobs, a growth rate not seen since the 1990s.
But success in the labor market has yet to translate into
higher wages for the majority of workers, and the gap between
the haves and have-nots continues to expand. This chart points
out that wages for the top 1 percent since 1979 have grown over
138 percent, while the bottom 90 percent just grew 15 percent.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
And the income for the top 1 percent rose from $871,000 in
2009 to $968,000 in the course of just the last year. But for
the remaining 99 percent, the income rate has actually declined
over the same period.
This next chart gives a better idea of what has happened to
the middle class wages from 1979 to 2013. Middle class wages
have grown a mere 6 percent, while low-wage workers actually
declined 5 percent.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Congress must ensure that all workers see our economy's
improvement reflected in their paychecks. This includes raising
the national minimum wage, increasing overtime pay protections,
and strengthening workers' ability to collectively bargain on
their behalf.
We also must continue to expand the bipartisan achievements
of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act to promote
and develop skills which lead to in-demand, higher-paying jobs.
Our investment in our country's workforce must start early. The
success of our children directly relates to the long-term
health of our workforce and our economy.
In fact, a study just released by the Washington Center for
Equitable Growth shows that improving our educational
performance could substantially increase our gross domestic
product over the next 35 years. Only through continued
investment in high-quality education and through working to
reduce inequality in our educational system can our country
continue to thrive. We must make sure that all students are
receiving an education that prepares them for college or a
career.
And we must also improve access to higher education.
Research from the Georgetown University Center on Education and
the Workforce shows that by 2018 we will need 22 million new
college degrees, and at the rate we are going we are going to
fall short by 3 million.
A college education is important not only for our economy,
but also for students' future wages. College graduates earn an
average of $46,000 a year, where those with only a high school
diploma earn less than half of that.
But the cost of pursuing a college degree has become even
more daunting. Skyrocketing college costs have forced students
and families to incur greater and greater loan debt.
Seven in 10 graduating seniors in 2013 had to borrow money
averaging $28,000 or more. Student debt now stands at over $1.2
trillion and is certainly a drag on our economic growth.
I hope the committee can find areas of common ground to
address these challenges, and I look forward to hearing from
witnesses on how we can expand opportunity for students and our
workers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
[The statement of Mr. Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Ranking Member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good Morning, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today
for our first full committee hearing of the 114th Congress.
Today's hearing allows us to hear testimony from a distinguished
panel about the steps that states, institutions of higher education and
business are taking to improve the well-being of students, families and
workers in our country. I look forward to learning more from the
witnesses.
However, Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that our first hearing would be
to consider testimony on the legislation you introduced yesterday, H.R.
5, which would reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
I am disappointed the majority has chosen to move forward with
their Elementary and Secondary Act reauthorization without holding a
single hearing. Hearings provide the public with the opportunity to
explore the research and evidence that is critical to the making
evidence-based policy decisions. And when it comes to improving the
academic achievement of all children, we need the best research to help
form the basis of any reauthorization.
Failure to seek input from experts and various stakeholders, and
embarking on an expedited process is a disservice to the fifty-year,
bipartisan history of ESEA and, more importantly, a disservice to our
nation's children.
So tomorrow, we are holding a Democratic forum on ESEA to which all
members of the committee are invited. This forum will serve as one
opportunity to explore what works to improve education.
Our country has come a long way since the depths of the Great
Recession. Unemployment has dropped to 5.6 percent, its lowest rate
since 2008. The private sector has experienced a record 58 consecutive
months of job growth. Each of the past 11 months, the economy has added
200,000 private sector jobs--growth not seen since the 1990s.
But success in the labor market has yet to translate into higher
wages for the majority of workers and the gap between the ``haves'' and
``have-nots'' continues to expand.
As the first chart points out, wages for the top 1% have grown 138%
since 1979, while wages for the bottom 90% grew at just 15%. And the
average income for the top 1 percent rose from $871,100 in 2009 to
$968,000 over the course of 2012 and 2013, but for the remaining 99
percent, average income actually declined slightly over the same
period.
The next graph gives us a better idea of what has happened to
middle-class wages: from 1979 to 2013, middle-class wages have grown a
mere 6%, with low-wage workers' wages actually declining 5%.
Congress must ensure that all workers see our economy's
improvements reflected in their paychecks. This includes:
* Raising the national minimum wage;
* Increasing overtime pay protections; and
* Strengthening workers' ability to collectively bargain on their
behalf.
We also must continue to expand on the bipartisan achievements of
the Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act (WIOA) to promote and
develop skills that lead to in-demand, higher-paying jobs.
However, investment in our country's workforce must start early:
the success of our children directly relates to the long-term health of
our workforce and our economy. In fact, a study released just this week
by the Washington Center for Equitable Growth shows that improving our
educational performance could substantially increase our gross domestic
product over the next 35 years. Only through continued investment in
high-quality education and through working to reduce inequality in our
education system can our country continue to thrive. And we make sure
all students are receiving an education that prepares them for college
or career.
We must also improve access to higher education. Research from the
Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce shows that
by 2018, we will need 22 million new college degrees, but we will fall
short by at least 3 million.
A college education is important not only for our economy, but also
for a student's future earnings. College graduates, on average, earn
$46,900 a year, whereas those with only a high school diploma earn less
than half that.
But the cost of pursuing a college degree has become even more
daunting. Skyrocketing college costs have forced students and families
to incur greater and greater loan debt. Seven in 10 graduating seniors
in 2013 had to borrow loans averaging $28,400. Student debt now stands
at over $1.2 trillion and is a drag on our economic growth.
I hope the Committee can find areas of common ground to address
these challenges.
And I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how we can
expand opportunity for students and workers.
Thank you and I yield back.
______
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all members will be
permitted to submit written statements to be included in the
permanent hearing record. Without objection, the hearing record
will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other
extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be
submitted for the official hearing record.
And I know Governor Pence has heard that phrase 1,000
times. Seems a little strange to have you down there instead of
up here.
But to that end, we are going to move to introducing our
distinguished witnesses, and I will start by recognizing Mr.
Rokita, followed by Mr. Messer, to introduce their governor.
Mr. Rokita?
Mr. Rokita. Well, good morning. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the privilege of introducing our good friend and
one of Indiana's favorite sons, a true leader, Mike Pence.
Many of us have worked with Governor Pence here in the
House, and we are pleased to see his public service continue.
He is a cutting-edge policymaker. He is a solution-oriented
leader.
And perhaps most obvious to many of us, he serves with a
servant's heart in all versions of that definition. Governor
Pence deserves a great deal of credit for fostering education
and economic opportunity in our great state.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will simply let him tell us more about
that.
It is an honor to have you here with us today, Governor.
Thank you for your service.
Mr. Messer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Rokita.
It is my honor to be able to introduce a proud son of
Indiana's 6th Congressional District, my friend--I am proud to
call Mike Pence my governor, but I am even prouder to call him
my friend. He is, as you will learn today, an incredible
innovator in the area of education, somebody who is expanding
vocational opportunities in our state, somebody who is a great
champion for school choice initiatives in our state, somebody
who understands that we cannot rest as a nation until every
child in America has an opportunity to go to a great school,
and understands the simple principle that no child in America
should have a wait list to their future.
Thank you for being here today, Governor. We are proud to
have you.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Wilson to introduce our
second witness.
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And this is really a special day for the Wilson family. My
wife is going to be here in a minute, because two of her
favorite people on earth are sitting up front: Mike Pence and
Provost Michael Amiridis. Hey, she loves to see Chairman Kline,
but this is much better, so--
Chairman Kline. Too late.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. No, no this is good.
But as a grateful graduate of the University of South
Carolina myself, I really appreciate Dr. Michael Amiridis being
here today and for his service to the University of South
Carolina, its students, as provost and executive vice president
of academic affairs.
Dr. Amiridis has been an integral part of the University of
South Carolina since 1994, when he started as an assistant
professor. He has served as provost since 2009.
As a continuing professor of chemical engineering, Dr.
Amiridis has taught several courses in kinetics, reactor
design, and catalysis, and has received numerous college and
university awards recognizing his teaching ability and research
efforts.
Though the University of South Carolina will surely miss
him, we wish him well in his future endeavors as the new
chancellor of the University of Illinois at Chicago, beginning
next month.
Godspeed, Dr. Amiridis.
Thank you.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Now it is my turn to introduce the next two witnesses.
Dr. Lawrence Mishel is the president of the Economic Policy
Institute, EPI. During his time at EPI he has focused on U.S.
living standards and labor markets. Prior to joining EPI, he
held a number of research roles, was a faculty member at
Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations,
and was an economist for several unions, including the United
Auto Workers, the United Steelworkers, AFSCME, and the
Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO.
Welcome.
Mr. Drew Greenblatt is president and CEO of Marlin Steel in
Baltimore, Maryland, a company of 30 employees that
manufactures materials handling baskets, sheet metal
fabrications, wire forms, and machine products for aerospace,
automotive, medical, pharmaceutical, industrial, and military
applications. Mr. Greenblatt served on the board of the
National Association of Manufacturers from September 2007 to
September 2009 and is currently the chair of their Small
Business Tax Policy Task Force.
We have a new policy, which I think has been explained to
the witnesses, that we have adopted across the committees in
the House based on a Department of Justice recent ruling, and
so I am going to ask the witnesses to stand and raise your
right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Kline. Thank you. Please be seated.
And let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the
affirmative.
Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me
briefly explain our lighting system. It is not all that
innovative or unusual so I don't think this will be too hard.
You have five minutes to present your testimony. When you
begin, the light in front of you will turn green; when one
minute is left, the light will turn yellow; when your time is
expired, the light will turn red.
At that point, I will ask that you wrap up your remarks as
best you are able. It has been a very long time since I have
gaveled down a witness because they ran over, but please be
aware that there are the four of you and that we want the
opportunity to ask questions.
When it comes to member questions, I am much quicker to
drop the gavel, as I will try to hold my colleagues to their
five minutes.
So, Governor Pence, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE PENCE, GOVERNOR, STATE OF INDIANA,
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
Governor Pence. Thank you, Chairman Kline, and to Ranking
Member Scott. Thank you for the invitation to come before you
today and talk about what it is to be a part of a state that
works, and particularly works for education.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to appear before all
the distinguished members of this committee, many of whom I had
the great privilege of serving with in the House of
Representatives. And so let me thank all of you for the ongoing
sacrifices that you personally and your families make as you
serve the American people in this important time in the life of
our nation.
Obviously, I am extremely grateful for the service and the
leadership and the esteem of Congressman Rokita and Congressman
Messer.
Thank you for your kind comments. More importantly, thank
you for your outstanding service to the people of Indiana and
the people of our country.
I have been in office as governor for a little over two
years, and, Mr. Chairman, I would say with the deepest respect
to my former colleagues that I am persuaded, having spent 12
years in the Congress and two years as a governor, that the
cure for what ails this country will come as much from our
nation's state capitals as it ever will from our nation's
capital.
And I am very grateful for the efforts of this Congress,
last Congress in the Workforce Investment Act, and as you move
forward in reaffirming and restoring local control in
education, that there is a clear recognition of that.
In Indiana, in the category of education, we believe our
state has the privilege of really being one of the leading
innovators in education and expanding opportunity for all of
our kids in this country. We are a state that is growing
economically: more than 100,000 net new jobs since I took over;
unemployment has dropped from over 8 percent to now 5.8 percent
in Indiana.
But we realized early on in our state that if we can't
succeed in the classroom, we won't succeed in the marketplace.
And so Indiana has been driving education innovation, funding
our traditional K-12 schools, and promoting public charter
school innovation.
We are proud in the Hoosier state to be home now to the
largest educational voucher program in the United States of
America. In K-12 education, I am pleased to report to you
graduation rates are up, test scores are up, and the state of
Indiana recently ranked second in the nation in total growth on
the Nation's Report Card, known as the NAEP.
Our charter schools serve more than 35,000 students across
the state of Indiana, and, as I mentioned, our voucher program
not only encompasses now some 30,000 students, but four out of
five of our voucher students attend schools that are ranked
``A'' or ``B'' in the state's accountability system.
Our current session of the general assembly is underway and
we have reached a broad consensus that it will be an education
session. We put forward a series of initiatives, the goal of
which is to arrive at the fall of the year 2020 and have
100,000 more kids attending ``B'' or better schools in the
state of Indiana.
To accomplish that, we are calling for a significant
increase in traditional K-12 funding, with a special emphasis
on giving greater flexibility in our classrooms to pay good
teachers more. As the chairman remembers, I have been married
to a school teacher now for 30 years this year, and I learned a
long time ago that good teachers make the difference.
And I said recently to our general assembly that if you
want more good teachers then pay good teachers more. We are
going to work to do that in the state of Indiana and give
schools the flexibility to do that. We are also going to raise
the foundation under our public charter program and lift the
cap on our voucher program.
Most enthusiasm in our state, I believe, centers not just
around those initiatives, but I believe Indiana will be the
first state in America to make career and vocational education
a priority in every high school again. We have been working
with unanimous bipartisan support in our general assembly to
both redesign career and technical education at the high school
level in Indiana, and now in this session of our general
assembly we will be funding it.
So my word is, as I watch the clock and know the chairman
well enough to know the gavel is close, my word to all of you
is a word of thanks for your leadership. I look forward to a
dialogue today.
But my request simply is that Indiana has demonstrated the
kind of innovation that is benefiting our children; it is
expanding educational choices both within our public systems,
as well as private school choice in our state, so as you go
through the process of legislating this year that you think of
resources, not red tape. I really do believe that to the extent
that this Congress can give states like Indiana more freedom,
more flexibility to innovate, our children, our states, and our
people will be the beneficiaries.
