[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2015
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
_______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia, Chairman
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio BARBARA LEE, California
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Susan Ross, John Bartrum, Allison Deters,
Jennifer Cama, Justin Gibbons, and Lori Bias,
Subcommittee Staff
_______
PART 6
Page
Budget Hearing--Department of Labor............................ 1
U.S. Department of Education................................... 129
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_______
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-630 WASHINGTON : 2015
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia NITA M. LOWEY, New York
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
TOM LATHAM, Iowa JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
KAY GRANGER, Texas JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho ED PASTOR, Arizona
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas SAM FARR, California
KEN CALVERT, California CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
TOM COLE, Oklahoma SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BARBARA LEE, California
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
TOM GRAVES, Georgia MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
KEVIN YODER, Kansas BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas TIM RYAN, Ohio
ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
DAVID G. VALADAO, California
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2015
----------
Wednesday, April 2, 2014.
BUDGET HEARING--DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WITNESS
HON. THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Welcome Secretary Perez
Mr. Womack. Good morning. The committee will come to order.
It should be noted at the outset that we have a number of
members on this subcommittee who are also members of other
subcommittees who are having hearings going on simultaneous to
this one. So there will be an ebb and flow of Members coming in
and out for various timeframes, and we will yield to them in
the order that they arrive.
And I am hopeful that the ranking member will be here
momentarily so that she can participate also in the early
stages of this hearing as we welcome our guest, the Secretary
of Labor.
Secretary Perez, welcome to the committee.
Secretary Perez. It is an honor to be here, sir.
Mr. Womack. Mr. Perez was confirmed as Secretary of the
Labor Department last July, and although this is his first
budget hearing before the subcommittee, I have no doubt that by
now, Mr. Perez knows the programs, the policies, and the
priorities reflected in this budget request.
Mr. Perez, thank you for stepping into such a demanding
role at such a demanding time. In the midst of an unacceptably
slow economic recovery, millions of Americans are still unable
to find work. I am sure these last months have been quite a
challenge, but I appreciate your role and your attendance here
today to discuss the fiscal 2015 budget for the Department of
Labor.
I intend to be brief in my remarks. But before I yield to
the ranking member, should she arrive, I do have some concerns
that I would like to address at the outset of this morning's
hearing.
Opening Remarks
I believe this must be the most anemic recovery to any
recession we have endured in recent memory. According to a
report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, now
almost 5 years into the recovery, the economy has replaced only
7.8 million of the 8.7 million jobs lost since the start of the
recession in December of '07.
To make matters worse, the labor force participation rate
is the lowest level since 1978 and has declined each year since
the recession began. The current unemployment rate of 6.7
percent belies the fact that millions of Americans have simply
given up looking for work and are no longer counted as part of
the labor force.
And yet there are currently over 4 million job openings.
These openings go unfulfilled due to a persistent skills gap in
this country. Employers tell us that they can't find enough
skilled workers for the positions they need to fill. I hear it
when I circulate through my district, and I am sure my
colleagues hear the same.
The department has spent more than $35,000,000,000 over the
past 10 years in training and employment services. It is clear
to me that these job training programs are not working.
It begs the question, why does job creation in this country
continue to be so slow? At last week's public witness hearing,
it was made clear to me that the regulatory environment, while
not the only factor, is certainly a contributing factor.
Businesses are so concerned about many of the regulations
pending at the department that they are hesitant to hire new
workers. I don't blame them. There is simply no certainty
surrounding the regulatory environment in which they will find
themselves operating.
Another factor impeding job growth is excessive
enforcement. I look at this request and descriptions in the
justification material, there is no ambiguity as to where the
department's priorities are. Once again, this administration
proposes to shift funds from compliance assistance to
enforcement.
Enforcement does not create jobs. It has real costs for
employers and is especially burdensome for the small businesses
we rely on as the biggest drivers of job growth. Excessive
enforcement has only created an adversarial relationship
between business and the Federal Government.
Instead, we need to be working together to ensure safe
workplaces and to create jobs. We need to give businesses
incentives to hire more workers. Bad actors should be held
accountable, there is no question. But I believe this proposal
represents a backward approach to job creation.
Job training programs are not working. Employers are facing
onerous and overreaching new regulations. And with this budget,
there is an additional burden of yet more punitive enforcement.
So I intend to ask questions along these lines in a moment.
Again, I would like to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being
here at this time.
And I would like to yield to the ranking member, Ms.
DeLauro, for her opening statement.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My
apologies. The Agriculture Subcommittee was meeting at the same
time.
Opening Remarks, Rep. DeLauro
But welcome to you, Mr. Secretary. So delighted you are
joining us this morning. I welcome you to the subcommittee for
your first appropriations hearing. Thank you for your
leadership on behalf of working families, including pushing for
higher wages and support for the unemployed since becoming the
Secretary of Labor.
We are here today to talk about the budget for the
Department of Labor, an agency whose mission is to help to
create jobs, to build a strong middle class, to support a
strong economy for everyone by increasing opportunities for
economic mobility, by providing temporary assistance to the
disadvantaged, and by protecting the health and the safety of
our workforce.
As a matter of fact, to quote you, Mr. Secretary, in your
testimony, it is about making good on the promise of
opportunity, which is central to the mission.
REDUCTIONS TO DOL FUNDING
As we look toward the coming fiscal year, I think it is
important to keep in mind the bigger picture and the severe
budget constraints the Department of Labor has been facing in
recent years. For even as we have been trying to get people
across the country back to work after an historic recession,
the overall discretionary budget for this department has been
slashed by one-sixth, adjusted for inflation, since 2010. These
cuts have damaged our priorities across the board.
The future of the economy lies in jobs that require
knowledge and skills, and those jobs also offer the best chance
for decent, livable wages and benefits. But despite a clear
need for a highly skilled workforce and with this majority--
House majority's intent on slashing needed investments rather
than creating jobs, Congress has cut funding for job training
and reemployment programs by nearly 20 percent since fiscal
year 2010.
Training programs for dislocated workers have also been cut
by a full 20 percent, despite the fact that employers continue
to claim they cannot qualified workers to fill job openings.
Job training programs for at-risk youth have been cut by
hundreds of millions of dollars per year, even though teen
unemployment remains above 20 percent.
I might add that--and I will mention it in a moment on my
strong support, as you know, Mr. Secretary, for the Job Corps
program. And despite its budgetary challenges, even in this
current budget, we are looking at it being below--about 20
percent below where we, in my view, need to be.
WORKER PROTECTION
So on the worker protection side, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration funding has declined by nearly 10 percent
since fiscal year 2010. Wage and Hour Division has seen its
budget decline by 8 percent. This means it is now limited to
investigating less than 0.5 percent of workplaces in industries
with a history of wage violations. Once again, we are doing
less with less.
All of these cuts have real-life repercussions that
negatively impact both workers and the economy. More unemployed
workers are denied access to job training. More low-wage
workers are exploited in the workplace, and more jobs, the
critical jobs that Americans need and that we should be working
hard to restore, are lost.
EFFECT OF SEQUESTRATION ON JOB LOSSES
According to an estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office, full implementation of sequestration in 2014
would have resulted in as many as 1.2 million fewer jobs by the
end of that year. That is 100,000 jobs lost each month because
of sequestration cuts at a time when millions of Americans
continue to look for work.
Fortunately, last year's budget agreement reversed some,
and only some, of those sequestration cuts. But we still have a
long way to go to reverse the damage that has been done.
This majority is moving in the wrong direction. The House
Budget Committee is meeting today to mark up the latest
iteration of Chairman Ryan's budget, and he is pushing for even
deeper cuts to priorities like job training, health, and
education. That is the big picture, which is very troubling to
me.
Labor, HHS programs make up roughly a third of total
nondefense discretionary spending. In the current fiscal year,
they are receiving only one-eighth of the increased funding
provided under Ryan-Murray. This has consequences, and as long
as this subcommittee's allocation continues to be less than its
proportional share should be, as was the case in 2014, we will
continue to lack the funding we need to make critical
investments for the Department of Labor.
Let me just take a moment on the current--the department's
current budget request for fiscal 2015. We clearly need to help
our workers learn the skills and credentials necessary for the
high-skill jobs of a modern economy. So I am glad to see that
there are some modest, but important increases this year.
Also happy to see the request of $1,500,000,000 to continue
the partnerships between community colleges, private employers,
and training providers. But these funds are requested in a
supplemental initiative outside this year's discretionary
funding caps. So I want to know how hard the administration
plans to fight for them.
WORKER PROTECTION AGENCIES
With regard to worker protection agencies, I support the
requested increases for priorities such as wage and hour
investigations and whistleblower protections in this request.
Adding 300 investigators, updating important rules and
regulations will help to ensure that our workers receive the
wages, benefits, and legal protections that they deserve.
So I think the Department of Labor is doing many good
things and is moving in the right direction, albeit more slowly
than I would prefer. But I do have some concerns.
FUNDING REDUCTION TO WOMEN'S PROGRAMS
One example, the administration continues to propose
funding cuts to the Women's Bureau, Women in Apprenticeship
program. Both of these programs serve to improve career
opportunities for women, and I plan to fight for their
continuation.
Women now make up half the Nation's workforce, but they
face a host of unique and disproportionate challenges in the
workplace from unequal pay to continuing barriers to
nontraditional employment. So I am interested to know what the
department is doing in light of these funding cuts to improve
economic opportunities for women.
There is much to discuss today. I thank you again for
joining us, Secretary Perez. Looking forward to your testimony
and to working with you to advance the President's economic
agenda and support our Nation's workers and their families and
to build a strong economy.
Many thanks.
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Ms. DeLauro.
Members are advised that we will be honoring the 5-minute
rule during our Q and A portion of the hearing today, and that
rule will also be in effect for the Secretary this morning.
Note that there is a device on the table that operates like a
stoplight. It has a green, a yellow, and a red, and that is
exactly just like you would be if you were traveling. That is
exactly what it means.
Green, you are good to go. Yellow, there is a warning that
you have got 1 minute to go. And red means it is time to stop.
Now in the event that you fail to stop, we have now
installed red light cameras in the room, and you will receive a
bill at your home should you fail to--I am only kidding.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Womack. Please help us honor the 5-minute rule so we
can give everybody the same amount of time and get as many
rounds in as is possible.
Mr. Secretary, again, it is a delight to have you in front
of the committee this morning. Look forward to your testimony.
The entire content of your opening statement will be entered
into the record, but for the moment, the time is yours.
Opening Statement
Secretary Perez. Thank you, Congressman Womack and Ranking
Member DeLauro and other members of the committee. Thank you
for this chance to testify about the Labor Department's fiscal
year 2015 budget request.
This budget, like any other, is more than a compilation of
dollar figures. It is an expression of our values, and the
Labor Department's values include helping people acquire the
skills they need to succeed in the jobs of today and tomorrow,
helping employers to get those skilled workers that enable them
to grow their businesses, making sure hard work is rewarded
with a fair wage, and enhancing our enforcement capacity to
protect workers' wages, benefits, and safety on the job.
American Job Centers
Our budget calls for the funding necessary to make
meaningful progress toward these goals, and I would like to
take a few minutes to highlight some of the key items. We
continue our investment in training and employment services to
the more than 20 million Americans at our 2,500-plus American
Job Centers nationwide. At the height of the recession, these
centers were the Nation's emergency rooms for job seekers,
administering the critical care necessary to restore economic
health and get people back to work.
The American Job Centers are resources for businesses as
well. During the State of the Union, the President singled out
Andra Rush, a small businesswoman from Detroit. Her
manufacturing firm is thriving because she found 700 of her
workers through the local American Job Center. We effectively
served as her human resource department. I would like to think
of the Labor Department as playing a match.com kind of role,
helping workers and employers find the right fit.
LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED
One of the most vexing challenges that we are confronting
continues to be the plight of the long-term unemployed.
Frankly, it is the one issue on my plate that keeps me up more
than any other issue at the Department of Labor.
Even as the economy continues to recover, the rate of long-
term unemployment remains at or near unprecedented highs. I
have met with so many of these people and they are hard-
working, diligent. They are pounding the pavement every single
day in search of a job. They want nothing more than the dignity
of work.
As one person said to me last week in a focus group of
long-term unemployed, ``I got no quit in me.'' And we got no
quit in them. We are not going to quit on them because we are
going to continue to fight to make sure that they have the
resources they need to get back on their feet.
And I am pleased that the Senate is poised to pass a
bipartisan bill this week that will finally extend emergency
unemployment benefits, which were cut off when Congress failed
to act at the end of last year. More than 2.2 million people
are somehow trying to survive without this lifeline, and I hope
the House will act quickly when the Senate passes that bill in
finality tomorrow.
Unemployment benefits, while important, are not enough, and
we need to work together on ways to get everybody back on their
feet who needs a job and wants a job. And toward that end, I am
very excited about the $158,000,000 request for an enhanced,
integrated, and expanded Reemployment and Eligibility
Assessments and Reemployment Services Program, which will use
an evidence-based approach to help long-term unemployed workers
and returning veterans to find work faster.
SECTOR STRATEGIES
We also request $15,000,000 in grants to support sector
strategies, helping the long-term unemployed and other targeted
populations receive the training they need for careers in
growth sectors. These recommendations are built on a growing
understanding of what works, and you can be assured that the
budget assumes that we will incorporate rigorous evaluations.
Although it is not before the committee, the President's
2015 budget request also sets forth an opportunity, growth, and
security initiative, which includes a robust investment in our
community colleges, one third of which would be used to promote
greater use of apprenticeships, which are another proven
workforce development strategy that I think is way too
undervalued in the United States.
We need to change the national mindset on apprenticeships.
A 4-year college degree is important for so many, but others do
not need a 4-year degree to punch their ticket to the middle
class. And so, we need to make sure we let young people and
their parents know that there is a bright future in America for
people who want to work with their hands.
FUNDING FOR WORKER PROTECTION
Training and skills development is an important piece of
the department's work, but it is not the only piece. And as I
said before, we play a critical role in ensuring that Americans
get paid the wages they are due, that they are safe on the job,
and their benefits are secure. Our budget seeks an increase of
almost $30,000,000 for our Wage and Hour Division, which would
cover the cost of hiring new investigators to ensure that
people who work get paid and employers who play by the rules
are not undercut by those who don't.
No worker should have to sacrifice their life for their
livelihood. And so, the 2015 budget calls for substantial
investments in the ability of OSHA and the State partners to
keep workers safe.
SAFEGUARDING RETIREMENT BENEFITS
And to safeguard the retirement of American workers, we
request $188,000,000 to help protect the more than 141 million
people covered by benefit plans, together holding a combined
$7,800,000,000,000 in assets.
Mr. Chairman, we have come a long way since the depths of
the Great Recession. The private sector has created 8.7 million
jobs over the last 48 months. We are moving in the right
direction, but we must do more, and we must pick up the pace.
And the Labor Department stands ready to play this critical
role in creating and expanding opportunity.
And with that, I look forward to your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Womack. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. And I
appreciate your opening comments.
Mr. Secretary, I know this is a budget hearing, but this is
the first opportunity that I have had as a Member of Congress
to address some issues that I think are down inside of the
department that are to me very, very critical.
In your written testimony to the Education and Workforce
Committee and in today's testimony, you tout public-private
partnerships and an inclusive, transparent process. Hearing a
Secretary of Labor mention these things kind of excites me
because it gives me hope that there are some things that we can
all work on together to help us help this economy and put
people back to work.
OFFCP SHORTCOMINGS
One area, though, in desperate need of change, in my strong
opinion, is the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs,
the OFCCP. I believe all of us in this room can agree that the
OFCCP has a just and worthy goal to enforce the promise of
affirmative action and equal opportunity for employment, and I
know that business leaders across the country, particularly
those in my district, recognize the importance of having a
diverse workforce.
That said, however, I have very serious concerns with this
organization. I have had many conversations with contractors
and attorneys across the Nation. Every time, I hear the same
things, and we can categorize them in basically three areas--
transparency, inefficient processes, and a lack of
organizational direction.
OFFCP TRANSPARENCY
Let me talk about transparency. The OFCCP reaches
conclusions on alleged issues of discrimination and refuses to
share with a contractor how it came to conclusions. Contractors
have no idea about the rules and metrics the agency is using to
determine whether a contractor is in compliance.
The regions and district offices seem to have different
interpretations of the same regulations. And when asked, the
OFCCP refuses to share the rules and metrics, making it
impossible for the contractors to self-audit and to do
everything in their power to be compliant with the rules.
OFFCP AUDITS
On inefficiency, audits are prolonged. They are
adversarial. They are confusing. And in too many cases, they
have gone on for many, many years. Contractors have been forced
to produce the same documents multiple times in the same audit
to the same compliance officer.
OFFCP LEADERSHIP
And on the subject of leadership and direction, the process
differs based on the regional office involved. So, in theory,
the same contractor with facilities throughout the country
could be subjected to two very different processes. There
appears to be very little communication and coordination among
the regional offices and the national headquarters in D.C.
So, Mr. Secretary, are you aware of the dysfunction that I
talk about with the OFCCP?
Secretary Perez. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud of the work
that OFCCP is doing. And let me give you an example.
Just yesterday, OFCCP reached a settlement in a case that
really embodies the nuts and bolts of the work that they do.
Three women who are carpenters were working on a site, and it
was a Federal contractor. And they were repeatedly harassed
because they were women.
And OFCCP came in there. They investigated the case, and
they got tens of thousands of dollars of relief on behalf of
these women who were unjustifiably and illegally harassed.
OFFCP SECTION 503 RULE
On the issue of partnership and transparency, I think the
Section 503 rule that was recently promulgated is a fantastic
example of the approach that we take. Under the leadership of
Pat Shiu, there was a very robust and aggressive campaign of
outreach to the business community.
And this is what Governor Tom Ridge wrote in the Wall
Street Journal after the regulation was issued. He was
describing the rulemaking process that we underwent. And he
said--this is his words, not Tom Perez's words.
``The Labor Department's rulemaking process should be a
model for how Government can work with stakeholders in crafting
regulations that are practical and effective. The new rules
represent a significant advance in the application of Federal
laws to enhance job opportunities for people with disabilities
and veterans.''
That is the approach that we took in this rule. That is the
approach we are taking throughout. And if you have particular
individuals or businesses in your district that are having
concerns, by all means bring them to our attention and we would
like to have that conversation. Because I am very proud of the
work that they have done and continue to do and the approach
that they take, which, as Governor Ridge described, is an
approach that is inclusive, seeks practical results, and I
think they are doing just that.
Mr. Womack. In my second round of questions, we will come
back, and I have got some more specific questions about the
OFCCP to support some of the arguments that I have already
made.
But I recognize that my time is about gone, and it will not
serve me to be able to get into that line of questioning on
this particular round.
Secretary Perez. I look forward to it. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Womack. Ms. DeLauro.
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, the first issue I would like to discuss is
the Labor Department's efforts to improve economic
opportunities for women. I was pleased to hear your commentary
about yesterday's settlement. And it is about women and their
families, quite honestly.
I have been involved in putting together something called
the Women's Economic Agenda, which focuses on three main
priorities--pay and rising pay, work-family balance, and
childcare. Let me discuss under the rubric of this effort three
specific programs.
Minimum wage. Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers are
women. In addition, nearly three-quarters of workers in tipped
occupations are filled by women. Minimum wage adjusted for
inflation has declined by more than 30 percent since 1968.
Second issue is pay discrimination. Last week, New York
Times story, 44,000 women who worked for years at some of the
Nation's largest jewelry stores, while they were being
systematically being paid less than their male coworkers for
the same job, also being passed over for promotions.
So I was very happy to see the budget request for an
increase of OFCCP and including funds to investigate pay
discrimination by Government contractors.
The third issue is paid leave. The U.S. has no mandatory
paid leave policy, making it just three countries in the world
and the only country among industrialized countries to not
mandate paid maternity leave for new mothers. If you could tell
the subcommittee how the Labor Department is working to
increase economic opportunities for women, how we plan to move
forward on minimum wage, pay discrimination, paid leave?
OFCCP EQUAL OPPORTUNITY SURVEY
Let me also add these couple of things so that you can
answer it all at once. My hope is that we would be able to
reinstitute the OFCCP equal opportunity survey that was
discontinued. I want to know how you plan to collect
compensation data from Federal contractors in order to improve
contractor awareness and encourage self-evaluations and really
target contractors most likely to be out of compliance.
The last point, is there any consideration of an executive
order, as I and the chair of the Senate Appropriations
Committee have called for, prohibiting Government contractors
from retaliating against their employees who disclose salary
information?
Secretary Perez. First of all, thank you, Ranking Member
DeLauro, for your longstanding leadership on behalf of working
people, not simply women, but working people and vulnerable
people.
And I love your question because it really gets at the
heart of our opportunity agenda. And part of the answer to your
question is through the laws that we enforce, we help so many
working women.
I described the OFCCP case that was settled literally
yesterday. These are carpenters, female carpenters who are
working in an industry that is dominated by men, and they were
harassed. That is not right. And we will continue to root out
that sort of nuts and bolts discrimination.
SETTLEMENT ON TIPPED WORKERS
In our wage and hour context, we just reached the largest
settlement in DOL history on behalf of tipped workers, who are
disproportionately women, more likely to be living in poverty,
more likely to be on food stamps, as you well know. That was a
case out of Philadelphia where the recovery was almost
$7,000,000 on behalf of tipped workers. So our enforcement work
will continue in this area.
FMLA WORK
I am very proud of the work we have done in the FMLA. Over
the past 5 years, we have collected more than $9,000,000 in
back wages and monetary relief for employees affected by this
particular law. And we will continue--and we do a lot of
technical assistance because what we discover in the FMLA
context is many employers simply don't know what exactly it is
they are allowed to do and what they can't do.
And so, a lot of the work that we do is troubleshooting at
an early level. And so, we will continue to do that.
STATE PAID LEAVE INITIATIVE
The President's budget supports--there is a $5,000,000
request to help States implement paid leave programs, States
like Washington and others. I think it is, frankly, a bit
embarrassing that we are in the company of Lesotho, Papua New
Guinea, and Swaziland as the only country in the world that has
no paid leave.
And I want to applaud your Governor Malloy, who implemented
a paid leave program, and they have been evaluating it for its
impact on employers. And it is going well, and it hasn't had
that adverse impact.
And so, all of these areas. In our regulatory work, the
home health rule that we enacted was a huge issue for women
because 90 percent of home health workers are women.
Ms. DeLauro. What kind of opportunity do we have to lift
that restriction with Federal contractors? Well, I still have a
minute.
Mr. Womack. We will come back to that----
Ms. DeLauro. Well, no. It is----
Mr. Womack [continuing]. Because it is red.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, it is red now, but it----
Mr. Womack. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Stewart?
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us.
There is a number of things I would like to talk about.
Some of them are quite concerning to me, and I would like to
move quickly, if we could.
OSHA INSPECTION OF FAMILY FARMS
I grew up on a family farm. We still have that farm in my
family. In fact, so does my wife. When I was in the Air Force,
there was nothing I enjoyed more than going home and ranching
with my brothers.
We don't have any employees on my farm. Do you believe that
OSHA has the ability to step on my family farm and to inspect
and regulate what we do there?
Secretary Perez. There is a congressional rider,
Congressman, that says that farming operations that employ 10
or fewer employees, that OSHA is not allowed to undertake
enforcement activities on those family farms. So we take that
rider very seriously.
Mr. Stewart. Then help me understand, and I know you must
be familiar with this from Senator Johanns from Nebraska, where
there was at least one example and probably others--well, I
know of others--where inspectors came on family farms. This one
had one employee, and they wrote them up for such things as not
having a written plan to control fugitive grain dust and fined
them $130,000. I think that is insane.
Secretary Perez. Well, I am happy to give you the context
of that. I spend a lot of time in rural Wisconsin. That is
where my in-laws have a place, and we go up there a lot, and it
is farm country. And one of the challenges is when somebody has
their farm, they will often list their name but they don't
report the number of employees.
