    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

          H.R. 4297, THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2012

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                             COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
                               AND THE WORKFORCE
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                 HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 17, 2012

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-58

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce

                       Available via the World Wide Web:
                           www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
               committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
                                       or
                Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    73-706                    WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                    COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

                        JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman

    Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin           George Miller, California,
    Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,             Senior Democratic Member
        California                       Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
    Judy Biggert, Illinois               Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
    Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania    Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
    Joe Wilson, South Carolina               Virginia
    Virginia Foxx, North Carolina        Lynn C. Woolsey, California
    Bob Goodlatte, Virginia              Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
    Duncan Hunter, California            Carolyn McCarthy, New York
    David P. Roe, Tennessee              John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
    Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania         Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
    Tim Walberg, Michigan                Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
    Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee          Susan A. Davis, California
    Richard L. Hanna, New York           Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
    Todd Rokita, Indiana                 Timothy H. Bishop, New York
    Larry Bucshon, Indiana               David Loebsack, Iowa
    Trey Gowdy, South Carolina           Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii
    Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania           Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania
    Kristi L. Noem, South Dakota         Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
    Martha Roby, Alabama
    Joseph J. Heck, Nevada
    Dennis A. Ross, Florida
    Mike Kelly, Pennsylvania

                          Barrett Karr, Staff Director
                     Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on April 17, 2012...................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
          Workforce..................................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
        Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on
          Education and the Workforce................................     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     6

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Harmsen, Sandy, executive director, San Bernardino County
          Workforce Investment Board.................................    27
            Prepared statement of....................................    30
        Moran, Laurie S., president, Danville Pittsylvania Chamber of
          Commerce; chair, National Association of Workforce Boards
          (NAWB).....................................................    16
            Prepared statement of....................................    18
        Noble, Norma, on behalf of the Governor's Council for
          Workforce and Economic Development.........................     8
            Prepared statement of....................................    10
        Van Kleunen, Andy, executive director, National Skills
          Coalition..................................................    22
            Prepared statement of....................................    24
    Additional Submissions:
        Foxx, Hon. Virginia, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of North Carolina:
            Letter, dated April 16, 2012, from Associated Builders
              and Contractors (ABC)..................................   102
            Letter, dated April 16, 2012, from Associated General
              Congractors of America (AGC)...........................   103
        Ms. Harmsen, follow-up statement.............................   119
        Mr. Miller:
            Prepared statement of Richard T. Foltin, Esq., American
              Jewish Committee.......................................   109
            Prepared statement of the Center for Law and Social
              Policy (CLASP).........................................   110
            Letter, dated May 4, 2012, from Lac Courte Oreilles......   118
        Ross, Hon. Dennis A., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Florida:
            Prepared statement of Dwayne Ingram, Workforce Florida,
              Inc....................................................   103
        Tierney, Hon. John F., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Massachusetts:
            Letter, American Association of Community Colleges
              (AACC); Association of Community College Trustees
              (ACCT).................................................    56
            Letter, National Council on Independent Living (NCIL)....    58
            Letter, dated March 8, 2012, from Georgetown Public
              Policy Institute, Georgetown University................    59
            Press release, dated March 20, 2012, from the National
              Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD)................    60
            Letter, dated April 13, 2012, from the National
              Association of State Directors of Career Technical
              Education Consortium (NASDCTEc); Association for Career
              and Technical Education (ACTE).........................    61
            Letter, dated March 25, 2012, from the National Skills
              Coalition..............................................    63
            Press release from the North Shore Workforce Investment
              Board..................................................    66
            Letter, dated March 27, 2012, from the Council for
              Advancement of Adult Literacy (CAAL)...................    67
            Letter, dated April 13, 2012, from the American Library
              Association (ALA)......................................    71
            Letter, dated March 27, 2012, from the Corps Network.....    73
            Letter, dated April 16, 2012, from the Council of State
              Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation............    75
            Letter, dated April 13, 2012, from the Association of
              Farmworker Opportunity Programs........................    80
            Letter, dated April 16, 2012, from the National Council
              of La Raza (NCLR)......................................    82
            Letter, dated April 16, 2012, from the Center for Law and
              Social Policy (CLASP)..................................    84
            Letter, dated April 10, 2012, from the National Job Corps
              Association............................................    86
            Letter, dated April 16, 2012, from the American
              Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
              Organizations (AFL-CIO), et al.........................    88
        Walberg, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan:
            Prepared statement of Michael A. Finney, Michigan
              Strategic Fund.........................................   106

          H.R. 4297, THE WORKFORCE INVESTMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2012

                                  ----------

                            Tuesday, April 17, 2012

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                    Committee on Education and the Workforce

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room
    2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman
    of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Kline, Petri, McKeon, Biggert,
    Platts, Foxx, Goodlatte, Roe, Thompson, Walberg, DesJarlais,
    Hanna, Bucshon, Gowdy, Roby, Heck, Ross, Kelly, Miller, Scott,
    Woolsey, Hinojosa, McCarthy, Tierney, Kucinich, Holt, Davis,
    Loebsack, Altmire, and Fudge.
        Also present: Representative Hurt.
        Staff present: Katherine Bathgate, Deputy Press Secretary;
    James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services
    Policy; Casey Buboltz, Coalitions and Member Services
    Coordinator; Heather Couri, Deputy Director of Education and
    Human Services Policy; Cristin Datch, Professional Staff
    Member; Lindsay Fryer, Professional Staff Member; Barrett Karr,
    Staff Director; Rosemary Lahasky, Professional Staff Member;
    Brian Melnyk, Legislative Assistant; Krisann Pearce, General
    Counsel; Linda Stevens, Chief Clerk/Assistant to the General
    Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Brad Thomas, Senior
    Education Policy Advisor; Aaron Albright, Minority
    Communications Director for Labor; Tylease Alli, Minority
    Clerk; Kelly Broughan, Minority Staff Assistant; Jody Calemine,
    Minority Staff Director; John D'Elia, Minority Staff Assistant;
    Ruth Friedman, Minority Director of Education Policy; Livia
    Lam, Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Brian Levin,
    Minority New Media Press Assistant; Megan O'Reilly, Minority
    General Counsel; Julie Peller, Minority Deputy Staff Director;
    Laura Schifter, Minority Senior Education and Disability
    Advisor; and Michele Varnhagen, Minority Chief Policy Advisor/
    Labor Policy Director.
        Chairman Kline. A quorum being present, the committee will
    come to order. Today we will examine H.R. 4297, the Workforce
    Investment Improvement Act of 2012. The legislation will
    provide a more dynamic, effective, and accountable workforce
    development system.
        I would like to thank our witnesses for being with us. I
    also want to extend my appreciation to Representatives Virginia
    Foxx, Buck McKeon, and Joe Heck for their continued leadership
    on this issue.
        The committee has spent over a year examining the nation's
    workforce development system. We held four hearings and
    listened as more than a dozen witnesses described the successes
    and weaknesses in a system designed to provide job training and
    employment assistance for America's workers.
        Through these hearings we have learned an expansive network
    of competing programs operated by numerous federal agencies is
    failing to meet the needs of our workforce. Despite an effort
    to establish a unified workforce development system 14 years
    ago, employers and State and local leaders still grapple with a
    bureaucracy that squanders taxpayer resources, stifles
    innovations, and stands in the way of the help and training
    workers need.
        The problems within the current system are staggering. Each
    program has a separate set of rules, reporting requirements,
    and performance measures. Local leaders operating under 19
    federal mandates that dictate who can serve on the workforce
    investment board. Even if it is in their best interest workers
    can be denied immediate access to job training assistance, and
    even though thousands of One Stop Career Centers are spread
    across the country, some services are located in places chosen
    during the 1970s that are inconvenient, if not completely
    inaccessible, for today's workers.
        The systemic flaws help explain why 3.5 million jobs are
    unfilled despite the roughly 13 million Americans still
    searching for work. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette recently issued
    a news report entitled, ``Manufacturing Jobs Available but
    Skills Rare, Exec Says.'' Similar reports have appeared in
    places like Macon, Georgia; Erie, Pennsylvania; and Green Bay,
    Wisconsin. Workers are needed in fields from truck driving to
    software development to nursing, but employers face a serious
    lack of skilled applicants.
        We are spending taxpayer dollars on red tape and
    bureaucracy instead of the skills and training workers need to
    succeed. During his State of the Union address President Obama
    recognized the need to ``cut through the maze of confusing
    programs,'' and expressed his desire for one program for
    unemployed workers.
        Yet still we see plans for more programs and hear calls to
    defend a fundamentally broken system. Simply doubling down on
    the status quo ignores the problems at hand and is a disservice
    to workers, employers, and taxpayers.
        The recent slowdown in hiring reflected in this month's
    jobs report demonstrates how urgently we need to move in a new
    direction. The Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012
    embodies the smart, responsible reforms that are critical in a
    modern job training system.
        The bill consolidates 27 programs into one flexible
    Workforce Investment Fund. If a governor can present a
    responsible plan to consolidate additional job training
    programs he or she is welcome to do so. This will allow us to
    move closer toward the president's goal of one program and
    provide more efficient employment and training services to
    workers.
        The legislation also rolls back unnecessary rules and
    strengthens the role of job creators in workforce training
    decisions. H.R. 4297 requires two-thirds of workforce
    investment board members be employers, helping ensure the
    skills and training offered to workers matches the needs of
    businesses. The bill grants States and local officials
    authority over filling the remaining slots on the board. If
    individuals from labor unions, community colleges, and youth
    organization offer the best voice to represent the local
    workforce they can have a seat at the table.
        Furthermore, the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of
    2012 ensures accountability without burying state and local
    officials in reams of paperwork. Under the bill States would be
    required to adopt a common set of performance measures to judge
    the success of all programs and the Department of Labor would
    be required to conduct an independent evaluation of its
    programs every 5 years. Workers will learn whether these
    programs are effective and taxpayers will know whether their
    money is being well spent.
        There are other positive reforms in the legislation, such
    as providing dedicated funds to assist at-risk youth and
    individuals facing difficult barriers to employment. No doubt
    other issues will be raised throughout the hearing.
        I expect we will also address a proposal introduced by my
    Democrat colleagues, one that offers their priorities for
    reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act. Both sides
    recognize the challenges plaguing the current system and the
    need for improvement. Ultimately, we have a responsibility to
    advance reforms that will help Americans receive the skills and
    training they need to get back to work.
        I look forward to a lively discussion, a lively debate, and
    will now recognize my distinguished colleague, George Miller,
    the senior Democratic member of the committee, for his opening
    remarks.
        [The statement of Chairman Kline follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman,
                    Committee on Education and the Workforce

        Today, we will examine H.R. 4297, the Workforce Investment
    Improvement Act of 2012. The legislation will provide a more dynamic,
    effective, and accountable workforce development system. I would like
    to thank our witnesses for being with us. I also want to extend my
    appreciation to Representatives Virginia Foxx, Buck McKeon, and Joe
    Heck for their continued leadership on this important issue.
        The committee has spent over a year examining the nation's
    workforce development system. We held four hearings and listened as
    more than a dozen witnesses described the successes and weaknesses in a
    system designed to provide job training and employment assistance for
    America's workers.
        Through these hearings, we have learned an expansive network of
    competing programs operated by numerous federal agencies is failing to
    meet the needs of our workforce. Despite an effort to establish a
    unified workforce development system 14 years ago, employers and state
    and local leaders still grapple with a bureaucracy that squanders
    taxpayer resources, stifles innovation, and stands in the way of the
    help and training workers need.
        The problems within the current system are staggering. Each program
    has a separate set of rules, reporting requirements, and performance
    measures. Local leaders operate under 19 federal mandates that dictate
    who can serve on a workforce investment board. Even if it's in their
    best interest, workers can be denied immediate access to job training
    assistance. And even though thousands of One Stop Career Centers are
    spread across the country, some services are located in places chosen
    during the 1970s that are inconvenient--if not completely inaccessible
    for today's workers.
        These systemic flaws help explain why 3.5 million jobs are
    unfilled, despite the roughly 13 million Americans still searching for
    work. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette recently issued a news report
    entitled, ``Manufacturing jobs available but skills rare, exec says.''
    Similar reports have appeared in places like Macon, Georgia; Erie,
    Pennsylvania; and Green Bay, Wisconsin. Workers are needed in fields
    from truck driving to software development to nursing, but employers
    face a serious lack of skilled applicants.
        We are spending taxpayer dollars on red tape and bureaucracy,
    instead of the skills and training workers need to succeed. During his
    State of the Union address, President Obama recognized the need to
    ``cut through the maze of confusing programs'' and expressed his desire
    for one program for unemployed workers. Yet still we see plans for more
    programs and hear calls to defend a fundamentally broken system. Simply
    doubling down on the status quo ignores the problems at hand and is a
    disservice to workers, employers, and taxpayers.
        The recent slowdown in hiring reflected in this month's jobs report
    demonstrates how urgently we need to move in a new direction. The
    Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012 embodies the smart,
    responsible reforms that are critical in a modern job training system.
    The bill consolidates 27 programs into one flexible Workforce
    Investment Fund. If a governor can present a responsible plan to
    consolidate additional job training programs, he or she is welcome to
    do so. This will allow us to move closer toward the president's goal of
    one program and provide more efficient employment and training services
    to workers.
        The legislation also rolls back unnecessary rules and strengthens
    the role of job creators in workforce training decisions. H.R. 4297
    requires two-thirds of workforce investment board members be employers,
    helping ensure the skills and training offered to workers matches the
    needs of businesses. The bill grants state and local officials
    authority over filling the remaining slots on the board. If individuals
    from labor unions, community colleges, and youth organizations offer
    the best voice to represent the local workforce, they can have a seat
    at the table.
        Furthermore, the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012
    ensures accountability without burying state and local officials in
    reams of paperwork. Under the bill, states would be required to adopt a
    common set of performance measures to judge the success of all
    programs, and the Department of Labor would be required to conduct an
    independent evaluation of its programs every five years. Workers will
    learn whether these programs are effective and taxpayers will know
    whether their money is being well spent.
        There are other positive reforms in the legislation, such as
    providing dedicated funds to assist at-risk youth and individuals
    facing difficult barriers to employment. No doubt other issues will be
    raised throughout the hearing. I expect we will also address a proposal
    introduced by my Democrat colleagues, one that offers their priorities
    for reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act. Both sides recognize
    the challenges plaguing the current system and the need for
    improvement. Ultimately, we have a responsibility to advance reforms
    that will help Americans receive the skills and training they need to
    get back to work.
                                     ______

        Mr. Miller. Today the committee meets to examine a bill to
    reauthorize the Workforce Investment Act. This is no small
    matter. The need for robust federal investments in the nation's
    workforce is readily apparent. It is made apparent by the rise
    of local competition and it is made apparent by the deep impact
    that the last recession had on the employment opportunities for
    certain populations.
        Those investments need to be smart investments. They need
    to be made efficiently and effectively, ensuring job training
    and employment services to get people--to--get to the people
    who need them. And those services need to reflect the existing
    and future labor market demands.
        We need to demand greater accountability for those
    investments. We need to know whether or not we are working both
    for short-term reemployment needs and for long-term skills
    attainment and credentialing, and we need to support and foster
    innovation in the system, engaging partners and leveraging
    resources.
        Importantly, there is a bipartisan consensus that the law
    in this area needs updating. How the Congress reauthorizes WIA
    is of vital importance to working people, their families,
    businesses, and to our nation's economy. We must get it right.
        And so as we examine the legislation before us there are a
    number of important questions to consider. First, does the bill
    focus sufficient resources toward individuals with the greatest
    barriers to employment? We must not turn our backs on those who
    are in the most need of help from the workforce investment
    system, including workers with low income, the nation's youth,
    individuals with disabilities, English language learners,
    veterans, and long-term unemployed. Equity in the system will
    grow and strengthen the middle class.
        Second, does the bill contain strong accountability
    measures? Does it incentivize programs to improve the outcomes
    for individuals and businesses? Taxpayers must know that these
    programs are producing results. Workers and employers deserve
    to know, as well.
        And those accountability measures cannot be subject to
    gaming. They must not discourage helping those who are the
    hardest to serve.
        Third, does the bill seek to build on the successes to
    avoid replicating failures of the past? Successful innovation
    should be supported and new innovations must be encouraged.
    Inefficiencies must be wrung out of the system, and accurate
    and detailed data should be available to help people tell the
    differences.
        Fourth, does the bill effectively leverage the expertise
    and commitment of all stakeholders? A successful workforce
    investment system must value the voices of employers and
    educators, service providers, and those who represent people in
    need of training.
        Fifth, does the bill provide a vision for long-term skills
    attainment? A successful workforce investment system recognizes
    that mere job placement is not enough. People need careers. A
    system must provide even the lowest-skilled workers with
    pathways toward credentials and marketable skills beyond the
    first job they find.
        Sixth, does the bill effectively gauge the demand from
    industry? A successful workplace investment system is demand-
    driven in both the short and long term and it must anticipate
    future needs and drive training toward where the demand is and
    will be. In other words, we should be investing in a real
    workforce development system, not a temporary staffing agency.
        On many of these questions I have serious concerns about
    H.R. 4297. It seeks efficiencies by rolling numbers of programs
    into a single, comingled fund, but in doing so it allows
    limited resources to be diverted away from where they are
    needed the most. Youth--especially the disadvantaged--older
    workers, foreign workers, workers with disabilities, and
    displaced homemakers, English language learners, veterans, and
    low-income workers are among those who face the greatest
    barriers to profitable employment, and yet all of these
    populations face the greatest risk of losing access to services
    under the bill as drafted when funds intended to serve
    different populations are comingled into a secret--a single
    program.
        The bill calls for innovation but it locks out key partners
    in developing that innovation, leaving the system with one hand
    tied behind its back, and in that sense it fails to build on
    what we have learned over the years.
        While the bill takes steps in the right direction I have
    fundamental--I have trouble with the fundamental flaws that I
    have outlined here that need to be fixed and I cannot support
    the bill in its current form. The Democrats understand and
    support the modernizing of WIC to serve--of WIA to serve
    clients more effectively and efficiently. Last month
    Congressman Tierney, Hinojosa, and I introduced a bill to
    reauthorize WIA with those needed reforms, and I hope our bill
    can be as much a part of today's discussion as the Republican
    bill. And I hope that today's hearing can help foster further
    discussion about these different approaches and work together
    toward a bipartisan WIA reauthorization.
        Before we close I would like to recognize the leaders from
    the local Goodwill agencies from Oakland, Los Angeles, Boston,
    Michigan, and San Francisco who are joining us in the audience
    today. Those agencies are examples of how federal investments
    can leverage additional resources and expertise to help get
    people back to work and onto career paths.
        Welcome to this hearing.
        And I welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses and I
    look forward to your testimony and the ability to ask you
    questions when you are done.
        Thank you.
        [The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member,
                    Committee on Education and the Workforce