So thank you very much, and I yield back.
[The statement of Governor Pence follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kline. Thank you very much, Governor.
Now I would like to recognize Dr. Amiridis for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL AMIRIDIS, PROVOST AND EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Amiridis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished
members of the committee, it is an honor and a privilege for me
personally and for the University of South Carolina to appear
in front of you today.
The changes we have experienced in higher education in the
last five years are unprecedented. It is not only the
operational and funding models that are changing drastically,
but it is also the expectations of the public, of our students,
and their parents that have shifted dramatically.
Given this environment, some of my colleagues in academia
are actually pessimistic about the future of our universities.
In contrast, I believe that the best days for our public
research universities are ahead of us. I believe that the
public's demand for transparency and accountability gives us a
wonderful vehicle to demonstrate the great success we have had
in educating the sons and daughters of our country and
preparing them for the workforce.
I believe that the expectations of the students and parents
for job skills and employability have motivated us to reexamine
and modernize our programs. And I believe that the current
environment is ideal for the establishment of public-private
partnerships to support critical functions of our public
universities, taking advantage of the experience and efficiency
of the private sector.
And yes, all of this can be achieved while we continue to
increase efficiencies and control costs so that we remain
accessible and affordable.
There is no doubt that we will also continue to face
significant challenges in higher education. Decreased funding
both for instruction at the state level in many states, and for
research at the federal agency level, has resulted in
significant financial pressures on the operation of our
universities.
An increasingly larger fraction of the cost of
undergraduate instruction has been passed to the students and
their families through increases in tuition, creating a
situation where we are pricing out, even from our public
universities, a growing percentage of our high school
graduates. At the same time, it has become more difficult for
the research universities to sustain financially the efforts
that have contributed to the world-leading position of our
country in technology and creating an innovation deficit.
Finally, due to a growing regulatory framework both at the
state and federal levels, the amount of time and effort needed
to satisfy report requirements has grown exponentially with
clear cost consequences for us.
In this environment there are going to be universities that
thrive at the same time that others will struggle to maintain
status quo. The difference will be the ability to come up with
and implement innovative ideas quickly, and I am here today to
offer a few examples of such innovative programs in South
Carolina.
Our Palmetto College provides the opportunity to place-
bound South Carolinians to complete their undergraduate degrees
online after they have studied for two years in a university, a
community college, or a technical college. It allows students
in vocationally oriented degree programs to develop the skills
needed for available jobs in their local communities; it
provides local advising, career counseling services, utilizing
the existing network of campuses in our system; and most
importantly, it reduces cost of attendance and student debt by
maintaining affordable tuition.
In the two years since its inception in 2013, more than
1,000 students have enrolled in these degree programs, and 200
of them have already graduated.
Our ``On Your Time'' initiative utilizes the full calendar
to give our students more flexibility in academic planning to
facilitate timely graduation. It expands the traditional summer
programs to a full semester; it allows students to take
advantage of work, service, or other opportunities year-round
without the risk of extending their time to graduation and
their debt; and it creates summer immersion institutes in high-
demand areas for students who want to enhance their marketable
job skills in a short period of time.
The added flexibility allows for over 50 percent of the
bachelor's degrees offered by the University of South Carolina
to be completed on an accelerated timeframe, consistent with
the preference of over 40 percent of our freshmen and sophomore
students who would like the opportunity to complete their
baccalaureate degree in less than four years.
Additional examples--our USC Connect program and Gamecock
Guarantee programs--are described in detail in the written
testimony.
We pledge to continue developing such ideas, as I know many
of our colleagues also do across the country, but we also need
your help. We need your help in continuing to support need-
based federal funding for our students. We need your help in
continuing to provide federal support for academic research so
that we close the innovation deficit.
And finally, we need your help in controlling a growing
regulatory framework--put in place, in most cases, with good
intentions in order to control a few bad actors--although the
tools are already in place to do so.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for
the opportunity to join you today. And on behalf of our
students, their families, and our faculty and staff members, I
thank you for your commitment to and support of higher
education, and in particular, the public higher education
sector that I come from.
Thank you.
[The statement of Dr. Amiridis follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kline. Thank you, sir.
Now, Dr. Mishel, please? You are recognized for five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. LAWRENCE MISHEL, PH.D., PRESIDENT, ECONOMIC
POLICY INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Mishel. Thank you very much.
Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Scott, members of the
committee, I appreciate the opportunity to address the state of
the economy and the prospects for America's workers.
My testimony today will focus on the key economic challenge
we face, which is middle-income stagnation. It is just common
sense that wage trends lay at the heart of this issue.
After all, middle-income families are essentially those who
rely almost entirely on their jobs for what they get to spend.
They don't have financial assets that produce income. This is
also true for low-income households, so lifting people out of
poverty and strengthening the middle class is essentially that
wage growth.
Let me offer a few facts to start the discussion. First, as
Mr. Scott noted, the top 1 percent saw their wages rise by 138
percent since 1979, while the bottom 90 percent saw a rise of
just 15 percent, most of that in the late 1990s.
Secondly, we have seen substantial productivity growth
since 1973, up 74 percent. But a typical worker's pay only rose
9 percent. So this is a very long-term issue and it is not
about generating productivity; it is about making sure that
productivity is shared by the vast majority.
Last, it is also worth noting that wages have been stagnant
for the last 10 years in the last recovery as well as this one,
for both blue-collar and white-collar workers, both college
graduates and high school-educated workers.
Some people think that these problems stem from a so-called
skills mismatch, that somehow those without a college degree
just don't have the skills needed for today's economy. That is
simply not true.
Evidence from many studies shows that since 2000 the jobs
that we have been creating have been concentrated at the very
low end. The jobs in the upper half of the wage scale, which
require the most education, have not expanded their share of
employment whatsoever. In fact, we see college wages stagnant,
new graduates from colleges taking jobs with fewer wages and
fewer benefits.
So what are some of the things that can be done by this
committee to actually address this problem? First, you should
raise the minimum wage to $12.50 by 2020, which will benefit a
third of the workforce directly and indirectly.
Second, we need to update the overtime rules. It used to be
that two-thirds of salaried workers qualified for overtime; now
it is only 11 percent. Hopefully the administration will raise
the threshold and add 6 million people to that protection.
Third, we need to strengthen the rights to collective
bargaining. The biggest shock to wages over the last 30 years
has been the erosion of collective bargaining, which has hurt
the wages of those who used to benefit from collective
bargaining, but even more so those who benefited, non-union
workers, whose wages were lifted by their employers who were
fearful that they would leave the job and take a better-paying
job.
Fourth, we need to regularize undocumented workers. These
workers are exploited. They earn lower wages. Regularizing them
will raise their wages and also lift the wages of those in
similar fields of work.
Fifth, let's end forced arbitration, systems where
employers force workers to not be able to go to agencies or
courts for remedies--for wage and hour violations or
discrimination.
Sixth, we need to modernize our labor standards. It is not
enough to just protect the New Deal standards; we need to bring
new standards to allow families to mesh work and family. We
need paid sick leave, paid family leave, and standards like
that.
Seventh, we need to close race and gender inequities. Many
of the policies I have discussed will do that, but we also need
consistent, strong enforcement of antidiscrimination laws.
Eighth, we need fair contracting, like what the President
has proposed. These new rules will help reduce wage theft,
obtain greater racial and gender equity, and generally support
wage growth.
Last, we need to tackle misclassification, wage theft, and
protect prevailing wages. These are all things that will help
lift wages.
What won't help is tax cuts. Tax cuts won't generate
economic growth. The growth they will benefit will not
necessarily trickle down to wages.
The taxes paid by a middle-class family, according to CBO,
used to be 18 percent in 1979. It is now down to 11 percent.
That is not the problem we have faced.
Last, it is not so much getting more people to go to
college. It is about making sure that those people, with
whatever degree they have, see rising wages.
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
[The statement of Dr. Mishel follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kline. Thank you, sir.
Now, Mr. Greenblatt, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. DREW GREENBLATT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MARLIN
STEEL WIRE PRODUCTS, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Mr. Greenblatt. Good morning, Chairman Kline, Ranking
Member Scott, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you and for holding
this hearing today.
My name is Drew Greenblatt, and I am the president and
owner of Marlin Steel. I am currently on the executive
committee of the National Association of Manufacturers and
serve as the vice chair of its Small and Medium Manufacturers
Group.
Here are some facts about U.S. manufacturing: conventional
wisdom is wrong. The United States is the world's largest
manufacturing economy. We produce 21 percent of the global
manufactured products created.
More than 12 million Americans--that is 9 percent of our
workforce--are employed directly in manufacturing. That is
almost the population of Minnesota and Virginia combined.
The American manufacturing renaissance is real. As
president of Marlin Steel, I am optimistic about the future,
and I know many of my colleagues on the board of directors of
the National Association of Manufacturers share my view. We are
bullish.
At Marlin Steel we are expanding our factory floor space 53
percent. We will be investing in new infrastructure, which will
allow my factory to draw seven times more power--we are
bringing in a huge copper wire--so we can grow more technology,
more robots, more automation in our factory. Seven times more
power.
This automation will give us new technology, so we can hire
more additional high-priced talent to meet our new demand.
Marlin Steel employs 30 people, and we make custom wire
material handling baskets, wire forms, sheet metal fabrications
like this one right here, and we service the markets of
automotive, pharmaceutical, medical, all kinds of industrial
markets.
Six of our employees are degreed mechanical engineers, and
their innovations are what make our products first-class. They
create our secret sauce. That is what differentiates us so we
are not a commodity player.
They are so talented we actually export to 37 countries,
including my favorite country to export to, China. We are
really proud of that. We import nothing, and we make everything
in Baltimore City, Maryland.
I am proud of my team. They are exceptional and by far my
most important asset. I am also very proud to say we have gone
more than 2,243 days without a safety incident.
My optimism for the future of manufacturing generally, and
Marlin Steel in particular, is tempered, however, due to
government policies that are hindering our dynamic growth.
In order for us to succeed, manufacturers need our elected
leaders to choose policies that make our nation a better place
to invest, to innovate, to headquarter, and from which to
export. They must choose policies that strengthen our workforce
so it meets the need of manufacturing in the 21st Century.
Manufacturers seek a coherent strategy from policymakers in
Washington that focus on ways we can ensure the future success
of manufacturing in our country. We need policies that are
grounded in free enterprise and competitiveness, individual
liberty, and equal opportunity.
To achieve this target, the National Association of
Manufacturers has established four goals. We believe they are
achievable, and if we can maintain these we will strengthen our
country's economic advantage.
Number one: The United States will be the best place in the
world to manufacture and attract foreign direct investment.
Number two: Manufacturers in the United States will be the
world's leading innovators.
Number three: The United States will expand access to
global markets. We need to sell to more countries. 95 percent
of the world's consumers live overseas.
Number four: Manufacturers in the United States will have
access to the workforce that the 21st Century economy demands.
The National Association of Manufactures growth agenda can
bring our country together and put more people to work,
ensuring the United States always remains the brightest beacon
of hope, optimism, and opportunity in the world. The agenda
before the Education and Workforce Committee is an essential
part of achieving these goals.
Whether the work you are doing is focused on workforce,
training, health care, immigration, labor, employment, please
know you are shaping the trajectory of manufacturing.
Manufacturers can compete globally, but we should not have to
compete as an economic priority here at home.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify today,
and I am happy to answer any of your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Greenblatt follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Kline. Thank you very much, Mr. Greenblatt.
Thank you very much to all the witnesses. This may be the
best I have ever seen four witnesses stick to the five minute
clock. I don't know whether we have got brighter lights or
what, but thank you very much.
We are going to move now to questions from the members.
And again, I would remind all the members to limit your
questions and the expected answer time to five minutes. The old
filibuster for four minutes and 52 seconds and then ask a
question--I am sorry, we will be gaveling that down.
Okay. I will put myself on the clock, as well.
I would like to start with Governor Pence. I may end with
Governor Pence, too.
I didn't realize this--I don't know how I missed it, and I
am not surprised, but I have got a note here that says on your
first day as governor you placed a moratorium on and began a
review of state-level regulations.
And then in November of 2014, Forbes Magazine identified
Indiana as having one of the best regulatory environments in
the country for starting a business and creating jobs. There is
a little footnote I am looking at here. It says, ``Indiana was
ranking number three in 2014.''
That is probably a misprint. I think it was probably--well,
it couldn't have been one because then you have got the whole--
okay.
But, Governor, as you know, here in Washington we are
continuing the flood of regulations. The Unified Agenda is just
out, and everybody understands that the administration is
required twice a year to tell all of us what major regulations
in the pipeline, and there is a bunch of them.
So, could you please discuss your concerns regarding the
administration's regulatory what I think is excess, and to the
extent to which it impedes economic expansion and job creation
in Indiana.
Governor Pence. Well, thank you for the question, Chairman.
And I have long believed that regulation is another form of
taxation. The government can, in the form of taxation,
appropriate money from an individual or a business in the form
of direct taxation, or they can tell the business or the
enterprise how to spend that money. In the same sense, there is
a loss of control of those resources.
So after I was elected governor we focused both on tax
reduction in Indiana and reform, as well as regulatory reform.
And I appreciate the chairman's acknowledgement. We did
sign a moratorium on any new state regulations and began the
process of a full-scale look-back at Indiana's regulatory
policies with a real focus on ensuring that we are protecting
the health and well-being and safety of Hoosier workers, and
ensuring that environmental compliance takes place, but with an
eye toward trying to cut red tape on businesses.