I have also seen a number of farming operations where they
are farming, but they are also doing other things because they
are very entrepreneurial. And so, for instance, in the case you
describe in Nebraska, there was a situation there where they
had indicated that they were doing things in addition to
farming that took them out of the definition of a family farm.
Mr. Stewart. What were they doing that was in addition to
farming?
Secretary Perez. My recollection was that they had a grain
elevator.
Mr. Stewart. Grain storage.
Secretary Perez. Yes they were engaging in grain storage
that took them beyond the definition of a family farm.
Mr. Stewart. And do you realize that almost every family
farm in America has grain storage?
Secretary Perez. And many of those are family farms, but
some of those go beyond the definition, and have more than 10
employees. And so, when we investigate and learn that they are,
in fact, a family farm, then we back off. But it is hard to----
Mr. Stewart. In this case--in this case, you didn't.
Secretary Perez. Well, again, this case was the subject of
significant investigation because, the employer provided codes
that indicated that they were doing more than a family farm.
And they actually reported that they were a grain facility.
And, once we moved forward in that case, we were able to
resolve it.
Mr. Stewart. So just to be clear, if I have a grain
facility on my farm, which we do on my brother's, we have less
than--fewer than 10 employees, you have no right at all to come
on that farm and do an inspection then?
Secretary Perez. Under those circumstances, that would be
correct, sir.
Mr. Stewart. Okay. Thank you for that. And I think that is
really important for us to establish that.
It will be interesting to see how this one is resolved.
Secretary Perez. Well, it has been resolved, sir, the
Nebraska case.
Mr. Stewart. And how was it resolved?
Secretary Perez. There was a settlement in the case, I
believe, a few weeks ago, and the fine that you mentioned was
withdrawn.
Mr. Stewart. Okay. And you believe that that was the
appropriate outcome for that case, I am sure?
Secretary Perez. Yes. We are comfortable with the
settlement.
Mr. Stewart. Yes. And then I want to move on, but can you
see, and I hope that you can, how that builds resentment and
distrust in a case like that for farmers and for other people
out there and to feel like this heavy hand of the Government
comes in. And this was a terrifying experience for these
individuals, I am sure, facing a $130,000 fine for something
which is going on in literally tens of thousands of family
farms across the country.
But let me move on----
WORKING WITH FAMILY FARMERS
Secretary Perez. Sir, it is a terrifying experience for
parents, with whom I have spoken, who have lost their children
who have suffocated in grain silos. That is why we were getting
involved because the incidence of deaths in grain silos--
preventable deaths, I would note, has been significant.
And that is why we have been working collaboratively with
farmers and others, to prevent those tragedies.
Mr. Stewart. Are you indicating then that you think it is
appropriate for you to come on family farms with grain silos to
investigate them?
Secretary Perez. Well, again, if there are more than 10
employees, then----
Mr. Stewart. We are not talking more than 10. We are
talking family farms. You said it is terrifying for parents to
lose their children. Heavens, I don't know of anyone who cares
about a child like their parents do, certainly more than the
Government does.
We don't need the Government to come in and provide that
type of oversight for us. And it seems to me you are indicating
that that is appropriate?
Secretary Perez. Well, again, our role is to protect
workers. And when we have less than 10 people employed on a
family farm, Congress has directed OSHA not to be involved, and
we appreciate that, we respect that, and we will abide by that.
At the same time, I think we have a shared interest in
preventing deaths on farms that employ more than 10 workers.
And I have spoken to parents who have had to bury their loved
ones, and we are trying to prevent that and trying to do it in
a common sense way.
Mr. Womack. The gentlelady from Alabama, Mrs. Roby.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today.
Secretary Perez. Good morning.
REGIONAL EMPHASIS PLANS
Mrs. Roby. I sent you a letter on March 27th, highlighting
some of the issues I wanted to talk to you about today. So I
hope that letter found its way?
Secretary Perez. Thank you for sending that. I appreciate
it. It did, and I reviewed it.
Mrs. Roby. Okay. Great. Well, the main issue here is when
you look at an REP, a regional emphasis plan, and you have an
agency, as I stated in my letter, that has sweeping authority
to enter and inspect and investigate and, as my colleague's
line of questioning, to make sure that our employees are
working in a safe environment. And you have that broad,
sweeping authority without delay, at reasonable times, so on
and so forth.
It is my belief that when you issue an REP like the one I
am going to talk about now and you treat similar businesses
differently in different parts of our country, that if you are
going to do that, then there should be a really high
expectation of justification for doing so.
The REP that I am talking about today was issued, and I
just want to make sure that you are aware of it, that is
targeted and directed at auto part manufacturers.
Secretary Perez. Right.
Mrs. Roby. But specifically, only in Alabama, Georgia, and
Mississippi. And what is concerning to me is that this REP, in
the background section, states that the auto part supplier
industry continue to be the source of serious injuries,
including amputations and deaths, to employees.
We all want our employees in our auto part manufacturers to
go home safe at night to their families and to their children.
But I am very interested in the information that came directly
from the Department of Labor that shows that Alabama and
Georgia are below the national average when it comes to
incidents of injury, just injury.
And I live in Montgomery near many of these facilities and
have seen no reports of, you know, multiple incidents of
amputations and/or deaths. So what I am trying to figure out,
you know, your budget calls for substantial investments in the
area of occupational safety and health, and I know that other--
doing our background on this issue, I know that other REPs cite
specific incidences that would lead to a targeted inquiry such
as this.
I mean, this is a 2-year audit, basically, on auto plant
manufacturers in specific States and a specific industry. And
there are $300,000,000 in fines in 2013, and your request,
again, is for substantial investments in this area. I am trying
to figure out if your job is to make the workplace more safe,
why are you targeting three States that have incidents below
the national average, and this industry exists in other States
that do not?
Secretary Perez. Thank you for your question,
Congresswoman.
We follow the data, and we gather the data. And let me
share with you the data on injury rates in the auto parts
manufacturing industry.
In Alabama in particular, the injury rate in auto parts
manufacturing is 50 percent higher than in the same industry
across the country. So the reason we have this regional
emphasis program is because when we see data and we have
experience showing that there is a problem, then we put
emphasis in the areas where there is a problem.
We worked with Hyundai for almost 5 years in a compliance
assistance mode to try to address these issues, and we were
unable to bring down the injury and illness rate. So the----
Mrs. Roby. But those statistics are quite--in quite
contrast to what came out of the Department of Labor showing
that Alabama and Georgia are below the national average.
Secretary Perez. No, I am happy to----
Mrs. Roby. So if I could get--I would very much like to get
a copy of that.
Secretary Perez. Okay. I am happy to give you that data
because we are following the data in our regional emphasis
program here and across the country. When there is a problem,
that is what brings us in there. And regrettably, there is a
problem there.
Mrs. Roby. What is troubling to me is that three States can
be targeted in a specific industry, and we don't have the data
that shows and backs up that you guys are going to come into--
--
Secretary Perez. Well, I am happy to share the data with
you that demonstrates--if there is a problem in a particular
State, regardless of what the State is, we have a very
important need to protect workers in that State. There is a
problem in Alabama in terms of the----
Mrs. Roby. This is certainly news to us, based on the same
information that came out of your department.
Secretary Perez. Okay. Well, we will----
Mrs. Roby. So I will continue this questioning----
Mr. Womack. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you.
Mr. Womack. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Joyce.
ADDRESSING SKILLS GAPS
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Perez. Good morning, sir.
Mr. Joyce. Good morning, Secretary. How are you, sir?
Secretary Perez. Congratulations on your Dayton Flyers.
Mr. Joyce. You are very kind. Thank you.
Secretary Perez, thank you for appearing here today. But
according to preliminary data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, there were 4.1 million job openings in January, and
that is up from 3.8 million a year ago. This, despite a labor
participation rate at the lowest level since 1978.
Too many workers have simply given up looking for work and
dropped out of the workforce. Employers tell us they cannot
find workers that have the skills that they need. This skills
gap has been a persistent problem, as you and I have discussed
before, despite billions of dollars the department spends each
year on employment and training programs.
Now putting aside the new strategies that you are testing
for a moment, what are you doing within the existing training
and One-Stop structures to address this skills gap?
Secretary Perez. Quite a bit, I did this at a local level,
and at a State level, and I was very proud of the work that we
did. And the key to our success was partnership and having a
demand-driven approach.
In other words, what are the demand needs of employers? You
can't train and pray anymore. You can't train widget makers if
nobody is hiring widget makers. And so, the approach that we
took when I worked on this at a local and State level and the
approach we are taking now, at a Federal level, is to make sure
that we understand what the demand needs are and that we match
the demand needs with the training available through community
colleges and others, to help people increasing their skills and
get those jobs.
I can give you some facts and figures about some of the
work that we have been doing across this country. Under our
Wagner-Peyser program, for instance, last year alone, 18
million people received services. About 14 million were
unemployed when they came in, and a little over half of them
went on to find a job within 3 months after completing their
program. In our WIA programs, four out of the five training
participants found a job.
AMERICAN JOB CENTERS
Earlier we talked about a woman in Detroit, named Andra
Rush. She runs a company called Detroit Manufacturing Systems.
She manufactures the consoles for the Ford F-150, and she went
from zero to 800 employees with the help of the American Job
Centers because we were basically her HR department.
And we helped long-term unemployed get to work. We
determined what the skill needs were, and we helped 700 or 800
people punch their tickets to the middle class.
There are a lot of similar opportunities out there. And
what we are trying to do, with the Vice President's leadership
on our skills working, group is to make sure we do even more to
align the funding streams from the various agencies to expand
our investment in apprenticeship.
Because I know in your neck of the words, there is a bright
future for people who work with their hands. I talk to
employers, as we discussed the other day. Apprenticeship has a
bright future in this country as a result of the aging of the
population and the renaissance of manufacturing.
And so, we are redoubling our efforts in the apprenticeship
context. We are doing even more now to promote innovation. We
have waiver programs at the Department of Labor that States and
local governments have availed themselves of. What we are doing
right now is figuring out what works, take it to scale,
expanding that, working on behalf of veterans. And last year,
we helped over a million veterans through our American Job
Centers.
And so, there is a lot going on. There are many employers,
you are absolutely right. The employers that I talk to are
saying, ``I am bullish about my future,'' and we have got to
make sure people have the skills to compete.
And that is why we are that match.com. That is why the
community colleges in your jurisdictions and across this
country play such a critical role because our investments
through our TAACCCT funding and through our other programs have
enabled those community colleges to kind of be like the secret
sauce and give people the training opportunities they need.
And oftentimes, and it is a 6-month program or a 7-month
program that gives you an industry-recognized credential. One
way we are measuring our progress is how many industry-
recognized credentials are we helping to facilitate. Because
when you have that Microsoft certification or you are a
journeyman or journeyperson, you are punching your ticket to
the middle class. Those are portable certifications that enable
you to move forward.
So I am proud of the work we have done. At the same time,
we have plenty of room for improvement. That is what we are
doing right now under the leadership of the Vice President.
And having worked on this issue at a local and State level,
I know the importance of business outreach. I know the
importance of partnership, and I know the importance of having
a philosophy. And our philosophy is that it has to be demand
driven, and we have to help as many people as possible.
Mr. Womack. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Roybal-
Allard.
TAACCCT GRANTS
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Secretary Perez, TAACCCT grants have
enormous potential to help adults acquire the skills, degrees,
and credentials needed for high-wage, high-skill employment.
And I was very pleased that the nine campuses of the Los
Angeles community college district secured a $19,000,000
TAACCCT grant this fall.
This funding will enable the district and their partners to
create an innovative training model to prepare trade-impacted
workers, veterans, and other long-term unemployed individuals
in the L.A. area for new careers in the healthcare workforce.
Unfortunately, the TAACCCT grants were only funded through
2014. The successor program, the Community College Job-Driven
Training Fund, was included in the Opportunity, Growth, and
Security Initiative. However, no additional funding was
provided in the budget request.
So in the absence of TAACCCT grants or funding for the
successor program, how does the Department of Labor plan to
prepare the American workforce to meet the growing demand for
21st century high-skilled workers? And are there other programs
that can fill the void that is being left by this important
program?
Secretary Perez. The TAACCCT program has been an
indispensible funding stream that has enabled us to catalyze
partnership and innovation across this country. The program
that you describe in Los Angeles, Congresswoman, is a perfect
example.
And I was out there with the Mayor and with the community
college presidents when we announced that grant. The community
colleges, frankly, hadn't ever collaborated on a grant before,
and they were running--they had a curricula. So if you were
taking Nursing 101 at community college A, the curriculum was
different from the community college B. And it wasn't aligned
to what the needs of the local health providers were.
And so, now we have facilitated that alignment. People are
coming out of that program with skills and competencies that
the business community locally is demanding and needing, and
they are able to hire people. And that is why this program is
so important.
That is why the President included it in his request.
Because I go--anywhere I go across this country, you hear from
community college presidents, you hear from business leaders
about how this program has so critically served the needs of
employers. Just in response to Congressman Joyce's question,
this is part of the answer to that question is having the
community colleges at the table to provide the skill training
so that people can increase their skills to get the jobs of
tomorrow.
They are a critical component, and I have been in community
colleges across this country to see it work. So I hope we will
continue, and I think we can demonstrate the value added of
this. And I am hopeful that as we move forward to identify the
3 million jobs that Congressman Joyce referenced before, this
is a big part of how we solve this. And that is why we are
going to continue to advocate vigorously to continue this
program.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And, but there is no funding?
Secretary Perez. This is round four. This is the last
round. So if Congress does not act--we are about to announce
the fourth round of TAACCCT funding. It was a $2,000,000,000
roughly program. This will be round four of four.
REAUTHORIZE THE TRADE ADJUSTMENT ACT
If Congress does not act next year to re-up it, then it
will not move forward. If Congress does not act by the end of
the year to reauthorize the Trade Adjustment Act, then millions
of trade-adjusted affected workers will not have access to that
critical lifeline. And that program has served very, very
important needs.
We are using our H-1B programs and the funding that comes
from there to fund certain grant making. But, there are limits
to that.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes. We will lose tremendous ground.
Secretary Perez. Yes.
CHILDREN WORKING IN ``AGRICULTURE''
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I understand that earlier the issue of
children working in agriculture was briefly brought up, in my
absence while I was in another subcommittee hearing.
For the last 13 years, I have been introducing the CARE Act
to end the double standard that allows children in agriculture
to work at ages, younger ages for longer hours and in more
dangerous circumstances than those working in all other
industries.
And although agriculture has a fatality rate nearly eight
times higher than the national average, attempts to protect our
Nation's children working in agriculture have met with strong
opposition in spite of the fact that my bill and those of us
who have been working have made every effort to exempt and to
protect family farms. So, without equal protection for these
children under our laws, robust oversight enforcement of our
current laws is essential to providing some level of protection
to our children in agriculture.
Mr. Womack. The gentlelady's time has expired.
We have been joined by the chairman of the subcommittee. I
am going to give Mr. Kingston just a few minutes to kind of get
his bearing, and we will go into a second round of questions.
And we will be coming back to everybody here momentarily, and I
will lead.
OFCCP AUDITS
I want to go back to OFCCP for just a minute. I am thrilled
that you are proud of the overall work in the Labor Department,
but I want to confine my questions to OFCCP.
And Mr. Secretary, I spent 30 years in uniform, and I have
been responsible for and participated in a number of
inspections involving my military units. And so, I kind of look
at the audit process and the inspection process that I have
witnessed in the military as kind of the same thing. So, in
your words, very briefly, what is the purpose of one of these
audits?
Secretary Perez. To ensure compliance with Federal laws----
Mr. Womack. Okay.
Secretary Perez [continuing]. That mandate
nondiscrimination.
Mr. Womack. Because the laws that are in place have a
certain purpose, to ensure that people have opportunity and
equal opportunity and this sort of thing. So can we agree that
the audit process, as you say, is to ensure compliance, but
really overall is to just make sure that people have these
opportunities?
Secretary Perez. When you ensure compliance with
nondiscrimination laws, I think you expand access to
opportunity.
Mr. Womack. So do you give compliance assistance to the
people that you are auditing?
Secretary Perez. Outreach, education, and technical
assistance has always been part of what we do at OFCCP. I have
been doing----
Mr. Womack. All right. So when you--let us just say that
you are going to company A, and you are going to perform some
kind of a desk audit on this particular company. They are
notified that they are going to be subject to a desk audit. Do
you reach out to them? Or the people in your office, do they
reach out and actually work with them to understand what the
metrics are going to be, what the things are we are going to
look for? So that we can ensure that everybody is having this
opportunity.
Secretary Perez. Sure. And let me give you some facts and
figures. In fiscal year 2013, our field offices conducted more
than 6,200 outreach activities for workers and employers, 687
compliance assistance events----
Mr. Womack. Let me ask my question. I am talking--let us go
back to the company that I just gave an example of.
Secretary Perez. Sure.
Mr. Womack. So you are going to perform a desk audit. Do
you go to the company and you say this is what we are looking
for, this is the checklist. Do you actually work with that
company so that they understand what they are up against?
I mean, there is a whole spectrum of things that you can
look at. Do you work with them specifically on the issues that
you are looking at for that particular company?
Secretary Perez. There is a really good chance that this
company attended one of the 900 outreach seminars, conferences,
and symposium that were held by our very active and robust
outreach/technical assistance team.
And so, our goal is, by the time we conduct an audit,
people will already understand what the rules are.
Mr. Womack. A lot of rules. A lot of rules, aren't there?
Secretary Perez. Actually, there is a simple rule. Don't
discriminate. That is really the simple rule. I mean, you can't
do what the people in this case I described yesterday were
doing. They were discriminating against women carpenters. You
can't do that.
OFCCP AUDIT PROTOCAL
Mr. Womack. Okay. So let me give you an example. It is my
understanding that when the contractors get an OFCCP request
for individualized pay data and the letter says we found
unexplained differences in your compensation, then the company
goes back and says what pay differences are you seeing? And the
compliance officer declines, citing protocol. Are you aware
those compliance officers are forbidden from sharing the answer
to that question?
Secretary Perez. Congressman, I will repeat again. If you
have a specific employer that you felt was treated either
unfairly or asked for information that they couldn't get, by
all means bring it to our attention. Because I am very proud of
the work that is being done at OFCCP----
Mr. Womack. Okay.
Secretary Perez [continuing]. And if there is a particular
situation, I want to make sure we are----
Mr. Womack. In the middle of an audit, is it possible that
an OFCCP audit might request certain type of information and
give a timeframe for response of, say, 24 hours?
Secretary Perez. I don't know what the timeframes are. That
seems a little----
Mr. Womack. But are you aware that any of those timeframes
exist?
Secretary Perez. Well, again, sir, I----
Mr. Womack. Do you think that is fair?
Secretary Perez. Well, again, what I think is fair is if
you have a particular employer that has a specific problem, I
want to hear about it so that we can resolve it because I am a
big believer in making sure that we are----
Mr. Womack. Well, here is what I am concerned about. What I
am concerned about is I want the agency to want to work with
the company to ensure the company is compliant and, when not
compliant, to help them become compliant, to have a working
relationship so we can put more people to work.
But we have got a lot of people running scared out there
because of the spectrum of things that they can be subject to
and that these goalposts continue to move from place to place.
And I recognize that I am out of time, and I am going to
treat myself no differently than anybody else and give myself
the gavel and turn the microphone over to the----
Or Ms. DeLauro will be next.
RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE
Ms. DeLauro. Let me just ask about the chair.
Mr. Womack. Does the chair prefer----
Mr. Kingston. No, we will go----
Ms. DeLauro. You are okay?
Mr. Kingston. Yes.
Mr. Womack. Ms. DeLauro, you are recognized.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much.
If I can ask unanimous consent to put into the record a
document about the raising the minimum wage, 10 Reasons Raising
the Minimum Wage to $10.10 Is a Women's Issue.
Mr. Womack. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
FOLLOW-UP ON GRAIN STORAGE BIN FATALITIES
Just a quick note on the issue of grain storage bins and
fatalities. 2010, 57 engulfments in grain facilities and 31
fatalities. Approximately 70 percent of documented entrapments
occur on small farms exempt from OSHA's grain handling facility
standard. According to OSHA, it has walked out of inspections
of small farms 91 times due to the rider. This included 11
fatality cases.
TAACCCT GRANT PROGRAM
Let me follow up on the issue, the TAACCCT grant program,
which is really just such an extraordinary success, if I can.
Can you make a compelling case for going above this year's
spending caps to fund additional job training programs?
And then, in that context, how will our State agencies work
with this expanded apprenticeship program? Can they apply for
any of this $500,000,000? I have one question after that about
reemployment services, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Perez. The short answer is absolutely I can make
a compelling case. And what I would actually invite the members
of the committee to do is convene a roundtable of your
community college presidents, business leaders, and others who
have participated in this program and ask them how it has gone.
Because I am quite confident that whether you are in
metropolitan Cleveland, Alabama, Connecticut, California, of
Utah, you are going to find that this program has been an
unmitigated success in helping people. And so, I think that is
very important.
Ms. DeLauro. I was thinking of Gateway--Gateway Community
College, where they have a veterans program going, which is an
enormous, enormous success.
APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM
Secretary Perez. And the apprenticeship issue. A big part
of what we are trying to do on the apprenticeship issue is
build capacity at a State level. Some States have really good
registered apprenticeship programs, and others have work to do.
And so, a big part of what we are trying to do in the
apprenticeship context is build that capacity within States in
the registered apprenticeship context. So these resources, a
big part of them, would go directly to States.
FUNDING FOR REEMPLOYMENT SERVICES
Ms. DeLauro. Just to ask, the Congress has cut funding for
job training and reemployment programs by 20 percent since
fiscal year 2010. Training programs for dislocated workers have
been cut by full 20 percent despite--and for my colleague
Congressman Joyce, despite the fact that employers continue to
claim they cannot find qualified workers to fill job openings.
Mr. Secretary, your budget requests a doubling of funding
for reemployment services and reemployment eligibility
assessments. Can you tell us how these activities are going to
help the long-term unemployed return to the workforce? Can you
talk about the budget implications of these programs and that
these programs actually save money by shortening the duration
of unemployment?
RES/REA JOB CENTERS
Secretary Perez. We have studied this issue, and
independent folks have studied the issue of the effectiveness
of REA/RES programs. The long-term unemployed, as I said in my
opening statement, is the issue that keeps me up the most at
night.
And what we have seen is that these programs, REA/RES are
fancy names for we bring in the job seeker. We do an assessment
of the job seeker. And depending on that assessment, you get
connected to training programs. You get connected to in the
case of a woman from Connecticut, what she needed was she
needed to redo her resume because it was stale.
And so, the American Job Center helped her redo her resume,
and so different people will have different needs. It is a
triage situation.
And for veterans, especially for folks leaving military
service and now eligible for unemployment, this program has
been indispensible. And when we connect people to the American
Job Centers and we provide this extensive help, the studies
have shown that we get people back to work.
And so, this increase, this requested increase is designed
to address long-term unemployment. It is designed to assist our
veterans who are leaving military service. We know with the
mandatory drawdown that we have more veterans in the pipeline,
and we are trying to work upstream with them so 6 months before
they leave, we are helping them out.
And so, we are continuing the work in that area. This
program is one of the most important things that I would
respectfully assert that Congress could do to reduce the ranks
of the long-term unemployed.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Womack. Now the microphone goes to the chairman of the
subcommittee. Mr. Kingston from Georgia?
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Perez. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kingston. Mr. Secretary, good to see you and members of
the committee.
FEDERAL JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS
One of the high concerns I have is we have 47 different job
training programs across 9 Federal agencies. 2011, the GAO did
a study and found that these cost more than $18,000,000,000,
but they also could not find evidence that any of the job
training programs were working.