        Today, the committee meets to examine a bill to reauthorize the
    Workforce Investment Act. This is no small matter. The need for robust
    federal investments in the nation's workforce is readily apparent. It's
    made apparent by the rise of global competition. And it's made apparent
    by the deep impact the last recession has had on employment
    opportunities for certain populations.
        Those investments need to be smart investments. They need to be
    made efficiently and effectively, ensuring job training and employment
    services get to people who need them. And those services need to
    reflect existing and future labor market demands.
        We need to demand greater accountability for those investments. We
    need to know whether they are working both for short-term reemployment
    needs and for long-term skills attainment and credentialing. And we
    need to support and foster innovation in the system, engaging partners
    and leveraging resources.
        Importantly, there is a bipartisan consensus that the law in this
    area needs updating. How the Congress reauthorizes WIA is of vital
    importance to working people, their families, businesses, and the
    national economy. We must get it right.
        And so, as we examine the legislation before us, there are a number
    of important questions to consider.
        First, does the bill focus sufficient resources toward individuals
    with the greatest barriers to employment? We must not turn our backs on
    those who may need the most help from a workforce investment system,
    including workers with low incomes, the nation's youth, individuals
    with disabilities, English language learners, veterans, and the long-
    term unemployed.
        Equity in the system will grow and strengthen the middle class.
        Second, does the bill contain strong accountability measures? Does
    it incentivize programs to improve outcomes for individuals and
    businesses? Taxpayers must know that these programs are producing
    results. Workers and employers deserve to know as well. And those
    accountability measures cannot be subject to gaming. They must not
    discourage helping those who are hardest to serve.
        Third, does the bill seek to build on successes and avoid
    replicating failures from the past? Successful innovations should be
    supported, and new innovations should be encouraged. Inefficiencies
    must be wrung out of the system, and accurate, detailed data should be
    available to help people tell the difference.
        Fourth, does the bill effectively leverage the expertise and
    commitment of all stakeholders? For example, community colleges have
    often played forward-thinking roles in job training programs. A
    successful workforce investment system must value the voices of service
    providers and those who represent people in need of training.
        Fifth, does the bill provide a vision for long-term skills
    attainment? A successful workforce investment system recognizes that
    mere job placement is not enough. People need careers. The system must
    provide even the lowest skilled workers with pathways toward
    credentials and marketable skills beyond the first job they find.
        Sixth, does the bill effectively gauge demand from industry? A
    successful workforce investment system is demand-driven in both the
    short and long term. And, it must anticipate future needs and drive
    training toward where demand is and will be. In other words, we should
    be investing in real workforce development, not a temporary staffing
    agency.
        On many of these questions, I have serious concerns about this
    bill.
        It seeks efficiencies by rolling a number of programs into a
    single, co-mingled fund. But in doing so, it allows limited resources
    to be diverted away from where they are needed most.
        Youth, especially the disadvantaged, older workers, farm workers,
    workers with disabilities, displaced homemakers, English language
    learners, veterans, and low-income workers are among those who face the
    greatest barriers to profitable employment. And yet all of these
    populations face the greatest risk of losing access to services under
    the bill as drafted.
        The bill provides for a stronger accountability system. However, I
    question whether the system works when funds intended to serve
    different populations are comingled into a single program.
        The bill calls for innovation, but it locks out key partners in
    developing that innovation, leaving the system with one hand tied
    behind its back. And, in that sense, it fails to build on what we have
    learned over the years.
        I am also concerned that the bill does not sufficiently recognize
    the critical role that federal workforce investments play in meeting
    longer-term economic needs. Long-term planning to meet future industry
    demand will allow workers to be given careers, not just jobs.
        While the bill takes steps in the right direction, these
    fundamental flaws need to be fixed. I cannot support it in its current
    form.
        Democrats understand the need to modernize WIA to serve its clients
    more effectively and efficiently. For example, we believe WIA must
    streamline access and better align its programs. We need to demand real
    accountability, not subject to gaming, so everyone knows what works and
    what doesn't. We need to strengthen, not water down or eliminate, WIA's
    capacity to help those with the greatest barriers to employment.
        And, we must promote innovation that fully engages partners and
    existing infrastructures like the community college system, so local
    areas can respond more effectively to economic challenges and meet
    future industry needs.
        Last month, Congressmen Tierney, Hinojosa, and I introduced a bill
    to reauthorize WIA with these needed reforms. And I hope our bill can
    be as much a part of today's discussions as the Republican bill. And I
    hope that today's hearing can help foster further discussions about
    these different approaches and help us work together toward a
    bipartisan WIA reauthorization.
        Before I close, I would like to recognize leaders from local
    Goodwill agencies from Oakland, Los Angeles, Boston, Michigan, and San
    Francisco who are joining us in the audience today.
        Those agencies are an example of how federal investments can
    leverage additional resources and expertise to help to get people back
    to work and onto career paths.
        Welcome!
        And I welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses.
        I look forward to your testimony on how Congress can modernize the
    Workforce Investment Act for the benefit of all and move the economy
    forward.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
        Let me welcome to the committee our distinguished colleague
    from Virginia, Congressman Hurt. Without objection, Congressman
    Hurt will be permitted to participate in our hearing today, and
    I hear no objection.
        Pursuant to committee rule 7(c) all committee members will
    be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the
    permanent hearing record, and without objection, the hearing
    record will remain open for 14 days to allow statements,
    questions for the record, and other extraneous material
    referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official
    hearing record.
        It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished panel
    of witnesses. First, Ms. Norma Noble is the current deputy
    secretary of commerce for workforce development for the State
    of Oklahoma, under Governor Mary Fallin, our former colleague.
    Prior to her appointment in 2003, Ms. Noble served as
    administrative coordinator for Oklahoma City's human resources
    department and center manager of Oklahoma County's Career
    Connection Center.
        Welcome.
        Ms. Laurie Moran is the president of the Danville
    Pittsylvania County Chamber of Commerce in Blairs, Virginia, a
    position she has held since January 2002. Ms. Moran is also the
    chair of the National Association of Workforce Boards and has
    served on the board of directors of NAWB for the past 8 years.
        Mr. Andy Van Kleunen is the executive director of the
    National Skills Coalition, which he founded in 1998 as the
    Workforce Alliance. Prior to founding the coalition, Mr. Van
    Kleunen was director of workforce policy for the National
    Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute.
        Welcome.
        And Ms. Sandy Harmsen is the executive director of the San
    Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board and director of
    the county's Workforce Development Department in San
    Bernardino, California. Ms. Harmsen also serves as the
    executive director for the San Bernardino County Workforce
    Investment Boards, which includes private business
    representatives and public sector partners appointed by the
    county board of supervisors.
        Before I recognize each of you to provide your testimony
    let me once again briefly explain our lighting system. You will
    each have 5 minutes to present your testimony. When you begin
    the light in front of you will turn green; when 1 minute is
    left the light will turn yellow; and when your time is expired
    the light will turn red, at which point I ask that you would
    wrap up your remarks as best as you are able.
        After everyone has testified the members will have 5
    minutes to ask questions of the panel. And as always, I will
    provide more latitude to the witnesses than to my colleagues.
        With that, let's get underway.
        Ms. Noble, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF NORMA NOBLE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR
               WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS

        Ms. Noble. Good morning. Chairman Kline, and Ranking Member
    Miller, and members of the committee, I am Norma Noble and it
    is my honor to testify on behalf of the Governor's Council for
    Workforce and Economic Development. I have the privilege of
    serving as the deputy secretary of commerce for workforce
    development in the great State of Oklahoma.
        The Workforce Investment Act is, at its very core, about
    jobs. It equips States to attract, retain, and create jobs by
    serving three primary customers: workers, businesses, and the
    governments that serve them. In short, your action is necessary
    to better anticipate and meet the needs of businesses, to
    better educate and train workers, and to empower State and
    regional leaders to be cost-effective, innovative, problem-
    solving.
        It has been more than a decade since Congress passed the
    Workforce Investment Act. Today, new challenges confront our
    nation and our economic position in the world. We need bold
    reforms in WIA if our--we are going to equip American workers
    with the skills necessary to remain competitive.
        Workforce development is the biggest issue impeding
    expansion and growth of employers today. In responding to the
    needs of both employers and workers we must have flexibility at
    the state and local levels to best provide services to our
    unemployed and underemployed Americans, getting them back to
    work quickly.
        It is my belief that H.R. 4297 takes a good step in that
    direction. In order to better understand the needs of
    Oklahoma's employers, Governor Mary Fallin led a State
    leadership team in conducting a business climate survey. We
    surveyed almost 5,400 employees and the results were very
    positive: 61 percent of the businesses are adding new products;
    51 percent are upgrading or expanding; 28 percent are adding
    new locations; 75 to 85 percent of the industries are
    optimistic about their future in Oklahoma; 75 to 85 percent
    ranked our postsecondary services as excellent or good.
        Yet, in spite of that and in spite of leading in America's
    childhood--early childhood education and higher than average
    high school graduation and 70,000 career ready certificates, 61
    percent of the businesses in our State rank the availability of
    the workforce as fair or poor. We need game changing.
        In response to the governor's call for game changing, the
    Governor's Council and its partner agencies is implementing
    www.OKJobMatch.com, and this is to provide an online, one-stop
    information and access to workforce programs and services
    across agency and program lines--access for job seekers and
    employers. Employers' needs, however, cannot be simply met by
    improving job matching or labor exchange. Workers need better
    skills and better career pathways to get to those skills.
        Specifically, workforce development needs to be centered on
    increasing an attainment of both degrees and industry-validated
    credentials. We are in a new economy--one in which companies
    and whole industries are being forced to continually adapt to
    rapidly accelerating changes. And workforce systems need to be
    flexible enough to meet and operate at that same rate of speed.
        Some of the key principles that are needed: simplify
    things. I agree with the core assumption in H.R. 4297 that we
    don't need to operate through dozens of separate programs, each
    with its own reporting and management rules. And it also makes
    sense to organize services and workforce boards at the regional
    labor market level.
        We need State and local control, integrating workforce
    development and educational opportunities through a governor-
    led, State, regional framework that offers the greatest
    potential for economic expansion. Business-led is a key. H.R.
    4297 provides governors the authority and flexibility to design
    such a delivery system that reflects the economy of our State
    and the neighboring communities within the State that are
    unique for their workforce and their industries.
        Require unified planning. H.R. 4297 begins the process by
    allowing states to take this important step. I would encourage
    the proposal to go further. If consolidation is not being
    implemented I urge you to require unified planning. It is too
    hard for classroom teachers, social workers, job developers,
    rehabilitation staff to bridge their daily activities to
    employer and industry-recognized skills if that is not
    integrated into their expectations and performance systems.
        Manage for results, not process. Workforce development is
    overregulated in--on the process side--lots of monitoring and
    compliance. It underemphasizes performance.
        Be clear about your expected results, but also give us
    increased flexibility about how to retain those results, and of
    course, the funds necessary to do so.
        Integrate adult education and--fully with workforce
    improvement. We need to help the one-third of our workforce
    that have low basic skills. We need to go well beyond just
    literacy and GED attainment; we need to help people obtain
    degrees, credentials, and certificates.
        Restore flexible funds at the State level. Providing States
    with only 5 percent of WIA funds barely covers the cost of the
    required program management. Our employers are driving across
    our State--and some flying--so that they can meet on committees
    for innovation, service delivery, career pathways, and
    policies. We won't be able to implement that if we don't have
    statewide funds.
        I end by saying if we are not going to take workforce
    development serious in our country we are losing--we are
    shortchanging our citizens. We have to have everybody at the
    table. And workforce development is the only federal system
    that provides a mechanism where employers, workforce-related
    agencies, and community partners are there at the table
    designing a system.
        To get it right--if we don't get it right we won't be able
    to recognize or obtain Thomas Jefferson's dream. After all that
    he accomplished--president, statesman, writer of the
    Declaration of Independence and Constitution--at the end of his
    life he said, ``I look to the diffusion of light and education
    as the resource most to be relied on for ameliorating our
    condition, promoting our virtues, and advancing the happiness
    of man.''
        Thank you so much.
        [The statement of Ms. Noble follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Norma Noble, on Behalf of the Governor's Council
                     for Workforce and Economic Development

        Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and members of the
    Committee: I am Norma Noble and it is my honor to testify on behalf the
    Governor's Council for Workforce and Economic Development. I have the
    privilege of serving as the Deputy Secretary of Commerce for Workforce
    Development in the great state of Oklahoma. While this is my current
    position, I want to share that I previously worked as Director of
    Operation and Director of a local Workforce Investment Board/Private
    Industry Council in central Oklahoma.
        The Workforce Investment Act is, at its very core, about jobs. It
    equips states to attract, retain, and create jobs by serving three
    primary customers: workers, businesses, and the governments that serve
    them. The nation's workforce system as it currently exists requires
    real change on these same three fronts. In short, your action is
    necessary to help better educate and train workers, to anticipate and
    meet the needs of businesses, and to empower state and regional leaders
    to be cost-effective, innovative, problem solvers. It has been more
    than a decade since Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act.
    Today, new challenges confront our nation and our economic position in
    the world. Without bold reforms to WIA, such as program and funding
    consolidation, our workforce system will fall further and further
    behind in our ability to equip American workers with the skills
    necessary to remain competitive in the global economy.
    Workers
        Today's modern economy dictates a shift in the way states approach
    the primary component of any workforce development system; the worker.
    States must have the flexibility to implement programs that both serve
    the individual and meet the demands of emerging markets. In short, we
    must be able to match the training and education needs of workers with
    the jobs that actually exist on the ground.
        Our jobs picture has changed from a pyramid to an hourglass.
         High Skill Jobs--35% (was 25%)
         Middle Income Jobs--27% (was 35%) But--much of this middle
    skilled work will be done by outsourcing and a contingent workforce)
         Low Skill, Low Wage Jobs 38% (was 40%)
         82% of manufacturers report a moderate-to-serious skills
    gap in skilled production.
         74% of manufacturers report that this skills gap has
    negatively impacted their company's ability to expand operations.
         69% of manufacturers expect the skills shortage in skilled
    production to worsen in the next 3-5 years.
        Integrating workforce development and educational opportunities
    through a governor-led state-regional framework offers the greatest
    potential for economic expansion and industry competitiveness, while
    providing job growth, stability and career advancement opportunities
    for workers. H. R. 4297 is establishing this framework. It provides
    governors the authority and flexibility to design a delivery system
    that reflects the economy of the state and neighboring communities
    including the unique dynamics of industries and the workforce.
        Our nation cannot afford to separate education and workforce
    development as they are truly one in the same. States have taken the
    lead in developing industry partnerships to educate and train workers
    critical skills in key sectors like energy, healthcare, and
    manufacturing.
        Congress should support these strong state-led public-private
    endeavors by providing governors the authority and funds to cultivate
    these partnerships and engage industry in the delivery and formation of
    worker education and training. Governors need the discretion to
    identify targeted industries and the flexibility to expend workforce,
    education, and economic development assets and resources accordingly,
    and have done so effectively through the use of statewide discretionary
    funds.
        How do you measure success? The numbers trained or even served look
    miniscule when compared with the numbers to be served. And because
    regions within states are as different as states are from each other,
    impact on populations is difficult to obtain in persuasive longitudinal
    numbers. I want to be clear; workforce investment is about jobs and job
    creation. Job creation and growth is about talent development. An
    ongoing system of learning that results in both degrees and credentials
    is central to success of both the workforce and employers as we move
    forward.
    Business
        I commend the Committee's proposal to consolidate and streamline
    the delivery and funding of state workforce development programs.
    Today, the number of workforce programs provides an inefficient
    framework that is simply too complex for workers and businesses to rely
    upon.
        Businesses are key to any successful state-based workforce
    development model; that is, just as we must ensure that education and
    training opportunities are tailored to make all workers employable, in
    Oklahoma, we are working hard to also ensure that we are serving our
    businesses. A business-driven approach to workforce development is
    appropriate and helps guarantee that public workforce dollars are spent
    efficiently and the ultimate goal, putting people back to work, is
    attainable.
        Chesapeake Energy, based in Oklahoma City and a global leader in
    energy production, has implemented a revolutionary internship and
    apprenticeship program. The program equips interns and future employees
    with the tools, guidance, mentorship, and education they need to be
    prosperous employees. Chesapeake's program is unique. I have no doubt
    that this success is a direct product of the company's ability to see
    the training process from the very beginning all the way through full
    employment. This company is ensuring that its workers are prepared to
    thrive in accordance with the demands of this 21st century energy
    economy. It uses all of the resources available to it including
    staffing services. Those of us that serve the public workforce
    development system should take heed. This is a prime example of the
    success that can be had when workers, business, and state government
    are empowered with the tools to succeed.
        In Georgetown's recent study for the Southern Growth Policy Board,
    the pressing enigma/conundrum of Oklahoma and similar states is
    discussed. A majority of workers in our workforce are unskilled. A
    majority of the jobs in the labor market are unskilled. The need for
    skilled workers in 2020 will be 57% post-secondary skilled workers.
    Post-secondary graduates today don't see those jobs now so they leave
    the state. Companies who are looking to locate in Oklahoma don't see a
    surplus of post-secondary trained workers now so they are hesitant to
    come. Hence, we proclaim the need for college graduates infuriating the
    employers who are looking for skilled/credentialed workers. A unified
    plan for all workforce/education would show a consolidated assault on
    the problem.
        In my home state of Oklahoma, we've seen this business-driven
    approach succeed.
        Specific Oklahoma examples of collaboration creating systemic
    change, is the way partners are currently working on state policy
    around the issue of career pathways. The intent is to ensure that every
    agency has consistent policy to support this effort. This included the
    education agencies, workforce agencies and social service agencies.
    This is a true systemic approach that will have lasting effect for the
    entire state. This type of work must be done at the state level.
        Likewise, partners are and have been acquiescing around the use of
    the Career Readiness Certificate as a base credential. They are all
    using it in their own agencies and programs--creating a state system of
    assessment and credentialing that employers are recognizing more and
    more.
        In addition, we have seen the ability to better engage employers
    when it is done by industry sector. We have had excellent results with
    industry sector gap analysis in heath care and aerospace. As a result,
    many of our regional areas have also had great success with creating
    strategic plans and conducting business services around industry
    sectors.
        Most recently, the Governor's Council for Workforce and Economic
    Development is working on a comprehensive Workforce Portal that
    includes an enhanced job matching feature. The Governor has endorsed
    this effort and the partners are working jointly to get it implemented.
    A joint application design team, representing all of the agencies plus
    local boards, worked on the format and implementation strategy and it
    is now being implemented as www.OKJobMatch.com.
        Developing this deep level of partnership at the state and local
    level would not have been possible without a strong business led state
    board, and flexible funding through the statewide activities funds.
    Good Government and Governance
        Effective workforce development programs require state and local
    governments to have the flexibility to provide needed services.
    Oklahoma embodies this reality. As a state with disparate economic
    conditions driven by geography, we need the ability to implement
    regional solutions for regional problems. Today, we do not have that
    flexibility.
        For example, western Oklahoma has experienced extraordinary growth
    as a result of an abundance of energy resources both renewable and
    fossil fuel. As a result, the regional unemployment rate is roughly
    three percent. In southeast Oklahoma, however, poverty is prevalent and
    unemployment ranges 9 to 12 percent. Fortunately, the Oklahoma
    Department of Commerce recognizes these differences. Unfortunately, the
    federal law does not.
        A ``one size fits all'' or ``cookie cutter'' approach to funding,
    state board composition, planning areas, and the like are simply
    untenable. States need more flexibility, not less. In Oklahoma, we
    heavily relied upon the governor's set-aside to support successful
    innovation. In fact, many of today's best ideas were germinated through
    governors' WIA set-aside funds, such as state sector strategies, green
    jobs programs, and innovations in public-private partnership. The set-
    aside funds are the only federal funding available at the state level
    under WIA and comprise the most flexible funding under the statute.
    Matching funds from other state sources and from the private sector
    enhance the impact of the set-aside funds and strengthen the ownership
    and involvement of businesses, industries, and communities in the state
    workforce development system. Like many of my colleagues across the
    country, I am deeply concerned about the reduction in the governors'
    set-aside for statewide activities. This could have a chilling impact
    on workforce innovations and most importantly, at a time of continuing
    economic hardship, the reduction in the governors' set-aside for
    statewide activities will make it more difficult for Americans to get
    back to work.
        Skills the Energy Industry wishes were taught:
         New technical graduates:
        Organization skills, platform skills, team management, time
    management, leadership
         New non-tech graduates:
        Math aptitude, finance and economics, leadership, collaboration and
    conflict management. Simple to fix? Maybe, but it requires industry,
    education, a convening WIB, and partners to do so.
        Flexibility at the state and local level is needed to best provide
    services to unemployed and underemployed workers and others in the
    talent pipeline. We must help them get back to work quickly and fill
    the workforce needs of industries that are in demand in our state. This
    is a K-20 connection to industry and economic development. It is our
    belief that HR 4297 takes a good step in that direction.
    Conclusion
        Workforce development is complex. The driving question for those of
    us who work in the workforce development arena everyday must always be,
    ``what does it take to get everyone employable and a good paying job?''
    In the same vein, we also hear the very real concerns of business,
    which asks ``why does it take so long for the pieces to come together
    and for us to find talent?'' Oklahoma has seen success in the state's
    private sector, and the nationwide public workforce development system
    should take note.
        In closing, the Workforce Investment Act, at its core, is about
    jobs. If there was ever a time for a ``must pass'' piece of
    legislation, now would be that time to fix America's workforce system
    and get America back to work. The Workforce Investment Improvement Act
    like its predecessor is in fact the only federal legislation that
    provides a formal mechanism to put all of the players at the table:
    employers, workforce-related agencies, community partners and citizen
    representatives to design a talent development system for its state and
    regions.
        If we don't get it right, we cannot realize Thomas Jefferson's
    dream. Mr. Jefferson had been through the Revolutionary War, the
    framing of the Declaration of Independence and the United States
    Constitution, served as President of the United States and Ambassador
    to other nations. But, at the end of his life, he said, ``I look to the
    diffusion of light and education as the resource most to be relied on
    for ameliorating the condition, promoting the virtue and advancing the
    happiness of man''. (1822)
    The Need for Funding Statewide Activities
        We have hard questions: What is ready to work? How can employer
    credentials pair with education, common core, STEM requirements and new
    legislation for workforce agencies? How can we achieve the American
    Dream: A Job! 5% unemployed in Oklahoma is really 15%. Fourteen percent
    unemployment for Veterans is really 25% and if you are between 18-25 it
    is as high as 50%. How can we restore HOPE to these Americans that they
    will get a job to our businesses that we can supply them with quality
    workers.
        In Oklahoma we have used statewide funding to provide planning
    tools (i.e., EMSI) and consultants for local areas, Industry Sector
    Reports, evaluations, regional planning, Certified Work Ready
    Communities, Regional Industry Sector Partnerships, support Career
    Pathway pilots, establish Business Service teams, incent OJT and
    internships, enhance infrastructure, statewide licenses for WorkKeys
    and KeyTrain to increase baseline credentialing for Oklahomans. Other
    states have carried out similar projects that make their citizens more
    employable and their economies more viable.
        Without statewide funding the potential is to have duplicative
    infrastructures in each WIB area. Local WIB representation is at both
    our State Council and our inter-agency staff team. We have a shared
    outcome system. The attached Strategic Plan of the Governor's Council
    for Workforce and Economic Development further illustrates this
    structure and shared-outcome system.
        We have some of the partnerships but we also have barriers. We ask
    that you remove the legislative barriers to innovation, efficient
    service delivery, employer validated credentials and career pathways.
    H. R. 4297 is great step toward achieving this end.
      governor's council for workforce and economic development strategic
                                      plan
        The Governor's Council for Workforce and Economic Development has
    developed a strategic plan. As you can see WIA is not the only work of
    the Council. We are working to develop systemic policies that bridge
    economic development, education and workforce programs/services.
        The Council's plan is the result of employer focus groups, Game
    Changer committee work and other stakeholder group participation.
        Overarching Issue: Workforce/Talent Development is complex and
    convoluted. There are many players with sometimes competing agendas.
    But, at the end of the day, we need talent that meets Oklahoma employer
    skill/credential needs now and into the future.
    Overarching Theme/Vision:
        1. Oklahoma employers can expect that graduates of Oklahoma
    education/training programs have the skills and credentials they need
    and are work ready.
        2. Oklahoma will be able to supply the workforce needs of current
    and future Oklahoma employers.
    Goals:
        1. Improve the outcome of Oklahoma skill development systems
    through the use of on-line tools and data bases that will improve
    efficiency and measure effectiveness.
        2. Increase credentials, certificates and skills by deepening the
    public/private partnerships that will improve the match between
    employer-demanded skills and the skills of job applicants through the
    use of Career Pathways and Career Readiness Certificates.
    Strategies for Achieving these Goals:
        1. Develop common outcomes: Joint planning/development of a
    business plan that includes outcomes and metrics that all partners play
    a part in meeting--for the good of the state of Oklahoma's business
    retention, expansion and attraction efforts:
        Examples:
        a. What is Work Ready? Common definition and metric
        b. More direct & systemic involvement by employers in P-20- Adult/
    education and training issues and in establishing desired outcomes.
        c. % increase in employer validated credentials and degrees
    obtained
        2. Implement/expand on-line/virtual systems and processes: In order
    to provide efficient and effective service delivery, and to link and
    leverage various programs, we MUST have common virtual tools and a
    linked longitudinal data system. This includes a portal that will
    provide a single access to talent and services available to employers
    and a ``data base'' or some process that will more readily provide
    information, including real time information, on talent supply and
    demand.
        3. Develop and implement career pathways: Career Pathways is an
    organizing process that can link employer validated credential and
    degree needs to the education and training supply chain. This would
    involve public/private regional partnerships between employers and
    service providers. This will ensure that the workforce pipeline will
    support business retention and attraction.
        4. Re-invent workforce investment boards and one-stop career
    centers: Defining their role, enhancing their efforts to engage
    employers by sector within regions. Involving all system partners and
    creating WIN-WIN and value added regional planning and service delivery
    system. Workforce boards include a majority of employer members. If
    properly constituted and functioning, these employers can provide a
    great foundation for regional partnerships. Certified one-stops will
    ensure that a standard of service exist and partners are connected
    within a region in order to provide coordinated service delivery.
    Action steps being taken/Recommended through Committees:
        Data/Portal Committee:
        1. Fully implement OKJobMatch.com. Replace the current Job Link
    system with OK Job Match in order for OK Job Match to become the new
    state labor exchange system.
                Current Status
        a. Job seeker portal fully up and operational. Resume numbers are
    increasing. Currently, total accounts are at 5,000. Thanks to all
    partners for promoting this, and using the posters, business cards and
    other education and outreach materials.
        i. OESC and ODOC staff are working with the vendor to convert and
    use Job Match in place of Job Link and open up the employer module.
        b. Test version available to OESC/ODOC by May 1, 2012
        c. INITIAL TEST: Small pilot group (5-10 companies/
    employers+OESC+ODOC) performs initial testing for 7-10 days
        d. RE-DEVELOPMENT: Vendor makes changes pursuant to test (2-5 days)
        e. BETA-TEST: Small pilot group (same as above) retests the system
    for 7-10 days
        f. FINAL DEVELOPMENT: Vendor makes changes pursuant to beta-test
        g. MODULE DEPLOYMENT: Mid-Late May 2012; Focus will be on self-
    service employers; Employers can tap OK talent pool; Added ability to
    search for those with military experience
    Contingency:
        h. Legislation signed that allows OESC Data to be shared with a
    private entity.
        i. Talent pool (job seeker resumes) is closer to a critical mass
    recommended at 30,000 (this will occur when current Job Link resumes
    are quality checked and included in OKJobMatch.com system.)
        j. As needed, a ``stand alone'' version of the employer portal may
    be implemented for the Veterans connection project. (Assisting
    returning veterans and connecting them to jobs.)
        2. Establish a state workforce portal. This portal will ultimately
    provide on-line one-stop information and access to workforce programs
    and services across agencies and program lines. This will incorporate
    the current OKCareerPlanner.com site. It will also include the menu of
    Workforce employer services requested by employers in the employer
    focus group/survey report ``Building Blocks for an Employer-Responsive
    Workforce System''.
    Current Status
        a. OKWorks.org ( www.okworks.org). Has been established as the
    state workforce portal. While it is now live--it is just the beginning
    and will be continuously improved. It will take users to OKJobMatch.com
    for job search help.
        b. OKMilitaryConnection.com (www.okmilitaryconnection.com) has been
    established to provide military specific information and services to
    our returning military personnel. OKMilitaryConnection.com will take
    people to OKJobMatch.com for job matching.
        3. Develop plan and cost estimates for an enterprise system.* This
    would include connecting to the P-20 data system. (This is probably a 2
    year+ process. The expectation for 2012 is to develop the plan,
    including cost estimates and develop the needed agency agreements.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        * Enterprise system = an on-line integrated program information
    system. It would connect workforce data with education data for better
    decision making, provide a common data pool and more efficiently
    deliver on-line services via use of KIOSK. It would provide clients a
    tool to help them determine what programs/services they might be
    eligible for and how and where to apply.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Current Status
        a. A $6 million DOL grant proposal for a longitudinal data system
    has been submitted that would include most of these efforts. Also, a $1
    million DOL grant proposal for a Workforce Innovation fund grant has
    also been submitted. It would help support some of this effort as well.
    Career Pathways Committee:
        1. A statewide framework for career pathways is adopted.
        2. Career pathways are formally integrated into the K-20 education
    system.
        3. Effective career pathways practices are part of every student's
    education, beginning with career awareness and career exploration in K-
    8. Before a student enters the 9th grade, all students and their
    parents/guardians in every school receive career counseling assistance
    that leads to a meaningful individual career and education plan,
    including requirements needed for post-secondary education.
        4. Trained career navigators are available in every partner agency
    to help clients, dislocated workers, and other adults seeking workforce
    assistance make training and education decisions based on a career
    pathway model.
        5. An effective messaging plan is in place to help create awareness
    and buy-in.
        6. All regions are working on at least one career pathway,
        7. In workforce-related state agencies, including all levels of
    education, policies that support the integration of career pathways are
    in place and are reviewed on a regular basis.
        8. Provide technical assistance and support to regions in their
    career pathways efforts (i.e., tool kits, process guides, best
    practices, etc.)
        9. The National Association of Manufacturing (NAM) Skills
    Certification System is the basis for all manufacturing career pathway
    initiatives, including the National Career Readiness Certificate
    (NCRC).
        10. Pilot the manufacturing pathways initiative in one or more
    regions.
    Communications Committee:
        1. Develop and distribute talking points through the State Chamber
    to encourage employers to contact legislators regarding funding for
    Career Readiness Certificates (WorkKeys) and KeyTrain.
    Key Messages to Stress:
        a. CRC is about job creation;
        b. CRC demonstrates ROI for employers in terms of retention,
    reduced training/re-training, and finding, hiring, and promoting
    qualified employees;
        c. Job seekers receive a credential now endorsed nationally by the
    National Association of Manufacturers, National Institute of
    Metalworking Skills, the Manufacturing Institute, and by local
    employers and education/training providers; the CRC is a foundational
    credential for manufacturing and aerospace programs and required for
    employment in these sectors.
        d. CRC is being used as an alternative to End of Instruction tests;
    Shawnee example (small school district) 15 students, who would have
    failed to receive a high school degree, have a diploma and a CRC
    because of the use of KeyTrain and WorkKeys at their school.
        2. Talking points will be used as a blog entry discussing the
    importance of the CRC for SHRM (Society for Human Resources
    Management).
        3. Prepare an information packet for the SHRM-sponsored Ready to
    Work Conference, stressing how the CRC can help employers improve
    retention and find qualified employees.
        4. Update the Communications Plan with a new focus on use of social
    media, blogs and other current communications strategies.
        5. The updated plan will be a living document that will guide the
    communications activities, products and deliverables.
    Workforce Systems Oversight Committee:
        1. Re-certify Workforce Investment Boards based on revised policy
        2. Initiate a one-stop evaluation process including survey and on-
    site visits to help inform certification, continuous improvement and
    one-stop certification processes.
        3. Initiate a one-stop certification process. One-stop
    certification intended to be a joint effort of all partners, to provide
    one-stop standards for consistency, and to help provide stakeholder
    buy-in, and create service delivery efficiency.
        4. Identify and conduct service delivery efficiency pilot
    projects--to see what works.
        5. Continue to research and identify operational and organizational
    strategies that will help make Workforce Boards stronger and service
    delivery better (in conjunction with Data/Portal committee work).
        6. Revise the State Plan that is due this year to the Department of
    Labor using the Council's plan of work as a guide.
        7. Work with regional areas to develop regional planning
    documents--in conjunction with regional partners.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        Ms. Moran, you are recognized.

      STATEMENT OF LAURIE MORAN, PRESIDENT, DANVILLE PITTSYLVANIA
                       COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

        Ms. Moran. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and
    members of the committee, I am Laurie Moran. I am president of
    the Danville Pittsylvania County Chamber of Commerce, which is
    located in Virginia on the North Carolina border, and I am the
    chair of the National Association of Workforce Boards.
        I want to applaud members of the committee from both sides
    of the aisle for introducing Workforce Investment Act, WIA,
    reauthorization bills this year. I would like to strongly
    encourage WIA reauthorization to become a bipartisan process
    moving forward as supplying the needs of short-term and long-
    term unemployment and employment of our nation should be the
    shared goal of all of us in business, workforce, and for
    members of Congress.
        It has been 15 years since WIA was enacted. The original
    legislation was designed in a very different time, when our
    nation had low unemployment and employers were starving for
    workers at all levels in our workforce. Our nation's core
    workforce legislation needs to be upgraded to ensure that
    employers have the opportunity to find and hire skilled workers
    and that job seekers have a chance to regain employment in a
    difficult market.
        As chamber president I represent a predominantly rural
    region whose economy was built on tobacco and textiles, which
    created significant challenges when both sectors simultaneously
    fell into decline. Our chamber has been actively engaged in
    workforce development for the past decade, working closely with
    our workforce investment board to develop strategies--
    strategies that are employer-driven with training dollars
    allocated for in-demand occupations.
        For the past 2 years our chamber has subcontracted with our
    one-stop operator to provide business services by connecting
    employers to employees, saving our employers time and reducing
    their cost. Our partnership is making a difference in our
    community.
        I am also chair of the National Association of Workforce
    Boards, NAWB, which is comprised of business-led workforce
    investment boards from around the nation. During my tenure as
    board chair of NAWB we have actively reached out to over 100
    local chambers of commerce from across the country,
    representing over 70,000 employers who employ nearly 5 million
    workers. These chambers have indicated that workforce
    development is a top concern for their businesses.
        Today the workforce system faces competing challenges.
    Employers are desperately seeking to fill 3.5 million skilled
    jobs that are currently vacant while millions of Americans are
    unemployed or underemployed due to the recession's lingering
    effects and due to job seekers lacking employable skills. We
    believe that a reauthorized WIA bill this year will help both
    job seekers and employers.
        The committee has a copy of NAWB's priorities for WIA
    reauthorization, so today I want to highlight a few of the
    guiding principles which we hope will be included in any
    legislation that is enacted.
        First, we believe that the workforce development system
    should continue to be governed by effective, business-led
    workforce investment boards that make data-driven decisions.
    Business-led boards are in the best position to understand the
    dynamics of local economies and labor markets.
        Second, we believe that local boards should determine how
    much of their WIA funding is devoted to training based on their
    local labor market needs. The focus should be on outcomes
    rather than on a mandated method to achieve our outcomes. Local
    boards are best positioned to help get people back to work and
    allocate resources based on those local needs.
        We also believe that additional funds leveraged for
    training from other resources, such as Pell Grants,
    philanthropy, or private sector investments, should be
    reflected in WIA reporting to provide a fuller sense of the
    amount of training being provided through the workforce system.
        Finally, whether it is the efforts to return the long-term
    unemployed back to work or training that leads to the startup
    of businesses, the successes that we celebrate across this
    great nation are all important and many are specific to their
    local communities. Previous WIA legislation was crafted to
    maintain the delicate balance between States and local areas.
    As the committee moves forward we believe that it is imperative
    that there be a collaborative process between the States and
    local areas for both automatic designation of WIBs and single
    State designation.
        On behalf of NAWB and on behalf of the Danville
    Pittsylvania County Chamber of Commerce, we look forward to
    working with all members of the committee to support a bill
    that incorporates these core principles. For 40 years programs
    and funding for workforce initiatives and skills development
    have received bipartisan support. The future of our workforce
    is not a political party's issue; it is America's issue.
        Thank you for allowing me to have the time to speak today.
        [The statement of Ms. Moran follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Laurie S. Moran, President, Danville Pittsylvania
     Chamber of Commerce; Chair, National Association of Workforce Boards
                                     (NAWB)

        Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and the Members of the
    Committee. I am Laurie Moran, and I am here representing two
    organizations. I am President of the Danville Pittsylvania County
    Chamber of Commerce, which is located in Virginia on the North Carolina
    border, and I am also the Chair of the National Association of
    Workforce Boards.
    Danville Pittsylvania County Chamber of Commerce
        The Danville Pittsylvania County Chamber of Commerce is a local
    chamber of commerce with approximately 700 business members. 85% of our
    members are small businesses with 50 or fewer employees. Our chamber is
    located in a predominantly rural region that spans more than 1,000
    square miles with a population of 106,561. The economy was built on
    tobacco and textiles, which created significant challenges when both
    sectors simultaneously fell into decline. From 2001 through 2011, our
    region's unemployment was one to two percentage points higher than the
    national average and four to five percentage points higher than the
    average for the Commonwealth of Virginia. In the past 12 months, our
    region's unemployment has been consistent with the national average;
    however, we are still averaging an unemployment rate that is two to
    three percentage points higher than the state's.
        With a labor force of 51,000, we have approximately 6,000
    unemployed and 5,700 underemployed. 25% of the adult population does
    not have a high school diploma or GED. Only 14% has a bachelor's degree
    or higher.
        In 2001, our chamber of commerce was formed from the merger of two
    chambers. At that time, the chamber's board of directors identified
    workforce development as the top priority for our region. Through the
    focus of our board and through our involvement in our local workforce
    investment board, our chamber has been actively engaged in workforce
    development for the past 11 years. Our chamber advocated for
    improvements to our local workforce system at a time when our region's
    system was ineffective. Today our workforce investment board is
    employer-driven with training dollars allocated for in-demand
    occupations in our region. Decisions are based on labor market data. We
    have two comprehensive one stop centers in our workforce region, which
    house the WIA programs, the employment commission, vocational
    rehabilitation, and representatives from adult education and the
    community college system.
        For the past two years, our chamber has subcontracted with our one
    stop operator to provide business outreach for Danville and
    Pittsylvania County. Our chamber has a full-time staff member who is
    dedicated to connecting employers to employees, saving our employers
    time and reducing their costs. We have assisted employers with
    recruitment through job fairs, job registration, and pre-employment
    screening. We have placed WIA clients with private sector employers
    through job placement, work experiences, and on-the-job training
    opportunities. We have worked with employers who required customized
    and incumbent worker training. We have conducted wage and benefit
    surveys. We also have a proactive layoff aversion strategy to assist
    employers. In the past two years, we have met with over 200 employers
    and regularly share feedback to assist the workforce investment board
    in shaping policy and strategies that meet the needs of our employers.
    National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB)
        The National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB) represents
    business-led Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) that coordinate and
    leverage workforce strategies with education and economic development
    stakeholders within their local communities to ensure that state and
    local workforce development and job training programs meet the needs of
    employers.
        NAWB connects workforce development professionals, workforce
    investment board members, and policymakers with the knowledge,
    training, and tools to help make informed, smart decisions about how to
    invest in workforce strategies that advance the economic health of
    their communities through a skilled, competitive workforce. These
    investments in workforce development create a comprehensive system to
    provide America with a highly skilled workforce that competes in the
    global economy.
        Nationally, there are over 550 local WIBs, with each state also
    having a state workforce investment board. These boards are required to
    be both business majority and have a business chair. Over 12,000
    employers volunteer their time to serve on local and state WIBs.
        Our surveys tell us that the vast majority of local WIB members are
    small employers with less than 250 employees that reflect the local/
    regional labor markets the WIBs oversee. While these volunteer business
    leaders represent all sectors of the economy, they have one common
    bond--putting Americans back to work and helping employers compete. As
    WIB members they direct the gathering and analysis of labor market
    needs and trends; communicate these findings to policy makers,
    employers, training providers, and job seekers; plan the investment
    strategies for federal and state dollars; and track outcomes to prepare
    their workforce for the skills needed in their local and regional
    economies.
    Bridging the work of workforce boards and chambers of commerce
        I was appointed to my local workforce investment board 11 years ago
    where I have served as chair and continue to serve on the executive
    committee. I do not believe that I am an anomaly in my profession. I
    believe that if you look at workforce boards across our country, you
    will find many local chambers of commerce represented on their boards
    and engaged in meaningful collaboration in the area of workforce
    development.
        During my tenure as board chair of NAWB, we have actively reached
    out to local chambers of commerce to ensure that the voice of the
    business community is heard by the workforce system. Our outreach
    efforts have included over 100 local chambers from across the country,
    representing over 70,000 employers who employ nearly five million
    workers. These chambers have indicated to us that workforce development
    is a top concern of their business members.
        It is because of the strong partnership that my chamber of commerce
    shares with our local workforce investment board that I became chair of
    the National Association of Workforce Boards.
    The need for reauthorization
        On behalf of both organizations I represent today, I want to
    applaud Members of the Committee from both sides of the aisle for
    introducing Workforce Investment Act (WIA) reauthorization bills this
    year. I have been asked to comment today on H.R. 4297, but strongly
    urge that WIA reauthorization is a bipartisan process moving forward as
    supplying the needs of short-term and long-term employment of our
    nation is the goal of all members of Congress.
        We encourage the Committee to move forward in partnership in this
    effort. It has been fifteen years since WIA was enacted. The original
    legislation was designed in a very different economy and time when our
    nation had low unemployment and employers were starving for workers at
    all levels in our workforce.
        Workforce legislation needs to be upgraded and the bill that is the
    subject of today's hearing makes major strides to ensure that employers
    have the opportunity to hire skilled workers and that jobseekers have a
    chance to regain employment in a difficult job market.
    The dual challenges facing our workforce system today
        Today the workforce system faces competing challenges. Employers
    are desperately seeking to fill 3.5 million skilled jobs that are
    currently vacant, while millions of Americans are unemployed or
    underemployed due to the recession's lingering effects and due to job
    seekers lacking employable skills.
        Workforce boards from around the nation have been on the front
    lines of this effort to help both employers and job seekers. The most
    recent annual data from the Department of Labor (DOL) indicates that
    nearly 8.7 million job seekers nationally have utilized WIA services--
    an amazing 252% increase over the past three years despite dwindling
    federal investments to pay for these services. Along with the increase
    in utilization of WIA services, the success of WIA programs is measured
    through results. Over 55% of WIA program participants--over 4.7 million
    individuals--were placed in jobs this past program year despite the
    fact there are over four job seekers for every available job.
        Most importantly, employers find value in the services from WIA as
    DOL's annual data indicates that nearly eight out of ten employers are
    satisfied with the services they have received from the workforce
    system.
        The workforce system, however, is far from perfect. Clearly, we
    would like to have more resources available so that more job seekers
    could benefit from training services. In addition to direct tuition
    dollars, WIBs provide support services such as transportation vouchers,
    books, supplies, testing fees, placement, counseling, and services for
    health, housing, and childcare to ensure the individual not only
    completes training but enters and retains employment. Additionally,
    WIBs monitor their clients up to one year after job placement.
        We believe that a reauthorized WIA bill this year will help both
    job seekers and employers. The Committee has a copy of NAWB's
    priorities for WIA reauthorization, so today I want to highlight a few
    of the guiding principles which we hope will be included in the any
    legislation that is enacted:
    Business-led workforce investment boards
        We believe that the workforce development system should be governed
    by effective business-led workforce investment boards that make data-
    driven decisions. Business-led boards are in the best position to
    understand the dynamics of local economies and labor markets. They
    possess the innate ability to determine where investment of monies
    committed to workforce development will support and contribute to the
    success of dynamic regional labor markets.
        We believe that business-led boards with input from across a
    community's efforts in transportation, housing, education, and from its
    citizens are in the best position to ascertain and align investment
    decisions and hold providers accountable for outcomes.
        We also support a reduction in the size of the workforce investment
    boards, which we believe will help to attract higher caliber private
    sector board members. For boards to have the greatest productivity and
    creativity with participation by all members, boards must be manageable
    in size. We appreciate H.R. 4297 strengthening the business engagement
    in state and local workforce decisions.
        While there are many boards across the country that are doing great
    work despite their cumbersome size, it takes tremendous effort, focus,
    and vision for these boards to change a culture of agency-driven to
    employer-driven.
    Flexibility over use of funding at the local level
        The needs of locales and regions across the U.S. vary
    significantly. While the economy has improved in some areas, there are
    many areas where unemployment is still stubbornly high. One size does
    not fit all. Job seekers who lost jobs during the 'dot-com' crash did
    not have the same workforce needs as job seekers who lost jobs when
    textiles moved offshore.
        Because of the role of local workforce investment boards, the local
    boards are best positioned to make informed decisions about the
    allocation of funds at the local level. We are in agreement with the
    provisions in H.R. 4297 that allow local boards to determine how much
    of their WIA funding is devoted to training based on their labor market
    needs. The focus should be on outcomes rather than on a mandated
    percentage of training. If the goal is to get people back to work, then
    the local boards should know if their labor pool requires minimal
    support through core and intensive (non-training) services, which
    include advanced assessment, basic skills remediation, and work
    readiness or whether they need enhanced skills and training to help job
    seekers enter/retool to reenter the workforce.
        We also believe this will encourage the continuation and expansion
    of funds leveraged from other sources, including federal resources such
    as Pell grants, TANF employment and training, or non-federal resources
    such as philanthropy or private sector investments. We would encourage
    WIA reporting to reflect non-WIA funds that local WIBs leverage or
    receive and the workforce training and/or services that are delivered
    as a result of non-WIA funds. In a time of limited resources, we
    believe that there should be a process to reward those boards that are
    collaborative and innovative in working beyond WIA funding to leverage
    additional resources for job training and/or placement.
        There are numerous examples of WIBs leveraging private and
    foundation funding to increase their ability to serve employers and job
    seekers.
        The WorkPlace, a WIB in southwest Connecticut, was featured on 60
    Minutes in February for an innovative initiative that addressed
    individuals with 99 weeks of unemployment. The Workplace raised over
    $500,000 from private investors to implement Platform to Employment
    (P2E), an eight-week work experience program. After five weeks of
    classroom training that includes a self-assessment, change management,
    effective communication, and successful job search strategies,
    individuals are placed on The WorkPlace's payroll, eliminating the
    expenses and risks businesses associate with hiring a new employee and
    allowing businesses to evaluate and consider job candidates. Within
    weeks after completion of the program, over 70% of P2E participants
    were placed in employment. This is significant when you consider that
    individuals with 99 weeks of unemployment have less than a 10% chance
    of finding employment within a month.
        In our region over the past three years we have secured over $2
    million in non-WIA funds to support workforce development initiatives.
    Our WIB is working collaboratively to leverage funding and/or training
    through local foundations, our community colleges, the Virginia Tobacco
    Commission, and our employers. Funds have been targeted for sector
    strategies in healthcare, advanced manufacturing, energy, and
    information technology. Initial training efforts have focused on energy
    auditors and manufacturing technicians. In addition to providing
    industry-recognized credentials to participants that assisted in job
    placement and advancement, we've also had three businesses start up as
    a direct result of the training.
    The importance of local decision-making
        Whether it's the efforts to return the long-term unemployed back to
    work or training that leads to the start-up of businesses, the
    successes that we celebrate across this great nation are all important,
    and many are specific to their local communities. Employer-led boards
    that have local decision-making authority and funding flexibility to
    invest resources in the most relevant areas will be those boards that
    represent regions that thrive. Previous WIA legislation was crafted to
    maintain the delicate balance between states and local areas. As the
    Committee moves forward, we believe that it is imperative that there be
    a collaborative process between the states and local areas for both
    automatic designation of WIB's and single state designation.
        I don't have to look at other states to see the diversity of
    challenges and opportunities that face our workforce system. I can
    simply look at my own state, the Commonwealth of Virginia. While
    Northern Virginia struggles with gridlock, my neighbors complain when
    the one stoplight in our town is red. But for job seekers in my town
    who are unemployed and have no car, the lack of gridlock also signals
    the lack of public transit to get to a job interview or to get to work.
    When Northern Virginia deals with its unemployed, statistically their
    job seeker is college-educated as 55% of the population has a college
    degree. When my region discusses the education levels of our
    unemployed, more than 50% of our job seekers have a high school
    education or less. I'm not sharing our differences to insinuate that
    one situation is better than the other. We're simply different which is
    why workforce decisions need to be made at the local level to address
    the needs of employers and job seekers who are local.
        Our regions require innovative solutions that utilize the insight
    and investment acumen of business leaders in collaboration with elected
    officials, economic development professionals, educators, and other
    workforce partners.
        This past weekend, Danville hosted 700 MBA students who were
    competing in the Duke MBA World Rugby Tournament. 30 teams representing
    six nations were in Danville for three days. To many people, it was a
    sporting event. For our local workforce investment board, the chamber
    of commerce, economic development office, a foundation, employers, and
    other workforce partners, it was a recruitment event. We set up an
    information booth, utilized young professionals who work in our region
    to help us market our region, and gathered information to determine
    which students might have an interest in returning to Danville for an
    internship, a job, or a site location for their future business. Where
    else would this type of innovative thinking occur but around a local
    table with business and economic development leaders discussing talent
    recruitment?
    Thank you
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee. I've
    told just a little of the story. There are hundreds of stories about
    local solutions at www.WorkforceInvestmentWorks.com.
        On behalf of NAWB and on behalf of the Danville Pittsylvania County
    Chamber of Commerce, we look forward to working with all of the Members
    of the Committee to support a bill that incorporates these core
    principles. For 40 years, programs and funding for workforce
    initiatives and skills development have received bi-partisan support.
    The future of our workforce is not a political party's issue. It's
    America's issue. We strongly encourage bi-partisan support for WIA
    reauthorization.
        Thank you again for allowing me this time today.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        Mr. Van Kleunen?

      STATEMENT OF ANDY VAN KLEUNEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
                            SKILLS COALITION

        Mr. Van Kleunen. Thank you. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member
    Miller, members of the committee, National Skills Coalition is
    a national network of business leaders, union affiliates,
    community colleges, community-based organizations, and public
    workforce agencies who want to see every worker and every
    industry in this country gain the skills they need to compete
    and prosper. On behalf of those members, I want to thank you
    for inviting me to testify today and for your efforts to
    strengthen and modernize the Workforce Investment Act for the
    21st century.
        We are encouraged that this issue has prompted introduction
    in this committee of two comprehensive reform bills. While
    these bills share some common goals they adopt significantly
    different approaches in the pursuit of reform. We would welcome
    the opportunity to discuss some of the key differences between
    the two bills as well as places where we think they potentially
    align; however, for the purposes of my testimony today I am
    going to focus on H.R. 4297, Chairwoman Foxx and Representative
    McKeon's and Heck's bill, to identify some areas where our
    members have concerns or recommendations for improvement.
        First, in the name of alignment and improving efficiency,
    necessary goals for a future workforce system, H.R. 4297 adopts
    the blunt instrument of program consolidation, eliminating at
    least 27 federal programs that collectively provide a variety
    of services to support the training and employment of many
    different types of workers. Consolidation, in and of itself,
    will unfortunately not produce reform. We need a more targeted
    approach that fixes what is not working and invests in what is.
        Pulling together a list of funding streams will, in and of
    itself, not guarantee that workers or businesses are going to
    be better served, particularly if the consolidated investments
    are not guided by the effective practices developed by the
    workforce field over the past 15 years. Unfortunately, the
    consolidated fund would do little to require states that have
    not been innovators in the past to adopt the effective
    practices of their peers, and it may even create perverse
    incentives for past high-performing states to abandon the
    effective models that they have already developed.
        Second, the bill emphasizes the need for workforce programs
    to be more closely aligned with employer needs, another goal
    with which we strongly agree. However, we feel the mechanism
    proposed--increasing the percentage of employers sitting on
    workforce investment boards while decreasing representation
    from other key community, education, and labor stakeholders--
    will actually do little to increase employer involvement or
    market responsiveness.
        Increasing from 13 to 17 the number of employers on a 25-
    person WIB will not dramatically increase the number of
    employers throughout a region collaborating to define common
    industry-recognized credentials or vetting shared training and
    employment strategies to fill open positions in their
    companies. Such have been the accomplishments of States and
    regions that have adopted a sector partnership strategy, in
    which such partnerships are a planning priority, in which there
    is a participation by a wide enough range of firms and other
    stakeholders to make them legitimate, and in which there is
    funded capacity to sustain them so they can rapidly respond to
    changing industry needs over time.
        While we do appreciate the Republican bill acknowledges the
    value of sector partnerships, it does not prioritize this
    approach. By contrast, the Tierney-Miller-Hinojosa bill
    incorporates several of the above standards to promote sector
    partnerships, as does Congressman Loebsack's and Congressman
    Platts' SECTORS Act, which passed the House under the last
    Congress.
        Third, the bill seems to ignore the diversity of Americans
    who are part of our rapidly changing workforce. With mounting
    skill demands and the pending retirement of millions of skilled
    baby boomers, our economic future depends on our moving every
    available U.S. worker toward skilled employment.
        Young people struggling with particularly high
    unemployment, laid off workers with 30 years experience,
    mothers who stay and home with their children but now must find
    employment, any of the over 80 million hardworking Americans,
    about half of our workforce who lack the basic reading, math,
    or English language skills to enroll in a technical training
    course in order to keep up with a changing economy. There is no
    one workforce development strategy or funding stream that can
    meet the need of all of these workers or guarantee the full
    menu of services that each might need in different combinations
    and settings at different points in their lives.
        Not only does the bill eliminate the various programs that
    have served these different types of workers, it sets a very
    low 2 percent spending requirement for assistance to the hard-
    to-serve. It removes the provision of support services, like
    child care or transportation, to help people stay in school or
    on the job, and it sets an 18 percent cap on services to low-
    income youth and would not hold states accountable if they
    spent significantly less.
        In all, while some States would continue to assist the
    hard-to-serve under this bill, we fear many states might not.
        Finally, regarding national investment in skills, we want
    to thank Chairwoman Foxx for her commitment to not use this
    bill to reduce overall funding to workforce programs, the
    amount for the consolidated Workforce Investment Fund being
    close to the sum of current appropriations for consolidated
    programs. However, we do have great concerns about how this
    proposal might be used by others in Congress to implement
    deeper, devastating cuts.
        Chairman Ryan's budget blueprint cited an earlier version
    of this bill as rationale for dramatic disinvestment across
    adult education, job training, career and technical education,
    and higher education programs. The House's recently passed
    budget resolution cuts over $16 billion from education,
    workforce, and social service programs under Budget Function
    500 and we fear the passage of H.R. 4297, regardless of the
    intentions of its authors, could be used to target much of that
    impact on the skills of the American people and U.S.
    industries.
        We look forward to working with the committee in pursuit of
    the goals to get all of our workers into skilled jobs and to
    help meet the skill gaps that currently face our U.S.
    industries.
        [The statement of Mr. Van Kleunen follows:]

          Prepared Statement of Andy Van Kleunen, Executive Director,
                           National Skills Coalition

        Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, Chairwoman Foxx, and Ranking
    Member Hinojosa: National Skills Coalition is a national network of
    business leaders, union affiliates, community colleges, community-based
    organizations, and public workforce agencies working together to help
    every worker and every industry in this country gain the skills they
    need to compete and prosper in today's economy.
        On behalf of our members, I want to thank you for inviting me to
    testify before the committee today, and for your efforts to strengthen
    and modernize the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) for the 21st century.
    With nearly two-thirds of all jobs created between 2008-2018 expected
    to require at least some form of postsecondary education or training--
    including millions of well-paying ``middle-skill'' jobs that the
    workforce system is particularly well-suited to help fill--we must
    ensure that all U.S. workers have access to education and training
    leading to skills and industry-recognized credentials that will allow
    them to get and keep family-supporting jobs. And, with U.S. employers
    struggling to fill even current job openings because of a lack of
    qualified candidates, it is clear that we must act sooner rather than
    later to ensure that we have a workforce system that can respond
    quickly and effectively to the demands of today's labor market.
        It is a testament to the importance of this issue that we have two
    alternatives before this committee to consider for purposes of WIA
    reauthorization. The Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012 (HR
    4297), introduced by Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce
    Training Chairwoman Foxx and Representatives McKeon and Heck, and the
    Workforce Investment Act of 2012 (HR 4227), introduced by
    Representative Tierney, Ranking Member Miller, and Subcommittee on
    Higher Education and Workforce Training Ranking Member Hinojosa. Both
    offer visions for the nation's workforce system that share some key
    commonalities, but also underscore some stark differences.
    Core Goals for Reform
        National Skills Coalition believes that any federal workforce
    policy reforms, such as those being considered by the committee, should
    be driven by three core goals:
        1. Enhancing the effectiveness of our nation's workforce system in
    meeting the skill needs of all U.S. workers and businesses, through
    expanded access to training and greater industry involvement in
    determining what that training should entail;
        2. Strengthening accountability across all of our workforce and
    education programs, so that states and localities are aligning limited
    federal resources with labor market demand, while also ensuring that
    the needs of all individuals, including those who are harder-to-serve,
    are met; and
        3. Promoting innovation by building on the lessons learned and best
    practices developed over the past 15 years by the workforce field, so
    that high-performing states, localities and practitioners can bring
    those innovations to scale, and so that others are encouraged to adopt
    these effective practices to better meet the needs of local workers and
    industries.
        We are encouraged to see that similar goals inform both the
    legislation that is the focus of today's hearing, as well as the bill
    introduced last month by the committee Democrats. However, National
    Skills Coalition has significant concerns that some of the policy
    changes proposed under HR 4297 may not actually achieve these goals.
    Impacts of Proposed Consolidation
        In the name of alignment and reducing inefficiency--necessary goals
    for our future workforce system--HR 4297 adopts the blunt instrument of
    program consolidation, eliminating 27 federal programs that
    collectively provide a variety of services to support the training and
    employment of many different types of workers, as well as key functions
    like our 50-state Wagner-Peyser system that connects the unemployed to
    unemployment insurance and re-employment services. But after
    eliminating these programs, the resulting consolidated Workforce
    Investment Fund block-grant does not actually require states or
    localities to adopt proven practices like the reforms the authors
    encourage elsewhere in their bill.
        Consolidation, in and of itself, is not reform. Simply combining 27
    funding streams into one will not automatically result in a more
    effective, efficient system if nothing changes in how those funds are
    being used at the state and local level. Congress should make specific,
    targeted investments in key strategies that we know work, and require
    all states--not just the high-performing innovators--to implement those
    strategies as is appropriate for their local and regional labor market
    needs. This will better drive system-wide change. Even among the states
    that have been first adopters of these practices over the past decade,
    we fear that consolidation may create unintended incentives that will
    shift them from the very models they have developed to bring a wide
    range of people into the skilled labor market.
        Furthermore, it not clear that the programs that are consolidated
    under HR 4297 will actually result in the kind of system alignment that
    will facilitate seamless transitions across programs and institutions.
    National Skills Coalition believes that, rather than simply
    consolidating a list of programs culled from a Government
    Accountability Office report, a better approach would be to promote and
    support career pathways models that align adult education, job
    training, postsecondary education, and supportive services at the
    system level to provide well-defined employment and training pathways
    for individuals, with multiple exit and entry points for workers at
    various skill levels and stages in their careers. These career pathways
    strategies have demonstrated strong results in helping workers--
    particularly low-skilled individuals and other vulnerable populations--
    persist and succeed in education and training, and have enhanced
    employer engagement in the design and implementation of programs that
    help prepare new workers for entry-level positions, while helping
    incumbent workers move up the career ladder. Numerous states, regions,
    and local communities have already begun this work, and federal policy
    should support the progress that has already been made in the field.
        But our greatest concern, beyond not providing clear direction or
    standards on how federal funds should be used, is the impact that
    consolidation will have on the populations who may no longer be served
    once these programs are eliminated.
    Programs and Services for a Diverse Workforce
        HR 4297 seems to ignore the diversity of individuals who are in, or
    aspire to be part of, our rapidly changing U.S. workforce. With
    mounting skill demands and the pending retirement of millions of
    skilled baby boomers, we need to ensure that every U.S. worker--even
    those with the greatest skill needs--can qualify for skilled employment
    in U.S. industries. That means we need a diversity of programs and
    pathways to match the wide range of people who need to be part of that
    solution: young people struggling to find jobs out of high school; mid-
    career dislocated workers who have been employed for 20 years but who
    now must re-train for a new occupation or even to remain in their own
    industry; and older workers who are postponing retirement and need some
    skills and support to continue earning a living. We have nearly 90
    million workers who need some upgrading of their reading, math and/or
    English language skills--in addition to whatever new technical skills
    they will need--if they're going to fill or re-train for open skilled
    positions.
        There is no one workforce development strategy or funding stream
    that can meet the needs of all of these workers, or guarantee access to
    the range of services that each of them will need in different
    combination in order to succeed. Many of them will require not just
    technical training, but also possibly income support if they're not
    working, or childcare or transportation services to help them stay in
    school or on the job after placement, or basic skills and /or English
    language instruction, or any of a number of other types of assistance.
    HR 4297 eliminates programs that have guaranteed that a full diversity
    of workers--including those with the highest skill needs--have access
    to these federally funded employment and training services. In
    addition, vulnerable populations like disconnected youth, Native
    Americans, migrant and seasonal farmworkers, and other hard-to-serve
    populations would almost certainly lose access to vital services under
    HR 4297.
        In the place of these eliminated programs, HR 4297 requires states
    set aside a very low 2% of their funding allocation for services for
    individuals with barriers to employment--a substantial drop from the
    already inadequate resources devoted to those job-seekers. It removes
    the provision of support services. It eliminates the current priority
    of services for low-income individuals. It sets an 18% cap on services
    to low-income youth, and would not hold states accountable if they
    spent significantly less than that. And, beyond what provisions and
    programs it eliminates through its consolidation proposal, it opens the
    door for states to use super-waivers to roll other federal programs
    that serve our most vulnerable into the same undifferentiated pot--
    including TANF, TAA, Vocational Rehabilitation services for those
    living with disabilities, and the Community Services Block Grant.
        As such, it seems almost certain that the consolidation of programs
    proposed under HR 4297--particularly when coupled with the numerous
    policy changes in the bill that reduce protections for low-skilled,
    low-income, and other targeted populations--will reduce access to
    education and training services for our nation's most vulnerable
    workers.
    Employer Engagement and Sector Partnerships
        HR 4297 emphasizes the need for federal workforce programs to be
    more closely aligned with the changing needs of industry--another goal
    with which we strongly agree. However, the mechanism proposed by HR
    4297 to achieve greater employment engagement--that is, increasing the
    percentage of employers sitting on Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs)
    while decreasing representation from other stakeholders--will likely do
    little to actually increase the number of local employers involved in
    the local definition of industry-recognized credentials, or in the
    vetting of the design of related training and employment strategies. At
    the same time, by decreasing the role of other community stakeholders'
    participation on the WIBs--including community-based organizations,
    service delivery providers, labor representatives and youth advocates--
    HR 4297 actually threatens to limit the necessary input of a range of
    perspectives in the planning out of workforce services that will meet
    the needs of both employers and workers within local communities.
        Under current law, there are WIBs with 51% employer membership who
    are actively collaborating with multiple firms and other stakeholders
    in industry-specific sector partnerships--partnerships that are held up
    as models of employer engagement for the rest of the country--and there
    are WIBs with the same 51% employer stake who are not. The number of
    employers on these WIBs is not the determinant factor. Rather, it is
    how many employers are meaningfully engaged through industry-specific
    planning and deployment efforts. Also key is whether the development of
    such sector partnerships is a state or local planning priority, whether
    there is participation by a wide enough range of firms and other
    stakeholders to make them legitimate, if there is funded capacity to
    help maintain these partnerships to respond to changing industry needs,
    and if there are rewards for those systems that use them effectively to
    increase employer engagement.
    Accountability and Performance Measures
        National Skills Coalition appreciates and supports the increased
    attention to accountability and performance measures under HR 4297. The
    bill makes a number of important improvements to the current
    performance and accountability system, including the implementation of
    common performance measures across WIA core programs. The inclusion of
    a new credential measure, and a measure of progress toward a credential
    that potentially encourages longer-term training critical for low-
    skilled workers, are important improvements of current law, as is the
    required state adjusted level of performance for each of the core
    indicators.
        However, even with these changes, there are concerns that HR 4297
    will still lead to the kinds of ``creaming'' that sometimes occurs
    under the current performance measures. For example, HR 4297 uses a
    measure of median wages rather than wage gains. The use of median wages
    tends to push toward focusing on individuals with higher earning
    potential--and thus higher median wages--while a measure of wage gains
    potentially rewards programs that serve low-income individuals who have
    the greatest opportunity to increase their earnings. Under HR 4297,
    states could potentially meet performance requirements without ever
    addressing the needs of those with the greatest barriers to employment.
    We know from experience that so long as performance measures do not
    reward states that make the commitment to serve low-income, low-
    skilled, or otherwise vulnerable populations, these populations will
    often not have access to the education and training they need to obtain
    skilled employment.
        Furthermore, even under current law, data collection and program
    oversight are already difficult. The diversity of local policies for
    registering participants and tracking program outcomes has complicated
    federal oversight because it is difficult to obtain nationally
    comparable data. Under HR 4297, it is likely that the consolidated
    block-grant funding structure will further exacerbate this issue. As a
    rule, we know less about how block-grants funds are spent than other
    types of funds. Our ability to evaluate access to employment and
    training services by population, type of jobseeker, income level, or
    skill level will almost certainly be less under a consolidated block
    grant than under current law.
    Putting Investments in Skills at Risk
        Finally, the level of investment in a skilled workforce provided
    under HR 4297 must be considered in the context of the current fiscal
    debate. We want to thank subcommittee Chairwoman Foxx for her
    commitment to maintaining current funding levels for what are already
    significantly under-invested programs. The authorization for the
    proposed Workforce Investment Fund appears to be close to the sum of
    current appropriations for programs consolidated under the bill. While
    we do not agree with the consolidation or believe that this funding
    level is adequate--witness the near tripling of clients using our One-
    Stop services just over the past two years--we appreciate that HR 4297
    does not further contribute to the more than $1 billion in workforce
    funding cuts that we have already seen over the past two years.
        That said, our much greater concern is how consolidation proposals
    like that proposed under HR 4297 have been cited by others in
    Congress--including Chairman Ryan in his budget blueprint--as rationale
    for continuing our nation's disinvestment in the skills of its people,
    across a range of programs: adult education, job training, career and
    technical education, and even higher education. The House's recently
    passed budget resolution would cut over $16 billion from our nation's
    education, workforce and social service programs under Budget Function
    500, and we fear the passage of HR 4297--regardless of the intentions
    of its authors--would be used to justify extremely deep cuts in skills
    investments.
    Conclusion
        It is our hope that this Committee can bring this debate back to
    what we think are shared goals: investing effectively in all of our
    country's workers, ensuring those investments are guided by the active
    involvement of employers and other industry stakeholders, holding our
    states and localities accountable and rewarding those who continue to
    be workforce innovators, and ultimately closing skills gaps that will
    help more people find good employment and help more U.S. industries
    grow. We look forward to working with the committee in pursuit of these
    goals.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        Ms. Harmsen, you are recognized.

      STATEMENT OF SANDY HARMSEN, DIRECTOR, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
                  DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

        Ms. Harmsen. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and
    distinguished members of the committee, it is my privilege and
    honor to testify before you today regarding the Workforce
    Investment Improvement Act of 2012. My name is Sandy Harmsen
    and I am the executive director of the San Bernardino County
    Workforce Investment Board.
        The San Bernardino County WIB and I are passionate about
    WIA and workforce development. I personally believe there is no
    better work done in the world. As one of our members so
    eloquently said, ``Work restores a person's self confidence, it
    builds character, provides opportunity, promotes self reliance,
    and is the backbone of our country.''
        The San Bernardino County WIB fully supports a workforce
    development system that has local board control and a strong
    majority of private sector business members within a united
    workforce system. We believe in the engagement of business in
    State and local workforce decisions, increasing local
    flexibility, and in supporting training needs for all
    populations.
        I believe that strengthening business engagement in local
    workforce decisions is a key tenet of this legislation. Our WIB
    has maintained a strong local connection due it--due to its
    majority of private sector business owners, which has enabled
    it to focus on the needs of both business and job seekers in
    our economy.
        The board was recognized in the January 2012 GAO report for
    its innovative approach to serving business through process
    improvement. The program utilized federal funds to assist local
    businesses with job creation and retention. Many of the
    programs developed would not have been successful without the
    engagement of business in local workforce decisions.
        The program resulted in saving 1,100 jobs, created more
    than 200 new jobs, and infused $25 million back into the
    economy. Again, this is the result of local control.
        We believe local control could be enhanced even further.
    One challenge our county has experienced is in managing the
    side of--size of the board, and we appreciate that this bill
    emphasizes local control over decision-making about which
    partners serve on the board.
        We also agree that local flexibility must be fully
    supported in the workforce system. Local flexibility enabled
    the county WIB to consistently maintain an active business
    services program. The connection to the local business
    community and its workforce needs coupled with maintaining a
    dedicated business services team empowers the board to respond
    to business needs quickly even during times of recession.
        Local control and private sector leadership enables the
    board to effectively identify and respond to the needs of local
    business. The strong business presence provides pertinent,
    timely leadership and decision-making regarding workforce
    issues.
        Because of this strong business focus the WIB partners with
    local industry councils, chambers of commerce, educational
    providers, and community organizations to provide information
    and resources that aid growing as well as struggling
    businesses. Local flexibility is what has made it possible to
    serve those needs in a designated area in ways specific to the
    needs of both business and job seekers.
        Jon Novack, from Patton Sales, said in 2009 for the first
    time in his company's 58-year history he lost money and faced
    major layoffs. Then a customer who could not afford to stay
    open any longer came to Jon hoping to sell his company. Jon
    felt if he could acquire the company he could make it
    successful by combining it with his existing company.
        Through WIB support he trained the company staff in
    modernized manufacturing processes and assisted him with
    recruiting new employees. He also utilized the WIB's on-the-job
    training program with newly hired employees.
        Jon became a member of the WIB last year because, as he put
    it, ``This is how government works with business at its best--
    proactive partnering with business and education to provide a
    well-trained and smart workforce.''
        Malena Bell was laid off from a job and was forced to go
    apply for public assistance. She went from $1,800 a month to
    $500 a month. She discovered the Work Readiness program through
    the county's workforce investment board's employment resource
    centers, attended job seeker workshops, and was hired into one
    of those OJT positions. Two years later she is still employed
    by this same company and is moving up into a sales position.
        The WIB's relationships with local business community,
    education providers, and community organizations support the
    business community and job seekers like Malena. The stories
    cited above directly tie in with important tenets of this act:
    strengthening business engagement and local workforce
    decisions, increasing local flexibility, and promoting
    innovation and best practices.
        WIBs across the nation work to streamline the workforce
    system by working together with various partners to meet the
    needs of their local businesses and job seekers. We invest our
    funds to develop and seek reports to identify local demand
    occupations and we support the tenets of improving services
    through on-the-job training.
        San Bernardino County WIB has utilized the on-the-job
    training system to a great degree and since 2009 to date have
    placed over--nearly 2,000 people into on-the-job training
    positions. The WIB partners with other crucial partners to
    serve special populations, as well, and contracts with the
    Department of Aging, the Probation Department, the Sheriff's
    Department, Department of Corrections, the Head Start program,
    Transitional Assistance to Needy Families, and the Department
    of Behavioral Health to provide services to those specialized
    populations.
        We do agree with the GAO report of 2011 that there is
    better opportunity for better coordination of workforce
    programs. Strategic decisions on services that get individuals
    in our community who are unemployed or underemployed back to
    work should be made at the local level. This legislation places
    focus on results and closing a growing skills gap by
    identifying and meeting the workforce needs of both employers
    and job seekers.
        Supporting training opportunities for all is another
    important tenet of this legislation. Our WIB and other WIBs,
    again, across the nation work with local industry councils to
    develop programs to provide a skilled workforce that directly
    meet the needs of business. The San Bernardino County WIB works
    specifically with community colleges to help support a growing
    mining industry and create jobs--job training for that specific
    industry.
        The WIB and Manufacturers Industry Council worked with two
    community colleges to develop and implement an electrical and
    mechanical training program, again, specific to the needs of
    business in advanced manufacturing. We have worked with
    vocational school, Technical Employment Training Inc., which
    provided skilled machinists for the manufacturing industry,
    which was also recognized in the GAO report of 2012.
        I will wrap up by saying that another--one of the final
    tenets of this bill that we support absolutely is
    accountability. We need to have a workforce system that serves
    customers, business, and job seekers alike in an effective and
    efficient manner, maximizing resources and training customers
    for jobs available with business. We support performance
    measures based on outcomes related to the services provided.
        We are happy to say that we have been recognized by several
    entities for doing just that across the nation and believe that
    the recognition demonstrates the local board control of the
    workforce system with strong majority of private sector and
    collaborative projects with workforce programs are key
    components for success.
        One thing Mr. Miller said: The manner in which we
    reauthorize WIA is vital and important. WIA is such a strong
    program and it is the best workforce program. We agree with
    that 100 percent. It is vital how we reauthorize this bill, and
    I thank you so much for the opportunity to be able to testify
    on behalf of this.
        [The statement of Ms. Harmsen follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Sandy Harmsen, Executive Director,
                San Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board

                               executive summary
        The San Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board believes in a
    workforce system that serves customers--businesses and job seekers
    alike--in an efficient manner that maximizes resources. To that end,
    the San Bernardino County WIB fully supports a workforce development
    program that has local board control and a strong majority of private
    business members within a united workforce development system. We
    believe The Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012 contains these
    tenets.
        The San Bernardino County WIB supports the tenets of improving
    services through On-the-Job Training, contracting with community
    colleges and institutions of higher learning to provide specialized
    group training that is designed for businesses looking to hire
    individuals with specific skills, and training for those who need it
    the most within our communities. The WIB contracts with other entities
    and provides their clientele with workforce training, job development
    and job placement services. We work with local industry councils to
    create a skilled workforce that meets their specific needs.
        Jon Novack is the President and CEO of Patton Sales. Jon became a
    member of the WIB last year because, as he puts it, ``This is how the
    government works with business at its best--proactive partnering with
    business and education to provide a well-trained and smart workforce.
    Training is great, but worthless without a job.''
        Malena Bell was a single mom who was laid off and tried to survive
    on $500 a month in Unemployment Insurance. She was hired by Patton
    Steel through the WIB's On-the-Job Training program. After her training
    period ended, she was hired full-time and is now celebrating her second
    year with the company.
        San Bernardino County WIB members represent each major industry in
    our County and participate in monthly meetings with local industry
    councils. Private sector business owners are invaluable to our Board.
    They have their finger on the pulse of local business, they are
    experienced business managers, and they understand the skills local
    businesses need to grow and diversify.
        The WIB and the Manufacturers Industry Council worked with two
    community colleges to develop and implement an Electrical/Mechanical
    Advanced Manufacturing training program. Multiple local manufacturing
    businesses have utilized this program to upgrade the skills of their
    lower-level employees, moving those employees into higher level
    positions and then hiring new employees through the WIB One Stop
    Centers.
                             full written statement
        Chair John Kline and distinguished members of the Committee, thank
    you for the opportunity to speak today about the Workforce Investment
    Improvement Act of 2012 (H.R. 4297). My name is Sandy Harmsen, and I am
    the Executive Director of the San Bernardino County Workforce
    Investment Board and Director of the County's Workforce Development
    Department. The San Bernardino County WIB fully supports a workforce
    development program that has local board control and a strong majority
    of private business members within a united workforce development
    system. We believe in business engagement in state and local workforce
    decisions, increasing local flexibility, and supporting the training
    needs of all populations.
    Strengthening Business Engagement in State and Local Workforce
            Decisions
        The San Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board consists of a
    majority of business owners who helped establish a local Manufacturing
    Industry Council and a Transportation and Logistics Council. The WIB is
    also active as members of the Aviation Industry Council, the Healthcare
    Workforce Advisory Board, and the California Clean Energy
    Collaboration. Their connection to the local business community and its
    workforce needs, coupled with a dedicated Business Services Unit,
    empowered the WIB to quickly respond to the severe economic downturn.
    Because of the local connection, the WIB focuses on the needs of all
    populations in the county. We believe local control could be enhanced
    even further. One challenge our county has experienced is managing the
    size of the board. We appreciate that H.R. 4297 emphasizes local
    control over decision making about which partners serve on the board.
    Promoting Innovation
        The San Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board was recognized
    in the January 2012 GAO Report to Congressional Committees for its
    innovative approach to serving businesses through its process
    improvement program. San Bernardino County WIB has a dedicated and
    comprehensive business support program that deploys federal funds to
    assist local employers with job creation and retention. Many of the
    programs developed and implemented would not have been successful
    without the engagement of business in local workforce decisions.
        Maintaining a business focus, the WIB developed relationships with
    San Bernardino employers in high-demand industries that promise job
    growth and opportunities for county residents. The business services
    staff meets regularly with employers to identify specific workforce
    needs, discover job openings and negotiate subsidized and On-the-Job
    Training contracts. They also help employers avert layoffs through
    business efficiency training. The results of local control, with a
    strong business focus, enabled the San Bernardino WIB to implement a
    process improvement program that resulted in saving 1,106 jobs and
    hiring 204 residents into newly created jobs. The impact of this
    program was to infuse $25M back into the local economy.
        Local control enables the WIB to effectively identify and respond
    to the needs of local businesses. The strong business presence provides
    pertinent, timely leadership and decision making regarding workforce
    issues. Because of the strong business focus, the WIB partners with the
    local industry councils, chambers of commerce, educational providers
    and community organizations to provide information and resources that
    aid growing, as well as struggling, businesses. The WIB business
    services staff developed and implemented Business Survival Workshops
    throughout the County. Workshops are conducted in varying locations to
    reach as many businesses as possible given the large geographic area of
    San Bernardino County that consists of 20,000 square miles (the largest
    County in the contiguous U.S.) with more than 62,000 businesses.
        The Business Survival Workshops receive an overwhelming response by
    the local business community. Twenty-nine partners offered free initial
    consultations to businesses in their respective areas of expertise.
    More than 400 businesses have taken advantage of a free on-site
    assessment that identifies their strengths and weaknesses in sales,
    business processes, customer service, and employee performance and
    productivity. To date, the WIB's weekly workshops have assisted more
    than 1,100 businesses. Utilizing the results of their assessment, a
    business can request additional targeted assistance available through
    the WIB:
         Process Improvement for streamlining the manufacturing
    process to reduce production cost and increase productivity. These
    services also led to increasing the capacity of the participating
    manufacturers to increase sales.
         Strategic and Financial Planning for evaluating the
    manufacturers' current state and establishing long-term business and
    strategic goals based on sound financial planning. Referrals to other
    agencies like the SBA for loans were also made to manufacturers who
    needed operating and investment capital.
         Quality Management System implementation that improved
    product quality, on-time delivery and met industry ISO 9001 and AS9100
    certification requirements. Many of the at-risk manufacturers lost
    customers because they lacked certifications or could not enter new
    markets.
         New product development and diversification of products to
    foster innovation and growth. Innovation is a key for small
    manufacturers to stay competitive and gain market share.
        As highlighted in the January 2012 GAO Report, manufacturers who
    received these targeted services were surveyed six months after they
    had implemented recommended changes by an independent survey from NIST/
    MEP and reported:
         $8 million in increased sales
         $18 million in retained sales
         $2.6 million in cost savings
         $2.1 million of investment in equipment, IT and workforce
    skills development
         600 retained jobs
         117 created jobs
    Increasing Local Flexibility
        The WIB's business focus is a necessary component to the workforce
    development system. Local flexibility is necessary to serve specific
    needs in a designated area. Local flexibility enabled the San
    Bernardino County WIB to fund business services even during the
    recession and made a difference for businesses struggling to keep their
    doors open and to people who needed jobs to keep their homes and
    support their families.
        Jon Novack from Patton Sales said that in 2009 ``the wheels came
    off the bus'' for his company. The value of his inventory fell,
    customers stopped buying, no one could get credit from banks for
    building, the phones stopped ringing and his trucks sat idle. For the
    first time in his company's 58 year history, he lost money and faced
    major layoffs, selling of assets, and went into survival mode. Then a
    Patton customer who could not afford to stay open any longer came to
    Jon hoping to sell him his company. Jon felt the customer's company had
    been neglected, was inefficient and had no vision of the future. To
    quote Jon, ``Enter the SB County WIB''. The WIB worked with him every
    step of the way as he acquired the company. Through WIB support, Jon
    trained the company's staff in modernized manufacturing processes,
    assisted him with recruiting new employees, and reduced the cost impact
    of the new hires' reduced productivity level through its on-the-job
    training program. Jon became a member of the WIB last year because, as
    he puts it, ``This is how the government works with business at its
    best--proactive partnering with business and education to provide a
    well-trained and smart workforce. Training is great, but worthless
    without a job.''
        When Malena Bell was laid off from her non-profit organization, she
    was in the situation that every parent fears--having come one month
    short of living on the street. ``When I lost my job, I was forced to go
    apply for public assistance,'' she said. ``I went from making $1,800 a
    month to $500 a month.''
        Malena wasted no time utilizing the work readiness program offered
    by staff at the county's Employment Resource Centers, and immediately
    went to work on her resume and interviewing skills. By attending job
    seeker workshops offered through the WIB's Employment Resource Centers,
    she had her ear to the ground when Patton Sales Corporation would be
    hiring through the On-the-Job Training program.
        ``She hated being on government assistance and took it
    personally,'' said Jon Novack, president of Patton. ``She said, 'Give
    me a chance and let me show you what I'm about'.'' Malena has now been
    with Patton for two years and is moving up to sales training. She plans
    to stay with Patton until her retirement.
        Local flexibility and the WIB's relationships with the local
    business community, educational providers and community organizations
    support the business community and job seekers like Malena. The stories
    cited above directly tie in with important tenets of the Workforce
    Investment Improvement Act of 2012:
         Strengthening business engagement in local workforce
    decisions
         Increasing local flexibility
         Promoting innovation and best practices
    Supporting Training Opportunities for All Adults, Dislocated Workers,
            and Youth
        WIBs across the nation work together with various partners to meet
    the needs of local businesses and job seekers. San Bernardino County
    WIB and other WIBs invest their funds in researching and seeking
    reports to identify local demand occupations and growing and emerging
    industries. We support the tenets of improving services through On-the-
    Job Training, training for those who need it the most within our
    communities, and contracting with community colleges and institutions
    of higher learning to provide specialized group training that is
    designed for businesses looking to hire individuals with specific
    skills. These initiatives under H.R. 4297 will ensure that customers
    are trained in necessary skills to match jobs available with business.
        Since 2009, the San Bernardino County WIB has worked with local
    businesses to develop On-the-Job Training (OJT) opportunities and has
    placed 1,845 job seekers into these training positions. These positions
    not only assisted the job seekers in obtaining needed skills and
    gaining employment, they also assisted businesses involved in the
    program by helping them with costs associated with bringing a new
    employee up to the desired productivity level.
        In 2009, after receiving special funding to implement a Summer
    Youth Employment Training Program, the San Bernardino County WIB
    provided employment skills training to over 1,800 youth and placed them
    into summer jobs. Many of these youth were retained by the businesses
    at the end of the program. In the summer of 2010, utilizing TANF
    funding, the WIB served 800 youth through a similar program. Annually,
    the WIB contracts with local providers to serve youth utilizing its WIA
    Youth allocation.
    Streamlining the Maze of Job Training Programs
        Many of the OJT positions developed by the San Bernardino County
    WIB were filled with recipients of public assistance, not because we
    are mandated to do so, but because this is one of the populations our
    local area has determined is in need of workforce services. The WIB
    partners with other entities to serve special populations. The
    following entities contract with us to serve their clientele for
    workforce training, job development and job placement:
         Department of Aging and Adult Services
         Probation Department, Sheriff and Department of
    Corrections
         Head Start
         Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
         Department of Behavioral Health
        We agree with the GAO report of 2011 that there is opportunity for
    better coordination of workforce programs. Strategic decisions on
    services that get individuals in our community who are unemployed or
    underemployed back to work should be made at the local level. This
    legislation places focus on results and closing a growing skills gap by
    identifying and meeting the workforce needs of both employers and job
    seekers. We do need to meet the workforce needs of each community at
    the local level and the workforce system needs to be funded at an
    appropriate level to provide effective services for all.
    Improving Employment and Training Services at One-Stop Career Centers
        The San Bernardino County WIB works with local industry councils to
    develop training programs designed to provide a skilled workforce that
    meets their specific needs. Recently, the WIB worked with a local
    community college to implement a training program for the growing
    mining industry. The WIB and the Manufacturers Industry Council worked
    with two other community colleges to develop and implement an
    Electrical and Mechanical training program in Advanced Manufacturing.
    The WIB also worked with a vocational school, Technical Employment
    Training Incorporated (TET), to develop a work-based training program
    to provide skilled machinists for the manufacturing industry. The TET
    initiative was recognized in the January 2012 GAO Report.
    Ensuring Accountability for the Use of Taxpayer Funds
        The San Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board believes in a
    workforce system that serves customers--businesses and job seekers
    alike--in an effective and efficient manner that maximizes resources.
    The San Bernardino County WIB supports performance measures that are
    based upon outcomes related to the services provided. Our WIB has been
    recognized for its best practices by the National Association of
    Counties, the Department of Labor and the California State Association
    of Counties. This recognition demonstrates that local board control of
    the workforce system with a strong majority of private business members
    and collaborative projects with workforce programs are key components
    for success.
                                     ______