And also, although you left it out, we also did pass the
largest state tax cut in Indiana history in my first year. I
think a combination of these things is why Indiana's economy is
growing, why we have added 100,000 net new jobs, why Indiana
led the nation last year in manufacturing jobs created, and why
in our state, as there is in the country, there is a
renaissance in manufacturing, and I would say particularly in
the Heartland that you and I call home, Mr. Chairman.
But I think it does proceed out of a combination of common-
sense regulatory policies. And I strongly urge members of this
committee, whether it be regulatory policies coming out of the
EPA pressing down on the cost of energy that is so vitally
important in states like Indiana, or whether it be a broad
range of other regulatory policies, that Washington, D.C., on
an increasing basis, begin to see regulation simply as a form
of taxation.
And as we think about lessening the taxation burden, as
there is talk in this city this year about tax reform to help
get this economy growing even further, that we would also think
very seriously about the kind of regulatory reform that is
helping Indiana grow our economy. But that, I also believe,
combined with really forward thinking about education and
particularly about workforce education.
The truth of the matter is in Indiana we do have a skills
gap. Even when unemployment in Indiana was over 8 percent, I
would, more often than not, visit businesses in our state that
would say, ``We have jobs available. We just can't find people
with the background, the training, the industry-recognized
certification to be able to fill those jobs.''
And that is why in addition to tax reform and relief, in
addition to regulatory relief, in Indiana we have really been
focusing on redoubling our efforts to make career and
vocational education a priority in every high school.
I look forward in the course of the hearing to unpacking
that further, but I think we are doing it differently in
Indiana, and I think it accounts for our growth.
Chairman Kline. Thank you, Governor. And I am sure that we
are going to get at some of those things.
I was going to talk to you about the Western Governors
University and your relationship there, but I can see my time
is just about to expire. I did want to point out that Dr.
Amiridis talked about a growing regulatory framework, as well,
that is affecting higher education.
So I yield back and recognize Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Pence, you indicated that each high school would
have a career and vocational education component to it. Did I
understand that right?
Governor Pence. Mr. Scott, in Indiana, what we have made as
our goal is to make career--I call it career and vocational
education--people in education know it better as career and
technical education. But my aim is to make career and technical
education a priority in every high school, and we are seeking
to change the funding formula in Indiana to build on that
commitment and encourage not only public resources but private
resources to make that a reality.
Mr. Scott. Now, some are concerned that this might be at
the expense of academics. Would that be in addition to the
academic standard and not at the expense of academics?
Governor Pence. Well, it is really a great question, and a
more important point. Our aim is to make sure that every
student who goes to school in Indiana graduates with what we
call our Core 40 college preparatory degree.
We are talking about those electives that are on top of
that, and making those more regionally relevant--allowing young
people, in addition to being ready to go to college, giving
them a chance to get the industry training, technical
background, even industry certifications--in the event that
they want to go to work right after high school as opposed to
going on to some postsecondary right away.
Mr. Scott. And the important point is that it is not at the
expense of academics so you are not setting people aside to,
when I was growing up, shop, or something like that, and you
would graduate without the academic background and be burdened
because of that for the rest of your life. You would make sure
they have the full academics, and in addition to that, have job
training where they can actually go and get a job?
Governor Pence. Well, that is exactly right. But I would
commend to the attention of all the members of the committee a
good, deep dive into career and technical education today.
You know, in Indiana we are very strong in manufacturing,
but also in life sciences, in logistics, in agriculture, and in
high-tech. And we are talking about career training pathways in
our high schools that would give people the kind of training to
enter entry-level positions in health care, entry-level
positions in advanced manufacturing, and in agriculture.
And so the idea here is much broader--you know, back in the
day when I was going to high school you know, you and I are
about the same age--we had industrial arts. I would tell you,
career and technical educations today, where it is done right,
is much broader, much more diverse, and opens up opportunities
for good-paying jobs for young people as they step right out of
high school.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Dr. Amiridis, you indicated--you mentioned research. Can
you tell me what has happened to your research budget, and what
has that done to the people who are doing the research?
Mr. Amiridis. Thank you. Thank you for the question.
Our research budget, both from federal and private sources,
and a small percentage that come from the state of South
Carolina, has been stable in the last few years. So we didn't
have significant consequences for people who are involved.
The importance of the research budget, not only for the
university but also for the surrounding area, is very
significant because a lot of people are getting paid to do the
work there. They are living within the local economy. They rent
houses; they buy cars; they buy groceries, and so on.
Other institutions have seen significant decreases.
Fortunately, at the University of South Carolina, they have
been stable.
Mr. Scott. You mentioned also in your prepared remarks the
need to make sure that financial aid was available to all
students. What happens when that financial aid is not there?
Mr. Amiridis. You made the point very well in your opening
remarks that one of the issues that we are facing is the issue
of debt. Some students are able to borrow money, and that
increases when the financial aid is not there.
And statistics show that the student debt specifically
increases when they don't graduate in time, in years five and
six, because the aid is not available or because they cannot
maintain their grades. Some people, quite frankly, drop out of
school, and that means that they lose a significant investment
that they have made.
So when the aid is not there, it is bad news for the
student no matter what, whether they drop out of school or
whether they increase the debt.
Mr. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Greenblatt, you mentioned immigration reform. Did I
understand from your comments, your testimony, that you support
comprehensive immigration reform? And can you say what that
would do to the economy?
Mr. Greenblatt. Immigration reform is extremely important
for our nation. We need more great talent to come into our
country--chemists, engineers. We need people that are going to
help run our factories, come up with great innovations, and
create companies. The nation prospers with our immigrants.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Dr. Foxx, you are recognized.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank our witnesses today.
I didn't know I would get a chance to make this great
commercial today about regulations, but there is a terrific
bill on the floor today called the Unfunded Mandates
Information and Transparency Act, H.R. 50, which deals with
improvements in UMRA, which was passed in 1995, that talks
about the need for our having more transparency in regulations.
And I want to commend it to all of you to look at and to
encourage your senators when the bill passes the House today,
and I hope that it will pass the House today.
I particularly want to thank Governor Pence for being here.
And, Governor Pence, I am sorry to have to do this to you,
but I have to give you my comments on using the word
``training,'' because nobody comes into this group and talks
about that word without hearing from me. The only thing I
remember from my graduate work, getting my doctorate, seven
years' worth, is that you train dogs and you educate people.
And I believe that if we want to enhance our attitudes
toward career and technical education is that we use that
phrase, ``education,'' and the phrase ``workforce
development.'' So I would urge us to think about that.
And I think that my colleague, Mr. Scott, talking about
things being at the expense of academics--if we do education
right, whether it is called career and vocational education or
it is 4-year college education, we are not going to do anything
at the expense of what we think of as academics, because when I
talk to employers and all the research I see is people want
folks who can read, write, and compute. That is the basics of
academics.
So thank you for letting me make those comments.
I would like to ask Governor Pence, what other steps are
you taking in Indiana to promote college affordability,
including cutting costs on college campuses? How are these
efforts working and how have they helped curtail tuition
increases, because this is a big issue for this committee?
Governor Pence. Well, Congresswoman, thank you. Thank you
for your strong views. I am accustomed to them with you for
many years--and your candor.
But let me agree strongly with what you said, on your first
point. I like to say to people, I am not talking about a Plan A
and a Plan B. In many ways, since the time that you and I
finished high school we saw career education migrate on to
postsecondary institutions.
I am talking about two Plan A's in our schools. I am
talking about making sure that every student has the
opportunity to get that foundational course if they are ready
to go off to college, but also to have the opportunity to get
the kind of education if they want to be prepared to begin on
their own pathway of success in their career.
But I agree with you very strongly. A lot of this for me--
because I know there is talk of late, and there may be today,
about community college funding.
I think what is fresh about what Indiana is doing is we
want to make career and technical education a priority in every
high school. We want our high schools to work for all of our
kids, regardless of where they want to start in life.
But I agree with you that it is all about education. It is
all about academics. And when you look at what career and
technical education is today, opening up doorways of careers in
life sciences and in careers far beyond the traditional areas
that people think about, you couldn't be more right. And
Indiana intends to make that a reality.
College affordability has been a real focus of ours. I will
tell you that from the outset of our administration, we have
been focused on requiring publicly supported colleges and
universities in Indiana to be more effective partners with
Hoosier families, particularly in the area of on-time
completion. We have seen universities, like Purdue University,
which has frozen tuition for students.
But, you know, what I can tell you, as someone that has got
two kids still in college and one who has bills still
associated with college, all I know for sure is four years
costs less than five years; three years costs less than four
years. And we are demanding in Indiana that our universities
and publicly-supported institutions provide degree mapping to
students that are working students consistently toward the
objective of finishing on time, with the aim toward lessening
the burden that would be placed on them in the form of student
loans.
I also will tell you that we are very proud in Indiana of
our financial aid programs that are available, particularly the
21st Scholars program that has been in place, and I'd be happy
to talk about that.
Chairman Kline. Governor, the gentlelady's time has
expired. The filibuster trick worked for her.
Ms. Fudge, you are recognized.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here today.
Just for the record, let me just suggest that historically,
the concept of states' rights has never been very beneficial to
poor people or people of color, so I would oppose just giving
willy-nilly money to the states for education or for any other
thing.
And secondly, as it relates to accountability, there may,
in fact, be too much paperwork; I don't know. But I do know
that there should be, certainly, some accountability for
government and taxpayers' money.
And with that, let me just start my questioning with Mr.
Mishel.
Mr. Mishel, you wrote a paper called ``Wage Stagnation in
Nine Charts,'' and you indicate that wage stagnation has not
been created by economic trends, but rather by policy. Could
you tell me what those policies are?
Mr. Mishel. Thank you very much. Well, the policies of
omission and commission--policies that I believe have been
taken on behalf of those with the most income power and wealth
in our economy.
So first and foremost, we have had excessive unemployment
for 30 years. We have people today calling for raising interest
rates when, in fact, that would slow the recovery. We have
policies which have blocked the ability of laws to be
modernized to facilitate people's access to collective
bargaining.
We have not kept the minimum wage value up. It fell
remarkably in the 1980s, and still is 25 percent lower than
what it was in 1968, when the productivity of the economy was
half of what it is right now.
We have trade policies which, in fact, have worked to lower
people's wages and erode jobs.
Let me tell you some policies that have not been
responsible. We hear a lot about regulation and taxes. You
might not be surprised to know that we have an economy which
has the highest profits in four decades and the highest after-
tax profits in four decades.
It is hard for me to see that the problem is that somehow
business is not being able to make enough money. The question
is, when they make that money--and more power to them--what are
the policies that we are going to have that are going to make
sure that as we have that kind of prosperity, it translates for
everybody?
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much.
Dr. Amiridis, you talked about the rising cost of a college
education being passed to students and their families through
increased tuition. Can you please elaborate for me the
importance of federal funding in higher education, particularly
the Pell Grant program and the need to restore year-round Pell
Grants?
Mr. Amiridis. Thank you for the question. Let me clarify
that a fraction of the cost has been passed to the students
because the universities have also absorbed a significant
fraction of the cost--
Ms. Fudge. Certainly.
Mr. Amiridis.--by increased efficiencies and by cuts that
you have to implement, and I am talking about the public
universities that I know much better. The Pell Grants are
extremely important for students that come from low
socioeconomic backgrounds. Without them, they don't stand a
chance of coming to college.
When we are talking about graduating on time, avoiding debt
accumulation, it is important to give to these students the
flexibility that they need in order to succeed in this
endeavor. And therefore, summer support for them is critical.
This is exactly what we are doing in South Carolina with a
year-round program, trying to give them opportunities to work
during parts of the year and come back during the summer to
school in order to be able to graduate on time. In the state of
South Carolina, to its credit, the general assembly and the
governor has supported us in taking the state scholarship
program and extending it for the summer, as well.
So I think it is very critical. The Pell Grants are very
critical for a large number of our students, especially in a
poor state like South Carolina. And year-round support for
these students will accelerate their graduation rates on time.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Walberg, you are recognized.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Governor, it is great to see you here. And as one who
faithfully guards your northeast border and remains challenged
with how to compete as a state, Michigan with Indiana, with
some of the great things that you are doing, I believe your
values, your moral clarity lead to a lot of great things for
your citizens. And thank you, because that competition is good
for Michigan to have, as well.
I probably shouldn't go here. I would love to talk further
about career education. But, I would give you reinforcements
for Dr. Foxx. King Solomon said, ``Train up a child in the way
they should go,'' so there is training there.
But I also don't have the courage, but some wisdom, to not
go after Dr. Foxx, so--
Governor Pence. I am going to leave you alone on that,
Congressman.
Mr. Walberg.--I am going to use the word ``education''
today.
I do want to talk about something a little different from
career education. Today, one out of every three workers needs a
state-approved license, according to the National Bureau of
Economic Research. It is amazing the President, in his most
recent budget, is also talking of some of the concerns
addressed there.
The report highlighted that state-based occupational
licensure is a powerful drag on employment and the economy
because they act as barriers into job markets that otherwise
would be accessible to individuals with low skills, little
experience and education, or entrepreneurs with limited
capital.
As governor, you have explored Indiana's licensure
policies. I guess I would ask that as a question: Have you
explored and to what level have you explored licensure policies
and whether reforms are needed in your state and,
significantly, other states, as well, to watch and guard
against those impediments to jobs and employment?