And yet this Congress has tried to combine as many as
possible, and the administration has fought us every inch of
the way. While I may want to reduce this, say, to 10, it
doesn't seem possible that the administration can seriously
believe 47 is still necessary.
It would appear to me that it would be something that we
could say, okay, which ones work? Where is the duplication, and
where are they effective?
I don't see it as being a huge philosophical question,
either. I see it as just being a practical one. But in this
town when you are trying to do something that requires common
sense, everybody digs into the bunker and says, no, we have got
to protect this constituency or that constituency.
So what is your comment on that?
TRAINING PROGRAM CONSOLIDATION
Secretary Perez. Well, we have had this--we have had a
very, I think, productive conversation with members of the
Workforce Committee, with Chairman Kline and others about this
issue, because, if you look at the President's budget request,
the New Career Pathways Program is, in fact, a consolidation of
the Displaced Worker Program and the TAA program.
At the end of this year, TAA expires, and people in your
districts receiving critical assistance are going to lose it.
So, our philosophy is to put those programs together because
those work.
As it relates to other investments, I think it is important
to understand that when you add up programs or funding streams,
a funding stream is not a program. There are five--or four or
five different funding streams for veterans, for instance.
Mr. Kingston. Let me ask you--let me ask you this. Did you
read the GAO report?
Secretary Perez. I sure did.
Mr. Kingston. And what did you think? Especially the part
that said there was no evidence that they were creating jobs or
no evidence that they were working.
Secretary Perez. That is actually not what I thought the
GAO report said. The GAO report said that what we need to do a
better job, and I agree with this, is to make sure that our
programs are aligned. And that is precisely what we are trying
to do right now.
That is what I did when I was in State government.
Imploding stovepipes, making sure that all of the different
agencies that had skin in the game were working together. And
that is why we are working with the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, with HHS, with Department of Education,
Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Kingston. Right now, after reading that, you don't see
any of the 47 that should be eliminated?
Secretary Perez. Well, actually a number of them have
already been eliminated, and I would be happy to go through
that list with you after this hearing. Because some of the
funding streams that were identified in that report are no
longer funded.
But I think what is really important to understand is,
again, there are five different funding streams for veterans. I
think those funding streams reflect a very careful
consideration by Congress that veterans have unique needs. And
so, when a veteran comes into an American Job Center, Mr.
Chairman, he is not asking for a funding stream. He is asking
for a job.
And that person may have a disability, and Congress has
correctly, in my judgment, said we need a program----
Mr. Kingston. Well, let us just say--what I would like, and
I am just cutting you off to try to stay in the 5 minutes. But
what I would like to receive from you is of the 47 and of the
GAO report, what your response to it is and which of the 47 you
are willing to work with us to consolidate. And which ones you
feel really work and which ones aren't.
Because I think where we also could find some agreement is
which ones are the best because if one is really turning out
trained people that can transition into jobs, maybe we should
put more money in that and starve one that is not as efficient.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
MINIMUM WAGE REQUIRED ON MILITARY BASES
I want to ask another question on military bases that
recently under this administration's executive order, they are
going now to minimum wage if you have a fast food restaurant on
a military post. But I understand, in addition to that, the
Department of Labor is starting to require that restaurants pay
an additional health and welfare benefit of $3.81 an hour,
which would mean if you are working on a military post in a
McDonald's or whatever that the starting wage would be $13.91,
which would be extremely difficult to sell competitive tacos or
hamburgers or fried chicken paying that. And that would defeat
the purpose of having those on military posts for our soldiers
and their families.
Secretary Perez. The executive order indicated that----
Mr. Womack. I am so sorry, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Kingston is
out of time. We are joined by----
Mr. Kingston. He gives no mercy to anyone. So we are in the
same boat.
Mr. Womack. Not even myself. We are joined by other members
of the subcommittee, and in the order, provided that I have got
this correct, Ms. Lee of California will be next. Then we will
go, I think, to Mr. Harris of Maryland and then to Mr. Honda of
California.
So, at this time, I am going to give the floor to Ms. Lee
of California.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Perez. Good morning.
Ms. Lee. Sorry, and I apologize for being late. But I have
got three committees going, one of which is the Budget.
Secretary Perez. Three places at once is a little hard.
[Laughter.]
TARGETING JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS
Ms. Lee. Budget Committee, where we are really talking
about a lot of the budget, your budget.
But thank you again for being here and for your tremendous
leadership.
Although our economy is slowly improving, investments in
job training--and I am working on an amendment to the budget
now to increase to the President's level job training funding.
But job training, which really puts individuals in a place
where they can work at a living wage, job training programs are
key to lifting individuals and families out of poverty,
addressing the growing inequality in America, and creating the
opportunity for all.
Now the unemployment rate, and I know we are all pleased to
see the unemployment rate down to 6.7 percent in, I believe,
February. But again, in the African-American community 12
percent, and 8.1 percent in the Latino community. So there are
still nearly 4 million Americans who have been unemployed for
27 weeks or longer, and these numbers unfortunately are
disproportionately represented in and by minority populations.
There are several job training programs that could
potentially benefit communities with high unemployment, but I
am having a very difficult time identifying programs that
directly address the unemployment disparity, which we have
asked for, for a report on that.
So can you briefly describe some of the job training
programs contained in the President's budget that are really
targeted toward communities that significantly--that have a
significantly higher unemployment disparity, the way you target
and how that is done?
Then, secondly, as it relates to poverty language, in 2014,
and I want to mention--read this language. I was able to
include poverty language that says, ``Poverty is far too
prevalent in the United States. Congress and the administration
should work together to implement policies, interagency
efforts, and support proven anti-poverty programs that reduce
the existence of poverty and the suffering associated with
it.''
So these interagency efforts should be well coordinated
between Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, given the
unique responsibility that these agencies, yourself--your
agency--share really in training our workforce, educating our
future, and ensuring the health and well-being of all
Americans. So how do you envision this coordination internally
within the Department of Labor and with other agencies to
fulfill the goal the Congress set, and that is to support
efforts to reduce poverty?
Secretary Perez. That coordination that you describe is
critical. It is when I was talking to the chairman before, the
alignment is about making sure that we are working together to
make sure that the DOL funds are spent appropriately and with
our colleagues, whether it is HUD, whether it is USDA, all the
other agencies that have training dollars, that we are spending
these dollars synergistically in demand-driven context. And
that is exactly what we are doing.
When I was in Maryland, I co-chaired a workforce
subcabinet. We brought together all the agencies that had skin
in the game to make sure that we were aligning our investments,
and that is what we are doing right now in the Federal
Government. And I participate in those meetings with
regularity.
In terms of your first question about the investments that
enable us to get at many communities that are in specific need,
Congresswoman Roybal-Allard described an investment through our
TAACCCT program in Los Angeles, that I went and visited. It is
a remarkably exciting development, and the people who are in
that community college, who are overwhelmingly students of
color, are going to benefit remarkably from that.
Our Ready to Work grant, which is a grant designed to get
the long-term unemployed back to work, is designed to take
innovative practices from across the country and lift them up
through our grant making. In addition, work we are doing in the
My Brother's Keeper initiative is designed to get at young men
of color.
Also, Congress has consistently provided support for former
offenders, which is very important because former offenders are
people who have significant barriers to getting back into the
workforce. And I am very proud of the work that we have done
there. And frankly, I think one of the most important things we
could do to address these issues of disparities is raising the
minimum wage because you know the data on that.
Ms. Lee. Yes, 900,000 people lifted out of poverty. How
about Job Corps?
Mr. Womack. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Lee. The second time around. Okay. We will talk about
that later.
H-2A AND H-2B LABOR CERTIFICATIONS
Mr. Womack. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Harris.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much.
Secretary Perez. Good to see you again, sir.
Dr. Harris. Good to see you, Mr. Secretary. I have got
three areas of questions.
First, we talked about briefly yesterday H-2A and H-2B
issues. The employers complain the department has not completed
the processing applications for labor certifications within the
statutory deadlines. Will you commit to us today that you are
doing whatever you can to improve the processing times and
eliminate the processing backlogs for H-2A and H-2B, which is
so vital to, as you know, people on the Eastern Shore?
Secretary Perez. I think we have spoken to many of the same
employers there over the years. And I very much appreciate
their plight, and I want to make sure that we do our level best
to process their applications in a timely fashion. And that is
what we are working toward, understanding that we also need to
take our role in terms of protecting American workers
seriously.
Dr. Harris. But there is a statutory----
Secretary Perez. And I look forward to working with you on
that.
[The information follows:]
QFR Noise
MSHA's existing noise standard requires that engineering and
administrative controls be used to reduce a miner's noise exposure. The
standard provides further that a miner's noise assessment be made
without adjustment for the use of any hearing protector. MSHA discussed
hearing protection in the preamble to the Agency's noise standards
(See: 64 FR 49583-49586) finalized in 1999. Based on the rulemaking
record, MSHA concluded that personal hearing protectors do not provide
hearing protection to miners comparable to the protection provided by
engineering and administrative controls.
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) S12-19, Measurement of
Occupational Noise Exposure, is the industry standard on collecting
noise data and specifies that measurements need to be taken outside the
hearing protection device.
Dr. Harris. There is a statutory deadline. So if you could
do whatever you can.
MSHA STANDARD FOR OCCUPATIONAL NOISE
Secretary Perez. I look forward to working with you.
Dr. Harris. Second one, second issue is--the last two are
kind of wearing a physician's hat--you know, the MSHA, the Mine
Safety and Health Administration's standard for occupational
noise. Curiously enough to me, you know, there is measuring
equipment that can measure decibel sounds that actually are
near the eardrum, which seems to make sense to me. I mean, if
you want to measure the effect on someone's hearing, you have
got to measure near the eardrum.
And yet MSHA still insists on using measurement techniques
that don't take into account the fact that you can have ear
protection on. Just curious, why? Why wouldn't you use the best
technology to actually identify high-decibel noises as close to
the eardrum as possible?
Secretary Perez. Well, if you have ideas on how we can do a
better job of protecting worker safety, because worker safety
is job one in the MSHA context, and if you think that there is
a better mousetrap to be built, I want to listen to you and
figure out if we can do that.
Dr. Harris. We are going to continue that dialogue.
Secretary Perez. Look forward to it.
SILICA STANDARDS
Dr. Harris. And the other thing is--the last issue is the
silica standards. This is puzzling to me because, as you know,
the permissible exposure level, which Congress passed in 1968,
were put in place for silica. Since that time, the number of
deaths from silica, silica-related deaths has decreased 93
percent.
Now I would say, you know, as a physician, that is as close
to a cure of a problem you are ever going to get. I mean, you
actually decreased the deaths due to silicosis by 93 percent,
and OSHA, by its own admission, still monitors people,
employment workplaces, where those old levels are exceeded. And
yet they are now having--they are suggesting a 50 percent
further reduction in the silica levels, safe silica levels.
Now, viewing that you had a 93 percent reduction under the
old standards. The old standards aren't yet fully enforced.
What is the justification to going to a lower standard if you
achieve 93 percent success rate with the old standard?
Secretary Perez. Well, Congressman, the fact is that in
2010, more workers died from silicosis than from explosions,
collapses, or being caught in running equipment or----
Dr. Harris. What is the absolute number? I know that you
know it.
Secretary Perez. I don't know what the absolute number is,
but I will be happy to get it for you. I can tell you that the
proposed rule is expected to save close to 700 lives and
prevent more than 1,600 cases of silicosis each year. That is a
lot of lives.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Harris. Well, that would be stunning. That would be
stunning since in 2007, there were less than 200 deaths from
silicosis.
Secretary Perez. Well, I actually----
Dr. Harris. So we are going to have to get our figures
straight here because----
Secretary Perez. Well, we will have a conversation about
that because I have great confidence in the work that our folks
at OSHA are doing. Secretary Perkins in '37 talked about the
dangers of silicosis. So we have known about this for a long
time, and we worked with NIOSH and other experts to make sure
that we had an evidence-based approach to this.
We have a very inclusive process, and there are still
hearings taking place. And so, folks who share your perspective
have had ample opportunity to weigh in and will continue to do
so.
Dr. Harris. So, but if you could just again fill me in, why
wouldn't OSHA attempt to vigorously enforce the current
standard before extending--before reducing that standard?
Secretary Perez. Well, OSHA does----
Dr. Harris. I just don't understand. Unless it is to just
go after, and let us face it. This is always a possibility that
the newest use for silica-containing substances is hydraulic
fracturing. I get it. I get that the administration doesn't
want us to do hydraulic fracturing. The world gets it.
Unfortunately, Mr. Putin gets it.
Why would you choose again, and you may have to, you know,
fill me in on what other data is. But why would you reduce the
standard when you are not enforcing the current standard? And
by OSHA's own admission, there are many times when the current
standard is not----
Secretary Perez. We are enforcing the current standard,
sir. And people like Alan White, a 48-year-old foundry worker
who is about to die----
Mr. Womack. The gentleman's time has expired.
Secretary Perez [continuing]. Are the things that motivate
me in this area because he is dying----
Dr. Harris. What motivates me are thousands of Ukrainians
who might die because of it.
Mr. Womack. The gentleman's time has expired.
Let us go to Mr. Honda from California.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Perez. Good to see you again, sir.
Mr. Honda. And congratulations for the confirmation of
Chris Lu.
Secretary Perez. He is very excited.
MINIMUM WAGE
Mr. Honda. A couple of questions. One is raising the
minimum wage. I just want to say that the executive order was
great, and hopefully, it is a behavioral model for the rest of
the country. Although $10.10 could be low, but it is a great
start for us.
The concern I have about the Federal contract workers is
that under the contract, we may have subcontractors. And the
question is those subcontractors when they hire folks, are they
subject to making sure that their workers are getting minimum
wage?
Secretary Perez. Actually, right now, the regs are being
drafted right now to clarify all of the questions that have
been asked in connection with the application of the executive
order.
Mr. Honda. So, hopefully, those who are engaged with the
Federal contract as subcontractors, that when they sub, that
their workers are getting at least the minimum, and it would
cover that.
PROMOTING PAY EQUITY
The promoting pay equity. The administration's effort to
close that wage gap by prioritizing pay equity for women and
minorities is laudable. And could you talk a little bit more
about this thing called pay secrecy, the issue where companies
or supervisors or bosses telling their folks you can't share
your information as to your salary or because for different
reasons. What is the position of the department on that?
Secretary Perez. Pay secrecy is best illustrated in an
example. The first pay-equity bill the President signed was the
Lilly Ledbetter Act, she learned about the fact that she was
getting treated unfairly in the pay context because a
coworker--well, actually, I don't know who it was. Somebody
dropped an anonymous note on her desk.
And the reason that was the only way she knew about it was
because there was a prohibition on sharing that salary
information. And as a result of that, she had no way of
knowing. And it was not until this anonymous note that she
started to have awareness.
And so, that is. I think, as vivid an illustration as I can
describe of the problem that many people have put forth, and
this is a problem that the Paycheck Fairness Act, which I
understand there may be a vote in the next few days in the
Senate, will seek to address.
Mr. Honda. Will the bill address pay secrecy?
Secretary Perez. Yes.
Mr. Honda. Great.
Ms. DeLauro. Would the gentleman yield for just one second
here?
Mr. Honda. If I get it back from you.
Ms. DeLauro. Okay. No. [Laughter.]
Mr. Honda. Sure. Go ahead.
Ms. DeLauro. Just that the paycheck fairness bill does
include that, and I just--as I said at the outset, and Mr.
Secretary, I would love to have the opportunity to talk to you
or ask you if there is any consideration of an executive order
to prohibit the Government contractors from retaliating against
their employers--employees who disclose salary information?
This works to the detriment of women every single day,
including an article in the New York Times on it was a Federal
contractor.
But New York Times, a young woman found out in the jewelry
business that she was paid less than the gentleman working next
to her. He had no experience. And that has led to a furor in
the industry.
Mr. Honda. Hopefully, that gets included in the discussion
and in the rulings.
DATA DISAGGREGATION
On data disaggregation, I have a district that is probably
the only majority of minority on the mainland besides Hawaii.
So the question is asking about disaggregating data on the
Affordable Care Act enrollments across the country to find out
who is getting what and disaggregating the data on minorities,
especially Asian Americans because under Asian Americans, there
is a lot of subgroups that sometimes gets overlooked.
On the education portion where we talk about academic
achievement gaps and where people make policies or make
determinations based upon statistics, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, hopefully, you can direct them to disaggregate all
that information because I think that the model minority myth
is still out there on Asian Americans, and I think there is a
lot of communities under Asian Americans, AAPI, are still in
great need and should be subject to considerations such as
affirmative action enrollment.
Mr. Womack. The answer will have to come at a different
time. Those few seconds that you gave to Ms. DeLauro turned
into about 30 seconds, and so, Mr. Honda, I am sorry.
Mr. Honda. That is okay.
Ms. DeLauro. I will make it up, Mr. Honda. I promise you.
Mr. Honda. It was well worth it. Thank you.
Mr. Womack. That is assuming there is another round,
which----
Ms. DeLauro. I always make that assumption.
Mr. Womack [continuing]. Appears in doubt. Let us go to Mr.
Stewart from Utah.
Mr. Stewart. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
GOVERNMENT REGULATION
Mr. Secretary, I think you sense my passion on some of
these things and the defense of the family farm in previous
questions. I want to kind of get the bigger picture from you,
if I could, and I think illustrate what I think this
conversation is really about.
But before I do, let me ask, have you ever been a business
owner or worked in the private sector as a business leader?
Secretary Perez. Have I been--I have been on the boards of
nonprofits who have been doing a lot of work in communities,
and I speak to business owners every week to make sure I am
informed.
Mr. Stewart. But have you, yourself, ever been a business
owner?
Secretary Perez. No, I haven't, sir.
Mr. Stewart. Okay. You know, I think this is just this
entire hearing is a great example of, I think, the conflict
that we are engaged in at this time as a society and as a
people. And it is this question of what is the proper role of
government?
How do we--how powerful do we want our government to be?
How much reach do we want our government to have? And how do we
find a balance between what we recognize is a public good,
because there is a role in government in regulating some of
these industries, and on the other side is liberty and business
interests.
Again, the family farm. There is nothing more American than
a family farm. And I think if you wanted to start a sagebrush
rebellion, then advocate that we have OSHA inspectors step onto
family farms, true family farms.
I have two beautiful daughters. I want for them the same
thing that you and other Members here want. I want them to be
treated fairly. I want them to be paid fairly. I don't want
them to be harassed. That is not a partisan issue, and I am
afraid sometimes it appears or the narrative that some would
like to create is that it is.
COST OF SILICA RULE
I would like to follow up on Dr. Harris' questions, if we
could, and that is the new rule for silica, which is quite
concerning to me. Just review very quickly. It used to be the
current standard 100 micrograms per cubic meter, 250 for a
construction industry. The new rule would propose to reduce
that to 50 micrograms for all industries.
But before a rule like that should be implemented, I think
there are two criteria, and this is not in my estimation. This
is, of course, the standard that it would be economically and
technically feasible. And I don't know that it would be either
one of those, that this new rule would meet that standard.
Let me talk about economically very quickly. The
Government's estimate said it would be $637,000,000, the cost
to implement this. If it turned out to be only that cost, it
would be the first time in the history of the universe that the
Government accurately predicted the cost of a new rule or
regulation rather than underestimating it.
Business puts it at something between even as high as
$5,450,000,000 annually. Let us split the difference and say it
is $2,500,000,000. Does that seem to be economically feasible
as to implement this rule at that kind of cost?
And let me follow up with that. The REINS Act, which the
Congress has supported, which would allow Congress to have
input to any rule that had a greater economic impact than
$100,000,000, does that seem like a reasonable standard? If
something had greater economic impact than that, that Congress
should have some input to that?
Secretary Perez. Well, sir, there has been a tremendous
amount of input into the rulemaking process in the silica
context. We were asked, I think, on two different occasions to
extend it. We acceded to it. We are in the middle of 2 or 3
weeks' worth of hearings as we speak, and we are hearing from a
wide array of stakeholders, including a number of stakeholders
who are providing their views that are very, I think, similar
to the views that you are expressing here.
As I said before, regardless of whether it is the 503
process, which Governor Ridge described as a very inclusive
process, or the silica process or the process in any other
regulatory context, we hear from everyone. We build into the
process enough time to make sure that we are making informed
judgments, which is why, again, we extended the deadlines and
the hearing more than once.
Mr. Stewart. I appreciate that.
Secretary Perez. And so, we will continue to do that
because that is what we need to do. And the rulemaking
procedures help us to make these informed decisions.
Mr. Stewart. And let me go quickly because I have got the
yellow light. I hope you will consider the actual cost of this,
which could be billions of dollars, billions of dollars, and
the impact that is going to have on people who are trying to,
as we talked earlier, about getting jobs and creating jobs.
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF SILICA RULEMAKING
The second thing I want to ask you, though, as to technical
feasibility. And that is that there are some indications that
even in the laboratory setting, you can't measure accurately 50
parts. And if you can't measure it, how can we possibly enforce
a rule that is based on that?
Secretary Perez. Well, again, we are hearing a lot of
different feedback during the rulemaking process. We heard
feedback precisely to the contrary of what you just said, and
we are processing all of that feedback in a very methodical
way.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you.
Mr. Womack. We continue in round two. We still have the
following Members in this order to have questions in round
two--Mr. Honda, Mrs. Roby, Mr. Kingston, and Mr. Harris.
The chair yields to the gentleman from California, Mr.
Honda.
WORKER MISCLASSIFICATION
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I get my cookies early.
Mr. Secretary, under worker misclassification, one of the
issues I hear most about when I talk to folks in construction
is that the work in the building trades, this is an issue about
misclassification. A lot of the workers are misclassified as
independent contractors by their employer, which really makes
it easier for them to underpay employees, shift the normal tax
burden from employer to employee and then deny them benefits.
The GAO estimates that the misclassification cost to the
Federal Treasury is about $2,720,000,000 every year in unpaid
Social Security, unemployment, and income taxes. So the
employee misclassification really undermines the labor
protections that working people have a right to. So can you
describe what the department is doing on the regulatory end to
crack down on this behavior, and how the $14,000,000 that the
department requests, what they will do with that and how they
will achieve the addressing of the misclassification?
Secretary Perez. Well, thank you for your question. And
misclassification of employees as independent contractors is a
very serious issue, and it is one that we take very seriously.
I hear from employers with regularity who tell me, and here is
one anecdote that comes to mind.
One builder who is building homes, and he is playing by the
rules. And yet another homebuilder continues to undercut him,
because he pays all of his employees under the table because he
calls them independent contractors. The one who plays the rules
can't compete.
So there are really three sets of victims. There is the
worker him or herself whose wages are undercut. There is the
employer who is playing by the rules who now has to either
cheat or not get the bid. And then there is the Treasury. When
you do this, you don't pay workers' comp taxes. You don't pay
unemployment insurance taxes, and the Treasury suffers.
And that is why we have been very aggressively involved in
attacking this challenge. And it is a challenge that certainly
occurs in the building industry, but it is certainly by no
means limited to the building industry. And that is why we have
folks in our Wage and Hour Division who are actively involved
in these investigation and enforcement efforts.
Mr. Honda. What do you think that the $14,000,000
investment will return back to the Treasury? We lose about
$2,700,000,000. What do you think the return might be on that?
Secretary Perez. Well, there have been numerous studies
that have documented the loss to taxpayers and the overall loss
as a result of misclassification. This investment in the 2015
budget in my mind is a drop in the bucket compared to the
return that you can get to taxpayers and/or employers and the
workers. You know, the three victims will all benefit when we
are making sure that there is a level playing field.
Mr. Honda. So we should be able to hear about the responses
in terms of the equity in the work field and also the return on
our investment by the end of next year then?