        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        I thank all of you for your testimony. Your entire written
    testimony will be included in the record.
        We will move now to my colleagues for some questions and
    answers. We will limit ourselves--I will help you with this
    part--to 5 minutes so that all members have a chance to engage
    in the discussion.
        Let me start with Ms. Harmsen.
        As you were giving your testimony you talked about
    strategic decision-making and more strategic approaches and
    local control. H.R. 4297 specifically removes the federal
    requirements for board representation except for the business
    representation. It is our belief that that streamlines the
    boards. We have been hearing for some time in this committee,
    out in the field and here, from State and local workforce
    boards about how they are getting very bloated; they keep
    growing in size and get pretty cumbersome.
        Can you address that streamlining provision of this bill
    and how that will affect the board's ability to do more
    strategic thinking?
        Ms. Harmsen. Yes. Thank you.
        As I did state partially in my testimony, we do believe
    that the strong majority of business sector on the board is
    absolutely vital to the success of this program. Having those
    business members on the board to guide decisions as to how the
    workforce dollars are spent is so very important.
        We know, for example, in San Bernardino County, 63,000
    small businesses in our county--they make up the majority, over
    90 percent of the businesses in our county. So to have that
    voice on the board is absolutely important.
        I do believe that the other members of the board should be
    also a local decision, that at that actual local, on-the-ground
    level, however, for the balance of the members of that board so
    that the local areas can make decisions about who is important
    to be on those boards and have a voice at that table.
        Chairman Kline. Our thought was that by requiring, as the
    current law does, all this membership--18, 19 sort of different
    members--that the boards were getting cumbersome, and I am
    trying to get at your point that if the decision is made at the
    local level about who is on that board it can be a more
    streamlined operation. I don't want to put words in your mouth,
    although I guess I am trying to here. [Laughter.]
        Ms. Harmsen. Yes, that is what I am saying.
        Chairman Kline. Perfect.
        Ms. Harmsen. Yes.
        Chairman Kline. It is great how that worked out.
    [Laughter.]
        Ms. Noble, again, pass our regards to your governor. She
    was our colleague for some years and a great friend to many of
    us on this committee.
        This legislation consolidates 27 federally funded job
    training programs into a single Workforce Investment Fund. We
    think that is in line with what we heard the president say the
    other night in the thinking that many of us have on this
    committee that we have allowed these programs to proliferate
    and become unwieldy.
        So my question to you is, how do you think this
    legislation, the way it is put together with that
    consolidation, can help State and local workforce investment
    boards in administering these employment and training services?
    Is it helpful to you?
        Ms. Noble. Yes. I believe it is helpful because the--
    separately, programs are intent on whatever the legislation
    tells them to do. And believe me, the individuals programs are
    doing their best. And there are many good programs but they are
    independent. They have to meet whatever their management and
    their--whatever their guidance and whatever their performance
    is.
        And when you are focused, secondary comes, how do I do that
    with someone else? Putting programs together based on what that
    community perceives the needs of their industries and their
    unemployed population is allows everyone to become focused at
    the primary goal, which is, what helps us to get jobs?
        It is efficient in that each program now has separate
    procurement, separate contracting services, separate buildings.
    And while some of those buildings will remain, many can be used
    across purposes or same purposes.
        In Oklahoma, for example, we have been able to reduce some
    of our local areas by combining--we didn't consolidate them; we
    said--the council said, ``Find ways to be more efficient.'' And
    sometimes that was by having--sharing a director; sometimes it
    was by having the same fiscal agent; sometimes it is by having
    the same service provider, and through your contracting
    process.
        But that is, at the State level, asking people--incenting
    people to do things that were more cost effective. By combining
    from the top you started in the right direction.
        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        I see my time has expired.
        Mr. Miller?
        Mr. Miller. I would like to just follow up on that.
        I have two questions, but hopefully we can just follow up
    on that, Mr. Van Kleunen.
        One of my concerns is, Ms. Noble, is in that situation, we
    have some very difficult populations to train and have them
    acquire the skills to become employable, and my concern is that
    you get sort of a more homogeneous board here and then the
    question is, how do you make sure that those populations
    continue to be a priority? One, they may be more expensive;
    two, they may not look like the people that the employers are
    seeking to employ at that particular moment and all of a sudden
    they drift down.
        And I just wondered if, Mr. Van Kleunen, if you would like
    to comment on that, and Ms. Noble. But I have a second
    question, too, so----
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Sure. Well, I do think--I mean, there have
    been some valid critiques of the current system that those who
    are hard to serve, some systems serve them very well and some
    do not. I mean, there is flexibility in the current system to
    do that. There have been things that have not been encouraging
    systems to actually make that a priority.
        I think that ways--by reducing even the funding streams
    that are already making some of those populations a priority--I
    think we are going to be moving further into that direction. I
    think setting some standards and giving some performance
    measures that actually make it easier for partners to come
    together, such as Norma has mentioned, to work together to move
    folks along a career pathway, I think that is where it is that
    we can bring a bunch of different programs and streams together
    to----
        Mr. Miller. Ms. Noble?
        Ms. Noble. When you set the standard as, what is it that we
    can do to help this number of jobs with these kinds of skills,
    and then you say, for this population, how do you get that
    population into that--into those jobs? That is how you get that
    standard met. You require every pathway, every industry sector
    to have a way to--you must show, how are you going to do it?
        Mr. Miller. I am going to stop you there. I don't know that
    that happens in this bill but we will look at it again.
        Mr. Van Kleunen, I want to ask you, one of the concerns we
    have, and the chairman raised this question of what we have
    heard about all throughout the recession is this mismatch of
    people and really how do we develop what has become, in some
    areas, to be the pathways, the models if you develop a linear
    model where people can plug into the system, acquire additional
    skills as they acquire additional work experience, and that is
    kind of a continuum that helps both employers renew the skills
    of those individuals and find people along different parts of--
    --
        Mr. Van Kleunen. And I think that there are two different--
    the first part--and I will agree with Norma on this--the first
    part is to figure out how to get the business community,
    members of the same industry, different firms--small firms,
    large firms--to say, ``What are the credentials that we are
    looking for?'' We currently do not have a mechanism funded by
    the federal government, encouraged by current law that actually
    encourages those partnerships to happen.
        We have a lot of those things that have been happening in
    the system over time and it seems like now is the time to make
    that a priority practice throughout all 50 States here in the
    country. And I think that once we do that then we need to
    figure out how to work with the education and training
    providers--those who are providing basic education, those who
    are doing job training, those who are working in the higher
    education field--to figure out, how do we work with the
    business community so that we have a variety of people who can
    get different types of education and support on the job, off
    the job, and develop a plan over time so that somebody who may
    take 2 or 3 years to get to that kind of good paying
    credential, but they are still employed while they are doing
    it.
        It is hard to do that unless we bring industry players
    together to make that happen, and I think--unfortunately, I
    think eliminating the programs that are prioritizing some of
    those populations that we think otherwise won't get served,
    they are just not going to be part of that solution. And I
    think that ultimately a company is first interested in training
    its own workers, which is completely appropriate, and I think
    that, you know, greater provisions for incumbent worker
    training makes sense, but it is the public sector's
    responsibility, government's responsibility for making sure
    that we are also building a pipeline of new workers so that
    other folks can actually enter into that industry down the
    road.
        Mr. Miller. Just quickly, how does the sort of what we see
    on the horizon here now, the increased use of badges for very
    specific certifications--how does that play into this and
    again, employers looking for people with specific skills? And
    there are a lot of new entities out there awarding badges----
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Right.
        Mr. Miller [continuing]. From some of the largest companies
    in the country to some of the smallest nonprofit organizations.
    How do you factor these into a modern----
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Well, yes. We have a lot of credentials
    out there. How many of them are actually recognized by industry
    as valid, I think that we need to create a mechanism at the
    local or regional level to come to that determination.
        It seems that having employers come together by industry to
    make some of those decisions would help us decide which badges
    are appropriate, which are not. And in some cases getting--you
    know, if each employer is working with a different job training
    provider and they are each coming up with their own credential
    saying, you know, to serve our community we need to kind of
    figure out what it is that we have in common here. What is the
    85 percent of the skills that we all agree we want when we hire
    a person for this particular job title? And if we do that then
    it creates a more rationale system whereby a range of education
    training providers can train to that spec.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you.
        Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman.
        Mrs. Biggert?
        Mrs. Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    holding this hearing.
        According to a recent-released report by the Labor
    Department this month, unemployment soared to 12.1 percent in
    2011 for veterans who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan since
    September of 2001. In my district the hardworking staff at Will
    and DuPage County Workforce Investment Boards, as well as the
    great faculty at the College of DuPage and Joliet Junior
    College, they all proposed a pilot program to connect veterans
    with the employment opportunities, and it is--I think it is a
    really good idea and I think we can all agree that there needs
    more to be done to support our veterans as they transition from
    military to civilian life.
        Could you each talk a little bit about the way in which
    your ability to serve unemployed veterans could be enhanced by
    the flexibility offered under H.R. 4297?
        Ms. Noble?
        Ms. Noble. I would be happy to. Thank you.
        In Oklahoma we have created the OK--this for Oklahoma, of
    course--OKMilitaryConnection.com, which ties to our OKJobMatch.
    And the OKMilitaryConnection.com is a place where veterans and
    their families can go to find all of the services they--that
    they need. The job portion is through OKJobMatch, but veterans
    and their families also need support systems and supportive
    services, and housing, and counseling. And we believe in
    Oklahoma that we should now serve those who have served us, and
    so we have a--we have brought together all of the agencies,
    both workforce agencies and military or veterans agencies
    together. The----
        Mrs. Biggert. Would the flexibility of this bill help at
    all?
        Ms. Noble. The flexibility of the bill helps in that all--
    whether we are talking about Food SNAP or about the veterans
    employment and training services, it is all in the same
    umbrella. So that really helps us to meet the needs of the
    veterans.
        Mrs. Biggert. Ms. Moran, do you have any comments on that?
        Ms. Moran. Certainly. I believe that as we have local,
    business-led boards and we are making decisions at the local
    levels we are able to address those populations that are
    prevalent in our own communities. I come from a region where we
    don't have a lot of veterans but we really do focus on trying
    to help those that return to our community. We have case
    managers who are quite aware of veteran services, but by
    working closely hand-in-hand with our businesses we are able to
    identify those employers that are willing to put them to work
    and to help to transition them back into the mainstream of our
    communities.
        And again, I think that comes back by having that local
    flexibility we can help to identify those populations that need
    our greatest support. Thank you.
        Mrs. Biggert. Thank you.
        Mr. Van Kleunen, I don't know with your program if you get
    into the----
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Well, we certainly work with a lot of
    folks who work with veterans on the ground. I mean, I think
    that that is a tremendously great need that we have right now,
    as you know, because of folks who have been coming back from
    our wars. I think that while flexibility certainly will help I
    think the problem isthat there is going to be no way that we
    know for sure that veterans are going to be well served unless
    there is some way that we are measuring outcomes relative to
    veterans.
        The problem about this particular proposal, 4297, is that
    we will no longer have a way to measure whether or not we are
    serving veterans significantly or not. There is not a--there is
    not a performance measure that is targeted to their services.
        Mrs. Biggert. Okay.
        Ms. Harmsen?
        Ms. Harmsen. Yes. We do serve many veterans, and
    particularly those that are returning veterans, and one of the
    challenges that we have found is there are many programs out
    there. Every department that we have in our county and
    surrounding cities have programs for the newly released
    veterans, and I think that better coordination of those
    programs would certainly help because I think it--number one,
    it is confusing for the veteran--the newly released veteran;
    and number two, with all of those services available, just
    trying to get them linked into the services that we
    specifically are providing because we are discussing this issue
    here is--makes it also challenging and difficult.
        So I think that, again, allowing the local areas to really
    work together to try to identify how to serve that is a good
    idea.
        Mrs. Biggert. Thank you. Thank you.
        And then I have just one quick question: There has been
    broad agreement on the need to avoid a one-size-fits-all
    approach to the workforce development. Are there ways in which
    the federal government can help to disseminate best practices
    or help State boards or locals to disseminate ideas that work
    so others have the ability to coordinate and collaborate?
    Anybody like to address that, or----
        Chairman Kline. The gentlelady's time has expired. If one
    of you would like to address that we would love to have the
    response for the record. Anybody want to take that for the
    record?
        Mr. Van Kleunen. I will say that the Democratic proposal
    actually does make some provisions for that, particularly on,
    for instance, on the adult education side, where we are trying
    to create a national clearinghouse of excellence on some of
    those issues. So I think that is one area where it is by having
    some capacity at the national level that we can get
    practitioners----
        Chairman Kline. Thank you.
        Mr. Scott, you are recognized.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Van Kleunen, can you tell me how the bills differ on
    use of community colleges and how flexible they can be in terms
    of technology and creating jobs that actually exist in the
    local areas?
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Well, the Democratic proposal does include
    some specific investments particularly targeted at community
    colleges, and it goes to a point that Norma was making earlier,
    which is that we believe that community college programs that
    work in partnership with other partners to provide a range of
    services makes sure that both those who are college ready and
    those who are still not college ready but want to be going to
    college to get some kind of technical training have the ability
    to do so.
        And so creating partnership grants where we can bring
    community-based organizations, folks who are working in
    unionized industries can work with their local community
    colleges to develop some pathways over time, I think that that
    is where it is that we will get some outcomes. And it is
    different than what has been the typical community college
    program up until now.
        Mr. Scott. Do the proprietary or trade schools have a role
    in this?
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Absolutely. I think that, you know, we
    have not enough capacity to train people for the number of jobs
    that are open in the economy today, and so I think there is a
    range of education and training providers who could play a role
    in solving some of those skill gaps, and that is allowed under
    both pieces of legislation.
        Mr. Scott. Okay.
        Let me ask any of the members of the panel, what happens to
    disconnected youth if they don't get job training? What kind of
    trajectory are they on if they drop out of school and they
    don't get job training?
        Ms. Noble. Well, it is happening now, sir. Our young people
    are not getting--not only are they not getting the skills
    training that they need, they also are not getting the jobs
    through just working, which is also a way of getting training.
        And as a result we have increased the number of young
    people who are in the underground markets of, whether it is
    crime, or just--they are now living at home with you.
        Mr. Scott. Anybody else want to----
        Ms. Harmsen. I would like to address that, as well. The
    youth programs, when we have had the--those additional youth
    dollars to assist with putting the youth to work with those
    youth summer programs, it has had amazing results for those
    youth because once they get that first job, they get that first
    paycheck and they see the value of that, that has given a lot
    of them just that impetus to turn around and want to get that
    education that is needed so that they can go further.
        Mr. Scott. My other committee is the Judiciary Committee,
    where I serve on the Crime Subcommittee, and these youth are,
    without the job training, on a trajectory that is
    disproportionately involved in crime. And therefore, I think
    since we are going to be on the hook for them anyway we need to
    make sure we focus them on the right track.
        I served on a job training committee way back in the 1980s
    and we talked--we kind of alluded to it, about the credentials,
    and the idea was to try to get credentials for every job so
    that employers looking for people knew what they were getting,
    but even if it was just a waiter--something like a waiter you
    could be Class A, B, C, where some might just need to take
    orders, you might want somebody more qualified, knows something
    about wines or something like that, so you can get
    credentialed--auto mechanic, various levels.
        Is there any attempt to get credentials for virtually every
    job position out there?
        Mr. Van Kleunen. So I would say that particularly in this
    country I don't think that we are looking for somebody to
    define for employers what the credentials should be. I think
    that the activity that we should be funding is how it is that
    we bring employers together by industry to get them to figure
    out what are the credentials that they are looking for, what
    are the skills standards that they are looking for?
        The Democratic proposal does--both proposals actually talk
    about that. I think there are actually some greater vehicles to
    actually achieve that in the Democratic proposal.
        There are some opportunities to identify credentials. For
    instance, some of the things that Norma was talking about that
    they are doing in Oklahoma, where they are using career
    readiness credentials, where it is really just kind of a way to
    certify that folks have received a certain type of basic skill
    that employers can think, ``Okay, this person is ready to take
    an entry level job or to enroll in a course.''
        It seems to me that a way we would measure performance and
    whether or not a State or locality is doing a good job is we
    actually find out whether or not they are increasing credential
    attainment. That is a performance measure--a system-wide
    performance measure in the Democratic----
        Mr. Scott. I don't want to cut you off, but I am about to
    run out of time. I would like to just ask a question for the
    record, because you won't have time to answer it in the time
    allotted, and that is if you could comment for the record on
    the effect of funding levels that are in the various bills and
    whether or not we need more money to get the job done.
        Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
        If you could take that for the record, Mr. Van Kleunen or
    others.
        Dr. Foxx, you are recognized.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to thank the members of the panel for being here
    today, and also send my greetings to Governor Fallin, Ms.
    Noble, if you will----
        Ms. Noble. Certainly will.
        Mrs. Foxx [continuing]. And I thank Ms. Moran for bringing
    me greetings from a former colleague, George Daniel, in the
    State senate. Always nice to have folks here with whom we have
    connections.
        I am really intrigued by some of the comments that have
    been made by Mr. Miller and some by Mr. Van Kleunen, and I am
    going to hope to get to respond to those in a moment.
        But one particularly I wanted to point out to Mr. Van
    Kleunen, I assume you are not familiar with the fact that the
    administration has recommended itself that seven programs be
    done away with--seven of the 27 we are talking about--and that
    five of those--five additional programs have not been funded,
    one of them since 2003, and is the only program that our
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle have recommended be
    done away with.
        So while you are talking about the blunt instrument of
    consolidation being a problem, there are already 12 of the 27
    that either have been recommended to be done away with by the
    administration or haven't been funded, some of which for a long
    time, so they are effectively gone away or could be done away
    with, it seems to me, without too much--coming about as a
    result of them.
        I wanted to ask Ms. Noble and then also Ms. Moran and Ms.
    Harmsen if you would respond to this: Ms. Noble, you mentioned
    that one of the problems with the existing situation is that it
    over regulates process and that there is very little emphasis
    on accountability and performance, and that is certainly a
    major concern of ours and one reason why we are doing what we
    are doing.
        I want to ask you if there are some other examples of ways
    that the--either the Labor Department, or the Education
    Department, or any--whoever is administering the program
    focuses on the wrong things. We have heard you all say the top-
    down administration, in terms of the development of the boards
    or the composition of the local boards, but can you give
    another example of some things that specifically you would like
    to see changed?
        Ms. Noble. In terms of performance, I think having the
    ability to look at impacts or outcomes rather than counting the
    numbers of people served or the numbers of people in the seat
    in a classroom. And that is why it has to be really at the
    regional level, so that you can determine what does that region
    need?
        We have some areas of Oklahoma with 12 percent unemployment
    and we have other areas of Oklahoma with 3 percent
    unemployment.
        Mrs. Foxx. I read that in your----
        Ms. Noble. And so regionally we--they have to determine
    what is best for them. In one area they are talking about
    really their pipeline in the fourth grade and preparing, and
    they want to know what you are doing to bring in labor; in the
    other they are trying to do something different. So looking at
    impacts, outcomes, and outputs, and being able to do that at
    the regional level.
        Mrs. Foxx. Regional. All right.
        Ms. Moran?
        Ms. Moran. I think also it is a focus on having the right
    outcomes that we measure, and typically in WIA you get measured
    for the number of people who go through training, and there are
    WIBs that look like they haven't done a lot. Well, the really
    effective WIBs have learned how to leverage other dollars, yet
    we don't get credit for that as a system. And yet, if we want
    to be innovative and collaborative I think that is what we have
    to start to look at is the overall system.
        Mrs. Foxx. Ms. Harmsen?
        Ms. Harmsen. Yes. Thank you.
        I believe that workforce development in and of itself
    should be recognized as a profession, that there are so many
    different programs across the board that also understand that
    their populations need assistance with workforce development,
    that there needs to be standards for workforce development that
    need to be set, and I think that the boards have been--very
    instrumental in bringing together already some of those
    programs because there is such a need.
        You have the local folks that are on your board that care
    about your community so your boards are already partnering with
    those programs. But if there were certain standards that we all
    adhered to for that workforce piece that would be outstanding.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. Hinojosa, you are recognized.
        Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank the panelists for coming to this hearing
    and participating. I want to ask my first question of Andy Van
    Kleunen.
        In your testimony you indicate that the blunt instrument of
    program consolidation will do far more human damage than the
    illness it poses to cure. But given our increasingly diverse
    workforce, what impact would H.R. 4297 have on the low-skilled
    workers, minority communities, and disadvantages youth, which
    have such a high unemployment rate? And also address what it
    would do to migrant and seasonal farm workers, also those who
    are limited English proficient, Native Americans, and older
    workers, populations that desperately need this education and
    job training programs to improve their lives.
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Well, Congressman, I think that you point
    out just by the list that you have read that we have a great
    diversity of people who are trying to either stay in our
    current labor market or get back into our labor market and
    advance in some way, and I think the concern for many folks in
    the community, and particularly people who are working with the
    types of workers that you are talking about, is that some of
    these folks are going to be higher cost than your average, say,
    WIA participant, they may take longer to actually advance
    toward some kind of a credential or a good-paying job than the
    average WIA participant.
        And once you take all those programs and put them into one
    big pot and you say there is going to be a standard for
    placement, a standard for wage gains, a standard for credential
    attainment that we are going to measure across this entire
    number of people who are served by that pot, those who are
    going to take longer to succeed are going to be typically not
    served. It is not in a State's or a locality's interest to
    actually serve them because it is going to bring their
    performance measures down. And even today, in the current WIA
    system, systems that do that do that at their own peril.
        It seems to me that we should recognize moving forward that
    we should set very high standards for accountability but we
    should reward systems that are actually serving those who are
    the harder to serve and to give them some credit for what we
    think will be a great payoff for the worker and for the local
    community if they succeed in getting a skilled job.
        Mr. Hinojosa. I agree with you.
        Why is it vitally important to create career pathways for
    the adult learners and improve adult literacy in America? I
    have been working with Congressman Roe on this particular group
    of adults who have a very low literacy of reading and writing--
    maybe third grade level--and how difficult it is to retrain
    them. Give me your thoughts.
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Well, this issue about basic skills in our
    current workforce--I often use the example, in Michigan--when
    Michigan decided after all of the layoffs in the local economy
    to give anybody who wanted who had been laid off from a job an
    opportunity to go back to community college--it was anybody--
    they found that a third of their dislocated workers--these were
    folks who had been working 20, 30 years in a skilled job in an
    industry that was changing--could not even take their first
    community college course. And those were people who were
    working.
        As you know, we have a lot of other folks who have not been
    working very well for quite a while. The only way they are
    going to get a skilled job is if they can get some of that
    reading and math learning in order to be able to qualify for
    some technical training.
        Mr. Hinojosa. I agree with you. Those are very important
    keys and recommendations that you are making.
        I want to ask another question of Laurie Moran.
        Ms. Moran, you mentioned that our workforce system is far
    from perfect and in great need of additional resources to
    assist those job seekers. Tell me, why are support services
    as--like counseling, transportation vouchers, placement, child
    care placement services--why are they critical for job seekers?
        Ms. Moran. I think as we look at the different regions of
    this country it comes back to why it is important that we have
    to address the local issues of a community. I live in a rural
    community in Virginia, and when you think about our State and
    you look at Northern Virginia, the issue there is gridlock.
        I laugh and share the example that when you look at my
    hometown the traffic concern we have is when the one stoplight
    catches you and it is red. But the difficulty in not having
    gridlock is that you also don't have public transit to get you
    to jobs.
        So it is important that we--as we look at the barriers that
    keep people from getting to work that we are able to serve job
    seekers at all levels. Training is important but we also have
    to help overcome the other barriers, whether it is
    transportation, or child care, or elder care, which is a
    growing concern in this country. We have got to help job
    seekers to get beyond all of those issues.
        Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you.
        My time is expired.
        Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
        Dr. Heck?
        Mr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
    opportunity to work on this bill. And also, I thank you again
    for bringing the field hearing out to my district. I represent
    Southern Nevada, which unfortunately still has the highest
    unemployment rate in the nation, so this is obviously a very
    critical issue.
        Thank all the panelists for being here.
        We recently held a job fair just last week. We had over 50
    employers that had hundreds of open jobs. And as I walked
    around the job fair and was talking with them about why they
    had these job openings when we have the highest unemployment
    rate in the nation they said because when people come in to
    apply they can't find the person who is ready to go to work.
    And these were jobs ranging from entry level to--one of them
    was a six-figure income job that they were at a job fair trying
    to fill.
        So I believe that trying to get this system in place and
    modified and improved to get these people connected to jobs is
    critically important.
        And I know, Mr. Van Kleunen, you talked about the
    importance of getting businesses to agree on credentials, and I
    wholeheartedly agree, but I think other than perhaps trying to
    make a comparison with the military training, of which there is
    a national standard, it is going to be very difficult and that
    probably has to be driven by the local business community of
    what credential they want to agree on for that local community.
    I mean, we can't even get two high school diplomas from
    different States to be equivalent at this point.
        So with that, I would like to ask--Ms. Harmsen, you talked
    about the business owner who joined the WIB board because he
    said this is the way government was supposed to work. What
    perspective can local business leaders lend to the boards when
    deciding where to focus their training dollars and how can
    State and local boards better engage the business community in
    these workforce activities?
        Ms. Harmsen. Well, I think one of the--the best way that I
    can answer that question is just the example that we have used
    in our county. Because we maintained the business services team
    even through the time of the recession, during the time of the
    recession, when it first started, we went from having 2,000
    people a month coming into our centers to nearly 7,000 people a
    month, which was a dramatic, as you can imagine, impact into
    our centers.
        What a lot of my colleagues were forced to do was bring
    their folks who were out making contact with business into the
    centers just to address that need in the centers for those job
    seekers, so we didn't--they didn't have folks out there with--
    making contact with business.
        What we have done is maintain that business services team
    who keeps that connection with business, and so what we do by
    maintaining that team is collecting that data and that local,
    real-time information as to what is going on with those
    businesses so that then what they have done is they have put
    together--when I identified and mentioned the Manufacturing
    Industry Council, that we also put--were part of putting
    together the Transportation and Logistics Council and part of
    the Aviation Council in our area, so that that means all these