Governor Pence. Well, thank you, Congressman. And I would
tell you, it has been an issue of our administration from the
outset. We are in our second, what we call long session of our
general assembly.
Our budget session happens every two years, but in my first
long session two years ago we proffered legislation that would
reform our licensing process. And we continue to work in that
category.
I can appreciate two aspects of this. Number one is, I do
believe that--and that statistic speaks for itself, that one in
three requires some licensing--
Mr. Walberg. It used to be one in 20.
Governor Pence. And I think we need to think very carefully
as a state, and I encourage national policy leaders to think
about this as a nation, about when licensing, which presumably
exists for the purpose of protecting the public, identifying
men and women who have the background and the experience to be
in the occupation that they are in--but when that, in fact,
becomes a barrier to entry for people into a particular
profession.
In the state of Indiana we have taken up that issue. We are
in consultation with our general assembly in this session on
it, as well.
But I stipulate that--your point that while I think in many
professions licensing can be a great service to the public, so
that people can know and understand--I do find myself more
drawn to the principle of associations and private associations
having the ability to certify and recognize, in some cases,
people within their profession that they recognize. That would
serve the public interest without adding another layer of
bureaucracy or additional barriers to entry.
But it is an issue we are working on. I would say it is a
work in progress in Indiana, but it is very much on our radar
screen.
Mr. Walberg. I appreciate that.
Mr. Greenblatt, as a former steelworker myself and a son of
a machinist tool and die maker I identify with your concerns of
being a manufacturer that is going forward aggressively, that
is achieving, but now you need help. Let me ask you this
question: How do we raise the profile and respect of vocational
skills education so that it is seen as academic as well as
vocational?
Mr. Greenblatt. Dollars. Money.
The average American manufacturing worker makes over
$70,000 a year. Over 95 percent of us pay health insurance. We
have generous vacation, 401(k) plans, in general.
Mr. Walberg. How do we communicate that better, then, so
that people understand that?
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. Yes, I
know you were trying to do that.
Mr. Sablan.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. At this time
I yield my five minutes to Mr. Polis.
Mr. Polis. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Sablan.
Question for Dr. Mishel: You mentioned, of course, the 74
percent rise in productivity. That is great news, right? I
mean, we love productivity to go up.
Now, there are different stakeholders, and what it sounds
like is a disproportionate share of that has gone to
stakeholders other than workers. And so I want to focus in on
that a little bit.
There is management. There are shareholders--sometimes they
get productivity gains through dividends or share buybacks.
There are corporate reserves--sometimes the money just sits
there. There are consumers. That is a fairly egalitarian way to
distribute productivity gains, because it is lowering prices.
I am wondering if you have any information on who is
benefiting disproportionately from these productivity gains. Is
it management, shareholders, corporate reserves, consumers,
other stakeholders? Clearly it is not the workers.
Mr. Mishel. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Polis.
The gains from productivity have accrued an extraordinary
amount to the top 1 percent of wage earners, and of income
households. That comes because of--
Mr. Polis. So the top 1 percent of wage earners would
generally mean management, presumably--
Mr. Mishel. Yes. Around 40 percent of the top 1 percent
would be executives and managers.
Another big chunk are those in the financial sector, which
has been a sector which has expanded dramatically over the last
30 years and whose pay relative to everybody else has expanded
dramatically over the last 30 years so that the--what has
fueled the growth of the top 1 percent of income has primarily
been the extraordinary growth of executive pay and in the
financial sector.
The wages of a typical worker, as I testified, only rose
around 9 percent, even though productivity grew by 74 percent.
Mr. Polis. So a disproportionate amount for executive
management, the top 1 percent of wage earners. Also--I am
trying to further read into your comments--it sounds like
consumers and perhaps shareholders have also not
proportionately benefited from the productivity gains. Would
you go so far as to say that?
Mr. Mishel. No. I would say that, you know, as I indicated
earlier, we see the highest profits in four decades. So the
productivity that we have reaped has been being paid out in
profits, some of that gets paid out in dividends. We also know
the stock market is extraordinarily high.
So we have an economy that is unusual in that we have
really a lot of excess capacity. Unemployment is too high; we
all agree on that.
And somehow the businesses are very profitable, the people
at the top are doing very well, but nearly everybody else is
not seeing much income growth at all.
Mr. Polis. I would encourage us to look at productivity
gains being passed along to consumers, as well. That is also
very--it is an egalitarianizing influence, and policies that
promote consumers as stakeholders should be very important.
Want to go to Mr. Greenblatt real quickly.
You mentioned health care and the Affordable Care Act, and
in particular you mentioned two taxes that you are worried
about with regard to manufacturing: the Cadillac--so-called
Cadillac tax and medical device tax. And I just wanted to see--
and obviously when you are talking to people who don't support
the Affordable Care Act their answer is simply, ``Repeal the
Affordable Care Act.''
I support the Affordable Care Act. However, like many
Democrats, I am happy to have a discussion about different ways
of paying for it.
So my question to you is--of course, happy to talk about
those particular ways of paying for it--do you have other
proposals to replace that revenue if we were to modify or
eliminate those particular taxes?
Mr. Greenblatt. Just so you know, from our perspective, I
have been--since I bought the company--giving health insurance
to our team, and we have a very generous plan. They are on the
same plan I am. My kids have the same plan as my workers.
And it has typically gone up 8 to 12 percent a year. The
last two years it has gone up over 50 percent each year. That
is devastating because I can't pass on 50 percent to my
competition in China and Canada, they don't have that--
Mr. Polis. Well, to be clear, the Cadillac tax has not, as
far as I know, hasn't started yet, so it is not--it can't be--
Mr. Greenblatt. I am just saying our premiums and what our
employees are feeling, what Marlin is feeling, and what
factories in general are feeling are massive increases over the
last two years. And it makes it more difficult to retain great
talent and hire more talent when our costs are going up.
The best way to improve the health care delivery system in
our country is to give us competition. Right now I am forced to
buy from a handful of companies in Maryland State. I would love
to be able to buy from Nebraska, or Virginia, or whomever has a
good plan.
Right now I am forced to buy from a very small cartel, and
that is un-American. So, you know, I can buy steel--
Mr. Polis. So, reclaiming my time--
Mr. Greenblatt.--from anywhere in the world. I happen to
buy it from Indiana, the new--
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Russell, you are recognized.
Mr. Russell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, gentlemen, for being here today.
Governor, it is very exciting to hear the types of policies
that have been working.
I am a small business owner--a small rifle manufacturer--
and I have a question for Dr. Mishel. Have you run a business
or managed a workforce within a business, sir?
Mr. Mishel. Well, in fact, I have 40 employees and I come
from a family where everybody worked in a small business. My
father was a small business man himself and a proud Republican.
Mr. Russell. Well, that is good to know.
And, Mr. Greenblatt, when regulations, fees, and taxes are
imposed on businesses, do you think that they absorb that or do
they pass that on to the pricing of their products towards
consumers?
Mr. Greenblatt. Two things occur. Number one, you have to
raise the prices and you become less competitive and lose the
job, or you take it--it is a very challenging thing and it
really hurts American factories.
Mr. Russell. And so would you say, then, that as regulation
and forced things like we have seen mentioned here in the
testimony today--higher minimum wages over time, collective
bargaining, forced arbitration, modernization of labor
standards--if all of those things are imposed on you, which
class of people do you think are hurt most by such policies:
upper class, middle class, lower class?
Mr. Greenblatt. I think that hurts working people the most
because we have to be competitive. We are competing with China,
Germany, and Canada, and the only way to be competitive is to
have a nimble workforce that doesn't have workforce rules, that
can adjust to whatever is happening in the economy.
Mr. Russell. Mr. Greenblatt, when you see businesses that
have surplus, are they generous with that? Do they get involved
with the community and outreach, even a small business such as
your own, or is that pocketed as part of the 1 percent?
Mr. Greenblatt. Typically, profits are used as the
feedstock so that we can weather recessions, so that we can
give bonuses to our employees, so we can pay for education for
our team. Matter of fact, at our company we pay 100 percent of
everybody's college education, associate degree education, or
master's degree.
Mr. Russell. And you had mentioned that six of your 30
employees are mechanical engineers, which is very admirable,
and it shows your strong productivity with such a small
workforce. I am guessing they are paid higher than minimum wage
to attract competitive people to work for you?
Mr. Greenblatt. Our lowest-paid person is paid three times
more than minimum wage, and they typically rise very quickly.
They start off at minimum wage--I am sorry, they start off at
like $15 an hour, but as they learn more skills they grow.
Typical manufacturing employee is paid over $70,000 a year.
Mr. Russell. And so you, sir, as a business owner, then, if
you want to remain competitive, you have to provide competitive
wages or you would lose that skilled workforce?
Mr. Greenblatt. Absolutely. You have to pay very well so
that you can retain and attract great talent.
Mr. Russell. And to you first, sir, and then anyone who
would like to answer, what--particularly on manufacturing,
would be the impact of excise taxes, where you are taxed just
for the privilege of having made something, in addition to the
end-of-year business profits and then your personal taxes? Can
you explain a little bit about the impact of just the privilege
of having made something getting hit with excise taxes on U.S.
manufacturing?
Mr. Greenblatt. These taxes and regulations are very
cumulative, and they weigh on manufacturing. For example, in my
company we pay over 40 percent in taxes. I compete with
Canadian companies that make similar things that I do; they pay
15 percent in taxes. We are at a massive disadvantage.
If you want to grow American manufacturing jobs in
Baltimore City, the best way to do it is to lower the burden so
we can hire more talent, we will be more price competitive, we
will win more jobs, we will hire more people, we will end
unemployment.
Mr. Russell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman yields back.
Ms. Wilson, you are recognized?
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the
Ranking Member, for holding this hearing on this important
issue.
Since coming to Congress, I have urged Congress to make its
priority a jobs-first agenda. When we invest in our people by
providing an opportunity to earn a living wage then they are
able to provide for their families and pay taxes. That is how
we improve our success as a nation.
The President has made remarkable progress over the last
six years reviving a struggling economy, including 58
consecutive months of private sector job growth.
Despite significant economic progress, many families are
finding that they are simply unable to make ends meet. Nearly
11.2 million remain unemployed; millions more are underemployed
or have given up looking for work.
According to a recent report by the Center for Economic and
Policy Research, African-Americans who have earned much higher
average levels of education over recent decades have lower
chances of earning a living wage today than they had 30 years
ago. Today, a parent working full time at minimum wage will
simply not earn enough income to cover basic needs like food,
clothing, and shelter. It is mathematically impossible.
Working families are the backbone of this country. When we
give working families the opportunity to earn a well-deserved
living wage, paid sick leave, and overtime pay, we keep our
country moving forward.
Thank you for testifying today, Dr. Mishel. I wanted to ask
you to expand on your comments about sick leave and paid family
leave. We know that these are particularly important policies
for working families.
Would you comment on how many workers today do not have
sick leave in this country? Could you also talk about how we in
America compare to other countries in regards to modernizing
labor protections like sick leave and paid family leave?
Mr. Mishel. Well, thank you very much for your question. I
don't have the specific numbers in front of me, but I think
everybody knows that the United States provides less ability to
get paid leave for sick leave, for family leave, than almost
any other advanced country and even many developing countries.
The people who don't have access are, in fact, those people
with, you know, working-class jobs. Those who are white-collar
are more likely to be able to get those.
So what we really have is a problem of those with the least
not really being able to do what they, you know, to be able to
balance work and family. And that keeps women out of jobs; that
hurts families.
We need to make sure that everybody is able to do that, and
it is part of modernizing our standards.
Cities and states are starting to do it. We have three
states that have paid sick leave, and I haven't seen all the
businesses go out of business there.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Doctor, you mentioned decreased
funding for instruction at the state level and for research at
the federal agency level. Can you discuss the importance of
federal research funding for your university?
Mr. Amiridis. Thank you for the question, Ms. Wilson.
It is extremely important for the public research
universities to be able to compete. And we are not asking for
federal funds to be given to us; we are asking for funds that
are available for the universities to compete with new ideas in
order to advance science and technology.
We have seen what this has done for this country, how this
country has been a technological leader for the last few
decades, and we need to remember that this was not always the
case. It was not the case at the beginning of the 20th Century,
for example, and we have seen how the universities have
contributed to the advancement of technology and science in
this country, with direct effects on industry and manufacturing
eventually.
I am concerned, as many are at the university level that
decreased federal funding for research and development,
especially academic research, is creating a deficit with other
countries that they have stepped in and they have provided
significant research funding, and eventually we will have to
pay the price or we lose the technological advancement
worldwide.
So I think it is extremely important for my university and
for all research universities.
Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you.
Mr. Greenblatt, would comprehensive, bipartisan immigration
reform help the economy? You know that the Senate has taken up
a bipartisan immigration reform bill. Do you think the House
should follow suit and take up immigration reform, as well?
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Grothman, you are up.
Mr. Grothman. I want to talk a little bit to Governor
Pence.
Glad you are here. We heard a comment a little while ago
kind of denigrating shop classes, and first of all, I didn't
really like it. I mean, on behalf of so many of the people in
the state of Wisconsin, I detected a little bit of careerism
there, kind of implying that some training is better than
others, and I really didn't care for that.
But are there jobs available in Indiana? I mean, we always
talk about, you know, the number of people who are unemployed,
but, first of all, Indiana and Wisconsin are the two biggest
manufacturing states in the country, percentage-wise, so we
have something in common.
Governor Pence. Indiana is number one.
Mr. Grothman. Right now, right? Right? It goes back and
forth.