Secretary Perez. Sure. And we are also working with a
number of States on this issue. We have signed MOUs with 14
States, and they run the gamut--Iowa, Washington State, Utah,
Louisiana--because this issue is not an issue that is just a
Northeast issue, a Southwest issue. This issue is everywhere.
And you know, this is a corner you can't cut as an
employer. It is cheating, and we need to stop it.
Mr. Honda. And hopefully, that Members of the House of
Representatives will take some time to go out there and check
and be partners with you to make sure that this investment is
going to have a return for our coffers.
So thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Womack. The gentlelady from Alabama, Mrs. Roby, is
recognized.
ON-THE-JOB INJURY STATISTICS
Mrs. Roby. The information that I have says in Alabama
there were 4.8 total injuries per 100 full-time employees in
2012. In Georgia, there were 3.7 total injuries per 100 full-
time employees. And the national average is 5.2. This came from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I understand you said you have differing data than that.
This is the most current, most public information available.
And so, it is my hope that you will get that which seems
contrary to this to us in a very expedited manner.
But with that said, I want to move on.
Secretary Perez. Happy to get it to you because that data,
it is 4.6 percent in--4.6 in Alabama. And the same industry
across the country is 3.0. So we are happy to get you that
data.
[The information follows:]
Injury and Illness Statistics
Worker injury and illness data supports the decision to focus on
the auto supply parts industry. The most recent Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) data show that the auto parts supplier industry in
Alabama has a higher injury and illness rate--4.6 per 100 full-time
workers--than the same industry nationwide which had a rate of 3.0 per
100 full-time workers.
Mrs. Roby. Yes, absolutely, because it is contrary to what
we have.
UNION OFFICIALS ACCOMPANYING OSHA INSPECTORS
Secretary Perez. Okay.
Mrs. Roby. But that being said, another issue that runs
parallel from a timing standpoint to this REP is the newly or
new interpretation of the walk-around rule. And in February of
2013, OSHA stated that employees not subject to a collective
bargaining agreement can designate an outside individual
affiliated with a union to accompany OSHA agents on their
inspections, even to open shops.
This is a pretty extraordinary thing. Under this policy, a
person who is not associated with neither the Government nor
the employer can gain access to a private business even against
the wishes of the owner. This policy, and this is the most
concerning part, was not the result of a promulgated rule
subject to public comment, the normal transparent process.
Instead, the interpretation of--this new interpretation from
OSHA is in response to an inquiry from a union.
I don't think you and I would disagree at all that the law
has not changed. The law is the same. The definitions are
clear. What we are in disagreement about is how the practice is
being implemented. I mean, according to news reports in other
parts of the country, this practice is taking place.
So here is my question, and it is just a yes or no
question. I want to know if it is your position that OSHA could
unilaterally bring along to an inspection, based on this REP in
a right-to-work State in a nonunionized business, bring along a
union representative for that inspection?
Secretary Perez. Congresswoman, there are a number of
faulty premises to your question.
Mrs. Roby. Yes or no?
Secretary Perez. I am unable to answer your question
because your premise is incorrect. This is not a change in
OSHA's policy, and I am happy to get you the 1971 regulation
that----
Mrs. Roby. I have got the regulation. What I have also got
is an interpretation letter----
Secretary Perez. Sure.
Mrs. Roby [continuing]. From OSHA, from the inquiry of a
union representative that wanted to know may one or more
workers designate a person who is affiliated with a union
without a collective bargaining agreement at their workplace or
with a community organization to act as their personal
representative? And the answer is yes.
And so, my understanding of the law, which is this, the
representatives authorized by employees shall be an employee of
the employer. That is clearly in contrast to the letter of
interpretation. And what I need to know is can we expect during
this 2-year period, when OSHA is coming into these auto plant
manufacturers whether or not OSHA will unilaterally designate a
union representative to join that inspection? That is the
question.
Secretary Perez. Ma'am, OSHA is not unilaterally
designating anyone. And again, this is not new and nor do when
a representative comes in, nor do they come in against the
wishes of the employer. There was an example----
Mrs. Roby. But wait, sir. We have--I mean, there are
examples across this country--and the light is yellow. But
according to National Review, union organizers are showing up
at OSHA inspections of open shop businesses that have been
targeted by the country's second-largest union. I mean, there
are stories after stories across this country where this is
happening.
And so, again, I want to know what your position is, as the
Secretary of Labor, whether or not we can expect to see union
representatives show up at a nonunionized business to walk
along with your inspectors in a place where the employees have
not designated that person as their representative? And I look
forward to getting your answer in writing.
Secretary Perez. And I look forward to providing answers
and clarifying what the law actually is and the longstanding
policy.
[The information follows:]
Walkaround Inspections
Allowing non-employee third-party representatives to accompany OSHA
inspectors on inspections is not a new OSHA policy. Section 8(e) of the
OSH Act provides that ``[s]ubject to regulations issued by the
Secretary, a representative of the employer and a representative
authorized by his employees shall be given an opportunity to accompany
the Secretary or his authorized representative during the physical
inspection of any workplace . . . for the purpose of aiding such
inspection.'' Allowing a third party representative to accompany OSHA
compliance officers on an inspection is solely related to protecting
workers by achieving an effective and thorough health and safety
inspection and consistent with the law and long-standing OSHA
regulations.
Mr. Womack. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Roybal-Allard.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. First of all, I want to thank
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for giving some examples of how
dangerous it is for children working in agriculture. And I will
submit my question for the record on that particular issue.
ADDRESSING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I strongly have been supportive of
President Obama's recent directive requiring Federal agencies
to develop policies for addressing domestic violence in the
Federal workplace. I have two parts, a two-part question.
Does the Department of Labor have a timeline for
implementing these new policies to address domestic violence
issues, as directed by the President? And second, as part of
its new policy, will the Department of Labor consider extending
economic protections to its employees in three areas--allowing
domestic violence survivors to take up to 30 days of unpaid
leave each year to receive medical care, seek legal assistance,
attend court proceedings, and to get help with safety planning?
Second, protecting employees from being fired because they
were harassed by their abuser.
And third, if requested and reasonable, making workplace
safety precautions or job-related modifications.
Secretary Perez. This has been--we have been very heavily
involved. And I want to, first of all, thank you for your
leadership on this issue because it is a critically important
issue.
We convened a workgroup of human resources professionals
and folks in our department to address this, and the answer is,
we expect to have a final plan before the end of this fiscal
year. So the fiscal year ends end of September. We will get it
done before then.
As it relates to the second part of your question, we have
an absence and leave policy that allows employees to take up to
30 days or more in circumstances such as the ones that you have
described. I have worked in this area quite a bit, and these
are unconscionable situations when they arise. What we want to
do is make sure we prevent them from arising. And if, God
forbid, they do arise, that we have very clear, unequivocal,
fair policies for responding so somebody who is a victim
doesn't get victimized a second time.
Mr. Womack. Does the gentlelady yield back her time?
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I yield back.
Mr. Womack. The gentleman from Georgia, the subcommittee
chairman, Mr. Kingston.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, okay, going back to the military
installations.
MINIMUM WAGE ON MILITARY BASES
Secretary Perez. Sure.
Mr. Kingston. With that health and welfare benefit and the
minimum wage increase, it would mean $13.91 an hour. And I
don't know how a fast food restaurant would be able to keep the
doors open at that.
Secretary Perez. I am happy to have our Wage and Hour
Division meet with you to explain the application of this in
military installations and everywhere else because we have been
working vigilantly to put the regs forth to prepare for this,
and this question or other questions that you may have, we are
more than willing to sit down with your staff and walk you
through every question, concern that you have.
Mr. Kingston. Okay. We don't necessarily have to meet as
long as we could get prompt answers.
Secretary Perez. Certainly.
Mr. Kingston. So, you know, as long we get the information
from you. I want to pursue it.
Secretary Perez. Sure. No, I am happy to do that for you,
sir.
INCLUDING SURVEYORS UNDER DAVIS-BACON
Secretary Perez. Okay. Surveyors have for 50 years not been
included under the labor law of Davis-Bacon, but recently, you
included surveyors in there and did not have public comment for
the professional surveying community to respond to it.
Secretary Perez. I am sorry. I wasn't sure if you were----
Mr. Kingston. I wasn't sure if you were ready, or she was
ready, or we were ready.
Secretary Perez. I think you are referring to a memorandum.
The Wage and Hour Division has historically recognized that
members of survey crews performing primarily physical and
manual labor on a Davis-Bacon project on the site of the work
immediately before or during the construction may be laborers
and mechanics subject to the Davis-Bacon Act.
And the memorandum that you are talking about constitutes
the rearticulation of when and whether Davis-Bacon Act labor
standards should apply to members of survey crews. And we have
certainly heard some of the concerns that you have mentioned,
and we have extended an offer for them to come and sit down
with us to discuss this so that we can understand their
concerns and clear up any confusion.
Mr. Kingston. Okay, so you are saying there has not been a
change in the policy, which I think would give some comfort----
Secretary Perez. That is correct. There has not.
Mr. Kingston. Okay. So there may be some misunderstanding?
Secretary Perez. Correct. And that is why we are in the
process of meeting with them to address the concerns that they
have.
HOT GOODS ORDER
Mr. Kingston. Okay. I want to get back to wage and hour
violations on the farm. What are the kinds of tools you have
for violations, and does it include the hot goods order?
Secretary Perez. Well, the hot goods order, the tools we
have on--let me just make sure. We were talking before about
family farms and safety. I assume you are now pivoting to a
different line of questioning? Okay. I just want to make sure I
am answering your questions.
Hot goods, that provision has been part of the toolkit for
wage and hour enforcement for decades, and the application of
hot goods is very fact specific. And hot goods are not simply
on farms, but they are also--they have been used historically
in the garment industry as well. And the use is very much fact
specific, depending on the particular circumstances of the
case.
Mr. Kingston. So a farmer who is maybe having a first
violation probably would not have hot goods, the hot goods
order?
Secretary Perez. Well, again----
Mr. Kingston. It would be more--unless it is just
completely based on the facts and not an interpretation then?
Secretary Perez. Well, again, it is important to understand
that the department does not have the authority to issue a hot
goods order, and every case is very fact specific. If somebody
is a repeat offender, they may be more likely to have a hot
goods order. But there are sometimes egregious violations in a
particular circumstance even if they are a first offender--that
may call for it.
And so, it is impossible to give a generalization of when
that would be used, other than to say that they are very fact
specific, and they are used carefully and sparingly, and they
have been used carefully and sparingly in Republican and
Democratic administrations.
Mr. Kingston. Yes. I think this has to do with a court case
in a farm in Oregon in 2012, and what I would like to do is we
will get very specific on it. Because I think that what our
farmers want to make sure is that you are not using it for a
first-time violator or you are not using it subjectively. And
that is what the big question really is.
Secretary Perez. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Kingston. Okay.
Mr. Womack. Dr. Harris will wrap up round two.
Dr. Harris. Oh, thank you.
REVISED SILICA REGULATIONS
Okay. Let me just go ahead and just go back briefly to the
silica. You said that the new levels would prevent 5,000
deaths. Is that the number?
Secretary Perez. No, I said 700, sir.
Dr. Harris. Oh, 700 deaths over what period of time is
that?
Secretary Perez. The proposed rule is expected to save
close to 700 lives and prevent more than 1,600 cases of
silicosis each year.
Dr. Harris. Seven hundred deaths per year?
Secretary Perez. Right.
Dr. Harris. The CDC says there are only 150 deaths from
silicosis. Is that new math?
Secretary Perez. No, sir. Again----
Dr. Harris. Or I mean, CDC--you are aware the CDC says
there are 150 deaths per year from underlying contributive
causes of silicosis. How in the world can you prevent 700 when
there are only 150 a year?
Secretary Perez. Well, actually, we have looked at a wide
array of data that suggests that I think your numbers--and
again, this may be the same thing we had with Congresswoman
Roby.
Dr. Harris. Okay. Let me give you Mr. Reich's--let me give
you Robert Reich's numbers from a Department of Labor handbook
on silicosis claims there are 250 deaths a year.
Secretary Perez. Well, again, you know----
Dr. Harris. Okay. Do you disagree with Secretary Reich,
that assessment?
Secretary Perez. Sir, I don't have the data at hand, and I
am happy to sit down with you and----
Dr. Harris. But I do have the data at hand, and we are
going to have to figure this out because if there are 150
deaths a year, I don't know how you prevent 700 a year. It is
just I don't understand the math.
WALK-AROUND INSPECTIONS
Let me go back to the gentlelady Mrs. Roby from Alabama's
question because I don't get this. You know, when I read the
code that deals with these walk-around inspections from OSHA,
the code is quite clear that you are supposed to have someone
there when it is reasonably necessary to conduct an effective
and thorough physical inspection.
When is a union representative reasonably necessary to
conduct an effective and thorough physical inspection of a
nonunionized workplace?
Secretary Perez. Well, people who----
Dr. Harris. Can you just give me an example? Just give me
an example of, well, why you have to pick a union--why there is
no other person in the world, why you don't have the expertise,
why your inspector is not an expert enough?
Secretary Perez. Let me clarify something, Congressman. We
are not picking the experts. Someone, an employee says, ``I
would like this person to come.'' We are not--we don't have a
Rolodex of people that we call in and say, ``Hey, come on with
us. We are doing an inspection.''
Somebody will say this is an issue, and we would like to
have someone come in. And it may--and sometimes it is somebody
who is a translator because----
Dr. Harris. Who is the compliance safety and health
officer?
Secretary Perez. The compliance safety and health officer--
--
Dr. Harris. Yes, what is that job? Is that a Department of
Labor person?
Secretary Perez. Well, that can be a Department of Labor
person, but it also can be people, people in unions, people in
nonunions that have----
Dr. Harris. In a nonunion workplace who--okay.
Secretary Perez. Well, if I could just finish, sir?
Dr. Harris. Has the Department of Labor compliance safety
and health officer ever brought in or found it reasonably
necessary to bring a union person in to conduct an effective
and thorough physical inspection of the workplace in a
nonunionized workplace?
Secretary Perez. I don't know----
Dr. Harris. For example, let us just leave it for
Department of Labor employees. You are responsible for them,
right?
Secretary Perez. Well, sir, I don't--well, sir, I don't
have all of the data on every time somebody has made a request.
Dr. Harris. That is another place you don't have data.
Good. Okay. But you certainly have those anecdotal cases to
present to the committee. I wish you would have anecdotal cases
on something like this.
Secretary Perez. Well, actually, I could give you one if
you would allow. But if you won't, that is fine, too.
Dr. Harris. So let me ask. An anecdotal case? No, I don't
want anecdotal cases. I understand--I am a physician. I
understand the importance of or unimportance of anecdotal
cases.
COMPLIANCE SAFETY AND HEALTH OFFICERS
But the code says that in the judgment of the compliance
and safety--so the compliance safety and health officer, how
often is that person a Department of Labor employee?
Secretary Perez. In what context, sir?
Dr. Harris. In the context of deciding who is going to be
reasonably necessary to conduct this inspection.
Secretary Perez. Are you reading--I am just trying to get a
handle on what you are----
Dr. Harris. I am reading Federal regulation 29 CFR
1903.8(c).
Secretary Perez. Okay. I think I may have that.
Dr. Harris. I assume you have no quarrel with--well, I
guess it is statute. Well, I don't know.
Secretary Perez. Sir, it is a 1971, I believe, regulation.
Dr. Harris. Okay. Whatever it is, that is your regulation.
That is the regulation under which you operate. So is the
compliance----
Secretary Perez. That is an OSHA inspector.
Dr. Harris. So it is an OSHA inspector.
Secretary Perez. Yep.
Dr. Harris. So the OSHA inspector is making the
determination that a unionized--that a union person is
reasonably necessary to conduct the effective and thorough
physical inspection? Let us just clarify that for the
committee. It is one of your employees making that
determination under that code or regulation?
Secretary Perez. No, under that code, sir, as well, a
person can come in who--an employee can request to have
somebody else come in. Again, because the----
Dr. Harris. But the compliance safety and health officer
has to make the determination. It has to be in their judgment.
Is that correct? Am I reading this regulation correctly?
Secretary Perez. Well, again, and what we do in those
circumstances is we are not reaching out to other people in
response to a request from somebody for information----
Dr. Harris. But the compliance safety and health officer
has to determine that that individual is necessary.
Secretary Perez. If I could----
Mr. Womack. We are out of time for Dr. Harris.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much.
Mr. Womack. And finally, the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you today.
I apologize to the committee. As you know, we are running
concurrently in other subcommittees, Mr. Chairman, and this is
my third subcommittee today.
WIA 15 PERCENT SET-ASIDE
Mr. Secretary, the 15 percent allocation authorized by the
Workforce Investment Act was reduced to 5 percent in fiscal
year 2012. The change forced the Tennessee Department of Labor
to discontinue funding for several important programs like the
Jobs for Tennessee Graduates program, the Career Readiness
Certificate program, and the Apprenticeship Grants program,
just to name a few. This was intended to be a one-time
reduction to promote accountability and timely use of funds,
and we have since seen a great progress in both of these areas.
The Fiscal Year 2014 Consolidation Appropriations Act did
partially restore the set-aside to 8.75 percent. I am curious
as to why there is a reluctance to return the set-aside to 15
percent. The department carried that language for over a
decade.
Instead, the 2015 budget request proposes holding that
plus-up at 8.75 percent and again includes proposals to
increase support for the Workforce Innovation Fund and create
other new WIA grant programs.
My questions are this. Why create new grant programs when
States know best how to serve their own populations, and
secondly, does the department believe that the set-aside should
be restored to the authorized 15 percent level, or does it
intend to be a permanent reduction in order to continue to have
WIA funds to spend at the Federal level on new programs and
demonstrations, sir?
Secretary Perez. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
As a former State labor secretary, I am very familiar with
the 15 percent funds, and in an ideal world, we would love to
be at a 15 percent level. But the reality is that we are having
to live within our means. The actual reality is that the only
way to get there would be to take money from the formula grants
that goes to local governments.
So you end up in a situation where you are pitting the
State against the local authorities, and that is the challenge
that we confront. You mentioned the Workforce Innovation Fund.
That is, I think, somewhere in the $50,000,000 category, and
that has also catalyzed a lot of innovation.
And even if you took that money, that would only get you up
to maybe 9 percent. And I think that money has been well spent
in the Workforce Innovation Fund. We just had a conference last
week with all of the grantees, including a number of States who
have done great work in that area.
And so, I think there is a very important role for this
set-aside, and the dilemma that we have here in the austere
times that we find ourselves in, is I don't think that we can
afford to take more money that would go to the local workforce
investment boards, which is what you would, in effect, I think,
have to do in order to move that percentage up further.
We are certainly committed to working with you to identify
ways to continue to move in the right direction. And we are
better off now than we were a couple of years ago on this set-
aside fund, and I look forward to working with you to figure
out how we can do more.
VOLUNTARY PROTECTION PROGRAM
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask you about the Voluntary
Protection Programs, or VPP, sir. There are 42 VPP sites in
Tennessee, with several in my district, including DENSO
Manufacturing, IP Royal Blue Chip Mill, and Energy Solutions
Bear Creek Operations.
VPP promote effective worksite-based safety and health. VPP
management, Labor, and OSHA establish cooperative relationships
at workplaces that have implemented a comprehensive safety and
health management system. A 2007 study found that VPP saved
private industry $300,000,000 in 1 year, with an additional
$59,000,000 in savings realized by Federal Government worksites
as a result of increased productivity and reduced compensation
costs.
My understanding is that funding for VPP has decreased
dramatically since 2010. My question is why funding for this
program has decreased when it has had such a great rate of
return, and where have those funds been reallocated, sir?
Secretary Perez. Well, I am a strong believer in the VPP
program as well. It has been a very successful program.
Regrettably, there are a number of successful programs--I think
a lot of the set-aside program in your previous question has
been a very useful program, and as a result of the shrinking of
the DOL budget, a number of things have been lessened.
But we are certainly maintaining that program, and I
certainly appreciate your support for it.
Mr. Womack. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair would like to inquire of the Secretary how much
time--this hearing was scheduled until 12:30 p.m.. May we
inquire as to what the Secretary's availability is in the event
that there would be a third round of questions?
Secretary Perez. I will make myself available if you--I
think I have to be gone at----
Mr. Womack. Staff has maybe a different answer?
Secretary Perez. 12:45 p.m. is when I have to leave, or
12:40 p.m., I think, because I have a meeting at 12:45 p.m.
Mr. Womack. Okay. Then pursuant to the chair's prerogative,
here is how we are going to proceed. We are going to go to a
third round of questions, and I am going to limit the timeframe
to 2 minutes, to 2 minutes to be respectful of the Secretary's
time.
OFCCP OMSBUDMAN
So, Mr. Secretary, I want to go back, at the risk of
sounding like a broken record on OFCCP, but I want to ask you
about the ombudsman's program. Because in past administrations,
there has been an ombudsman's program, and I understand that
that program is no longer available. So is that true? If there
is such a program, can you explain it to me?
Secretary Perez. Well, my understanding is that if there
are people who have concerns about what is happening, they have
a number of ways in which they can express those concerns to
the Department of Labor, including----
Mr. Womack. What are those? What are some of those ways?
Secretary Perez [continuing]. The Office of the Inspector
General is----
Mr. Womack. Do you get a lot of those complaints?
Secretary Perez. I would have to ask the IG what they get
complaints about, and what the----
Mr. Womack. Are you aware of any complaints?
Secretary Perez. I have never asked that question. So I
really can't give you an educated answer about whether----
Mr. Womack. As the leader, would that be something that you
would be interested in, to see if maybe the heavy hand of
Government is I hate to use the word ``abusive'' in its
prosecution of its duties, but maybe a little heavy-handed?
Secretary Perez. Well, I will reiterate what I said a
number of times to you, Congressman, which is if you have
examples of employers who feel like they were mistreated,
please bring it to our attention because I want to know.
Mr. Womack. I am asking about--I am just picking your brain
on leadership. In common leadership, is that a principle that
would guide? Is that something that would be important to you
as a leader of an organization?
Secretary Perez. Well, we have always made sure that we
have processes that are inclusive and transparent and that
people have opportunities to let us know what they believe
and----
Mr. Womack. But you are not aware of--you are not aware of
any specific cases, anecdotal evidence that the agency is
heavy-handed in the prosecution of its duties?
Secretary Perez. Well, again, I have been in this line of
work for a couple dozen--for quite a while, sir. And when a
place like OFCCP or the Civil Rights Division comes in and says
we are initiating an investigation, you know, people don't
throw a party. I understand that, and that is why we have to be
professionals.
Mr. Womack. I recognize that. So for the attempt, my
thanks.
Ms. DeLauro.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the record, in the recent case, it was at the request
of the Spanish-speaking workforce at a janitorial services
company that asked that there be a union representative there
to help to interpret for them. So that is just for the record.
SILICA EXPOSURE
In addition to that, silica is classified as a carcinogen.
Inhalation of tiny particles causes silicosis, a severely
disabling lung disease that can lead to death. OSHA's exposure
limits for crystalline silica were adopted in 1971 and have not
been updated.
Whether or not we are talking about 700 lives or 150 lives,
these are people's lives. It is their families' lives. If they
cannot be protected on the job and lose their life, we have a
moral responsibility to do something about that.
Last week, a group of construction workers came to see me.
They talked about working in construction, covering their mouth
and their noses with masks and yet, at the end of the day,
being caked with dark powder on their faces, in their eyes, and
in their nostrils because the masks didn't work to block the
tiny silica particles. No one told them about the dangers of
the carcinogenic cloud of silica dust that enveloped them all
day long.
They made a very simple and a very reasonable request. Pass
the rule to make their industry safer. Preventive measures,
prewetting the surface of construction material to limit silica
dust, along with access to better training and safety equipment
so that, in fact, they might be able to survive.
I am begging you, Mr. Secretary, tell us that you are
moving forward with a lifesaving rule because millions of low-
wage workers across the country continue to risk their lives,
and when we know how to prevent the painful and unnecessary
disease.