    businesses from our local area come together on a monthly basis
    with WIB involvement, and the WIB works together to convene
    them, and we find out--the community colleges are there,
    institutions of higher learning--what are those specific
    training needs, so that we can then work together with them to
    design those courses specific to those business needs, and
    then, of course, the WIB will assist in funding. And I think
    that is an outstanding way to do that and keep all--many of the
    tenets that you have put into this bill as far as being that
    business-led--addressing those needs are met.
        Mr. Heck. And I would agree. I think when you have over 50
    employers saying that they can't find employees that are ready
    to go to work that probably they need to have more of an input
    in how we are trying to set up the credentials and get
    employees trained.
        In the hearing that I--field hearing I previously mentioned
    we had heard that Southern Nevada lost over 70,000 construction
    jobs during this recession, primarily because our construction
    workforce was about 12.5 percent of our total workforce when
    the national average is closer to 5. And so the question posed
    to the analyst was, ``Do you expect these construction jobs to
    come back?'' to which he said, ``No, we will probably never see
    that level of construction again.''
        So I turned to a representative of the construction
    industry and said, ``What are you doing to get your workers
    ready for the jobs that will be here, not necessarily the jobs
    that were here?'' And the answer was a little disappointing,
    and it was just that, ``Well, we just need to spend more money
    on infrastructure so I can put them back to construction
    work.''
        But with that, I mean, there has been a lot of debate about
    targeted programs.
        Ms. Noble, you brought up in your testimony that you felt
    that there wasn't necessarily need for targeted programs, but
    how can--give us some examples of how your State and local area
    would use these flexible funds--improve services to dislocated
    workers and individuals with limited English proficiency,
    veterans, or Native Americans.
        Ms. Noble. Let me take each one of those. For our veterans,
    for example, we are doing a couple of things. Our education
    community is working with our employer community and we are
    actually converting the skills that the veterans acquired while
    they were in service so that they will apply to the jobs that
    we do have. We are doing that by having them--the licensing
    provisions, the ability to test out so that they don't have to
    repeat a lot of their education.
        In terms of our Native American populations, which we have
    a lot of in Oklahoma, we have joined--they have joined with our
    other workforce programs by industry. In the health care
    industry, for example, in the eastern part of our State all of
    the hospitals now have joined together and determined, what are
    those steps for each one of them, and both eastern and--both
    the work----
        Chairman Kline. Sorry to interrupt, but the gentleman's
    time has expired--the old ``ask the question with 10 seconds
    left trick.''
        Ms. Fudge?
        Mr. Fudge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank all of you for your testimony and certainly what
    I believe is a genuine concern to improve WIA, so I thank you.
        Ms. Noble--and I am going to follow up on some questions
    that were asked by my colleagues--adult illiteracy is a huge
    problem in this country. I represent the city of Cleveland,
    Ohio, where the majority of adults are functionally illiterate.
    This means that folks are incapable of writing a brief letter
    or even finding a way, sometimes, to use a bus schedule. And it
    is not unique to my district.
        Adult illiteracy is common in so many areas, and so in your
    testimony you say that our nation cannot afford to separate
    education and workforce development because they are one and
    the same. So my question is, if this is the case, how can
    States use WIA to ensure that those in need of adult basic
    education are encouraged to return and to continually use the
    services provided at a one-stop center?
        Ms. Noble. Thank you, Congresswoman. I am an educator
    first. I started my career in education, and so I am a great
    believer that that is the way out.
        Adult education cannot--in my opinion--cannot stand alone
    because people, one, get focused on getting--I got my ABE, or I
    got my GED, and they don't see that what I am really looking
    for is a career. That is why, one, it needs to be together.
        The other part is that it is a long process, as Andy talked
    about. We have to be able, through this joint connection, to
    have a person work on learning to read but apply that reading,
    and that is why the system that looks at what is it not just
    that you know but how do you use what you know? I can then get
    a job. I can get a job while I am continuing to learn, but the
    system has to not terminate me before I get there. It has to
    allow me to get those credentials along the way.
        Mr. Fudge. But how do we get people to use it? How do we
    get the illiterate adult into the centers? Because that is as
    big a part of the problem as anything else.
        Ms. Noble. And part of, if I may, part of the answer is
    that you don't deliver services just in a center.
        Mr. Fudge. That is a big part of the problem with this
    bill.
        I am going to ask another question, then if anyone else
    wants to answer that one you may.
        Mr. Van Kleunen, back to the veterans issue: The
    unemployment rate among veterans is higher, obviously, than the
    national average. Nineteen percent of the more than 36,000
    veterans in my district are unemployed. Veterans obviously have
    served, and many continue to serve, this country honorably.
        As members of Congress we must make it a point to help vets
    whenever possible, and I think we all agree on that--especially
    when we address their education and employment needs. In your
    opinion, would consolidating--with this whole consolidation we
    have been talking about in this bill--would consolidating the
    Veterans Workforce Investment Program help reduce unemployment
    among veterans, and what impact do you believe that such a
    consolidation would have on veterans?
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Well, I do think--and again, because this
    is such an important issue, and I think that if we have to
    unpack it a bit to see, okay, if you have somebody who has come
    back as a veteran who is looking for a job, what are the things
    that we have offered to do for them so far? We have offered to
    send them to college through the G.I. bill. Many of them are
    not ready to go to college or not interested in pursuing a 4-
    year degree; they are looking for some kind of technical
    training. Some of them actually do have those kind of reading
    and math challenges that we need to address.
        And to go back to your prior question, the way we get folks
    to--adults, like myself, to increase our reading and math is we
    don't ask us to sit in a classroom for 6 months, you know,
    reading books. We figure out how to train us to be able to do a
    job. That is the research says how----
        Mr. Fudge. But it is time-consuming and goes back to what
    you were saying----
        Mr. Van Kleunen. It is time-consuming----
        Mr. Fudge [continuing]. Penalized for taking on those----
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Right. So right. So that is where I think
    that--so clearly we need to make sure that we have the
    investment available for folks to do both basic skills and
    technical training at the same time.
        And I just think the other part of it is that our veterans
    need other things besides training. They also do need some
    support services----
        Mr. Fudge. Right. But I do want you to answer the question:
    Does it help or hurt if we consolidate?
        Mr. Van Kleunen. And so part of the proposal is that we are
    now taking support services out of what is a fundable service
    under what would be the consolidated workforce fund. So those
    veterans that were looking for supportive services beyond
    training in order to help them to get back into a job, develop
    a career path, we have now taken that out as a fundable
    activity.
        Mr. Fudge. So the answer is, they would be hurt?
        Mr. Van Kleunen. It would be more difficult. It would more
    be difficult----
        Mr. Fudge. I am just trying to get there.
        If anybody else wants to answer I have about a minute. I
    guess I would do either of the questions.
        Chairman Kline. You have about 2 seconds.
        Mr. Fudge. Then I yield back. [Laughter.]
        Chairman Kline. Thank the gentlelady.
        Mrs. Roby?
        Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you all for being here today. And I am going to start
    with Ms. Noble.
        If you would just shed some light on whether or not you
    feel the current workforce investment system is spending enough
    money on training, and will eliminating the burdensome sequence
    of services provision and reducing burdensome requirements for
    trainers--excuse me, for training providers help increase
    access to training?
        Ms. Noble. Okay. Depends on where you live as to whether it
    is spending enough on training, and I say that because we have
    areas that--where the workforce board has said, 40 percent, 50
    percent must be spent on training. But in those areas where
    they don't have enough workers they don't want people to be in
    long-term training; they want people to work and train. And so
    it is what is going on in that area that should determine what
    the menu should look like.
        Mrs. Roby. Well, and then what else do you think that the
    committee could contain in this bill as it relates to that?
        Ms. Noble. I think training should be encouraged by
    determining what kinds of and how many credentials and
    certificates the participants are receiving. That way they can
    get it through apprenticeships, internships, as well as
    classroom training and combinations of work-based training.
        Mrs. Roby. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Noble.
        Ms. Moran, in your testimony you discuss the specific
    education and job training needs in your community, citing that
    50 percent of job seekers in your area have a high school
    education or less. Can you describe how your locally driven
    system would ensure the needs that--of your area are
    specifically met?
        Ms. Moran. Certainly. Thank you.
        Because we have a very active and engaged workforce board
    that has strong collaboration throughout the community, both
    with businesses as well as with community college, adult
    education, and other programs, we work to address those issues
    that are of critical need. Most of our employers today require,
    at a minimum, a high school education. So if we can't bring the
    education level up to at least that level we are doomed before
    we start.
        So we look at how do we work with K-12, how do we work with
    the community college and higher education, how do we work with
    training providers, adult education, and we really focus our
    efforts on that, because it is difficult to get into the skills
    training without also having the basic educational levels. And
    I think that is where that local, business-led board has been
    important.
        Mrs. Roby. And how does this bill, H.R. 4297, offer a step
    in the right direction to ensure local control and decision
    making are in place?
        Ms. Moran. This bill does allow for that local control and
    decision making. It allows for the local boards to determine
    the amount of training, so as we look at some of the needs that
    might not be classified as training, whether that would be the
    literacy or adult education, those decisions would come back to
    the local boards to decide how much should be training and how
    much should be allocated for other areas.
        Mrs. Roby. Thank you.
        And quickly, Ms. Harmsen, we often hear in Washington that
    if there is no dedicated federal funding program or funding
    stream to aid specific populations with employment and training
    services then this will permit states and locals to skirt their
    responsibilities in helping those individuals find and retain
    employment. Can you speak to this issue specifically?
        Ms. Harmsen. Yes. I think that--and I had stated this in my
    testimony, as well--that we respect our partners. Our partners
    have a role in each of those specialized populations and that
    workforce is such an important key issue for each of those
    specialized populations. And I think that if, again, we are
    able to identify what the tenets of workforce development
    should be that those guidelines can be followed to ensure that
    all of those population's needs are met.
        I think that it is coordination together is really what
    needs to happen with all of the funding. How the workforce
    dollars go out into each of those different programs is
    coordination together to say, here are--and that is where I
    think the local system is so good because it is that direct
    connection to business that say, here is where the business
    needs are, here is where we need to train, here is what we need
    to do, and here is how we can help each of those populations.
        Because we know that the members that are on our board live
    in these areas, as well, and they are concerned about those who
    are underemployed, those who are receiving assistance and
    getting subsidized employment and the parolee populations, and
    that sort of thing. And I think that they are not--they are
    very concerned--they are very concerned about all of those
    populations.
        Mrs. Roby. Right. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Kline. Thank the gentlelady.
        Ms. Woolsey, you are recognized.
        Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think one of the things we have to keep in front of us
    while we are talking about this is one of the major values of
    WIA is that employer willingness--Ms. Moran referred to willing
    employers--I mean, willing to what? To train, to support, to
    hire what populations?
        I think it is important that WIA has replaced willingness
    with expectations--actual expectations and the support systems
    that will be available using federal funds and measured by
    outcomes and outputs. I mean, we cannot overlook that one of
    the reasons we have WIA in the first place is that populations
    were going underserved, and for us to even suggest using
    federal funds and not address the underserved and not have a
    way to measure this is something we cannot allow.
        So, Mr. Van Kleunen, one of the populations I am
    particularly concerned about is the workers with disabilities,
    and when I say that I mean also--I include recovering substance
    abusers in that population, of course. And we know, willing
    employers may not want to deal with substance abusers who are
    being rehabilitated and could fall off the wagon, or whatever.
    So, I mean, it is a worry and it is going to take more.
        So I believe there is--and you can correct me if I am
    wrong--there are about 1 million individuals with disabilities
    and another 35,000 waiting on a list for services, and so my
    concern is if--what this Republican bill will do if it allows
    states to divert vocational rehab funds away from individuals
    with disabilities.
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Well, this is one of the parts of the bill
    that we have not talked about yet. So we have talked a lot
    about the 27 programs that are federally charged to be put into
    the consolidated fund, but it does also create an opportunity
    for states to take a whole other list of programs, including
    vocational rehab services, to also include them, so it could be
    a much longer list than 27 within any particular State. And
    certainly for folks who are living with disabilities or serving
    people who are living with disabilities this is a great concern
    precisely because, back to the issue of--these are--for those
    who are seeking employment it is a--some, for them, a long
    process.
        And the reality isthat there is a great diversity within
    our disabled community that is currently served by the V.R.
    program, and to set one standard that we are going to--across
    all of those clients for employment outcomes is actually not
    recognizing that there are different folks with different needs
    within that population. So that current program, as it exists,
    kind of recognizes those dual purposes of people who are served
    by V.R.
        Ms. Woolsey. Right. Could you give us an idea of which
    services would be at risk if we did this, or is it just getting
    on the will----
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Well, I think that it is a matter--it is
    as much a matter of breadth as it is--so I think that what will
    happen is if the vocational rehab services are pulled within to
    a State's consolidated fund I think that the range of services
    that are going to be provided to people currently qualified for
    V.R. is going to be narrower; I can't say specifically which
    ones are going to be gone. And it probably is that those that
    are easier to serve within the V.R. population are most likely
    to be served as opposed to those who are the harder to serve,
    even within that particular category.
        Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
        Ms. Moran, in your testimony you state that we should judge
    job training programs by their results. And you mentioned that
    over the past 3 years 8.7 million Americans have used WIA
    services, a 252 percent increase, and that 55 percent of these
    workers have found jobs despite the fact that there were four
    job seekers for every job. That seems to be a pretty good
    number to me.
        Do you think that these results justify scrapping the
    entire WIA program and turning it into a block grant or would
    it not be better to fix--maybe making your panels smaller or
    something?
        Ms. Moran. We believe there have been some good results in
    this system. We also believe there is always room for
    improvement.
        I don't know that I would refer to saying that we should
    scrap the entire system but I think we need to look at how to
    continuously improve the entire system. How do we put together
    those efforts and programs to build on the successes, to look
    around the nation at those areas that have been successful and
    replicate that so that all areas of our nation are having these
    success levels? But we do believe there have been successful
    outcomes due to the collaboration and the innovation that has
    happened at the local level, you know, in present day.
        Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Kline. Gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mr. Walberg?
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I thank the panel for being with us today, talking
    about a subject that is extremely important all across this
    nation in your districts, your areas, but also in mine.
        Ms. Noble, in your testimony you urged the workforce
    investment system to, and I quote--``manage results, not
    process.'' Could you describe for us what a State must
    currently measure in terms of reporting requirements, how much
    time this takes, on average, and why you believe it is
    currently--underemphasizes the performance aspect?
        Ms. Noble. Currently, we do important things like, one,
    look after the money to make sure the money is spent right, and
    that has to be there, but we also----
        Mr. Walberg. That is not a bad idea----
        Ms. Noble. That is not a bad idea. But also, we do data
    validation. We spend a lot of time doing data validation. We
    require almost 100 percent--the--at the local level, that they
    are spending their time looking and monitoring and going
    through files that have been put together by case managers, and
    then the State sends out people to go through those same files
    by one--and sees how you are keeping those, and counts them
    again. And then at the State level we monitor ourselves, and
    then the federal level of regents come in and they--this is
    just on data validation.
        Mr. Walberg. This is unnecessary redundancy, you would say?
        Ms. Noble. Yes. Just as one kind of example.
        We count how many people go to work. We are under common
    performance measures in Oklahoma, so ours already are less than
    others have. But we want to know, did you go to work? Did you
    receive--did you go to work in an area where you received
    training? Did you stay in that job 6 months later?
        And those are, to me, the common measures that should be--
    for any program--should be able to tell, did you put someone in
    training? What were the results of that training? Did they get
    a job? Did they keep the job? That is what you need.
        Mr. Walberg. Well, in light of that, then how will the
    performance system set up under this bill, H.R. 4297, improve
    the accountability of federal funds?
        Ms. Noble. What we will have on the performance system is
    all of the programs--right now each program has its separate
    standards. For example, we were talking about rehab and Andy
    was correct that rehab currently says you serve those people
    who are the most--have the most disabilities. Now, if that is
    what you want to continue then put that in the bill.
        When we have fewer people, though, and we have lots of
    people who have disabilities and who need services, right now
    those are all referred to rehab. Yes, everybody could serve
    them. Adult education can serve them; WIA can serve them. But
    they get siloed, and that is the problem. If you happen to come
    on the wrong day to one of those siloed programs and I don't
    have any money you don't get service. Bringing it together
    allows me to pool the money and provide services to the people
    in my area that need the service.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
        Ms. Harmsen, in your testimony you briefly talk about
    community colleges, which are having an outstanding resurgence
    in my district, looking toward real-world issues, including
    advanced manufacturing and the like. In Michigan we have
    pioneers in workforce development, like the Lansing Community
    College, helping job creators access a workforce trained for
    their specific needs. How would H.R. 4297 help organizations
    like community colleges participate in federal workforce
    development programs to educate and train potential employees?
        Ms. Harmsen. Well, I believe that the tenets of the
    legislation reference that, that we are working together with
    those community colleges and those institutions of higher
    learning, and I think that that is absolutely necessary for us
    to do, because they are in the--I, too, I believe in education.
        Education is so very important when you are looking at not
    only just a job, and I think that that is one thing to think
    about. When we think about the spill in all of those
    populations, which I am hearing is such a concern, and it is a
    concern for us on the ground level as we are serving those
    populations, because there are some folks who need to come in
    and just learn how to work, learn how to--I was thinking when
    someone was talking, I had someone tell me 2 weeks ago in a
    meeting that one of the biggest concerns they are starting to
    see is the insurgence of people coming into the centers that
    are 25 years old who have never worked.
        Mr. Walberg. That is amazing.
        Ms. Harmsen. Holy cow. But the community college piece, I
    think, so very important in working together. And what we have
    seen is our community colleges' ability to be flexible, working
    with the employers to tailor the programs to what they need,
    and we love the part--the piece of the bill that talks about
    being able to directly contract with those community colleges
    to work with employers, because that has been a remarkable
    thing that has shown great success in our county, and I know in
    other WIBs, as well.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
        Mrs. Foxx [presiding]. The gentleman's time is expired.
        Mr. Loebsack?
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I really do appreciate the hearing today. This is
    something--I have been in Congress since January 2007 and we
    have been talking about reauthorization since that time--
    reauthorization of WIA--so this--I think it is a really
    critical hearing.
        Also, I am very happy that there are some references to
    sector partnerships in the majority bill. I want to thank
    Representative Platts for working with me on a bipartisan basis
    on the SECTORS Act, which, I want to point out, did pass the
    House unanimously in the last Congress at the end of the last
    session, the 2010. I also want to thank Chairman Miller and Mr.
    Tierney for including the SECTORS Act in their Workforce
    Investment Act of 2012, and I urge the majority to continue to
    work in a bipartisan manner to produce a bill that can help get
    really millions of unemployed back to work and, of course,
    boost our overall economic growth.
        As I mentioned, I have been working to move forward this
    sector partnership for workforce and economic development for a
    number of years. I really do believe that we need to better
    organize training and education and bring together all the
    critical folks in a community around sector partnerships, and
    higher education, and community colleges. Very, very important.
    They are, as well, in my district, throughout Iowa, throughout
    the country. I think it is absolutely critical. Workers,
    unions, where they might have apprenticeship programs, for
    example, as well.
        And of course, management. Of course, employers that
    determine how to save and create new industries, how to
    streamline the system to get people the training they need, the
    skills that employers want. We are constantly hearing about the
    skills gap. It is a bipartisan concern, I think it is fair to
    say.
        I do have concerns about the bill and about the
    consolidation in the bill. I believe we really need to
    diversify input into workforce development systems through
    sector strategies because our communities are diverse, and to
    move forward we are going to need to work together and not
    divide our communities.
        I want to ask each one of you specifically to give a
    response to me when it comes to sector partnerships what you
    think about this particular bill and also the Democratic
    alternative, as far as incorporating the idea of sector
    partnerships and support for sector partnerships into any
    reauthorization of WIA that we see moving forward. And I would
    like to start with Mr. Van Kleunen, if I might.
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Well, and obviously to the extent that we
    are all talking about this concept and this strategy, which
    really has been developed without the support--direct support
    from the federal government since WIA was authorized. I mean,
    this is where the field is way out in front of where we have
    been with our national legislation, so let's at least put into
    legislation moving forward an investment in the very
    partnerships that up until now some states have developed using
    some of the 15 percent money, which now has been taken away and
    is actually is not included back in with 4297.
        Let's really make that a standard that we have some States
    that are doing this and some localities and some boards that
    are doing this; we have a lot that are not. Why do we not make
    that a standard that everyone who is receiving funding from the
    federal government for workforce development that there should
    be some effort to organize employers by industry with other
    stakeholders. That should be a baseline expectation. We can't
    achieve that unless we actually put it into law.
        I do think that the Democratic bill actually does that in a
    number of different ways that we don't achieve with the
    Republican proposal.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you.
        Ms. Noble?
        Ms. Noble. Sector partnerships, Congressman, are just
    vital. I will give you three examples.
        The Texhoma partnership in Oklahoma, and--which was funded
    with 15 percent funds--we trained each of our boards in how to
    do it, and these still exist today. They are very strong. This
    is Oklahoma and Texas together dealing with what are the
    important industries? They identified them, built those
    partnerships, and each of the chambers of commerce contributed.
    So that is the way you get--you finance some of this.
        Some of the best known States in--that I have worked with
    across the country have modeled after sector partnerships.
    Boston is important today in its workforce work because of the
    sector partnership that actually started under the PICK, which
    is--that shows how old I am. Washington State is doing a lot of
    avant-garde work, and it is led by its sector partnerships.
        We funded in Oklahoma and our--those areas, that is how our
    tribal nations, which are often separate, that is how they have
    come together with non-tribal entities. Sector partnerships is
    industry-leading. The key is industry-leading.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Ms. Noble.
        We are almost out of time. I would like to submit that
    question to the other two for the record and get your response,
    if I might do that, Madam Chair.
        And again, I introduced this bill when I did because I had
    heard from the communities about how important sector
    partnerships are, so thank you very much.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Loebsack.
        Mr. Tierney?
        I am sorry. Mr. Platts?
        Mr. Platts. Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly would be
    glad to waive my turn behind Mr. Tierney, but I do appreciate
    the chance to----
        Mr. Tierney. Don't blow it. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Platts. Well, Madam Chair, I want to thank you for your
    efforts in the reauthorization, as well as the full committee
    chair and all the members, both sides of the aisle, who
    understand the importance of this reauthorization and that we
    not just do it but do it well.
        I am going to echo Mr. Loebsack's comments about sector
    partnerships and I appreciate--that was an issue I was going to
    address, but as a cosponsor with Congressman Loebsack don't
    want to repeat on that issue and maybe touch on one that goes,
    I think, hand-in-hand.
        In addition to being the lead Republican with Mr. Loebsack
    on the sectors partnership, I am the lead Republican with Mr.
    Donnelly on the America Works Act, which is to then promote
    the--what has been discussed here to some degree already--the
    nationally recognized, very portable skill credentials. I know
    in my district I certainly hear from my employers--mainly
    manufacturers--and I believe I have seen a number where
    hundreds of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing community
    today are empty because employers can't find the skilled labor
    force to match up to them.
        And I have to say, my--personally, my ninth grade son,
    T.J., who loves working with his hands, his newest endeavor
    is--in his--one of his classes at school he is getting more
    exposed to welding, to where now we have a portable home
    welding unit, where he has begun to heighten his skill level--
    carefully, I have asked him and reminded him. Yes, we don't
    want to burn the house down.
        But as he was doing it I was thinking that, you know, I am
    glad to encourage him. I mean, he is in a college prep program
    but I am glad to encourage that skill as well, because it may
    be that in the end he decides that he doesn't want to go the
    college route, and I know today that if he had a welding skill
    he would be hired like that in a very well-paying job.
        And so in Representative Donnelly's bill, that I am the
    lead R with, with Joe on, is to try to promote that national
    recognition, the portability.
        And I apologize, running in and out, if you have already
    touched on this, but I know, Mr. Van Kleunen, your association
    really promotes this idea, I believe. If you want to comment or
    any of the witnesses on the importance of that portability--not
    just that we have credentials but the portability of those
    credentials and how you think that would benefit workforce
    training and filling these empty positions that are so
    important to our manufacturing community.
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Absolutely, Congressman. I mean, we think
    that there is room for both nationally recognized, portable
    credentials so that folks can move around the country. We also
    think there is also room where it is necessary when there are
    national credentials that don't necessarily meet the specific
    needs of the local labor market or the niche that that
    particular industry is trying to fill, where there is
    opportunity for those employers to come together to come up
    with their own skill standards. But we think that having a
    balanced approach between the two is exactly where we should be
    going to be making clear both to employers as well as to
    workers what it is that the skills are that we are expecting.
        Mr. Platts. And is it fair to say that if you partner the
    SECTORS Act with this idea of credentialing you really, then,
    kind of determine, with some that may be nationals, but those
    partnerships in a community, that they may--that partnership
    will lead to a community-wide credentialing, that they kind of
    go hand-in-hand?
        Mr. Van Kleunen. We think they go hand-in-hand. We think it
    is the right way to bring people to the table and it is the
    right way to set a standard that other folks can adopt.
        Mr. Platts. Okay. Thank you.
        Ms. Noble. Yes. Our manufacturers, for example, in our
    State have come to the State councilmen and asked for a--an
    Oklahoma version of NAM. They buy into the NAM portable skills
    but they also want some other things because they want to count
    it different than NAM counts it. And the aerospace community
    has similar--we have done aerospace studies and we can tell you
    what skills are needed, from a paint-striper to an engineer.
        And to do that, though, it takes a lot of work. But once
    you do it we can then prepare high school students as well as
    our engineering students.
        And just this week the deans of our private school and
    public universities--engineering schools--came together with
    our leading aerospace companies to talk that pathway.
        Mr. Platts. Great.
        Ms. Noble. That is what we have got to do in our country.
        Mr. Platts. Yes. I know I am about to run out of time. And
    I have seen this personally with my oldest brother, who was
    trained in--years back in heavy earth-moving equipment, top of
    his class in the training, graduated, but there were no jobs in
    that industry anywhere close, and so he got great training
    through, you know, the loss of jobs going overseas, but if it
    wasn't--there wasn't a job. So this partnership that we
    identify the jobs and the skills--together, appreciate all of
    your efforts.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Foxx. The gentleman's time is expired.
        Now, Mr. Tierney?
        Mr. Tierney. Well, thank you very much.
        The prospect of a 9-year-old Platts running around
    Pennsylvania with a torch ought to get us all unsettled, but
    particularly if we live in that State and that neighborhood.
        On that, thank you. Madam Chairman, I would like to ask
    unanimous consent to enter into the record about a dozen
    letters from various organizations commenting on the bill that
    is before us today and the Democratic alternative.
        [The information follows:]