In any event, do you have job openings in Indiana?
Governor Pence. Yes, we do, Congressman, most certainly.
And we are working every day to close the skills gap with adult
workforce initiatives in Indiana.
But what we want to do in the Hoosier State that is really
new is we want to make sure our high schools work just as well
for our kids that want to start their career as our kids that
want to start off in college, and that is why we have made it
our aim to make career and technical and vocational education a
priority in every high school.
Mr. Grothman. Do you have any idea how many jobs are
advertised or job openings there are? Do you have any anecdotal
evidence from your businesses as to whether they could expand
if they could find the workers?
Governor Pence. I can get you the updated information. Last
year, in the state of Indiana, we actually added about a little
more than 25,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector. We have seen
our workforce grow in the last year by more than 50,000 in
Indiana.
But at 5.8 percent unemployment, I can assure you, as I
travel across the state of Indiana, there are still positions
in our state in a broad range of industries--not simply
manufacturing, but in life sciences, in health care, and in
insurance--that are going unfilled today because people can't
find individuals with the background and the training to fill
them. So there are jobs available and we are trying to close
that skills gap every day in Indiana.
Mr. Grothman. Okay.
One quick question for Dr. Mishel. My experience in
Wisconsin is similar to Governor Pence's. When I go around I
think maybe the--I don't know if it is the number one, but
probably the number one problem for most of my employers is
they can't find people to work.
You kind of dismiss the skills gap, and I wondered exactly,
particularly in manufacturing, who you are talking to that you
feel that is not a major problem. And I look at it from both
ends. Obviously I was a state legislator in Madison; I see so
many college graduates not getting jobs that you would expect
for a college degree. And again and again and again I find
business owners who complain they can't find anybody to work,
despite this unemployment problem.
And it concerned me a little bit that somebody in your
position kind of was dismissive on the skills gap. I mean, do
you get out there and talk to business owners, particularly to,
say, Mr. Greenblatt next to you, on this idea that the skills
gap isn't a major, major cause for concern?
Mr. Mishel. I would draw my conclusions based on two
things. One, as an economist, when you hear the idea of a
shortage you would look for evidence that the wages being
offered by employers keep on getting ratcheted up, and
therefore, not able to find work--the appropriate workers. What
we see across the board, and not in just maybe a few
occupations, but across the board we don't see wages rising
very much at all, so it is hard to see the employers bidding
up.
Secondly, I commissioned work by two MIT professors, Paul
Osterman and Andrew Weaver. We published their work last year.
They did a survey of manufacturers, and they found that nearly
65 percent of establishments report that they have no vacancies
whatsoever, and 76 percent report they had no long-term
vacancies--in other words, jobs which have remained unfilled
for three months or more.
Only 16 percent responded affirmatively when asked whether
they, quote--``Lacked--lack of access to skilled workers is a
major obstacle to increased financial success.''
Mr. Grothman. Do I have about one second left here?
Chairman Kline. You have 14 seconds.
Mr. Grothman. Well, Mr. Greenblatt?
Mr. Greenblatt. That is not the experience of most
factories. Skills shortage is a huge problem. We have over
600,000 jobs that we could get hired in today--machinists,
welders--it is awful out there, and our experience is that this
is holding back our growth, this is holding back employment.
When you hire the skilled talent what happens is then other
people need to be hired around them.
So we need our school systems to start creating talent so
that we could hire these people and get the economy really
going again.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, to the witnesses, for testifying today.
I am very glad we are having a hearing about expanding
opportunities in America's schools and workplaces. I do join
Ranking Member Scott to say that I am disappointed that we
aren't having a hearing about the expanded opportunities in
America's schools that would come from a good, bipartisan
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Today's hearing is just a day after the unveiling of a
major rewrite of the ESEA, and apparently just a week before
that bill will be marked up and rushed to the floor. And with
all due respect, it is truly unfortunate that my colleagues and
I and many new members of the committee don't have the
opportunity to hear leaders and stakeholders testify about what
is a very important reauthorization.
We should be listening to experts, having their input
inform decisions about the details about the ESEA, especially
given the magnitude of the law. Now, clearly my colleagues and
I wanted to replace No Child Left Behind with provisions that
are less rigid and prescriptive, but the process has lacked
transparency and the kind of open dialogue that can yield
consensus.
Hearings show our constituents that we are serious about
crafting policies that incorporate new evidence and thoughtful
feedback, and the American public deserves an open process,
deserves to see their policymakers wrestling with challenging
questions. And without transparency and the assurance that many
voices will be heard, it is harder for students, families, and
educators to have confidence in the process.
Now, I know about the ambitious timeline, but something
this important deserves a thorough and open process, so I hope
that the committee will reconsider and hold hearings on the
ESEA reauthorization.
And now I want to follow up on the CTE discussion, career
and technical education discussion. I am not going to call it
training, even though Ms. Foxx is no longer here.
Now, I have found over the years that many of these courses
have been eliminated, either because of budget concerns or
because they aren't tested, and the high stakes that are
associated with the courses that are testing. And they are very
important, hands-on learning opportunities. Mr. Greenblatt
recognized that.
Governor Pence, you did, as well.
And in my school tours I have seen things like fabrication
labs, with CAD software and 3D printing; I have seen a girls-
only welding class that has a waiting list to get in.
And I want to especially ask you, Mr. Greenblatt, you talk
about innovation and employees who can help drive innovation.
Your goal number two, in fact: Manufacturers in the U.S. will
be world-leading innovators.
So I have spoken with companies like Intel, the largest
private employer in my district, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin
about how do we educate a generation of innovative workers,
especially since a lot of these creative opportunities have
been cut? So we need skilled workers, but we also need people
who can think outside of the box.
So how can education support the need for innovative
workers, not just good test-takers?
Mr. Greenblatt, what are your thoughts?
Mr. Greenblatt. Creativity is critical. When we interview
our engineers, we are looking for ones that can think outside
the box and not do exactly what they are told. We are not
looking for people with just book-smarts.
The people that do well in our company are the ones that
are not just rigid; they are innovative. So we welcome that,
and we compensate them and give them bonus checks if they come
up with slick ideas, and we welcome and embrace that kind of
input. And I think that should be a model that all companies
follow.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. We have a lot of opportunity with
ESEA policy to help drive creative education.
I am going to ask Dr. Amiridis if you want to comment
briefly on that, but I also want to ask you to talk about--of
course, the rising costs of higher education concerns many, and
you mentioned that. But you also mentioned that your university
has modified its financial aid program to support students
during the summer. So can you explain how year-round Pell
Grants would support the efforts at your university and help
accelerate the time to degree?
Mr. Amiridis. I cannot pass the opportunity to add, in
terms of the question how do you educate innovators, and
Plutarch, in the first century A.D., said that the mind is not
a vessel to be filled, but it is a fire to be kindled. You
light fires one at a time and you light fires by combining
curricular and extracurricular activities, by advising and
mentoring students, and by helping them to learn how to think
outside of the box.
It is not the university that reorganized its scholarship
program; it is the state of South Carolina, actually, with full
bipartisan support from the general assembly and from the
governor's office. And it is extremely important, I believe, in
order to give, again, the flexibility to the students to be
able to do the things that they need to do to develop these job
skills and this innovative spirit and graduate on time.
That is why I think Pell Grants for the summer period are
important, because it will give the federal component of what
we are already providing in the state.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much.
I see my time is expired. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Thompson, you are recognized.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman.
Governor, great to see you.
Governor Pence. Great to see you, Congressman.
Mr. Thompson. My pleasure.
I wanted to really focus on an area of passion of mine,
which is career and technical education. Having served now for
a number of terms as co-chair of that caucus, and I believe we
need a strong partnership, obviously, with our state capitals.
You know, a lot of the really necessary work is going to occur
there, but we have to show some leadership here, as well, in
Washington with career and technical education.
In fact, in October--late October--I hosted a career and
technical education hearing at our state capital in
Pennsylvania. It was bipartisan, and we actually had members of
the state legislature that joined us. It was rather unique.
And we had great witnesses. We had a witness from a labor
union, who talked about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that
are open and will be open that we just cannot find qualified
and trained workers, or employers struggle to, you know, to be
able to fill.
And I apologize. I stepped out because I just had a
briefing with our trade representative Michael Froman, as we,
you know, work on TTIP, and TPP, and in my mind, one of the
things that is necessary with trade agreements is we need a
robust career and technical education program to ensure
America's competitiveness with these.
We are going to increase trade, we want to make sure that,
you know, from a purely selfish perspective, that we are moving
more trade, more products, agriculture, commodities, to other
countries. But if we don't have that qualified and trained
workforce, you know, we are not going to ultimately be as
successful with any of the trade agreements. I think it goes
hand in hand.
And so I wanted to get your perspective because I know that
is something that you have been very supportive of, and I
really just wanted to ask your perspective, in terms of CTE and
what do you see as good models? What do we need to do?
Governor Pence. Well, first, Congressman, thanks for your
leadership in the caucus on this issue and for helping to bring
it to such a national focus. I commend you for that.
I will tell you, it is our intention that Indiana would be
the first state in America to make career and technical
education a priority in every high school again.
And I remember my days in Congress. There aren't too many
things that passed unanimously, other than naming post offices.
But I can tell you that the legislation that we moved to create
a statewide career council and then 11 different regional works
councils to rethink high school curriculum on a regional basis
for career and technical education passed our general assembly
unanimously--two different pieces of legislation, and was
cosponsored by the Republican and Democrat leadership of the
House and the Senate in Indianapolis. I mean, this is an idea
whose time has come.
And I would just say to you two things that may inform your
leadership on this and your thinking on this. Number one is, I
just urge the Congress--there is so much focus in this area, as
you know, there have been headlines of late about community
college. For decades we have talked about career education as
postsecondary education.
Let me say again, in Indiana, where we are innovating is we
want to make career and technical education a priority in our
high schools again. I am somebody that believes that all honest
work is honorable, and our high schools ought to work just as
well for our kids that want to get a job as for our kids that
want to immediately go off and get a degree.
So that is ``A.'' I would just encourage policymakers here
in Washington to think of ways to give states greater
flexibility to innovate in secondary education.
The second thing is I would just encourage you with a word.
I think many states are ready to go in this space; there is a
manufacturing renaissance underway, and there is a skills gap.
And there is a recognition, I cite our former colleague,
Mary Fallin, now Governor Mary Fallin, who made this issue her
top priority when she served as chairman of the National
Governors Association a year ago. And I can tell you, in
bipartisan gatherings among governors, where, just like in
Congress, there is the occasional disagreement, there is not
much disagreement on this issue.
And so I would just urge you on, both in your role in the
caucus and here on this committee, to do all you can to empower
states with not only greater resources, as they are
appropriate, but more importantly, greater flexibility and the
encouragement to think about making career and vocational
education a priority in every high school again. I do believe
it can have a transformative effect on the future of our kids,
their opportunities, and, of course, our economy.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Governor.
Thank you, Chairman.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman. His time is expired.
Mr. Pocan.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, to the panelists, for being here today.
I would like to try to get into two areas, at least if I
can, on education and also on productivity--the dichotomy
between productivity increases and declining wages. Let me
start with education, if I can.
And nice to meet you, Governor Pence.
Wisconsin is a state, like Indiana, that has been one of
the early adapters to the experiment of taxpayer-funded
vouchers. Unfortunately, in Wisconsin we haven't had very good
success in this area. In fact, recently they did a test of the
scores of the kids in those taxpayer-funded voucher schools
versus the public schools in reading and math, and they are
significantly less in some areas in performance in those
schools.
But one of the other things we found is that a large
percent of the people--the kids getting the money to go to
those private schools already are attending those private
schools. In the last expansion we did in Wisconsin, 79 percent
of the people who got the vouchers were already attending that
school, so it wasn't really anything about improving the public
schools. And I know that--I think there was a study in Indiana
that said about 40 percent, so not as much as 79 percent, but
are already attending a private school. Can you just share with
me a little bit the thought behind how investing--how you
improve your public schools by giving the taxpayer dollars to
people who are already attending other schools, how that helps
to improve public schools?
Governor Pence. Well, number one, thank you for the
question and the thoughtful nature of your comments.
With all due respect to Wisconsin, we think school choice
was kind of born in Indiana. And what may affect those numbers
you are referring to is Indianapolis was actually home to the
very first privately funded educational scholarship program in
America. Virtually every major city in the country today now
has a scholarship program for underprivileged kids.
In the early 1990s we had a local executive by the name of
J. Patrick Rooney, now deceased, who privately funded 50
percent scholarships for disadvantaged kids to attend private
schools, and I would be happy to drill down on that data, but I
expect that may have contributed to some of the underlying
statistics you referred to.
I just simply believe that competition makes everybody
better, and that allowing parents to choose to send their child
to a different public school, to a different public charter
school, or in the case of disadvantaged kids, to allow them, if
they so desire, to send their child to a private school. It
actually improves educational outcomes overall.
I mean, I have been married to a school teacher. She spent
half her career in public school, half in a private school, and
I really do believe there is nothing that ails our schools in
this country that can't be fixed if you give parents more
choices and teachers more freedom to--
Mr. Pocan. If I can just take off right on that too,
because in Wisconsin one of the questions we have had, too, is
on the accountability. And if I understand it right, in Indiana
the Department of Public Instruction isn't allowed to audit the
current program that you have, so how do you measure that
accountability in those programs?
I mean, when we first started ours we had all kinds of
crazy things. We had money going to schools where the person
who founded the school said he could read a book simply by
placing his hand on the book; we had people buying Cadillacs.