My final question to you, Mr. Secretary, is about the Job
Corps. The gentleman will yield his time to me, he has told me.
Mr. Womack. Stand by, Ms. DeLauro. We have a solution.
Because he has to leave the hearing, I am going to
recognize the chairman of the subcommittee, who has expressed
to me---
Ms. DeLauro. I am always happy to yield to the chairman of
the subcommittee, Mr. Kingston.
Mr. Womack. He wants to yield his time to you. So that is
how--and we will come back to you.
Ms. DeLauro. I thank the gentleman very much.
Mr. Womack. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Kingston. And Mr. Secretary, I am going to submit a
couple of questions for the record because I would just like
them to kind of move up the food chain. One of them is about
your webinars to union folks, but not doing webinars on fair
labor standards for small businesses because I think they would
need to know that.
JOB CORPS ENROLLMENT
Mr. Kingston. But I want to yield to Ms. DeLauro the
balance of my time, and having a representative from our local
Job Corps in the audience here, Mr. Mel Gaines, I think it
would be timely to get your Job Corps question in.
Thank you.
Mr. Womack. The gentlelady is recognized.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Last year, several of us worked extremely hard to restore
funding to the Job Corps that had been cut due to
sequestration. We were successful in those efforts, and now Job
Corps is back on a better path. It is fulfilling its mission to
serve disadvantaged young people.
We know that most centers are ready, and they want to
enroll more students. And this year, I will continue to push
for the necessary support for what this program needs.
I have seen the good work done by Job Corps centers in
Connecticut. No investment is more critical than investment in
education for our young people.
Mr. Secretary, can you tell us about the department's plans
to continue investing in this program going forward? And will
you be able to get back to the number of student slots that we
have had in the past?
Secretary Perez. Well, our goal is to get up to 37,000 this
year. We are--and that is what the budget permits. And as we
ramp up to that, the methodology we are going to be using is to
allocate those to the high-performing Job Corps sites because
you are absolutely right, and there has been bipartisan support
for this soon to be 50-year-old initiative.
We have been working hard because we fell short at the
Department of Labor, and we recognize that. We have been
working vigilantly to implement all the recommendations from
the Inspector General, and we are making tremendous progress.
And, I have been visiting Job Corps sites. I will be at one
this weekend in Iowa.
There are tremendous opportunities for people, and we are
going to continue to make sure that everyone that we can get
enrolled, is enrolled.
Ms. DeLauro. And we will invite you to come to New Haven,
Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Perez. I would love to.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
Mr. Womack. Mrs. Roby, your 2-minute drill is underway.
UNION OFFICIALS ACCOMPANYING OSHA INSPECTORS
Mrs. Roby. So there is a rule. The representatives
authorized by employees shall be--``shall,'' mandate--be an
employee of the employer. And then, sir, there is an exception
to the rule with the ``however'' that says, ``If in the
judgment of the compliance safety and health officer,'' which
is the OSHA employee, ``good cause has been shown as to why
accompaniment of a third party who is not an employee of the
employer''--by the OSHA employee makes this determination, not
the employee, because there is a ``shall'' in there--``such as
an industrial hygienist or a safety engineer is reasonably
necessary,'' and then you know the rest of the rule.
So my question is this. Based on that is very clear. I
mean, it couldn't be more clear. There was an issue with
Professional Janitorial Services, the largest nonunion
janitorial company in Houston, which on three recent occasions
SEIU representatives accompanied Federal safety inspectors to
examine the cleaning sites.
And then there was also union representatives from the
Service Employees, the SEIU--now let me see where this was, in
Philadelphia at the international airport. So those two
examples.
My question is very simple. Do you endorse those
activities?
Secretary Perez. In the Houston case, they provided
translation services, and they went in on the first day with
the consent of the employer. On the second----
Mrs. Roby. My yellow light is on. Can you just tell if you
endorse the activities under the law that----
Secretary Perez. Sure. Again, we enforce--we enforce the
law, and part of the law allows people to ask----
Mrs. Roby. The OSHA employee. An OSHA employee to make that
determination.
Secretary Perez. Part of the law allows an employee of a
company to request to OSHA that a third party come in.
Mrs. Roby. That is not what this says.
Secretary Perez. Yes, it is. Ma'am, I am happy to send you
our interpretation of it. I think we are--I am happy to do that
for you because I----
Mrs. Roby. It is very unclear.
Thank you.
Mr. Womack. You are out of time. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I just want to make a quick comment about Job Corps,
invite you to San Jose, visit us, and would like to yield to
Rosa DeLauro, my colleague.
ADDITIONAL WAGE HOUR INSPECTOR
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very, very much, my colleague.
Mr. Secretary, your request, and I will dispense with--this
is about Wage and Hour Division. Your request includes an
increase of $41,000,000 to hire an additional 300 investigators
at the Wage and Hour Division. Can you tell the subcommittee
about the different activities these funds would support, in
particular how those activities would benefit low-wage workers?
Secretary Perez. Well, we have 7 million covered
workplaces, 135 million covered workers, 8 major statutes,
including the Family and Medical Leave Act and other critical
statutes. We saw in the most recent settlement in Philadelphia
involving the tipped workers almost $7,000,000 in settlement.
Congressman Honda asked a very important question about the
issue of misclassification. The U.S. Treasury is a victim in
the misclassification context. Workers are victims, and
employers who play by the rules are victims.
And when you have 135 covered workers in 7 million covered
workplaces, you have a lot of work to do. And what we are
attempting to do is make sure that we put earned money in
people's pockets because the folks who were working at Chickie
& Pete's in Philadelphia had earned that money, but they didn't
get it.
Ms. DeLauro. And Pete was taking it. And Pete was taking
their money.
Secretary Perez. Somebody else was taking it. And employers
who play by the rules come to me constantly saying there is not
a level playing field here, and I don't want to cheat. I am not
a cheater. But I know that the guy down the road is cheating,
and you have got to help us.
And I think we should.
Ms. DeLauro. The point is, is that the tipped pool, which
the owner was illegally retaining approximately 60 percent of
the tipped pool. It was Pete's tax.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Womack. And finally, Dr. Harris of Maryland--2 minutes.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much.
SILICA EXPOSURE
Let me just follow up very briefly here about the silica
issue because, as the ranking member says, look, there is no
one on this committee who wants people to die from anything
that is unnecessary, and any suggestion of that is, honestly, I
am offended by the suggestion that some people on the
subcommittee think that safety is not important.
But that person she talked about who has the ill-fitting
mask that doesn't block out the dust or has that much dust
exposure, they are actually exceeding the current level. Is
that right?
Secretary Perez. I don't know the facts of the situation,
sir, to be able to comment.
Dr. Harris. But currently, you are supposed to wear a
tight-fitting mask during those--is that right? I mean, your
inspectors go onsite, and if they see a person who is not
wearing a mask properly, it is not tight-fitting, it is not an
adequate mask to block dust, I am assuming that that doesn't
follow the standard right now?
I mean, I guess that is the purpose of you don't say that
you can't have more than 100 micrograms per cubic meter of
silica dust. You just say you have to protect the workers from
it. Is that right?
Secretary Perez. We are trying to keep workers safe. We are
trying to make sure that they don't--silicosis, that silica
inhalation doesn't cause lung cancer.
Dr. Harris. Sure. I get it.
Secretary Perez. It doesn't cause renal disease.
Dr. Harris. I get it.
Secretary Perez. It doesn't cause COP. It doesn't cause
silicosis, which are all causes of death.
Dr. Harris. So why aren't you just enforcing the current
law before you--why aren't you enforcing the current law, which
actually is--again, a 93 percent decrease in the number of
silicosis. That is tremendous.
Oh, my gosh, that is almost--that is as close to a cure as
you are going to get. Why----
Secretary Perez. But, sir, I mean, you are a physician, and
you are a very good one, and so I am confident that you
understand that people who inhale silica contract silicosis and
die from it, contract lung cancer and die from it.
Dr. Harris. Sure. But people who lose their----
Secretary Perez. Contract renal disease and die from it.
Dr. Harris. But people who lose their jobs, people who
become unemployed also lose their----
Secretary Perez. Contract COPD and die from it. So your
numbers need to reflect that.
Dr. Harris [continuing]. Lives and have adverse health
effects, Mr. Secretary. Don't you realize that? That
unemployment leads to adverse health effects as well.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Womack. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Secretary, you have been very generous with your time
today.
Secretary Perez. My pleasure, sir.
Mr. Womack. We have gone 10 minutes over the allotted time
for the hearing this morning. We wish you the very best, and we
appreciate your testimony here today.
Secretary Perez. Thank you. Thank you for your time and
courtesy, sir.
Mr. Womack. I declare this hearing closed.
[The following questions & answers were submitted for the
record:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, April 8, 2014.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
WITNESS
HON. ARNE DUNCAN, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Chairman's Opening Statement
Mr. Kingston. The committee will come to order. And we have
today, the Department of Education; the Honorable Arne Duncan
will be our witness. And we look forward to hearing from you
and Thomas Skelly. And I do not have any opening remarks.
I will say this, when the ranking member comes here, she is
expected to bring desserts or however they celebrate in
Connecticut. And I am just going to go ahead and put on the
record she will be buying beer for all.
Maybe Ms. Lowey is going to do that as well. Ms. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Always.
Mr. Kingston. We just passed by unanimous consent that
since Ms. DeLauro is late, probably celebrating UCONN's
victory, that she will be buying beer for everybody tonight. I
think that is a good motion, if you want to second it.
Mrs. Lowey. No problem. I must admit I have a son who is a
Dukie. So once they lost to Mercer and I figured out where the
heck Mercer is, I kind of checked out.
Mr. Kingston. A typical basketball fan. Taking it well.
I guess you would know a thing about that, wouldn't you?
Secretary Duncan. Not much.
Mr. Kingston. Secretary.
Secretary Duncan. Thank you so much.
Mr. Kingston. Secretary, we go strictly on a 5-minute
clock, and so we do interrupt anybody. But we try to have lots
of rounds. And we have a number of our members who are going to
be leaving at 11:00, but we will continue.
Ms. Lowey, do you have an opening statement?
Mrs. Lowey. Why don't we go right ahead.
Mr. Kingston. Okay.
Mrs. Lowey. Did you do an opening statement, sir?
Mr. Kingston. No. But we can come back.
I am good either way.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, maybe I will do a little bit. Can't
resist the opportunity.
Mr. Kingston. The passion of your side can't be resisted.
Mrs. Lowey. You're not kidding. Because I look forward to
this hearing knowing the importance of the work that you do.
And so I will be brief, though.
First of all, I would like to thank you, Chairman Kingston,
Ranking Member DeLauro.
I am just biding time, Rosa, while you are coming in.
Chairman Rogers, who is not here yet.
CRITICAL EDUCATION INVESTMENTS
Secretary Duncan, this is a critically important hearing.
If we want to remain a global economic leader, we need to
increase investments in initiatives that will grow the economy
and create jobs. And at the top of this list is education. Not
a week goes by that I don't hear from schools in my district
about the need for additional resources. That is why I believe
that it is vital that as the subcommittee writes the 2015 bill,
we prioritize restoring Title I and IDEA to presequester
levels. I also wholeheartedly agree with the Secretary's focus
on early childhood education, which is one of the smartest
investments we can make.
That said, I do have some concerns with the requests,
including the proposed 15-percent reduction to teacher quality
State grants, and 5 percent cut to the Impact Aid program. And
I look forward to today's discussion on a range of topics,
including after-school programs, Promise Neighborhoods, STEM
education, Pell Grants, and other higher education initiatives.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Ms. Lowey.
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT BASKETBALL TEAM
And, Ms. DeLauro, we went ahead and passed over you because
if you don't have some kind of a like, I don't know, Italian
pastry to celebrate UCONN, then we can't yield you any time. We
figured you--we figured we would give you an additional minute
so you can brag about UCONN, and then I know you have a busy
day today. I saw you on ``Morning Joe.'' You did an excellent
job.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Kingston. So if you are ready, I yield to you for your
opening statement.
Ms. DeLauro. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. And all I can
say is ``go Huskies.'' Whoa. Great game last night. And tonight
will be even greater, with the women winning the championship.
So here we are. Thank you so much. And I appreciate the
accommodation. And I know that I have to leave a bit early. I
let the Secretary know that as well. So my apologies to you and
to my colleagues as well.
Mr. Secretary, thanks so much for joining us today for your
tireless advocacy on behalf of our students. As we think
through the President's budget proposal for 2015, I think it is
critical to remember the context in which it comes to us. Under
the 2014 legislation just enacted in January, appropriations
for the Department of Education remain $800 million less than
the comparable level 2 years earlier. This is a cut in actual
dollar terms, without taking in to account rising costs,
growing population and student enrollment or unusually high
levels of need. It is not bad enough--if that isn't bad enough,
had the majority had their way, the current underfunding of
education programs would be even more severe.
Last year, the spending allocation that the majority gave
to the subcommittee represented a cut of nearly 20 percent
below the pre-sequester funding levels for Labor, HHS, and
Education programs. In the distribution of funds for fiscal
year 2014, the House majority gave the subcommittee the biggest
cut of any, the equivalent of four times the reduction caused
by sequestration. And the budget put forward by Chairman Ryan
that the House is considering this week threatens to do even
more damage.
On deck for next year would be a $1.3 billion cut to Title
I, a billion dollar cut to IDEA, $761 million from Head Start,
and cuts to Pell Grants by over $125 billion over the next
decade, making it harder for low-income students to go to
college. And it cuts nondefense discretionary spending by
another $791 billion over the next 10 years. It is another
sequester on steroids.
Meanwhile, many of the fundamental grant programs that are
at the core of the Department's mission are stuck below 2010
levels. Especially after considering rising student enrollment,
growing pressure to improve student achievement, even providing
level funding to these programs serves as an effective cut in
services. The failure to adequately invest at the Federal level
comes at a time when States are still lagging behind pre-
recession education spending. More than two-thirds of our
States are providing a lower per-student funding level in 2014
than in 2008.
In Kansas, take one example, the Governor has proposed to
deepen reductions in education funding so far that it would
leave per-pupil spending 17 percent below pre-recession levels.
I might add that we are also in the early stages of
implementing the Common Core, an effort that I believe is a
valuable step forward, but one that requires adequate support
for our teachers and our schools as it gets rolled out.
MIDDLE CLASS, SOCIAL MOBILITY AND EDUCATION
The state of affairs is misguided and inexcusable. Without
broad access to a good education, there is no middle class,
there is no social mobility. Insufficient funding breaks the
compact that allows hard work to pay off and future generations
to do better. That is the deal in America. Makes no sense to
roll back our critical investments in education, especially
when we are trying to produce workers with skills to master new
technologies and adapt to the complexities of a global economy.
We want to create jobs, grow the economy, and reduce the
deficit in the long term. We have to support education and work
to ensure educational opportunity for all.
PRESCHOOL EDUCATION
With that in mind, I am glad to see the Administration is
increasing the Education Department's budget by 1.9 percent;
and in particular, as does my colleague, Mrs. Lowey, I welcome
the attention given to preschool education and to a new effort
addressing the need to build noncognitive skills for today's
students.
PROMISE NEIGHBORHOODS
Under the budget, Promise Neighborhoods would increase by
more than $40 million, a much needed infusion of funds for a
groundbreaking program that had been unable to support any new
grants for the past 2 years due to insufficient funds.
COMPETITIVE VERSUS FORMULA GRANTS
That said, you and I know that I continue to disagree with
the approach of prioritizing competitive grants in this budget
at the expense of formula funding. Under this fiscal year 2015
request, formula grants would decline by $1.9 billion or 4.9
percent, while competitive grants would increase by $2.8 or 69
percent.
GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT RULE
On post-secondary education, I am glad to see the President
is continuing his effort to increase college access and
affordability in this budget, and that the Department has
released a new gainful employment rule. I would have supported
a stronger rule, but this is a step in the right direction that
will hold for-profit colleges accountable for results.
Last year, students at for-profit schools received $6.8
billion in Pell Grants. Unfortunately, many of them used up
their Pell eligibility and got very little to show for it. In
fact, 87 percent of Pell Grant recipients also had to take out
student loans. The student loan default rate of 4-year students
at for-profit schools is more than double the default rate at
public and nonprofit schools. These students deserve better.
They deserve the education that these schools promise, so I
hope that this rule will lead to positive changes.
I thank the chairman for allowing me all of this time.
There is a lot to discuss. And thank you for coming today, Mr.
Secretary. We look forward for hearing your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary.
Opening Statement of Secretary Duncan
Secretary Duncan. Thank you so much. And let me first begin
with thanking all of you for your work on the 2014
appropriation, which increased our investment in education over
the previous year.
DISCRETIONARY FUNDING FOR EDUCATION
However, discretionary funding for education, excluding
Pell Grants, remains below its 2010 level. And let me explain
why I am so concerned about that. The fact is, we are falling
behind our international competitors educationally. We should
recognize that as an urgent wake-up call. But too often I feel
we are sleeping through that alarm. In the United States, we
are still just talking about the steps that so many leading, so
many high-performing countries are actually taking to prepare
their students for success in a competitive global economy.
Falling behind educationally now will hurt our country
economically for years to come.
DROP OUT RATE DECREASE, COLLEGE ENROLLMENT INCREASE
It is not that America isn't making progress. In fact, we
are thrilled that a couple months ago we were able to announce
the highest high school graduation rates in our Nation's
history. That is a huge tribute to the hard work and commitment
of teachers and students and families across the country.
Dropout rates are down significantly and college-going rates
are up, with African-American and Latino students leading those
improvements.
OPPORTUNITY GAPS NEED CLOSING
And while we celebrate these very real achievements, we
must also be impatient with the pace of change. Simply put,
despite the gains we have made as a country, too many of our
students today are not receiving the education they deserve,
and it is our collective duty to challenge that status quo.
New civil rights data shows that the educational experience
for too many students of color, students with disabilities, and
English language learners falls short of meeting the American
promise, the American ideal that if you work hard and study
hard, you will have a fair shot to succeed.
We need the courage and the will to strengthen the
opportunity structure for our children for the good of their
families and the good of our country. And if we don't increase
investment in education, let's be clear about exactly who we
are leaving out of the American dream. While we know we have
much more work to do, many States are bringing forward
innovative ideas to improve education in profound ways.
SUCCESS OF OHIO-APPALACHIAN COLLABORATIVE
Just one quick example. The Ohio-Appalachian Collaborative,
under plans developed under the Race to the Top and the Teacher
Incentive Fund programs, set out to redesign education in rural
communities and strengthen community partnerships. That
Collaborative now involves 26 rural districts. And just 3 years
into that collaboration, graduation rates for economically
disadvantaged students in the original partnered districts
actually exceed Ohio's State-wide average, and the number of
high school students dual enrolled in courses that provide
college credit has increased in 3 years by 186 percent. Same
families, same communities, same schools, same very real
socioeconomic challenges, but a very different set of
opportunities, different expectations, and very different
results.
GREATER SPEED AND CHANGE NEEDED TO CLOSE GAPS NOW
Ideas and innovations like those are so critically
important. But as I said earlier, as a country, we simply
aren't improving fast enough. Our collective lack of commitment
to closing opportunity gaps relative to other nations sadly
starts with our youngest learners. We rank in the bottom third
of OECD nations in terms of providing access to high-quality
preschool. We should all be ashamed of that brutal reality.
As a direct result, far too many of America's children
start kindergarten at 5 years old already a year to 14 months
behind, and far too many of them never catch up. That simply is
not in our Nation's best interests.
Data from our Civil Rights Data Collection project shows
that our neediest students get the least experienced teachers.
And the fewer minority students that you teach, the more you
get paid. That is simply not a winning strategy for helping all
of our children succeed.
In this country, only about 20 percent of students have
access to high-speed Internet in school, a basic learning tool
today. In high-performing nations, 100 percent of students,
teachers, and schools have access to high-speed broadband.
Finally, when looking at college completion rates, the U.S.
has fallen behind as our cost of college has increased. We used
to be number one, one generation ago, first in the world in
college attainment in young adults, and today we have dropped
to 12th. Again, that is not a badge of honor.
We need to get serious about providing real opportunities
to all, all of our children, from cradle through to career, by
making preschool available, by providing good technology, tools
and support to students and teachers, and by making college
more affordable. We need to get in the game right now.
Unfortunately, I feel we are too often on the sidelines
just talking. Let's stop talking and let's get down to the
serious work so that no matter where in America children grow
up, whether it is in Connecticut or Georgia or Ohio, they will
have the educational opportunities they need to fulfill their
true academic and social potential. We must stop letting so
much human talent and capacity go to waste. Our Nation simply
can't afford it.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Duncan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PELL GRANT ABILITY-TO-BENEFIT PROVISION
Mr. Kingston. And I think because of the time, I will go
ahead and yield to Ms. DeLauro my 5 minutes. Are both of you
all leaving? We could ask unanimous consent to just let the
minority side go twice in a row, if everybody is good with
that?
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you very much, and thank you for
yielding to me.
Secretary Duncan, I am pleased that the fiscal year 2015
budget request would reinstate Pell Grant and other financial
aid eligibility for some students who have not earned a high
school diploma or a GED, but have proven that they have the
ability to benefit from higher education. As you know, many
colleges have developed innovative programs and pathways to
address the unique needs of Ability-to-Benefit, or ATB
students, allowing them to co-enroll in developmental skills
courses and job training programs.
However, the current policy of exclusion has prevented
thousands of these students from pursuing their educational
goals and gaining the skills they require for the 21st Century
economy. How many ATB students would benefit from reinstating
financial aid eligibility? How much would this policy change
cost? And what do you see as the economic and societal benefits
of reinstating financial aid for these students?
Secretary Duncan. So, obviously, so many young people who
maybe have historically struggled, didn't make it through high
school, are trying to get back on their feet, trying to get
into the world of work, need to go back to school. And so what
our proposal would do is give young people who have passed a
couple college-level classes the option to again have access to
Pell Grants, to retain green energy jobs, IT jobs, health care
jobs, advanced manufacturing jobs, and rather than being sort
of a drain on society, start to be able to support their
families and contribute.
Tom, do you want to walk through specifically the numbers
of who could benefit and the dollar amount?
Mr. Skelly. The Change would add about 2,000 in Pell
recipients, cost about $6 million in 2015 and $68 million over
10 years.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. And certainly that would be a huge
benefit, not only to these families but to our economy to have
individuals who would be well-trained and be able to not only
support their family, but also contribute and strengthen our
economy. So I was pleased about that.
FULL FUNDING OF SPECIAL EDUCATION STATE GRANTS
Secretary Duncan, despite a Federal commitment to fund 40
percent of special education costs, the current Federal share
of IDEA funding is less than 16 percent. In Los Angeles Unified
School District, the Federal share is only 15 percent, or $194
million shortfall that LAUSD must subsidize by shifting money
from other critical programs.
RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY INCENTIVE GRANTS
I am concerned that your budget freezes funding for IDEA
State grants while proposing funding for a new $100 million
competitive grant to States under IDEA. Shouldn't our first
priority be to help school districts meet their current
obligation under IDEA before we fund new proposals? And, if so,
why does your budget propose freezing funding for IDEA State
grants?
Secretary Duncan. First, and obviously, in tough economic
times we are pleased to be able to try and maintain that
commitment. I more than recognize the challenges at the local
level. When I led the Chicago Public Schools, the Federal part
that wasn't funded was about $770 million each year, and we had
to close that hole.
Again, if Congress as a whole wants to sort of take this
on, we are happy to have that conversation. I haven't seen that
level of seriousness, quite frankly, to really invest here. But
we think it is so important that we not just invest in the
status quo, but in a different vision of where we can go. It is
interesting to me, once students go into special ed, they
almost never come out. Once they get that label, there are
never good paths out.
And what Michael Yudin on our staff is doing, I think is
really a desperately needed step in the right direction in
terms of innovation, and that is moving towards more of a
result-driven system, rather than compliance. And this can
occur when folks--States and districts--help more young people
move out of special ed, when they can increase graduation
rates, when they can increase college-going rates. We want to
start to have that conversation. We want to put some money out
there for districts willing to challenge the status quo and
hold themselves accountable for getting better results for
students with special needs, we want to do everything we can to
support that creativity.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I would agree that innovation is
important. But the concern is that it is at the expense of
current obligations; we are not even meeting our current
obligations. And I think that is the concern that I and others
have.
Secretary Duncan. I recognize that concern. Again, the over
$11 billion we are putting into IDEA is nowhere near enough. I
absolutely agree with that. But to spread $100 million across
15,000 school districts, you get very little, minimal impact.
But to put $100 million into some targeted places where people
can create models for the rest of the country, we think that is
a way to start to change the culture and the conversation here.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
Mr. Kingston. Ms. DeLauro.
ABILITY-TO-BENEFIT PROVISION
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First let me
associate myself with my colleague, Congresswoman Roybal-
Allard's comments on the Ability-to-Benefit provision. I think
it is important that we get back and try to turn that around.
FIE NON-COGNITIVE SKILLS INITIATIVE
Let me address, if I can--I will try to move quickly--two
areas. One in four children in the U.S. grows up in poverty
today. You have got research that shows that the extreme stress
of childhood poverty has a dramatic effect on a child's
developing brain, actually exerting a direct impact on the
development of the brain centers involved in learning.
Your proposed $10 million for a new non-cognitive skills
initiative would put researchers and practitioners into
partnership so they can study how our professionals in our
schools can build an environment that promotes the approach to
student growth, social behavior, emotional well-being.
Can you talk a little about this investment and how it can
mitigate the effects of growing up in poverty for our kids?
SEVEN-TO-ONE RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Secretary Duncan. Happy to do that and just appreciate so
much your interest here. And as I study the tremendous impacts
of high-quality early childhood education, which you and I and
so many others firmly believe in, folks who have done decades-
long longitudinal analysis, folks who are much smarter than me,
people like Dr. James Heckman, who is a Nobel Prize winning
economist at the University of Chicago and talks about a seven-
to-one return on investment. For every dollar we invest in
early childhood education, we as a country get back $7.00--and
we have less crime, fewer dropouts, less teenage pregnancy,
more high school graduates, more people going to college, more
people going to the world of work. His most recent data talks
about the long-term health benefits that reduce health care
costs.
So the dividends here are extraordinary. And I wonder,
collectively, of all the public, of all the tax dollars we
invest, how many times are we getting back $7.00 for every time
we invest $1.00? I don't think that happens too often in
government.
BENEFITS OF NON-COGNITIVE SKILLS
But when I talked to him about what are the real drivers of
that ROI, that return on investment, not surprisingly, a
significant amount comes from the academic benefits. Children
from early learning programs who enter kindergarten are not a
year to a year and a half year behind; their literacy and their
math skills are intact. But he talks passionately about what we
have called--we need to come up with a better name--the non-
cognitive side, the grit, the resilience, the perseverance, the
ability to interact in a room like this and talk socially and
have give and take and take turns.
And if young people don't learn those skills at home, and
not every child has that opportunity to learn at the dining
room table, it puts a huge limit on what they can accomplish.
So this non-cognitive emerging research we think is hugely
important.
We want to invest--when I spent years working in the inner
city in the south side of Chicago, we spent a huge amount of
time trying to help instill these skills in our students we
worked with. I honestly have no sense of whether we were
impactful, whether we were effective or not. But if we can give
students the ability to persevere through sometimes horrendous
situations at home and in the community and overcome that
adversity, then a world of opportunity opens up to them. So we
are thrilled to try and get in this game as a Nation. We are in
our infancy, but I think this is a very, very important body of
work.
PRESCHOOL INITIATIVE
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. I would just quickly ask on
preschool--and we know the value of the high-quality pre-K
programs--just ask for a bit of detail on what this might
include and what you are going to embark on. Services
comparable to those Head Start provides--critical physical,
mental health services, nutrition, wellness, immunization,
dental, vision, those kinds of efforts?
Secretary Duncan. This is a birth-through-5 agenda. So we
want a seamless continuum. Kathleen Sebelius and I have been
joined at the hip on this one. Historically, our departments
were dysfunctional, didn't talk. Those days are long gone. So
whether it is early home visiting, whether it is early Head
Start, Head Start, pre-K, we just want to get our babies off to
a good start.
What is interesting to me, which I love, is this has become
a total bipartisan issue in the real world. In fact, we now
have more Republican governors than Democratic investing scarce
taxpayer dollars in early learning because they understand ROI.
On the challenges--State after State where I visit, there are
huge waiting lists, huge waiting lists for preschool. So for
thousands and thousands of families, where parents want the
best for their children, who want that opportunity, it simply
is not provided.
So this wouldn't be any mandate, wouldn't be anything like
that. We would simply partner with States to leverage their
dollars and where they want to increase access for children
starting in the most disadvantaged communities, they could
partner with us. We would have a mixed delivery system. This
could be school districts, this could be non-profits, this
could be faith-based, it could be for-profit, it could be Boys
and Girls Clubs, YMCAs. We just want more children in this
country to have access.
INTERNATIONAL RANKING FOR PRESCHOOL EDUCATION
The final thing I will say is that, again, internationally
this is, frankly, an embarrassment. I just left an
international conference. The fact is we are somewhere about
25th, 26th, 28th amongst industrial countries. People from
other countries come up to me and just simply ask, why don't
your citizens care about your babies? And I don't have a good
answer for them.
Ms. DeLauro. I am hopeful that what will be able to happen
is that we can encourage States to ensure that our most at-risk
kids, and their parents, are given the opportunity to attend
these programs, and that we will be going out into the
community and finding the families that don't know that they
are eligible for these efforts. Thank you very, very much, Mr.
Secretary. And I apologize for departing. Thank you.
Secretary Duncan. Congratulations on the work on the other
issue.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and my colleagues.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you. Ms. Roby.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you. And thank you for being here today,
Mr. Secretary.
CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION INNOVATION FUND
The Department of Education's budget request claims to
emphasize equipping Americans with the skills they need to fill
the jobs of the 21st century economy. However, the proposed
budget doesn't prioritize resources for career technical
education, CTE, State grants provided through the Carl D.
Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. And, as you know,
the CTE State Grants are the backbone of the Federal funding
for CTE.
In fact, the Department's budget request actually proposes
a number of new competitive grant programs, which has already
been mentioned. Specifically, the budget proposes to set aside
the $100 million from CTE State Grants for a new competitive
CTE innovation fund.
So I have a three-part question here. First, will you
please address why the Department is prioritizing spending
resources on untested and often duplicative education
initiatives when we have yet to fulfill our commitment to
existing formula-driven programs?
Second, why does the Administration continue to propose
competitive grants that only benefit a few students rather than
investing in proven programs like CTE that help to further the
goal of career readiness for all students?
And, third, how can schools continue to offer rigorous and
relevant career training and education to all students without
a strong Federal investment in CTE?
RATIO OF FORMULA VERSUS COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAMS
Secretary Duncan. Really appreciate the question. And we
think the work in that CTE space--Voc Ed was the former name
for it--is hugely, hugely important. So a couple things, just
to be clear on the budget. Roughly 89 percent of our budget
goes to formula programs; a small minority, about 11 percent,
goes to competitive grants. So anyone who thinks those
balances--people sometimes think it is, like, 50/50--it is not
even close. It is 89 to 11.
NEED FOR UPDATED, INNOVATIVE CTE PROGRAMS
So we want to continue to invest in the base programs,
which we will always do. But we really want to make sure that
programs are preparing students for the jobs of tomorrow, not
of yesterday. Quite honestly, in CTE programs, many are
extraordinarily strong, but some are, frankly, still preparing
students for jobs that are obsolete.
And so we just want to make sure that, again, scarce
taxpayer dollars are being used to prepare students for the
jobs going forward. And I have been to dozens and dozens of
amazing high schools that are providing real training leading
to real jobs. There is often this false debate: college versus
career. I think that is the wrong debate. We have so many wrong
debates in education. We ought to be preparing students for
college and career. And guess what? Those skills are about the
same.
Recently, I was at an amazing, amazing school, Worcester
High School in Massachusetts, that a few years ago was
literally failing. It had a new principal, new set of CTE
programs. They have a credit union in the school, auto body
works, health care. People from the community who are going
through chemotherapy due to cancer can come in and get wigs.
They had a veterinary clinic, a fully functioning veterinary
clinic in the school. And these kids are going on to these
career opportunities. 87 percent are going on to college; 13
percent go right into the world of work. But that school was
becoming the community center. Whatever you need in the
community, you come to the high school. It was an amazing
connection there. So we want to continue to invest.
We have a blueprint for reauthorizing Perkins, as you know.
Would love your feedback on that. But we want to make sure that
we are investing in the jobs of the future, not in the jobs of
yesterday.
Mrs. Roby. I mean, you made my case, the reason that this
is so important. We have strong examples of career technical
education in Alabama's Second District, where it is providing
opportunities for high school students to be career ready,
alongside partnering with the 2-year college and the private
sector, which is such an important partnership for career
technical education, and one that we are trying to encourage at
the State and local level, for more businesses to be willing to
invest their time and energy into making sure that these
children have opportunities.
NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF CTE
Last November, I was a member of the Education and
Workforce Committee. And the Assistant Secretary for Career,
Technical, and Adult Education, Dr. Brenda----
Secretary Duncan. Dann-Messier.
Mrs. Roby [continuing]. Dann-Messier, indicated that the
national assessment of CTE would be available by spring of this
year 2014. I recognize that an interim report was submitted in
2013. Can you tell us when we can expect to have that final
report?
Secretary Duncan. Let me check on that. I am not sure.
ADMINISTRATION-WIDE COMMITMENT TO CTE
Let me go back. I know that this hearing is obviously about
my budget, but I want folks and you to understand this is an
administration-wide commitment. So we are not just putting our
education dollars into CTE. Literally yesterday, the President
announced $100 million around high school redesign, which is
exactly trying to do more CTE. And through the Department of
Labor, we have invested $2 billion--$500 million a year over 4
years--not just into high schools, but into community colleges,
where there are real linkages to the workforce. So it is a
priority for us, but, again, we are not alone in this work. The
Department of Labor has been a great, great partner. And the
President is driving this everywhere he can. In fact, I think
he announced he is going to do the high school commencement at
the high school I just described.
So we want to do more, we will do more, but we are also
partnering with other places to try and stretch all of our
scarce resources.
Mrs. Roby. Sure. If you could just get back to us on the
final report as opposed to interim.
Secretary Duncan. Yes, ma'am. We owe you that one. I will
come back to you.
[The information follows:]
National Assessment of Career and Technical Education
The Department expects to release the final report of the National
Assessment of Career and Technical Education (NACTE) in the summer of
2014.
PROMISE NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM
Mrs. Roby. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Kingston. Ms. Lowey.
Mrs. Lowey. Mr. Secretary, I know we have previously
discussed this initiative, but I want to reiterate that I
strongly support Promise Neighborhoods. It is vital to
comprehensively serve an entire neighborhood and create a
pipeline of programs for children that start even before they
are born and takes them through college graduation. In essence,
it wraps children and their families in coordinated education,
health, and social supports, which in my opinion, is the only
way to break the cycle of poverty in our most disadvantaged
communities.
Back in the 1990s, I helped start the Full Service
Community School Programs. And I see Promise Neighborhoods as a
more comprehensive extension of that effort. This committee
first appropriated funds for the Promise Neighborhoods program
in fiscal year 2010 with $10 million for planning grants. Since
then, we have increased the funding enabling your Department to
award a total of 46 planning grants and 12 implementation
grants. But for the past 2 years, the appropriation has not
been able to support any new grants and has only been able to
cover continuation costs for the existing 12 implementation
grants.
PROMISE NEIGHBORHOODS IMPLEMENTATION GRANT FUNDING
Doesn't this mean that there are dozens of communities
ready to move forward with very promising plans? And I see that
your budget proposes to boost funding for Promise Neighborhoods
by $43 million, which would allow for five new implementation
grants.
Can you tell us something about some of the planning by
grantees that are ready to proceed, share examples of the type
of work that could be undertaken if we were able to provide
them with implementation grants?
Secretary Duncan. So it is a great question. And this is
obviously the tension we always hear, competitive versus
formula. This is obviously competitive dollars. And there are,
as you said, dozens and dozens of communities across the
country who we every year have to say no to, who have done
tremendous planning, who are working together in pretty
profound ways. Obviously, Geoffrey Canada's work in New York
has been so influential in our thinking.
As you know, I got my start in education working in my
mother's after-school program. We worked extraordinarily hard.
We weren't smart enough to think about involving the entire
community and rallying everybody behind the efforts to create
an opportunity structure from birth all the way through to
career to give children a chance to be successful.
So I have--without going into too many details--I have been
to rural communities and seen the extraordinary commitment to
creating new opportunities for kids that haven't had them. Most
recently, I was in East Hollywood, in L.A., and saw a center
that actually we have funded. So they are implementing, so it
is not just a vision. And it was absolutely remarkable to see.
They had early childhood care going on. They had parents coming
to school to get their GED. They had ESL classes, they had job-
training programs, all happening at the same time at the same
site. And it was transforming lives.
So that is the kind of thing we want to see happen more
often. We want to take all of our scarce resources, collocate
them, have them be seamless, and help children and families
have a chance to be successful.
One young girl I talked to is looking to go into a career
in criminal justice. She grew up as part of the foster care
system, had bounded from home to home. Broke down in tears
talking about some of that trauma. But somehow we talked about
earlier grit and tenacity. Somehow she had the tenacity and the
perseverance to work through that trauma. She is back in
school--had dropped out--getting her GED. Wants to go on and
work for the police there and be a force for good in the
community. And that is the kind of story we need to see happen
more often.
In scarce economic times, again, tough budget times, we are
asking for a 76-percent increase in Promise Neighborhood
funding. And we don't make that request lightly. That is a
very, very serious request.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I thank you. And I guess I have time for
half a question.
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS
I just want to put in another good word for the after
school programs. I have been a longtime advocate for quality
after school programs. I truly believe they make a real
difference to children in low-income working families who need
a safe, enriching place to be when school is not in session.
They receive targeted assistance with their schoolwork, the
opportunity to pursue non-academic passions. I also know that
finding ways to lengthen the school day a bit for all students
has been a high priority of yours.
So we probably--we are on yellow. But if you could just
tell us quickly why it is necessary to divert funding from
after school and summer--well, the red light is on.
Mr. Kingston. You may take it for the record.
Mrs. Lowey. If you can take it for the record, why you had
to divert funding from after school and summer learning
programs under 21st Century Community Learning Centers--CCLC--
to use these funds as well for longer school days? So I would
like to hear from you further about that at some time. Thank
you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kingston. Thank you.
Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, good morning sir.
PROPOSED COLLEGE RATINGS SYSTEM
Secretary Duncan. Good morning.
Mr. Fleischmann. Great to see you today.
Secretary Duncan, the Administration has proposed a new
college ranking system, a rating system. I can solve that real
quick. The premier university system in this country is the
great University of Tennessee system. And, but I do realize
that there are other great universities and university systems
around this country.
While I share your concerns about the rising costs of
higher education, and the need to provide students and families
with relevant and appropriate information so that we will be
able to make informed decisions on which college or university
will best meet their needs, I have serious reservations about
this proposed rating system. Frankly, I am not convinced that
this is the right thing for the Federal Government to be doing.
There are plenty of other rankings and rating systems done by
private organizations, and many of them suffer countless
criticisms about the validity of their results.
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED COLLEGE RATINGS SYSTEM
Your budget includes $10 million in HEA program evaluation
funds to develop and refine this new college ratings system. I
question whether this is the best use of taxpayer dollars and
whether higher education resources could be better focused on
Federal student aid or other established programs, sir.
My first question is, could you please tell us exactly what
this funding would be used for?
Secretary Duncan. I would say that I think you have an
extraordinary Governor in Tennessee whose thinking has actually
been very influential on my thinking. The challenge, I think,
we collectively face is at the Federal level, you and I and,
again, most importantly taxpayers, spend close to $150 billion
each year in grants and loans. And virtually all of that, all
of that is based upon inputs. Almost none of that is based upon
outcomes. And what Governor Haslam and a few other creative
governors have started to do is to try to have some resources
at the State level start to be based upon performance. So we
want to know not just are people going to college, but are they
graduating. The goal is not to go, the goal is to get that
diploma, to graduate at the back end.
Some universities do an extraordinary job of building
college cultures around completion, others, frankly, don't. I
will tell you very personally when I led the Chicago public
schools, we saw huge disparities in our local university
students with identical GPAs, identical test scores, some
graduating, like, 80 percent, some graduating 20 percent. We
started to steer young people towards certain places and away
from others.
And I think it's important to have a greater sense of where
outcomes are taken seriously, where they are building cultures
around completion, where they are doing more to enroll students
at risk. And we recognize if we do this poorly, we could create
the wrong incentive structure. But where folks are taking more
first-generation college goers, more Pell Grant recipients, and
being successful with them, ultimately, we think--we are a big
believer in transparency--the public should have access to that
data. Folks don't know those things now. And ultimately, just
as some States like Tennessee are starting to move resources
towards places that are getting good results and keeping down
costs, we think that is a good model for us to look at as well.
Mr. Fleischmann. All of these are very laudatory goals, and
I appreciate you for articulating them, but it still goes back
to why should the Federal Government be involved, sir, in
trying to rank these institutions?
Secretary Duncan. Not--to be clear, not rank them, to rate
them. And I think we have an obligation because annually we are
spending nearly $150 billion taxpayer money with zero sense of
outcomes. And so I think we can do better for the American
public, and I think we can do better for the hard-working
taxpayers.
TIMELINE FOR RATING SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION
Mr. Fleischmann. With respect to developing this rating
system, then, what is the timeline for its rollout?
Secretary Duncan. I can't yet give you a timeframe as we
are still working through what it will look like. We have had
countless listening sessions, gone out and travelled the
country. Would be happy to meet with you and your staff and
other folks. I am going to be very clear, I have said
repeatedly we are going through this with a great sense of
humility. We understand what can happen if we do this poorly--
you talked about some of the private ranking systems that have
huge disincentives for the kinds of behavior we are talking
about, where a ranking goes up by not taking kids rather than
by taking more students and being successful with them. And we
want to be very, very thoughtful.
And so we are still thinking it through, still having a
huge amount of public input. Would love to sit down with you
and your staff if you have thoughts on how to do it. But at the
end of the day, as difficult as it is, and this is absolutely a
complex, intellectual exercise, the status quo, I think, is
unacceptable. Doing nothing, for me, is not the right answer.
EDUCATIONAL AND PUBLIC SECTOR INPUT TO RATINGS SYSTEM
Mr. Fleischmann. Will you be sharing this information about
how the system will be developed with the public, including the
institutions that will be rated, prior to implementing it?
Secretary Duncan. Absolutely. And we have met with
countless presidents and board chairs and faculty members and
students. And they are helping to shape this. And we are very
much listening very, very closely to the input on both what
would make sense and things that we should, frankly, steer away
from. So it is a very open and transparent process, with a huge
amount of public comment. And it is making us much smarter.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Chairman I yield back.
Mr. Womack [presiding]. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Honda, is recognized.
``FOR EACH AND EVERY CHILD''--EDUCATIONAL EQUITY
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome and thank
you for joining us, Secretary Duncan.
A little more than a year ago, the Equity and Excellence
Commission, formed at the request of Congressman Fattah and
myself, released its game-changing report entitled ``For Each
and Every Child.'' And this Commission was composed of 29
educational thought leaders from a variety of backgrounds. And
I want to thank you again for the work that you and your staff
did to make this report a reality.
The report highlighted five foundational steps to improve
equity for each and every child. One is improving school
finance systems; second is empowering teachers, principals and
curricula; third was providing high-quality, early childhood
education; fourth is mitigating the effects of poverty; and,
fifth, improving accountability in governance.
I believe it is particularly important that the report
incorporates both excellence and equity. Equity ultimately
means providing every child with the fiscal and human resources
that they require according to their individually-assessed
needs. Every child is unique, which means that we have to move
our thinking and our--some of our principles that we operate
from, from all children to each and every child.
I applaud your work in proposing a program that will be
entirely focused on improving equity and beginning the work
that was laid out by the Commission.
RACE TO THE TOP--EQUITY AND OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM
So, Mr. Secretary, can you share with us some of the ways
in which the proposed Race to the Top Equity and Opportunity
Program, when implemented, will address the findings for the
Each and Every Child report?
Secretary Duncan. Happy to do it. First, I just want to
thank you and Congressman Fattah for your extraordinary
leadership. And obviously you have lived this work in a way
that, frankly, most political leaders haven't. This is in your
blood. You understand both the challenges and the
opportunities. And this was a significant step in the right
direction.
I carry around in my briefcase sort of a list of the final
recommendations of the Equity Commission to keep them forefront
in my mind. So just a couple things.
The Commission talked about the importance of early
learning. You know exactly what we are trying to do there. And
I keep saying I think that maybe the best investment our Nation
can make, is to get our babies off to a good start and get out
of the catch-up game.
In this year's budget, we are asking for $300 million to do
a Race to the Top equity and opportunity proposal. And your
point is exactly right. This has to be about both excellence
and equity. Too often these things seem to be in conflict.
Again, that is the wrong fight. We talked about college versus
career, that being the wrong fight. Raising the bar for all, as
well as leveling the playing field. That is where we have to
go.
And it is so interesting, Congressman. We have about 16,000
school districts in this country. And the theory there is to be
great laboratories of innovation at the local level. In many
areas, we see that. But I just keep asking a fundamental
question--I keep hoping to be proven wrong. I keep asking, do
we have one school district, one out of 16,000, that
systemically identifies their hardest working, their most
successful, their most committed teachers and principals and
moves them to the children and communities who need the most
help? Be that inner city, urban, be that rural, be that remote.
And, Congressman, I don't know of one school district that does
this at scale. We have a handful that are starting to do some
creative things.
And if we think that great teachers matter, which I believe
passionately, and I know you do, if we think great principals
matter, if we think schools can have a huge impact in moving
students out of poverty and into the mainstream and giving them
a chance to be successful academically and educationally and
ultimately in the world of work, we need to do more work in
this area.
When I talk about how today in many school districts high
minority schools, their teachers get paid less than teachers in
low minority schools and when you look at the lack of access to
AP classes in many of our disadvantaged communities, that is
not equity, and that is not excellence.
So we want to invest in those districts that are willing to
challenge the status quo, that take to heart so many of the
recommendations that you made, and to do something very
different.
CIVIL RIGHTS DATA COLLECTION--DISCIPLINE
I also want to just quickly talk about the discipline
guidance we put out. We are stunned with the Civil Rights Data
Collection. This was after your report came out. But we see
children in prekindergarten, as young as 4 years old, being
suspended. And we worry about the school-to-prison pipeline. I
was just stunned, absolutely stunned to see that that pipeline
begins as early as 4 years old. That is horrific.
POVERTY IS NOT DESTINY
And, again, working with people who are willing to do some
things differently, we have a chance to show that, you know,
poverty is not destiny, that children of color can be
successful. But we and you know, they need to be in school.
They need not to be suspended and expelled. They need access to
great teachers, they need access to great after-school
programs, they need access to AP classes. And, guess what, if
we do that, those students are going to do just fine.
Mr. Honda. I guess my time is up. I will wait for the next
round. Thank you.
RACE TO THE TOP--EQUITY AND OPPORTUNITY
Mr. Womack. You got a stop sign there. I will recognize
myself. More on the Race to the Top and the Equity and
Opportunity Initiative.