In fact, I think I understand there was a church in your area
who said they took the money to improve their air conditioners
and all these other things.
How do we get that accountability on education--when we say
we want to have competitiveness, because we want to try it as
an experiment, but how do we get the accountability?
Governor Pence. Well, we have a strong accountability
system in Indiana, an A to F system that was established a
number of years ago. And four out of five of our voucher
students in Indiana attend A- or B-rated schools in our state.
And I do think accountability is important.
I would like to see more flexibility from the federal
government on accountability. When I was in the Congress many
years ago, I was one of a handful in my party that opposed No
Child Left Behind when it came to the floor in 2001 because I
believe that education is a state and local function.
And I would continue to reflect that to my former
colleagues and to leaders in both parties. My hope is that
Washington will provide resources, not red tape, give states
flexibility, because I think Indiana is emblematic of a program
where we have expanded innovation, we have strong
accountability, and we are seeing educational and, more
importantly, student achievement improve as a result.
Mr. Pocan. Mr. Chairman, I saw the yellow light come up a
while ago. I am going to yield back because I know you like
that.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman. You get extra gold
stars for that, which are of no value, of course, but you can
have them.
Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen. Yes, sir.
And I want to thank the panel, too, for being here.
And, Governor, thank you for all the efforts that you are
making there in Indiana on education. And, of course, one of
the things that I have talked to some college presidents the
last couple of days, and I know our own governor in Georgia,
but the federal government has a habit of making the assumption
that the states don't know how to deal with educating our
students. And then, of course, the states and the local boards
have some conflicts, as well.
How in the world do we eliminate that--I mean, get
everybody on the same page? In other words, the federal
government needs to understand its role, the state needs to
understand its role, and the local boards need to understand
their role.
You know, I would prefer to give it to the local boards and
have a bottom-up style, versus a one-size-fits-all style. Have
you seen any models in your state that, from the local board
standpoint up through the state, and models that even the
federal government can say, ``Hey, let's leave those folks
alone and let them do what they are doing?''
Governor Pence. Well, we are very proud of our record in
Indiana, and the policies--curriculum policies, textbook
policies--are established at the local level and driven by
parents and administrators in local communities, and that is as
it should be.
But let me strongly agree, Congressman, with your
assertion. I think education is a state and local function, and
the role of the federal government ought to be only that which
may provide resources, catalyze innovation, that are in the
broader national interest.
But I believe that whether it is standards, whether it is
curriculum, whether it is textbooks, that those ought to be
decided and those decisions resolved at the state and, more
preferably, the local level. And we have sought to emulate that
in Indiana.
And I really do believe that as the Congress takes up
legislation in this area, that placing real emphasis on giving
states additional flexibility to innovate--I mean, we are proud
of our record in Indiana. We are proud of our record in
traditional K-12 education; public charter schools; our voucher
program, now the largest in the country; our focus on expanding
and being the first state in America to make career and
vocational education a priority in every high school.
And frankly, as I talk to colleagues around the country, I
have a lot of inquiry about Indiana's education policies. And,
as the old book says, iron sharpens iron.
And I would just encourage the leadership here in the
Congress to think about how we can catalyze state-based
innovation and reform in education, and then you will see the
best ideas identified because you will see student achievement
resulting from that. We are seeing that in Indiana. Test scores
are up; graduation rates are up; second-best improvement in the
Nation's Report Card.
And I do think that competitive federalism is especially
important in this area in the life of our nation today, and I
would encourage you to look for ways to restore the flexibility
to state and local governments in this area.
Mr. Allen. You know, my mom and dad were educators and, of
course, we sat around the kitchen table at night--you know, my
dad says, ``You give me a better student and I will give you a
better education system,'' and, you know, some students are
motivated, others aren't.
And, you know, in states we compete for manufacturers. We
compete like crazy for manufacturing jobs. Yet, the number one
decision with manufacturers is, do I have a skilled workforce?
I mean, as far as a skilled workforce--Mr. Greenblatt, I
want you to comment on this, as well--how do we motivate these
students to get the kind of education they need to fulfill the
jobs of the future with where we are going in manufacturing
today?
Governor Pence. Well, I think, you know, for me education
always should be--and I didn't know I would leave today with a
Plutarch quote, but I am glad I did. That was really powerful.
For me, education should always be about letting young
people discover their God-given abilities and to develop those,
and when they find those abilities and passions, everything
else about their academic life will get better, as well. And
that is why we are seeking to make career and technical
education a priority in every high school.
I am absolutely confident not only will it result in
students graduating with the background and training to be able
to get good jobs, but I know it will increase our graduation
rates, it will increase their passion for education, and it
will kindle a fire in their hearts and minds for a broader
future.
Chairman Kline. Sorry, the gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Hinojosa?
Mr. Hinojosa. I want to join Chairman Kline and Ranking
Member Scott in expressing our best wishes to my friend,
Congressman Roe. I will keep his family in my thoughts and
prayers and hope that he will soon be able to return to
Congress.
While our economy has come a long way since the Great
Recession, starting back in 2008, wages for middle-class and
working-class families have remained stagnant. I was in the
Congress in 1998, when we were able to raise the minimum wage.
That was 16 years ago. Just take the inflation rate and see
what today's rate--minimum wage is and how it hurts many
working families.
I am also concerned that the United States has also failed
to provide all students with equitable access to a high-quality
education. In my view, this committee must ensure that all
Americans, not just the wealthy 1 percent, are benefiting from
our current economy's growth.
I want to go to the first question to Dr. Mishel.
In your testimony you indicate that in 2012 the top 10
percent captured 48 percent of the market income, exacerbating
income inequality for millions of Americans. Can you tell us
shortly, just briefly, how raising the federal minimum wage,
would improve the lives of Americans and strengthen our
economy?
Mr. Mishel. Thank you for the question.
The answer is that the minimum wage essentially sets the
wage for the bottom fifth of workers. Those workers now earn
substantially less than they did in 1968, even though the
productivity of the economy has doubled and the workers in the
bottom fifth have substantially more education than they had
back in 1968.
So raising their wages will actually improve, obviously,
their lives and lives of their children and their ability. They
will consume more. It is actually something that will help the
economy.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you.
Governor Pence, I enjoyed serving with you while you served
in Congress, and I will ask you one or two questions.
Last year you refused an opportunity to receive up to $80
million in federal investment for preschool development grants
in early childhood education for Indiana. I believe that would
have helped 2,000 children access pre-K. How are you planning
to fund your pilot pre-K program that you mentioned?
Governor Pence. Well, first, allow me to reiterate that it
was a great pleasure to serve with you in the Congress, and it
is good to see you again, Congressman.
Let me say, in the last two years, as governor of Indiana,
I took time to travel across our state and learn about quality
pre-K education. And I came to the conclusion that, first, I
will always believe that the best pre-K education is a
prosperous family that can provide the enrichment in the home
that every child deserves.
But over my first year in office, traveling around the
state, I became convinced that we needed to open doors of
opportunity to disadvantaged children in the state of Indiana
for quality pre-K education. I took my case to the Indiana
General Assembly in the year 2014.
Indiana was one of only a handful of states that made no
investment in quality pre-K education. But I went to the
legislature; I made it a priority in our administration. I
thought it was important that we cross the threshold and we
begin to open doors of opportunity to disadvantaged kids.
Every child deserves to start school ready to learn, and
quality pre-K education that can make up for what is lacking in
the enrichment in the home, I believe, would be a great benefit
to Hoosier kids--
Mr. Hinojosa. I am glad to hear you say--
Governor Pence. We worked for that--if I may, Congressman,
we worked for that, we passed, through our legislative process,
a pilot program. Five Indiana counties. We actually launched
that program last month, and this fall we will have more than
1,000 students in the pilot program.
And we are doing it the Indiana way. We are looking at it,
we are opening doors for disadvantaged kids, we are studying
it.
And my aim was to keep faith with the objective of our
legislature, to simply begin a program with our state dollars,
which we will fully fund in the next two years at $10 million
per year, and learn from that program and then explore ways
that we can expand opportunities to more quality pre-K in the
years ahead. That was the basis of our decision with regard to
federal funding, and I stand by it.
Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Governor.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for being here. We appreciate your
presence here today.
Mr. Greenblatt, like yourself, I am a small business owner.
I own three independent retail pharmacies, and the last thing I
ever want is people telling me how--and particularly the
government--to run my business, and particularly how much I am
supposed to be paying my employees.
Now, like you, I have well-compensated employees, but I
also have students that I use. Do you use any students in your
business?
Mr. Greenblatt. No. We just hire full-time workers.
Mr. Carter. Okay.
In my case, I use students, and if I were to--Dr. Mishel,
if I were to be required to pay them $12.50, I wouldn't be able
to use them. Now, what is that going to do to that particular
sector if the government does raise the minimum wage to $12.50?
Mr. Mishel. Well, we are talking about $12.50 in 2020, and
there has been extensive study of raising the minimum wage
across the states, and I don't think it will actually adversely
affect the employment of young workers whatsoever.
There are provisions in the minimum wage legislation that
actually let young workers get paid a little bit less than the
minimum wage, but employers rarely even use it. And the reason
is they don't want to have people working side by side earning
different wages.
So I actually think the higher the wage, they will probably
have more time for their studies, they will probably be able to
work less, and they will be able to help their families more.
Mr. Greenblatt. The real minimum wage is zero. They won't
get hired.
Mr. Carter. That is exactly right, and I couldn't agree
with you more.
And, Mr. Greenblatt, if I could, if I could expound on this
a little bit more, you mentioned the Affordable Care Act and
the impact it has had on your business, and I can attest to the
impact it has had on my business, as well--increased premiums,
costs that I have had to incur as an employer, and I am sure
that is the same--
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes.
Mr. Carter.--experience that you have had.
Mr. Greenblatt. It is terrible.
Mr. Carter. It is. Thank you.
Governor Pence and Dr. Amiridis, while I served in the
Georgia State Senate I had the honor and privilege of serving
as the chair of higher-ed, and one of the concerns that we had
in the state of Georgia was increasing the number of college
graduates and certificate holders, because we recognized the
fact that in the coming years they are going to--the jobs that
are going to be available are going to be available to that
particular group.
One of our initiatives has been Complete College Georgia,
and that is to get people--Dr. Amiridis, as you mentioned
earlier--who have some college to go back and to finish their
degrees. Have you had any experience in Indiana or South
Carolina where you have dealt with this and something that has
been successful?
Mr. Amiridis. The program that is in my testimony,
Congressman Carter, is exactly about this. Palmetto College,
which is a statewide program that we started online, is
focusing on degree completion. People who have done two years
either at the university, community college, or a technical
college, and for reasons that--because life happens--are beyond
their control, they are no longer enrolled.
They have families, they are parenting--they are targeting
older parents. They are not able to be present on a campus. We
gave them the opportunity to be able to come back online and
complete their degrees.
It has been a great success for us. The program exists for
two years. We have enrolled more than 1,000 students.
Forty-three out of the 46 counties in the state of South
Carolina are represented in the program, which means that it is
widespread throughout the state. Forty-eight percent of them
are members of underrepresented minorities, so there is a need.
And I think there are ways that we can do it with low cost,
using technology, because these people, you cannot expect them
to drop everything and come back to campus for two years. And
our Palmetto College is a very good example that is receiving
national attention along these lines.
Mr. Carter. Governor?
Governor Pence. Well, first, let me commend you for the
focus on exactly those people in our state who have, as you
mentioned, went to college, didn't complete, have credit hours.
And our commission for higher education has made special
emphasis on reaching those Hoosiers and explaining to them the
opportunities that we have, either to return to college, to
pursue part-time degrees. But it is a real focus of our
administration.
I am also pleased to say that WGU has a very robust
presence in the state of Indiana, providing exactly the kind of
online education that the professor just described, and just in
the last two days announced some great graduation rates for
adult learners. The ability to take advantage of technology, we
think, is a key component to encouraging Hoosiers to go ahead
and finish that degree, and then be there in that new economy
that, as you mentioned, increasingly, as we all know, is going
to require postsecondary attainment.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Courtney?
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, to all the witnesses, for being here today.
Mr. Chairman, I have an article which I am going to ask to
be admitted to the record. The title of this--it was published
a couple days ago in the Hartford Courant, our largest daily
newspaper in the state. The headline is ``Connecticut's Hiring
Hasn't Been This Good Since 1998.''
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Courtney. Job growth in 2014 was the strongest it has
been in Connecticut since 1998, with 26,700 new net jobs.
Again, that is a higher number than the entire--the 21st
century.
And I say that not just to boast about my state, which I am
always happy to do--we dominate basketball now. Governor,
sorry. Men and women's.
[Laughter.]
But again, this is a state which also has the highest per
capita income, and it is also a state which last year raised
the minimum wage. Governor Malloy was the first governor in
America to lead the fight to raise the minimum wage. It passed.
We also passed a paid sick leave law, up to 10 days, again,
with an exemption for the mom-and-pops. But the fact of the
matter is that these policies occurred despite all of the
catechism that we hear over and over again on the Hill here
about, you know, how harmful that would be to growth, and yet
we have had the best growth since 1998.
And you have already addressed the minimum wage, Professor
Mishel. If you could talk about paid sick leave in terms of,
you know, the impact it has, aside from having sick people
coughing on your food in restaurants, which nobody wants. I
mean, what are the benefits, in terms of the workforce, when
those policies are implemented, and how it is not antithetical
to growth?
Mr. Mishel. Well, thank you very much for your question.
Nice to see you again.