I would just like for you to explain how a competitive
program actually addresses equity. Because--and I have got a
lot of the rural districts in my State, for sure, and certainly
in my district in the State. And, Mr. Secretary, rural
districts do not have the same capacity to be able to hire
grant writers and what have you, to be able to track a lot of
these types of programs.
RURAL ABILITY TO COMPETE FOR FUNDING
So if--it just seems to me that sometimes these grant
programs further exacerbate the problem because of the resource
gap here between certain districts. It just seems like it
creates a bigger divide, creates winners and losers in public
education. So how can we best ensure that Federal resources are
going to places that really need them? And how do we ensure
that we are not going to shortchange those that do not have the
capacity that others may have?
Secretary Duncan. It is a really thoughtful question. What
we have worked hard in every one of these competitions--and I
will get to the Race to the Top--Equity specifically--but on
the Promise Neighborhoods work, on the Investing in Innovation,
the i3 work, on the School Turnaround grants, I think, frankly,
we have gotten smarter and more sophisticated in doing this and
doing rural set-asides and rural slates. And I talked earlier
about the Ohio Appalachian Collaborative that is getting
remarkable results for, you know, very rural communities in
just a couple of years. I have been to very rural Kentucky,
where we are doing--some interesting work going on there. The
Berea College and their collaborative there is doing fantastic.
So again, hold us accountable. We are happy to give you the
results. When we did the School Turnaround money, the School
Improvement Grants, folks thought, well, those models won't
work in the rural communities. Lots of noise there. We actually
found that the rural communities got slightly more than their
fair share; they are about 20 percent of districts, they got
about 25 percent of the money, and my numbers aren't exact. And
they have done, you know, just fantastic. They have done very,
very well.
So we will continue. The President's announcement yesterday
on high school redesign, the CTE stuff you asked about, some
fantastic rural districts--one in Mississippi, I think, that is
one you know--won that. So we are trying to make sure we have
set-asides to do it the right way. Happy to get you some
results program by program.
Having said that, in all of these, there is not enough
money. So there are many more great both rural and urban and
suburban applicants than dollars available. But we think we are
spreading that money in a pretty thoughtful way. And obviously,
if we are trying to create national models, which is the goal,
that only is valid if we are investing in rural communities, in
suburban communities, and urban communities as well.
[The information follows:]
Rural Success in Key Competitive Grant Programs
Rural applicants have enjoyed considerable success in competing for
Department of Education discretionary grant funds over the past 5
years, as shown below:
School Improvement Grants (SIG): In the two large initial
cohorts funded primarily with the $3 billion provided for SIG under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, small town and rural applicants
received a larger share of competitive awards than suggested by their
share of eligible schools. For example, in fiscal year 2009, small town
and rural schools made up just under 20 percent of all SIG-eligible
schools, but received nearly 24 percent of SIG awards. Similarly, such
schools represented 17.5 percent of eligible schools in the fiscal year
2010 State SIG competitions, but captured 19 percent of awards.
Race to the Top--District: Over half of the districts that
received an award in the fiscal year 2012 and 2013 competitions are
rural (42 out of 77).
Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge: Nine of the 20
States receiving awards from fiscal years 2011 to 2013 serve large
rural populations: Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, North Carolina, New
Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Wisconsin.
Promise Neighborhoods: The Department has made awards to
eight rural communities in Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, New York,
Ohio, and Wisconsin.
FUNDING FOR BROADBAND AND PRESCHOOL
Mr. Womack. Like my colleagues, I have a chance to go into
our schools. I make it a priority when I am back in district
work periods to visit classrooms, talk to teachers, talk to
administrators. I have a sister who is a high school principal,
so she has my ear a lot, sometimes too much.
Clearly, when I talk to young people, I talk about
education being the single biggest thing going on in their
lives, short of their faith and their family. But just from the
baseline of where their future is, that it is going to be tied
to their capacity to get a good quality education. But
education is also part of a--part of a universe of things that
is going to shape that individual in the future, behavior
decisions and their health certainly is part of that matrix.
And so it is very key.
I also understand that in the world that we operate in
today that the availability of broadband is a fundamental
requirement for virtually every sector of society. And I can
speak to health care specifically and to education
specifically. And I have heard the pleas for more pre-K. But
if--because money is an object now. If you could only do one
thing, where would broadband rate with pre-K?
Secretary Duncan. Great question. Thankfully, I don't have
to split that baby. So we want to invest in pre-K. As you know,
the FCC is talking about putting as much as $2 billion behind
increased broadband access, rural communities getting a
significant share of those dollars. In our budget, we have $200
million to support teachers and their professional development
to use this. So I think we can walk and chew gum at the same
time.
And last thing, again, relative to other nations, the fact
that we are so poorly serving our students and teachers today
to me is just untenable, and we have a chance to break through,
again, not just in our agency but working with sister agencies
as well.
Mr. Womack. Thank you for your comments and your appearance
before the committee today.
Gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PROPOSED COLLEGE RATINGS SYSTEM CRITERIA
Good morning, Secretary Duncan. I always like to know, you
know, the President has touted this plan--picking up on some of
the things that my colleague, Mr. Fleischmann, had mentioned--
but that the college may be based on qualities determined by
the Administration. Many are concerned it will be nearly
impossible to develop the one single set of criteria to
evaluate cross-diverse institutions, such as large research
universities, community colleges, small liberal arts colleges,
career training. A poll conducted by Gallup on Inside Higher
Education found that 65 percent of college professors polled do
not believe that the proposed college scorecard will be
effective in making college more affordable.
How do you respond to the many concerns about comparing
such different schools and programs under one set of criteria?
And, two, and I think we would all agree that increasing
the percentage of Pell Grant recipients that graduate and
obtain a degree is a worthwhile goal. Do you think that rating
colleges based on graduation rates might provide a disincentive
for institutions to admit Pell Grant recipients and thus make
college access even more difficult?
Secretary Duncan. Again, very thoughtful questions. And,
honestly, we have thought through many of these. So just to be
clear, there is not a proposed scorecard. So anyone who says
they are against the scorecard is against something that
doesn't exist. We have not put out a proposal yet. We are
taking huge amounts of public input. At a certain point, we
will put out a proposal. It will be a draft. We will get a huge
amount of feedback back on that draft. This is, again, a very
open, transparent process. We are listening and learning every
single day. Again, dozens and dozens of meetings with folks
across the country.
I would just go back to my premise, the fact that you and I
and our fellow taxpayers spend $150 billion each year with zero
sense of outcomes. I don't think it is the best use of taxpayer
dollars.
What we would put in place is a system specifically
designed to avoid those kinds of things. If we do this in a way
that is not thoughtful, we would create those perverse
incentives that you talked about, like taking less first
generation students, and less Pell Grant recipients.
What we have talked about, again, is looking at those
numbers specifically, looking at what universities are doing.
Are they taking more or less? And are they not just taking
them, are they graduating them? So we think with, you know,
that one, that actually, intellectually, it is not that
difficult. We think we can put in place an incentive structure,
and, in fact, we have talked about an idea of having an
additional $1,000 go to the university for every Pell Grant
recipient who graduates. So there are some things we can do.
Whether that is the perfect idea or not, I don't know. But
those kinds of incentives just don't exist today, and we want
to sort of put them on the table.
And again, so many of the current public rankings actually
are disincentives to that kind of behavior, they are actually
hurting the kinds of things that you and I, I think, would like
to see happen.
SCHOOL VIOLENCE AND SCHOOL SAFETY ISSUES
Mr. Joyce. And as always, I thank you for the help that you
gave us right after the incident we had, the Chardon School
shootings. I noticed here, in ``Improving school safety and
climate,'' that you have asked for, you know, some increases
obviously.
Could you tell me, since we have started this discussion a
couple years ago now, unfortunately, after the Chardon School
shooting, what safety improvements have been made or what you
are looking to improve in the school systems?
Secretary Duncan. And I just have to say, this is a tough
topic. But you know it has been maybe 15 months since the--not
just that shooting, but the horrific shooting in Newtown,
Connecticut. Since that time, we have had close to four dozen
additional shootings at schools and colleges. So it is just an
untenable level of violence. These are not, obviously, simply
school challenges, they are societal challenges. And I am happy
to have that conversation, I don't know if folks here want to
have that conversation. But I just don't think we take our
young people's safety seriously enough. These kinds of mass
shootings don't happen in other nations, their children are
safer than ours.
So what can we do? We can't solve this problem in schools,
but we can help to mitigate it as best we can. So whether it is
increased counselors, whether it is increased social workers,
psychologists, whether it is more after-school programming. The
mental health piece of this is very important. This is not one
where I think we should begin to micromanage from Washington.
That would be the height of arrogance. What we want to do is
have some resources to go out to school districts that want to
take on this challenge in a more serious way.
Just one small anecdote from the Civil Rights Data
Collection we did at high schools, we found one in five high
schools don't even have a counselor. So when you think--you
know, this is like college counseling, think about all the
mental health issues our kids are dealing with. We are just not
listening to, we are not paying attention to the kids that need
help.
So we would like to put resources out to places that want
to do a better job of supporting the young people and are doing
the best they can to create a safe environment.
The final thing I will say is that in the vast majority of
communities, schools are the safest places for kids. And until
we look at this on a societal basis, we are not going to solve
this problem.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you very much. I will yield back what
little time I don't have left, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Womack. Thank you. Before I yield to Dr. Harris from
Maryland, I meant to say during my round that I want to offer
my congratulations to the Harvard basketball team. I want you
to know that I had them winning as a 12 seed in the first
round. I did not have them beating Michigan State, however.
Secretary Duncan. You chose wisely.
Mr. Womack. And I did not win the billion-dollar bracket.
And as a result of that, my personal foundation that I was
going to set up, which had a component for education, didn't
quite materialize.
Secretary Duncan. Next year.
Mr. Womack. With that, I yield to the gentleman from
Maryland, Dr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us today.
INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT ON MARYLAND ARRA FUNDS
Just a quick follow-up on the IG's report of stimulus funds
spent in Maryland, or I should say, misspent in Maryland. You
know, we had a letter go back and forth. I received a letter
from your office last August that, you know, we have to wait
for the audit to see if we are going to recoup the misspent
funds. Is the audit over?
Secretary Duncan. I am not sure, sir. I have to go back and
check.
Mr. Harris. If you can do that in a follow-up, I would
appreciate that.
[The information follows:]
Audit of Maryland's Use of Recovery Act Funds
The Office of Inspector General issued audit A03K009, Maryland: Use
of Funds and Data Quality for Selected American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act Programs, on January 3, 2013. The Department issued
the Program Determination Letter, signed by Deborah S. Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education, and Michael
K. Yudin, Acting Assistant Secretary for Special education and
Rehabilitative Services, on March 31, 2014.
COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS
Let me go into a couple of areas. One is the, you know,
Common Core, obviously, even the teachers in Maryland have
problems with it. So I would hope that we go slow on this and
that we don't, you know, tie Federal funding to required
adoption in any way of Common Core. You--I mean, you probably
hear the same uproar that I hear. So I just hope that that is
true.
HIGH-QUALITY PRESCHOOL EDUCATION AND HEAD START
Let me talk a little about the Preschool for All, because
that is a big chunk of money you asked for in the budget. And
it is interesting, you say, expanding ``high quality
preschool.'' But most people would just talk about Head Start
being the model. Is that not true? I mean, is this different
from Head Start? What are we talking about here?
Secretary Duncan. To be clear, Head Start is not
prekindergarten, and so what we are talking about, to be clear,
is a zero to five, sort of a seamless continuum here, starting
with home visitation, and that has been proven pretty
effective. But the goal for me is to make sure that children
are entering kindergarten ready to be successful.
And across the country, and this would be true, I am sure,
in Maryland--I have actually visited some of your early
childhood centers--the average child coming from a
disadvantaged community or family, the average child starts
kindergarten a year to 14 months behind. And quite frankly, we
rarely do a great job of catching those students up. And I just
keep saying, we have to get out of the catch-up business.
Mr. Harris. Right.
Secretary Duncan. So the goal is to make sure that, again,
we are agnostic about who delivers----
Mr. Harris. Why do we expect different results than Head
Start? Which, of course, you know, provides a very brief
advantage. But I think the objective studies have shown that,
you know, it is just not persistent. So why do we think we are
going to have a different result?
Secretary Duncan. Well, it is more complicated than that.
But, again, if you look at the longitudinal studies, you know,
folks like Dr. Heckman who have done three- and four-decade,
now going on five-decade studies, the long-term benefits to
society and the return on taxpayer investment is pretty
extraordinary, where it is high quality.
HEAD START
What Kathleen Sebelius has done, to her credit, is again we
talk about not just funding the status quo, she is starting to
make folks demonstrate results, and where they are not getting
results having to recompete for dollars and they may lose
slots.
Mr. Harris. But before you expand it that wide, wouldn't
you want to do some studies somewhere that show--again, using
Head Start as the model that failed. I mean, Head Start doesn't
present lasting results.
Secretary Duncan. So first of all, I would disagree with
that assumption. Head Start has not failed. In some places I
think it has transformed students' lives; in other places, it
has been less successful. And again, having them now focus on
quality, which I don't think that agency has done in the past
at scale, is a huge step in the right direction.
But we can do many more studies and hope to do many more
studies. I think the evidence is unequivocal and overwhelming
that high-quality early learning opportunities transform
students' lives.
Mr. Harris. I get it. High-quality education is always
good; it is good no matter what level it exists. The question
is, you know, throwing a lot of dollars without proof I think
is a little premature in that.
SCHOOL CHOICE
Let me ask you about the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship
Program. Are you a fan yet? I mean, we talked about it last
year. You were equivocal about the value of the Opportunity
Scholarships.
Secretary Duncan. I think, again, the results are mixed
there.
Mr. Harris. So you don't think they are improving? As time
goes on, these results aren't improving? The trend line.
Secretary Duncan. I haven't looked at the data recently,
but going back a ways the results were mixed.
Mr. Harris. Well, I know, but again, just as you seek to
make improvements with pre-K and hope that you learn and you
get better and better and better, I think that is what we see
in the charter schools around the Nation. And you know that is
true, Mr. Secretary, right? That is what you are seeing from
the charter school data, that you weed out the schools whose
techniques have not been good. We are left with a charter
school system now that has been demonstrated to outperform
their----
Secretary Duncan. So I am a huge fan of high-performing
charter schools, and we put hundreds of millions of dollars----
LOUISIANA CHARTER SCHOOLS
Mr. Harris. I am so glad to hear you say that. How about
the ones in Louisiana?
Secretary Duncan. Just to be clear, that is not news.
Mr. Harris. How about the ones in Louisiana? Are you a fan
of the ones in Louisiana?
Secretary Duncan. High-performing charter schools, be they
in Louisiana or anywhere else, are helping to----
Mr. Harris. In general, are the Louisiana schools high
performing?
Secretary Duncan. I can't speak to the whole system. I will
say that the Orleans parish district----
Mr. Harris. The New Orleans system, yes.
Secretary Duncan [continuing]. Has a heavy charter emphasis
and is, I think, the fastest improving school district in New
Orleans.
Mr. Harris. Is it a success?
Secretary Duncan. It is going in the right direction. It
has a long way to go. It is the fastest improving school
district----
Mr. Harris. Is it better than the school system that it
more or less replaced? Objectively. Come on, objective.
Secretary Duncan. Yes.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Womack [presiding]. Gentlelady from New York, the
ranking member of the full committee, Mrs. Lowey, you are
recognized.
Mrs. Lowey. Why, thank you very much.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CIVIL RIGHTS DATA COLLECTION
I know we mentioned the civil rights data collection
before. I would like to pursue that again. The Department of
Education recently released the civil rights data collection, a
massive undertaking that produced a comprehensive snapshot of
civil rights data from every one of our Nation's 97,000 public
schools. I understand that this is the first time since 2000
that this scale of information has been collected.
I must admit that I, frankly, found many of the results to
be at best discouraging. Nationally, only 50 percent of high
schools offer calculus, only 63 percent offer physics, between
10 and 25 percent do not offer more than one of the core
courses in the typical sequence of high school math and science
education, such as algebra 1 and 2, geometry, biology,
chemistry.
And there is even less access for minorities. One-quarter
of high schools with the highest percentage of African-American
and Latino students do not offer algebra 2. A third of these
schools do not offer chemistry. Fewer than half of American
Indian and Native Alaskan high school students have access to
the full range of math and science courses in their high
school. This is really distressing.
Can you talk about the impact on our children, our
education system, of this kind of inequity, and what it says
for our country's ability to lead in the global economy, and
maybe even more importantly, what are we doing about this?
Secretary Duncan. Well, first of all, I just appreciate you
raising this. And these are difficult issues for folks to talk
about. They involve race, they involve class. But guess what?
It is the truth. And unless we as a Nation are willing to have
these honest conversations, we can't move forward.
EARLY LEARNING IN THE U.S. COMPARED TO OTHER NATIONS
And what is so devastating to me is, again, there are
things that, many of these things that we knew or thought we
knew anecdotally, but now to have the data, again just to have
it all be very transparent, we can have these conversations. We
have never had this comprehensive data from every single
school. But what is troubling to me and what I would love to
figure out is how I can better work with Congress on this
because these facts in our country are the opposite of what is
true in other countries.
And our children today aren't just competing in Alabama or
Maryland or Ohio or New York for jobs, they are competing with
children in China, in India, in South Korea. In South Korea
poor children are more likely--more likely--to have a high-
quality teacher, to have an experienced teacher than not. That
is absolutely the opposite here. In other countries, virtually
every child has access to high-quality preschool.
Mrs. Lowey. Excuse me, in South Korea, and I appreciate the
information, is the Federal Government paying the total cost of
education, whereas in our country it is about 6 to 9 percent?
Secretary Duncan. There are different arrangements, but
there is often a national commitment to making sure that
underserved communities get access to high quality preschool.
And South Korea does interesting things, China does interesting
things, Singapore, too. So there are many examples out there.
But basically what these other countries have said is we want
education to be the great equalizer. And if you look at our
spending in education relative to other nations, we are
virtually at the bottom in terms of closing that opportunity
gap.
So these are things that, again, are difficult
conversations, not things we can be proud of. But ultimately,
if we want to have strong families, if we want to keep good
jobs, high-wage, high-skilled jobs in this country, the best
way I know how to do that is to have a well-educated workforce.
And if we don't have access to early childhood education, if
disadvantaged children don't have access to experienced
teachers, if they don't have access to after school programs,
if they don't have high school counselors, if they don't have
access to AP classes, how are they going to be successful?
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I would be interested in your response in
the next couple of seconds, because in the United States it is
about 6 to 10 percent, it varies, money for the schools comes
from the Federal Government. Most of it comes from State and
local taxes. So how do we deal with this?
Secretary Duncan. Well, I think again there are many
countries we could look to if we want our children to
successfully outcompete them and keep jobs here, but other
nations have taken this challenge on in a much more serious way
than we have.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I do hope we can continue this
conversation.
Secretary Duncan. I would love to.
Mrs. Lowey. Because when you look at the numbers, it is
certainly not numbers that would make us proud as
Congresspeople from the United States of America. And I thank
you.
Secretary Duncan. I think we are poorly serving our
children and ultimately our country.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mrs. Lowey.
And, Ms. Roby, is it okay with you if I jump in? Because if
you are in a hurry, I would go ahead and yield to you.
Mrs. Roby. Go ahead.
Mr. Kingston. Okay.
COLLEGE- AND CAREER-READY STANDARDS
Mr. Secretary, and you know how it is, the season we have a
lot of constituents coming and going, so I had to hop out to
meet with some folks. But Common Core, quite a firestorm with a
lot of different people weighing in on it. Recently Indiana
pulled out of it, Oklahoma passed its legislation with second
thoughts. Do you think that the core was developed too quickly?
Was there enough input from teachers, parents, and officials to
have a voice on individual states?
Secretary Duncan. Well, obviously this was an absolutely
voluntary effort that was led by States across the country and
across the political spectrum. In some places they did a great
job in terms of public input and participation, other places
they probably didn't do enough. And just to be very clear with
this group, I am just a big proponent of high standards, and
whether they are common or not is sort of secondary. We just
want students to be college- and career-ready once they
graduate from high school. We partner with States that have
been part of that effort, we partner with States that have done
their own thing as long as they can demonstrate high standards.
And let me just give you why I think that is so----
COMMON CORE OF STATE STANDARDS
Mr. Kingston. Well, let me just jump in. Ultimately,
though, and I am, you know, son of a college professor, brother
of a college professor, I certainly believe in high standards,
but I think the common word is something that it is very hard
to just glaze over. But ultimately, who is in charge of the
child's education and what they learn in the classroom? Feds?
State? Local? Parents?
Secretary Duncan. I think that is both the beauty and the
complexity of education. I think everybody has a role there.
Ultimately, parents, I think, are the most important first
teachers, the most important teachers. You know, my wife and I,
if we are not helping our sixth-grader and our fourth-grader,
we are part of the problem, not part of the solution. So it
always starts with parents. But schools, districts, states, us,
everybody has a role.
Mr. Kingston. We are right now looking at math and English,
right? Will there be other standards that will come out,
science, language, art?
Secretary Duncan. Again, that is up to the States. So if
States want to move in that direction, they will; if they
don't, they won't.
COLLEGE-LEVEL REMEDIAL EDUCATION
Can I just quickly, this is an important point to make. So
on virtually every measure Massachusetts is the highest-
performing State in the country. I recently visited there. And
so from our highest-performing State, not amongst the high
school dropouts but amongst the high school graduates, roughly
35 percent of Massachusetts high school graduates who go to 4-
year public universities are taking remedial classes. They are
not ready.
And so my question for each of you, in your States, what
percent of your high school graduates are taking remedial
classes, burning Pell Grants on remedial classes, not prepared?
And so when we dummy down standards to make politicians look
good, which happened under No Child Left Behind in about 20
States, across the political spectrum, great for politicians,
bad for children, bad for education, bad for the country.
So I would just be curious for each of your states, what is
your college remediation rate today? And if Massachusetts is 35
percent, I would be very surprised if any of yours was much
below that. So what we have been doing for far too long is
passing kids along, making politicians feel good, but really
serving our students poorly.
COMMON CORE AND STATE FUNDING
Mr. Kingston. What percentage of Federal grants are tied to
a State's acceptance of Common Core?
Secretary Duncan. Zero. We advocate for high standards, but
we never said they have to be common.
Mr. Kingston. Okay. So there would not be any kind of grant
funding that hangs over them?
Secretary Duncan. No. What we ask is that if States
demonstrate to us, basically saying, if they are a local
institution of higher education, can say that students hitting
this benchmark will not have to take remedial classes, that is
our bar. So we have partnered with States from Texas to Alaska
to Virginia to Minnesota that haven't been part of that common
initiative. And as long as States are, again, not dumbing
things down, we want to work with them.
Mr. Kingston. So there are not any plans for grant
opportunities that are hooked into Common Core for States?
Secretary Duncan. No, sir.
INDIVIDUALIZED LEARNING
Mr. Kingston. Okay. Getting back to the earlier question
when you said that the complexity of education where you do
have parents and everybody is a little bit involved in it, what
is your philosophy on making sure that there is not too much of
a one size fits all? Because one thing I have learned growing
up in an education family is I often quote the Loretta Lynn
song where she is talking about being a mother: One needs a
spanking, one needs a hugging, and one is on the way. And I
often feel, you know, the teacher in the classroom really is
the best person to know who needs extra help on the curriculum,
you know, the quadratic formula, the spelling, the geography,
who needs some discipline, who needs extra homework.
Secretary Duncan. So I agree 100 percent. I am a huge
believer, and we call it personalized instruction or
individualized learning. This past year's Race to the Top
effort went to districts that were doing exactly that. The idea
of one teacher teaching 30 children the same thing at the same
time simply doesn't make sense. And how we help empower
teachers to teach to each children's strengths and weaknesses,
let them move faster if they are ready, give them more help,
that is where education is going, and we want to do everything
we can to accelerate that movement.