I was asked earlier how many people get paid sick leave,
and I didn't have the answers. My handy research assistant
provided them to me.
The top 25 percent of workers in terms of pay, 84 percent
of them get paid sick leave. But the bottom 25 percent, only 30
percent have paid sick leave.
So, you know, we have experiences in New Jersey,
California, and Connecticut that indicate that doing these
things doesn't hurt jobs, doesn't hurt the economy. Obviously,
people don't want to be faced with the choice of having to not
show up at work or leave someone sick at home.
This is something that falls most heavily on women, and so
if we really want people to be able to participate in the
economy, and just a matter of common decency, I think, is to
make sure that people have some kind of minimal benefit like
that.
May I pause one second and say something about
manufacturing that we have heard discussion of?
I have been involved in manufacturing policy, and I have
worked with manufacturing workers for over 30 years. You know,
given what has happened in manufacturing in this country, which
I think is very important, why would we think that someone in
high school is going to look at a manufacturing job and say,
``That is something that is going to be there the rest of my
working career. I want to get a job there,'' given the trade
policies we have in this country, given the fact that we don't
actually support manufacturing?
Second, I have been studying the manufacturing wage
premium. Manufacturing does pay better than other jobs, I
think--and that is a great thing. But if that pay premium has
substantially declined over the last 30 years, so in fact, it
is not as good an opportunity as it used to.
The last thing is, we know that employers provide a lot
less--I will call it training, on the job, than they used to,
but we don't have any surveys. So maybe there is one thing that
people across the political spectrum here can agree, we need to
have surveys done by BLS, that they used to do, which actually
ask employers what kind of training do they actually provide on
the job, because we have seen that go away.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you. I mean, actually, I would sort of
edit that a little bit, because what I would say is that the
smart employers actually do engage in that kind of, you know,
training, skill growth for incumbent workers.
Mr. Mishel. Absolutely.
Mr. Courtney. Electric Boat, which has just been awarded
the largest ship-building contract in American history for the
Virginia-class submarine, has a unionized workforce. They are
producing submarines under budget, ahead of schedule
consistently, because they approach this as an team, not as an
us-versus-them situation.
I just want to--my time is about to run out. I want Mr.
Greenblatt to feel good about something here today, in terms of
my Q&A. There is actually, I think more receptivity to your
comments regarding the excise tax than--and I think, actually,
Professor Mishel and you might have a good conversation on
that, but we will reserve that for another day.
So thank you all for being here today.
Chairman Kline. Gentleman yields back. I thank the
gentleman.
Mr. Brat?
Mr. Brat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had a question in mind and a statement. As a professor
that may go on for 30 seconds, so give me 30 before I get to
the question. And I am thankful to Governor Pence for invoking
Plutarch. I was waiting for my inroad.
Very good. Thank you. Very good. So both of you can weigh
back on this.
In a policy setting like this, it is a little ironic to
note that policy itself did not make the United States of
America the greatest country in the world, right? The free
market system and our rule of law did that.
And so we go back to 1800, and modern economic growth takes
off. Adam Smith, the invisible hand; James Madison, the
Constitution; and you get modern economic growth for the first
time in history, right? All the rest of human history made
about $500 per year per capita, right?
And so it is interesting in this policy forum that doesn't
come up enough, so I am glad I heard a little Plutarch, and
kids' passions, and following their dreams in the business
world. And it is crucially important and makes all the
difference.
And so here are the two questions: Do our kids in any
meaningful way--and I taught for 18 years so I know the answer
to this--know what the free market system is? Right?
The free market system has to be chosen by your society. We
have always had trade. The Greeks had trade, trade the Agora,
whatever.
But countries have not chosen the free market system. And
the most free countries are the most prosperous. That is what
we all want; that is what everybody in here wants.
And then secondly, more cynically--that is a hard one,
right; that might be college level--do our kids in K-12 know
what a business is? So we are doing skills conversations in
here, and that is all great--trades and--I am in favor of all
that. I think it is totally bipartisan. I can't imagine how we
are not going to do that for the kids.
But they are doing this for K-12 for 13 years of their life
and they don't know what a business is, right? At the end of--
if you asked a kid, ``What is a business?'' at the end of 12th
grade, they might not be able to answer that.
And so I don't know if you have, Governor, any ideas of how
to get the kids to reveal their passions at an early age so
they know that they can use their passions in a vocation that
is important to them in a business, and if they don't know that
up front, all the skills training may not be for the best end.
So I just--I am throwing that opened.
Governor Pence. You bet. Well, thank you, Congressman.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, of which I am in strong
agreement that the freedom of this country, our market freedom,
the character and the faith of the American people explains the
extraordinary success of the American experiment.
I would tell you, though, that with regard to this issue of
career--it is one of the reasons why I like to say ``career and
vocational education'' as opposed to ``career and technical,''
because in Indiana, for instance, one of the things we are
doing--when I was in Kokomo, Indiana recently I visited a high
school that is ahead of the curve on what we are doing in this
area. And I visited a welding class and there were terrific
kids there, some of which are headed off to Purdue University
to study engineering, and some of which are hoping to be in a
welding school in Ohio that is one of the premier in the
country.
But then the next class I met with was the entrepreneurial
class. That class is also part of the CTE curriculum. And the
class actually itself changes place--I think it is every month
they spend an entire month--several days a week--in a business,
learning the business, and all different--financial services,
and real estate, and health care, and learning that business,
learning how it operates.
And the end result of that course is these kids all--and
they were just--so impressed with all the kids that I met--but
they were standing there proudly telling me about the business
plan that they were going to be submitting. And here is what
they do in Kokomo: At the end of this career and technical
education class, not only do they have to submit a business
plan, but they submit it to local investors, okay, and with the
idea that this may be an idea, a business whose time has come
in Howard County, Indiana.
So I really would encourage policymakers at this level,
when you see Indiana moving boldly in this direction, we are
really looking--we are looking to do, I think, in a very real
sense, exactly what you are saying, and going well beyond
traditional understandings of skills education, and really
equipping young people.
And my criteria is, if someone wants to start their career
right after high school I want them to have the opportunity to
get the background, the training, the practical experience, the
internship, or the industry-recognized certification to be able
to do that.
I think it is a powerful idea. I think it speaks in a
practical level to exactly what you are talking about, and
exposing young people to businesses and enterprises, large and
small, in their region I think will go a long way to them
understanding the truth of what you said.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Clark?
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, to all the witnesses today, for being part
of this conversation.
And, Governor Pence, I appreciate your time and being here
today. I am sorry we did not get to serve together, but I am
very heartened to hear you talk about the importance of quality
early education, and with your focus on career and vocational
education, the recognition that it starts with our very
youngest learners, which is certainly backed up by the
educational research, and certainly I have heard from our
business leaders around this country and in my state of
Massachusetts, as a priority.
So I wonder if you could expand a little bit. Indiana is a
category one state, was eligible for up to $80 million under
the Preschool Development Grant, and I know you said there were
some issues maybe with your administration and with the
legislature in Indiana. What specifically made them decide to
pursue a $10 million state-funded pilot program rather than
going for this money?
Governor Pence. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. And I can
tell already that I would have counted it a privilege to serve
with you. I appreciate your courtesy very much.
Let me correct, if I can, the record, very respectfully. It
was not a decision between either/or.
I pursued the creation of the very first publicly supported
pre-K program in the state of Indiana, and we managed to pass a
pilot program in the year 2014 that really crossed an important
threshold in the state of Indiana, where the people of our
state said yes to opening doors of opportunity for
disadvantaged kids to be able to have access to quality pre-K.
We put $10 million behind that out of excess reserve funds.
And in the budget that we just unveiled, we are seeking from
the Indiana General Assembly $10 million per year to fully fund
that pre-K program.
But I would tell you, through the legislative process, of
which you may be still relatively new here, but not in your
career I suspect, the general assembly in Indiana very much
wanted to pursue this on a pilot basis, to have us learn--four
urban counties, one rural county--to learn about diverse
programs, diverse delivery systems, and to internalize those
lessons before we made decisions about expanding the program.
And my decision about not applying for a federal funding
was simply born of two things: I wanted to keep faith with the
spirit of the pilot program that had been created and embraced
by our legislature, and thereby, by the people of Indiana.
And secondly, I was very hesitant to expand the program
before it was started. You might notice, if you look at
Indiana's record on--whether it be tax reform, education
innovation, or even last week on health care reform, we like
doing things the Indiana way, which is to say we bring common-
sense Hoosier principles to bear on challenges, and we craft
solutions that work in our communities and in our state. And I
very much wanted to keep faith with that.
So for me, I am very proud of the fact that our
administration sought and received the very first public
funding ever in Indiana for quality pre-K education. We are
faithfully implementing that, and this fall we expect to have
more than 1,000 disadvantaged kids in pre-K programs around our
state, and have already launched the program in counties around
our state since January this year.
But I would tell you, in Indiana my decision ultimately was
I did not want, with all due respect to the federal treasury, I
did not want to invite federal resources to expand the program
before it was even started. We wanted to learn from our
experience, learn from our pilot program.
But we are going to take those lessons and we are going to
look in the future, I can assure you, for ways to expand
opportunities to quality pre-K education in Indiana. I think it
is right for our kids at the point of the need, and I am
confident that as we learn the lessons about what programs work
and in what ways in Indiana, the people of Indiana will be
ready and, as they invariably are, be generous in supporting
efforts for our most vulnerable kids.
Ms. Clark. So was the funding itself tied to expansion? Was
that the hurdle that you saw? It wouldn't have helped your
pilot program in rolling out?
Governor Pence. Well, I think ultimately, accepting federal
funding to expand a program before it was started was
premature. Our aim was to faithfully implement the pilot
program that our general assembly created. We are in the
process of doing that, and I look forward to it being a great
success for vulnerable kids, and also a way that we can chart a
course for the future.
Chairman Kline. Gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Messer, you are not going to ask a question of your
governor, right?
Mr. Messer. Yes, well--
Chairman Kline. You are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Messer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to say thank you to the witnesses. Thank you for
your testimony. And at this stage of the hearing, I thank you
for your stamina.
You know, I hung around here to learn and I hung around for
the opportunity to highlight a couple of my favorite topics,
which is the leadership of our great Governor Pence, and also
the importance of manufacturing for the future of America. And
so, with the governor's permission, I am going to ask a
question first to Mr. Greenblatt and then come back to the
governor.
And, Mr. Greenblatt, we are proud in Indiana to be a place
that makes things. I believe that a key to the future of
America is that we remain a place that makes things. I
appreciate your work and the work of NAM.
You got close to a couple times in other questions, but I
just wanted to ask you almost just straight, as members of
Congress sitting here today--and I believe we do have
bipartisan support for the desire to make America strong and
manufacturing in America strong. What would be the one or two
things that we could best do to help you and your business and
help the manufacturing industry in America?
Mr. Greenblatt. One thing would be tax reform. We have a
massive disadvantage when we go head to head against Canada and
Germany and China. We are taxed 15--I am sorry, Canadians are
taxed 15 percent and we are taxed 40 percent, so that would be
one topic that is challenging.
Another topic that is challenging is the regulations. We
have a tremendous amount of burdensome regulations.
The average American manufacturing employee has this heavy
weight of regulations that makes us as a nation less
competitive. So we lose jobs against France, Germany, and
Canada that we shouldn't be losing.
And if we could reduce some of these burdensome
regulations, reduce our taxes, we could really prosper and grow
jobs.
Mr. Messer. Thank you. And as you highlighted, I mean, I
think there is a renaissance in manufacturing happening in
America. I see it in Indiana, where jobs are coming back from
overseas. And we hope to work with you to do more to help make
more of that happen.
Now, to our Governor Pence, appreciate all of your
testimony today, and again, I appreciate your friendship. I
know one of the things that you and I are both very proud of is
the work that has been done in Indiana so that we truly are a
state today that not one child in Indiana has to have their
future on a wait list, that parents have, now, the option to
find the school that best fits their child, be that traditional
public school, public school choice, public charter schools,
virtual schools, and, of course, as you talked about just a
second ago, the fact that Indiana now has the most robust
private school choice program in the country.
Could you talk a little bit, for the record here, about the
amazing success of that program and what we are doing to even
grow those opportunities further for kids in Indiana?
Governor Pence. Well, thank you, Congressman. And let me
congratulate you on your election to a leadership position in
the House Republican Conference, and also for your efforts to
really shine the light on school choice across the country,
even in the last week. We are grateful for that and proud of
your service.
I have long said that there is nothing that ails our
schools that can't be fixed by giving parents more choices and
teachers more freedom to teach. And the agenda that our
administration brought forward this year, the aim of which is
to have 100,000 more kids in B or better schools by the fall of
2020, is really an all-of-the-above strategy.
But choice is a central element of that. As I said to one
of your colleagues earlier, I really do believe that the advent
of public-to-public school choice, public-to-public charter
choice, and, of course, the largest voucher program in America,
which is in the state of Indiana, have resulted in the overall
improvement and student achievement that we have seen in the
state.
The test scores are up, graduation rates are up, the
second-best improvement in the country in the Nation's Report
Card, known as the NAEP. I think that is all a result of that.
But I would emphasize that for my part, with all due
respect to the best-intentioned bureaucrat in the world, no one
has a better idea about where my kids are going to thrive,
where their imagination and potential is going to be kindled,
than Karen and I do. And particularly focusing, as we did in
our school choice voucher program, on the ability of parents to
choose the school--public, public charter, or private-- that
would best serve their needs will continue to be a lodestar in
Indiana.
Mr. Messer. Thanks for your leadership--
Chairman Kline. Gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Adams, you are recognized?
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, to all the witnesses.
Dr. Mishel, you indicated that improving educational
attainment was important for all children to have the
opportunity to rise up in that income ladder, and I agree with
that. I am a 40-year educator, having completed 40 years at
Bennett College, in Greensboro.
But I believe that education must not only be accessible,
but it has got to be affordable. And with the increased costs
of higher education making it more difficult for students to
complete postsecondary education, it is especially true for
low-income and minority students.
For example, students at HBCUs--North Carolina has more 4-
year accredited HBCUs than any other state--it is very, very
difficult for these students. They are penalized for what is
called Parent PLUS loans. Parent PLUS loans are basically not a
plus, they are a minus.
But my question is, what do you think we can do to make
Parent PLUS loans more of a plus than a minus? Secondly, can
you talk about the effect of lesser education attainment on
wages, especially those for minorities and women? And what
would be the educational outlook for students who aren't able
to pursue higher education because of financial barriers?
Mr. Mishel. Well, I will take part of that. I don't know
whether you wanted the person from the university to answer the
other part.
First of all, I want to say I have been to Bennett College.
I visited my good friend, Julianne Malveaux, when she was the
president. Welcome to Washington.
I think, you know, providing opportunities--and I
understand the challenges of the students there, and what
Julianne had to do to try to assist students to be able to come
to Bennett College and to get through, with parents, most of
whom had never gone to college themselves, or were working-
class or poor.
It is really essential that we provide as many
opportunities as possible to break down all the barriers to
community college, to college, because what it really does is
give access to jobs--to be able to compete for jobs in the
future, so those students will do better than their parents.
What it really won't do, I am afraid to say, is it is not
really a recipe for overall wage growth, because what we see is
that wages have been flat for college grads, for community
college grads, and high school grads. So we can take people and
move people up to different groups, but what we really need are
policies that lift wages for all the different groups in
America.
Thank you.
Ms. Adams. So do you agree that, you know, I think I heard
some comments about different wages for students and other
folks, and knowing and having worked with young people for a
long time, I know the responsibilities that they bring with
them to school, trying to finance their education, taking care
of families costs them the same thing to buy a loaf of bread as
it would anybody else, so, you know, I just wanted to, you
know, put that out there.
But certainly if the gentleman--governor would like to
speak to this issue, I certainly would love to hear from him--
or Dr. Amiridis.
Governor Pence. Go ahead, Doctor.
Mr. Amiridis. Let me first of all mention that in the state
just south from you, in the state of South Carolina, the
University of South Carolina is very proud of our Gamecock
Guarantee program. Over the last six years we have supported
900 students with family incomes below the poverty level,
guaranteeing them full support if they manage to maintain
academic standards.
What we have seen is that when you take the financial
question out of the pictures, these students perform better,
actually, than the average student because they had the desire,
they had the drive to succeed in school and to lift themselves
out of what have been generational cycles of poverty that they
have experienced.
I was in front of the House Ways and Means Committee in the
state of South Carolina last week and I asked them for need-
based funding. Many of our states have very good merit-based
programs.
We need need-based funding. I think it is very important at
the state level, and of course, the Pell Grants. Support the
Pell Grants, expand the Pell Grants to the extent that you can
at the federal level.
There is no question that a degree in higher education is a
balance. You can view it as public good or private benefit. And
that is what our system reflects.
Part of the state and the federal government is paying for
the public good part of it, and part of the individual pays for
the public benefit--for the private benefit part of it.
I think there are creative solutions to the loans, in terms
of how do you ask them to repay the loan. Should they repay the
loan based on their earning ability after they leave college?
How do we guarantee that we get the money back? Do we count
the money--and there are solutions like this that they have
been advanced at the state level and the federal level that I
think your committee can bring experts in to testify and talk
about.
Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. DeSaulnier?
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations on
the pronunciation; that was great. And I want to thank you--
Chairman Kline. See my notes here on how to pronounce that.
Mr. DeSaulnier. You passed.
And to the ranking member for doing this. So it has really
been thrilling. It is funny to come at the end. It reminds me
of the Churchill line of everything has already been said but
not everyone has said it.
So, Dr. Mishel, I did want to talk to you about public
research facilities. I represent the--much of the East Bay in
the San Francisco Bay Area. We have two national laboratories
and we have the University of California, that prides itself as
a research facility, as you know.
When I go and see them they tell me about the very exciting
public-private partnerships they are doing with the private
sector, as you mentioned. But they also lament the fact that we
are not investing as much in public research for the
government, particularly the federal government.
Is that true in your experience as well? And is that a
danger, do you think?
Mr. Amiridis. I think the availability of funds has
decreased. It is true what they are telling you, that the
availability of the funds has decreased.
And I am a true believer in public-private partnerships,
but it has to be a partnership. We cannot expect for the
private sector to do everything for us without us contributing
what we can. So I think our colleagues in the Bay Area are
giving you the right picture.
Mr. DeSaulnier. I appreciate that.
Dr. Mishel, you mentioned consumers, and I am--I was--like
you, my father was a Republican and I owned small businesses. I
was in the restaurant business.
So one of the most important things for the success and
opportunity for Americans is customers. So we have--and the
speaker mentioned this in our first meeting when we were sworn
in--is this sort of perfect storm of not just wage stagnation,
but fixed household costs going up. So for somebody in the
restaurant business, you would read the restaurant trade
magazines and disposable income are really important.
So who spends money? Wealthy people. When I managed to own
a restaurant in San Francisco there were plenty of wealthy
people. You gave them a product they liked, you didn't have to
worry about it.
When I owned a business in Concord, California, which was
much more working-class, the kind of regulations that the
governor mentioned were more vexing because my consumers didn't
have enough disposable income.
Could you speak to that?
Mr. Mishel. Yes. Thank you very much for your question.
I would just say, there are two things. One, my analysis of
the economy is that we still face a shortfall in aggregate
demand, and that is one reason why we have this excessive
unemployment. That is the aftermath of the financial crisis,
and that is why fiscal austerity at the state level and the
federal level has actually hurt very much--you know, we have
lost 2 million or 3 million jobs because of that.
But we also have a long-term problem, where we--I think
our--we have growth challenge because of the change in income
distribution, and I think that is what you are talking about,
because the incomes have shifted to those who consume less. And
I think moving forward, we will see consumption growth be more
challenged than it has in the past.
In the past, families have gotten by taking on more debt,
by sending more people into the workforce, and perhaps
benefiting from the housing market bubble. Those things aren't
going to be available going forward. So if we don't actually
grow the old-fashioned way, where people earn higher wages and
spend it from that, we won't be able to grow as well as we
could.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Governor Pence, I wanted to commend you on
your work on regulation, but my experience is it is making sure
the regulation is effective, the ones we have. So my questions
are to you: Did you do cost-benefits with the legislature so
that there are regulations that actually are helpful to the
economy? So when you went through that process, did you do
that?
Governor Pence. That is the policy of the state of Indiana
our Office of Management and Budget initiated, after we
declared a moratorium on any new regulation when I became
governor two years ago--other than that which was mandated by
federal law. We did a full-scale look-back and have been in
that process of doing precisely that, Congressman, is a cost-
benefit analysis and determining where we might be able to cut
red tape without compromising worker safety and environmental
concerns.
Mr. DeSaulnier. So the result of that, there were some
regulations. I think all of us agree less regulation is better,
but there are regulations that are actually effective.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Jeffries, you are recognized?
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank Governor Pence and all of the witnesses for
your very thoughtful testimony today.
Let me start with Mr. Greenblatt.
It is my understanding that in your testimony you mentioned
that we need solutions, not bromides and bombastic rhetoric. Is
that correct?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And that in order to, you know, move the
economy forward we really need--think the phrase was
``collective, serious discussion.'' Is that correct?
Mr. Greenblatt. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. Now, in terms of the National Association of
Manufacturers' position on comprehensive immigration reform, am
I correct that it is your view that comprehensive immigration
reform would be helpful to our economy moving forward?
Mr. Greenblatt. We need more talented immigrants coming to
our country so that they can--you know, we need to keep all the
wonderful people that are graduating--foreigners graduating
from our colleges in engineering and doctor degrees--medical,
et cetera. We need those people to stay here, not go back to
China or back to India.
We need them to stay here and either work at American
companies, create innovations here in America, or create
companies here in America. We need that entrepreneurial zeal to
really supercharge the economy again.
Mr. Jeffries. And I assume you would agree with the
statement that, with respect to moving forward on comprehensive
immigration reform, we need less sort of rhetoric and need to
move to a place where we can actually accomplish results and
enact the type of changes that you believe would be helpful for
the economy?
Mr. Greenblatt. My great-grandmother, Kate, came over from
Russia in 1904. It was critical--either that or she would live
a very terrible life. I am so thankful she came here to
America.
America needs immigrants to thrive and to prosper. They
rejuvenate our economy and they grow our system.
Mr. Jeffries. And I will thank you for that. I am actually
privileged to represent more Russian-speaking Jewish immigrants
from the former Soviet Union than any other member of Congress
in the country, in Brighton Beach and other neighborhoods in
Brooklyn. And certainly we have benefited, as New York City has
benefited, from the hard work of these immigrant families.
To Dr. Amiridis, you mentioned, I believe, in your
testimony that amongst the mix of things important to promoting
higher education for our students in a way that would benefit
the country is Pell Grants. Is that correct?
Mr. Amiridis. That is correct.
Mr. Jeffries. And are you aware that in the Republican
budget proposed in the last Congress for fiscal year 2015, that
the House majority sought to cut $125 billion in Pell Grants
over the next 10 years?
Mr. Amiridis. I don't follow the legislative issues that
closely, but I will take your word for it.
Mr. Jeffries. Would you support that type of cut?
Mr. Amiridis. I think that any cut to the Pell Grants would
put students at risk, and these are the students that need this
education more than anybody else.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you.
Dr. Mishel, as you mentioned, the productivity of the
American worker has increased significantly above 70 percent
since the 1970s. Is that correct?
Mr. Mishel. That is correct.
Mr. Jeffries. Yet, wages have remained relatively stagnant
for the middle-class worker during that same time period,
correct?
Mr. Mishel. That is correct. The only time they actually
rose was in the period of the late 1990s, when we had
persistent low unemployment.
Mr. Jeffries. And so middle-class workers have not been
able to benefit from the economic growth generated from their
increased productivity, correct?
Mr. Mishel. Sure. I would even say that even though Indiana
is near to nirvana, the workers in Indiana even have seen
falling wages. The median hourly wage in Indiana has fallen 6
percent since 2000. So this has happened across the country.
Mr. Jeffries. How do we address this systematic issue to
make sure that hardworking Americans, working families,
moderate-income folks, middle-class Americans throughout this
country can actually benefit from the clear increased
productivity that has served the country's economy well, but
hasn't necessary inured to the benefit of the workers who have
made it actually happen?
Mr. Mishel. That is a great question. I think the first and
foremost is, we have to actually act as if better-quality jobs
and higher wages is actually our foremost concern about the
economy.
We can raise productivity, we can have better growth, but
unless we do the things that are needed to actually link higher
wages to productivity growth, most people aren't going to
benefit. As I said, higher minimum wage, stronger access to
collective bargaining, higher labor standards, eliminate wage
theft--all those kinds of things are needed.
Mr. Jeffries. I would just note that you mentioned consumer
demand as one of the problems impacting the American economy.
And obviously, just like gas prices dropping puts more money in
the hands of the American worker, they will save more and spend
more, that benefits everyone, so, too, would an increase in the
minimum wage.
I yield back.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
I want to thank the witnesses for your stamina; I think was
pointed out earlier, this really is an excellent panel of
witnesses. I very much appreciate your testimony and your frank
answers to questions.
Before I gavel down, I want to turn to Mr. Scott for any
closing remarks he may have?
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for
holding the hearing. We got a lot of really good information.
I was particularly impressed with the consensus on
vocational education in high school, with the understanding
that it does not diminish the academics but adds to the
academics, because we don't want students to leave high school
without the fundamental background that--an academic
background. And with that understanding, there is a lot of
consensus that can be achieved.
We also found the importance of financial aid to colleges,
including research, so that our young people can not only be
doing the research, but a lot of college students are not
getting jobs if we are not doing the research. And I'm
delighted to see a consensus on the need for comprehensive
immigration reform.
Again, this shows what happens when you have a hearing, we
can find a lot of common ground that is apparently not going to
happen on ESEA, and we would hope that we would delay the
consideration of that legislation until such time as we can
have meaningful hearings to find what common ground there may
be.
Yield back.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman for his comments and
for yielding back.
I want to again thank the witnesses. I am trying to think,
we are just having a discussion, if we have ever had a hearing
where Plutarch came up. I don't think so, so I am grateful for
that.
Like Mr. Scott, I love the discussion on CTE. I do hope
that we don't get ourselves bound up between whether it is
vocational or technical, or education or training. We know
where we are trying to go with that, and I think there is
bipartisan consensus that we ought to be doing that and ought
to be doing more of it.
Just one final comment on training, I am sorry that Ms.
Foxx, like most members, has had to move onto other things; the
hour is getting late. I noted to her before that in my 25 years
in the Marine Corps we did a lot of training, and I actually
didn't know very many dogs there, but I am now questioning the
whole thing.
So again, I hope semantics doesn't get us down and we get
on to the issue that the governor has explained so well. And we
certainly hope that program is working in Indiana as we look
out across the country.
There being no further business, the Committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]