Mr. Kingston. My time is expiring, but for the record I
would like to know what is built in to keep Common Core from
being a centralized decision-making body that takes that
flexibility away from the teacher and the classroom and the
parent?
Secretary Duncan. You have to talk to States. Again, this
is a State-led effort. But, again, standards are just simply
what you have to know to graduate. How you teach to that, how
you help students get there, that should always be determined
at the local level. So having a high bar for everyone, I think,
makes sense, but having tremendous flexibility and creativity
to hit that higher bar, I think that is the right combination.
Mr. Kingston. I am being very liberal with my time, but the
question, though, so you are good with high standards, but in
terms of common, you are okay not having common?
Secretary Duncan. Yes. And to be clear, that is not news.
So what we have always said is we want high college and career-
ready standards, internationally benchmarked, and we want a lot
more students to graduate from high school, we have got to
reduce dropout rates, but we want a lot less students who
graduate from high school taking remedial classes in college.
Mr. Kingston. Okay.
Ms. Roby.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you.
RACE TO THE TOP FUNDING AND COMMON CORE
Before I get to my question, just to clarify on one point,
so Race to the Top dollars have never been associated with the
adoption of Common Core?
Secretary Duncan. What we have said is you could have
common high or, again, if you demonstrate that you come to the
table with high standards within your local institutions of
higher education. Then we are fine with that. And again, we are
partnering with States like Alaska; States like Texas;
Virginia, where I live. Minnesota is in on, I forget, they are
in on reading, not in math, or vice versa. And so we are for
high standards.
FEDERAL TRIO AND GEAR UP PROGRAMS
Mrs. Roby. Recently, the Administration has highlighted the
need to prioritize postsecondary access and success for low-
income, first-generation college students, and this goes a
little bit to the ranking member's line of questioning a minute
ago. But given this, I am puzzled as to why you would put forth
a budget with a $1.3 billion increase overall but not
additional funding for a program that explicitly works to
ensure that low-income, first-generation students have access
to college and succeed once there, and this is the Federal TRIO
Programs.
You know, this level of funding proposal is particularly
troubling given that there is evidence from a recent evaluation
that participants in these programs are more likely to obtain a
bachelor's degree than non-participants. I mean, this is the
program to provide services to students who come from low-
income families, and it is important that these are
opportunities for all Americans, regardless of race, ethnic
background, or economic circumstance.
So can you explain to the committee why this is a program
that is proven to be successful and yet it is level funded and
there are new initiatives?
Secretary Duncan. So we maintain our commitment to both
TRIO and GEAR UP, programs that we do think do a really good
job there. And again, if this Congress wants to appropriate
more resources for education we would love to do more in that
space. We also worry a lot about the cost of college, and so
the goal is not just to get them there, but, you know, to
address the debt levels which we think are pretty
extraordinary.
So where we have some discretion, trying to find ways to
bring down the cost of college, not just increase access but
increase completion rates, we think programs like TRIO and GEAR
UP are doing generally, not always, generally a good job of
helping students get there. The goal is not to get there; the
goal is to graduate at the back end, and not have a mountain of
debt, and so we are trying to be much more creative on that
higher-ed side. This is obviously a continuum, you know,
starting with the early childhood piece that we talked about
earlier.
Mrs. Roby. Right. And, I mean, we want to be for programs
that work, and there is clearly a lot of evidence that I have
been given, I mean, my State is benefitting from this program
tremendously.
Secretary Duncan. TRIO and GEAR UP, again, we are investing
about $1.1 billion each year, so it is not an insignificant
investment and we want to continue to do more there. And then
we want to make sure that their alums have a chance to graduate
and graduate not buried by debt.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you. And thank you for being here again
today.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Kingston. Mr. Honda.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
DETERMINING HOW TO FUND EDUCATIONAL EQUITY
I am just going to deviate from my question and just make a
couple of comments. A lot of good questions today, Mr.
Secretary, and there are thoughtful questions. And I think the
public education system in this country is so complex, it is so
diverse, and if you say there are 16,000 school districts, it
proves that we know that there is something missing in our
pursuit for public education for our kids.
I don't think there is anyone that says that they don't
want to see excellence or they don't want to see their
youngsters learn and perform. I don't think anyone is saying
that we don't want to see teachers become the best trained and
skilled folks that work with our kids.
Yet, when we ask the question who is most responsible for
public education and the education of our youngsters, there is
no one simple answer. It is all of us, you know. But if it is
all of us, then how do we create a team that is a national team
that has common goals, a common direction?
And I think that the word ``equity'' is really something
that we are going to have to really look at very carefully. In
the context of how we as States and local government fund our
schools, how we train our teachers, how much money we put into
our public education system, pre-K to postgraduate, we are all
over the place, but we still have the one common sentiment,
that is, we want to see excellence come out of it.
EQUITY OR PARITY
It seems like we need to have a broader discussion about
what we mean by equity and all the things that we are talking
about that we expect from our system and from ourselves, what
that term equity means, because currently we are funding all of
our schools based upon average daily attendance, I suspect, and
average daily attendance is about X amount of money behind each
child.
So we are really pursuing equal amounts and we are pushing
higher and higher the amount looking for that thing we call
equity, but really what we are looking at is equal amounts
behind each child. And then Mr. Kingston knows that in his
family there is a bunch of teachers that know that each child
is different, each child can learn, but each child is going to
cost a little bit different than the other child.
FEDERAL RULE IN EDUCATION
So basing our finance system upon ADA, that is parity, not
equity. And so I think that we need to look at the other
question Mr. Kingston had asked, what is the role of Federal
Government? And should we be looking at the Federal
Government's participation in covering the cost of educating
each and every child along with partnership with the States.
Because right now the States, all 50 of them are struggling,
and when they have to balance their budget, education is the
one that gets cut in order to balance the budget.
And so, you know, I think Mr. Kingston's question is still
pertinent: What is our role? Upon what concept will we be
partnering with States? And if we say it is equity, if we say
equity for each and every child, then how do we know what each
child needs? We have strategies already that exist, we have all
the tools that exist right now, but we haven't sat back and
looked at the stuff to put it together as a national effort.
And I guess I would commend folks to read the report on
equity and excellence for each child because it does address
rural, it addresses poverty, but it doesn't address it in
isolation of other things.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUTCOMES OF SCHOOLS IN POOR DISTRICTS
And so with the time remaining I will just close with this.
It is interesting that we find poor-performing students in
general and poor-performing schools, we find poor-performing
schools in poor neighborhoods.
My question is, I don't think cities and counties go about
looking to create poor neighborhoods. So how do we achieve,
what happens when we get to poor neighborhoods, what are the
dynamics in it, and what responsibilities do local governments
have for the outcomes of the kinds of schools we see in those
neighborhoods?
Is there another question that we need to couple with our
youngsters? Is there another question that we need to couple
with education? And I suspect that education is considered the
infrastructure of our cities. If so, then I think the cities
and counties ought to look at that question also, along with
schools, so that we can achieve this thing we call equity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
Mr. Joyce.
COLLEGE LEVEL REMEDIAL EDUCATION
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Duncan, you brought up a part before that
certainly has piqued my interest while you are here about the
fact that we are doing retraining, if you will, of many of
these kids who end up in college, whether it is our State
colleges or community colleges, unfortunately.
STEM EDUCATION
And I am concerned about the U.S. STEM education, our
ability to meet the domestic demand for STEM labor. How will
STEM proposals included in the President's 2015 Budget deliver
effective STEM education to more students and more teachers?
COLLEGE LEVEL REMEDIAL EDUCATION
Secretary Duncan. And, again, just to go back, what I gave
you was remediation rates, to be clear, at 4-year publics in
Massachusetts. Obviously, the remediation rates at community
colleges would be even higher. So as you go back home to Ohio,
see what it is at Ohio State, see what it is in community
colleges, and it would be pretty stunning. So obviously we know
so many of the job----
Mr. Joyce. President Gee was very specific that that
doesn't happen. But all those kids who go to Newark or
Mansfield or the outlying campuses, those are the ones who are
getting the training, but the ones at the institution itself
are not getting trained.
STEM EDUCATION
Secretary Duncan. So obviously, for so many of the great
jobs of the future you are going to need some STEM skills, so
there is not one simple answer here. I am a big believer in
getting more teachers who love the STEM content areas, are
comfortable with it, in the primary grades. This can't just be
AP physics and calculus. So how do we recruit the next
generation? The President has challenged us to bring 100,000
STEM teachers there.
We also want to create a STEM master teacher corps and have
great STEM teachers help to mentor, not just attracting great
talent but retaining that talent, bring them in. And then we
are seeing some really interesting work where entire
communities are rallying sort of STEM networks, STEM innovation
networks, where K to 12, higher ed, and industry are partnering
to create opportunities both for children and for teachers. So
we would love to invest more resources in all of those areas.
Mr. Joyce. I think it is very important. And one small
thing I was doing is bringing high school students along with
me and going to tour factories, quizzing them before they go
in, what do you expect to see here? And then talk to them on
the way out and say, what did you see here? And they are
overwhelmingly amazed about the difference between their
initial thoughts and then what they----
Secretary Duncan. Those are high-wage, high-skilled jobs.
Mr. Joyce. Correct.
Secretary Duncan. And we want to keep them in our country
and not have them go overseas. And we desperately need to train
more young people to be successful there.
Mr. Joyce. And the ability to be able to perform that job
and make money and be able to pay for their school instead of
coming out with such a large debt.
Secretary Duncan. Yeah.
COMPETITIVE VERSUS FORMULA GRANT FUNDING
Mr. Joyce. Secondly, I would like to follow up on, you
know, I noticed in the fiscal year 2015 request a higher
percentage of competitive discretionary grants than the levels
currently enacted. Can you explain the desire to move away from
formula grant funding, and how will the Department ensure
certain schools and students aren't left behind?
Secretary Duncan. Yeah. I actually don't think that is
quite accurate. And, Tom, correct me if I am wrong. I think we
are about, as I said earlier, about 11 percent competitive, 89
percent formula. I think we actually went slightly in the
opposite direction. But tell me if I am wrong.
Mr. Skelly. It is a slight increase in competitive funds in
the 2015 request compared to what is under current law in 2014.
Mr. Joyce. And I apologize for having misread that.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you.
Mrs. Lowey. And, Mrs. Lowey, I wanted to have one more
question and then I am finished. How are you?
Mrs. Lowey. That is fine. Just one more question.
Mr. Kingston. Okay. Great. Thanks.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much.
And thank you again for your leadership.
HIGHER EDUCATION COSTS AND STUDENT DEBT
We touched on it before, but I know we are all very
concerned about college costs, financial aid. More than two-
thirds of students who graduated with a bachelor's degree took
out student debt to pay for their undergraduate education. Of
those students with loans, the average amount of student loan
debt is $29,400, just shy of $30,000.
A decade ago, only one-third of students who earned an
associate degree took out student debt. Now it is up to one-
half. To make matters worse, nearly 90 percent of students
earning associate's degree at for-profit colleges finish with
debt. And the amount of debt increased substantially, adjusted
for inflation. Average debt for a student earning an
associate's degree increased from $12,100 to $17,200, a jump of
more than 40 percent.
Now, I know, Mr. Secretary, your Department has spent a lot
of time trying to help students make informed choices about
where to go to college, whether a particular school is worth
the investment. Can you tell us if it is making a difference?
Are students actually using the tools at their disposal? Have
you done studies to find out what sources of information
students use to make their college decision? I would be very
interested in what you think you can do about this because it
is just out of sight.
Secretary Duncan. Yeah. So I think we still have a long way
to go, frankly, and it is something I worry about everywhere I
go. And it is not just disadvantaged communities. This is hard-
working middle-class families that are starting to think that
college is for rich folks, it is not for them. And when that
starts to happen, again, there is no upside for families or for
our country.
So I will come back to what we are doing specifically. But
I always say this is about shared responsibility.
Mrs. Lowey. By the way, I think what you just said is
absolutely essential. I met with a group of kids, they would be
considered middle-class kids of firefighters and police; they
can't even go to Fordham College in New York. It is now up to
$60,000.
Secretary Duncan. It is staggering. The President and I
were up in Buffalo, and the cost, it is overwhelming in some
places. So again, shared responsibility. We have a role to
play. I will come back.
States have to reinvest. So many States cut back, about 40
States cut funding to higher ed. When they cut funding to
higher ed, what do universities do? They jack up their tuition,
pass it on to students. And then universities have to do a
better job of containing costs and using technology and other
things and increasing value. So we all have a role to play.
PELL GRANT FUNDING
So, you know, one of the things I am most proud of was the
additional $40 million for Pell Grants. We did it without going
back to taxpayers for a nickel. We are trying to do a lot more
in the transparency side, with the score cards and other
things. We are also doing things on the back end, income-based
repayment, Pay As You Earn, those kinds of things to give
students options.
But I really worry going forward that the Ryan budget over
the next 10 years takes all these things in a pretty dramatic
way in the wrong direction. A huge loss of access to Pell
Grants, you know, and other impacts there. And, again, are we
comfortable being 12th in the world in college graduation
rates? Is that a badge of honor? Or do we want to be first
again? Are we comfortable having student debt double basically
over the past, whatever it was, decade? And I worry about young
people trying to buy a home or, you know, buy a car, or start a
business with this mountain of debt.
So collectively, again, we have got to cut through
politics, cut through sound bites and ideology, work together
to again lead the world in college graduation rates and make
sure young people have manageable debt at the back end. So a
lot of hard work. So I would not declare success by any stretch
right now. We have a lot of hard work ahead of us.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, let me just say, Mr. Chair, I think this
is one of the biggest challenges we all face, because when an
average kid can't afford college, even with a Pell Grant, we
should all be concerned about that.
So thank you very much, and thank you for your leadership
of this hearing.
Mr. Kingston. Well, thank you, Mrs. Lowey.
EARLY LEARNING PROGRAMS
I wanted to ask about, there are 45 early learning and
child care programs; 25 have an explicit purpose to provide
childhood education and care and 33 permit funds to be used for
such initiatives. It would appear to me that we would not need
that many, and that if it was that successful, we wouldn't need
another $75 million for a preschool initiative.
And it would also appear to me that somebody like you who
did so much of this kind of challenge in the bureaucracy in the
Chicago system would be looking at this and looking at 45 and
say, whoa, whoa, whoa, we have got to consolidate, we have got
to cut.
Secretary Duncan. No, we are happy to continue to do that.
And actually, the 45 is closer to 12, so the 45 number isn't
quite accurate. But your point is well taken.
Mr. Kingston. Well, the 45 includes the 33 funding streams.
PRESCHOOL FOR ALL PROPOSAL
Secretary Duncan. So, again, where we can consolidate,
where we can work together. But I want to be really clear, if
all we are doing is investing in the status quo, that is not
going to get us where we need to go. And the goal of our Pre-K
for All proposal is to go from about 1.1 million students
served to about 2.2 million. We want to double. So we need to
use every existing dollar wisely. I am absolutely with you
there.
NEED FOR INCREASE IN PRESCHOOL FUNDING
But I want to be clear to this committee and to the public
that the only way to get to scale, as so many other nations
have done much better than us for a long time, is we are going
to have to increase our collective investment, and we need
folks across the political aisle to understand that.
Mr. Kingston. But of the 12, surely some work better than
others. And I am wondering if you have rated the ones that are
better. Because, you know, we would love to work with you to
eliminate those, but you don't propose eliminating any of them.
Secretary Duncan. Well, to be clear----
ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATIVE AND INEFFECTIVE PROGRAMS
Mr. Kingston. And one other, this is a pet peeve of mine,
across all government agencies they never will rate the
effectiveness of these programs. For example, down the hall
from you, 47 different Federal job training programs. And, you
know, you ask them, well, which one should be eliminated? Oh,
they are all good.
Secretary Duncan. Yeah. No, no, no. So to be clear, we can
give you programs from our Department that we have eliminated
over the past 5 years and the hundreds of millions of dollars,
if not billions that we have saved, so hopefully you will see
we have tried to walk the walk and be very, very clear there.
We will continue to do that. We don't have 45, or 12, early
childhood programs under our jurisdiction.
As I said, Kathleen Sebelius is starting to rate Head Start
providers in ways and move seats that has never happened
historically, so some movement in the right direction. But I
just want to come back to my fundamental point, that I am 100
percent convinced we need a massive increase, a massive
investment to create more opportunity for children who aren't
served.
PRESCHOOL EDUCATION RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Kingston. No, but investment alone isn't anything. It
has to be always return on investment.
Secretary Duncan. Yeah. ROI.
Mr. Kingston. And that is where I think we would want to
have----
Secretary Duncan. Well, again, let me just be clear, high-
quality early-childhood----
Mr. Kingston. I have a difficult question for you in a
minute, so I am just warming you up.
Secretary Duncan. Let me just finish. A 7:1 ROI. And I
would ask you guys as you fund other things across----
Mr. Kingston. Well, yes, but, you know, I studied economics
and I sat there and I listened to you, and I don't believe
anybody would really bet the bank on this study.
Secretary Duncan. So I would invite you----
Mr. Kingston. Because it would be impossible to really
follow that through.
Secretary Duncan. I would invite you to invite James
Heckman, who is a Nobel Prize-winning economist, who is
definitely smarter than me on this stuff, may not be smarter
than you, to come and testify and lay out----
Mr. Kingston. Well, there are a lot of people who win Nobel
Prizes that you wonder about sometimes. Maybe we need to bring
him in here and ask him a few questions.
Secretary Duncan. That is fair. And there are many other
studies that talk about the long term. I think the evidence is
overwhelming. The evidence is overwhelming.
Mr. Kingston. All I want to know from you, though, is the
return on investment. If you have got 12 programs, which ones
are giving you the best bang for the buck, and why can't we
eliminate some of them or the 33?
Secretary Duncan. That is a fair question. Again, we don't
have 12 under our jurisdiction. You asked an administration-
wide question. That is a fair question.
Mr. Kingston. And I am going to yield to Mrs. Lowey, but I
do have----
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES
Mrs. Lowey. I can't resist. I wasn't going to ask another
question, but when you are talking about cuts, in fiscal year
2011, Congress made a series of dramatic cuts to a large array
of education programs including----
Secretary Duncan. Including early childhood.
Mrs. Lowey [continuing]. The International Education and
Foreign Languages Program and higher education. I happen to
have a couple of grandkids that are bilingual, and I know what
an advantage they have. After years of steady growth, funding
for Title VI programs was cut by 40 percent. Now, these cuts
have had a real impact on students, cancellation of hundreds of
less commonly taught language classes across the country
impacting thousands of students, and efforts to rebuild that
funding level have been slow given broad fiscal challenges and
the sequester.
However, this is why I just wanted to close with this, the
need for national resource centers, foreign language and area
studies fellowships, the focus these programs provide on
intensive study of world areas and foreign languages,
particularly less commonly taught languages from regions of
strategic importance to the Nation has only increased since
2011.
So the United States engages with virtually every nation
around the globe through trade, open markets, international
negotiations with no plan to scale back on our
internationalization efforts given the tremendous importance
and value our country places on being global leaders. How does
the Department plan to strengthen and grow these programs
moving forward?
Mr. Skelly. The big thing we did, we got a $4 million
increase in the 2015 budget; we had a $2 million increase in
your appropriation in 2014. So we are, I think, headed back in
the right direction.
Mrs. Lowey. Is that sufficient to meet our international
obligations?
Mr. Skelly. We could always spend more money, but that is
what we have in the budget.
Mrs. Lowey. Does it meet the needs out there now?
Mr. Skelly. There are a number of needs around the country.
We had a deputy for international education, Clay Pell, who was
in for a couple of months, and he thought we needed all kinds
of instruction, even in languages they speak in Indonesia. We
don't do enough there. There are all kinds of languages that we
could expand into.
Secretary Duncan. Just to be clear, none of these things,
whether it is early childhood education or IDEA funding or AP
classes or international studies, in none of these is it
sufficient to meet the need, not even close.
Mrs. Lowey. I am glad we closed with that because----
Mr. Kingston. Oh, we are not closed yet.
Mrs. Lowey. Oh.
Mr. Kingston. I have to ask Secretary Duncan a hard
question in a minute, but you still have the time.
Mrs. Lowey. I just want to say, I am not going to say
increase the language classes at the detriment of pre-K or Head
Start. We are the United States of America and we should be
able to give our kids a solid foundation, and then at a certain
point in their education we should prepare them for
international opportunities which create jobs, because this is
one of the areas that is providing the most jobs, the best
investments. And I hope we think about that as we are preparing
this budget, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mrs. Lowey. And I guess I would
not be a good Republican conservative if I didn't say part of
the legacy we have to remember to these kids is keeping the
fiscal house in order, so that is the balance. But I do want
to----
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I can give you a list of things that I
would cut, Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Kingston. I think we need to do that.
Mrs. Lowey [continuing]. But it wouldn't be in education.
Mr. Kingston. Well, I think we should look at all of them
and measure the budget----
Mrs. Lowey. And it wouldn't be Pell Grants.
GRADUATION RATES OF PELL GRANT RECIPIENTS
Mr. Kingston. Which tees me up for my one of my questions,
which isn't the hard question, Secretary. On Pell Grants, I am
appalled at the graduation rates, and Ms. DeLauro actually
mentioned it in her opening statement. And I don't need the
answer right now, don't expect the answer, but I would like it
on a timely basis, the graduation rate with Pell Grants and the
number of years, because it appears to me that it is
appallingly low. And that would be one thing that everyone on
all philosophical spectrums should say we need to get more for
our money out of a Pell Grant.
Secretary Duncan. Yes, couldn't agree more. And again, part
of the challenge is, you have to look downstream, to how many
of those young people are graduating from high school and yet
are not ready, and they are burning Pell Grants on remedial
classes.
So that is a problem. The solution is more complex than
ever. And I would say the vast majority of those kids are
entering college not actually ready to do college-level work,
and that is why high standards, college and career-ready
standards, are so desperately needed in our country.
Graduation Data on Pell Grant Recipients
Senate Report 113-71 directed the Department of Education to submit
a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees containing
enrollment and graduation information for Pell Grant recipients for the
2012-2013 award year. The Department expects to release its report by
the congressionally mandated deadline of May 19, 2014.
STUDENT ATHLETE UNIONS
Mr. Kingston. Okay. Hard question: You were a student
athlete, union or nonunion?
Secretary Duncan. It is a really hard question. And I am
not as up to speed as I should be, and obviously, we don't
really have a clear play there. I have been talking to a few
folks. The NCAA, we have pushed them very hard to raise
graduation rates. As you know, Connecticut, that just won the
national championship, couldn't compete a couple years ago
after winning the national championship because we pushed the
NCAA to put some requirements in there. Thought it was
impossible. New president, new AD, new coach. Guess what? Their
academics are together and they just won a championship. These
things aren't in conflict.
For me, it has to be about students first, athletes second,
and in many universities that is not the case. So it is a long
conversation. Coaches' incentive structures are all around
wins, not around academic performance. So boards are complicit
in this, university presidents are complicit in this. You have
college coaches making $7 million. Something is out of whack
there.
And so I think for me it raises the really important issue
that these things are out of whack and some fundamental and
deep reform is needed to make sure that folks just aren't going
to college making money for the universities, not graduating,
having nothing to show for it. And a number of young people I
grew up playing with on the south side of Chicago had that
exact experience and came home with nothing. This one is pretty
personal to me.
Mr. Kingston. Well, that is my question.
CHAIRMAN'S CLOSING REMARKS
And, Mrs. Lowey, if you are through, we will consider this
committee adjourned.
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Duncan. Thank you.
[The following questions were asked to be submitted for the
hearing record:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Duncan, Hon. Arne................................................ 129
Perez, Hon. T. E................................................. 1
[all]