                                    ------

        Mrs. Foxx. Without objection.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much.
        I have prospects that this can be done on a bipartisan
    basis. Ms. Moran and others have mentioned that. And I am a
    little troubled that the bill was filed a day before we left
    for 2 weeks in the district, and the hearing is the day after
    we get back, and now I understand it is going to be marked up
    within a week. I would hope that we could spend some time and
    really sift through this.
        Let me ask folks, there have been comments favorable to the
    bill that is before us today, and some that have some concerns
    on that.
        Ms. Harmsen, do you think that there are some provisions in
    the bill that was filed by Mr. Miller, Mr. Hinojosa, and I that
    could improve upon the bill that is the subject of today's
    hearing?
        Ms. Harmsen. I think that the things that I have discussed
    are really something that should be a focus, is making sure
    that that local control is local at that local area.
        Mr. Tierney. And that would be one improvement?
        Ms. Harmsen. Yes, and business. Really focusing on that
    business.
        Mr. Tierney. Mr. Van Kleunen, do you see things in the bill
    that Mr. Miller, Mr. Hinojosa, and I filed that could be, in
    fact, be improvements on the bill that--today?
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Absolutely. I mean, there are a number of
    areas where I think, around issues of performance measurement,
    where I would think that it is aligned with the motivations of
    the Republican bill. I think that we could improve the
    Republican bill using some of those performance standards.
        I think the focus on business and sector partnerships that
    we have talked about--I think could also be another way that
    could help to define some of those standards on the local level
    for it to be meaningful in the business.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
        Ms. Moran?
        Ms. Moran. And certainly I support the bipartisan effort
    because I think this is such a critical effort, that if we can
    look at those common areas and those shared principles that we
    have talked about--the business-led boards, having that local
    decision and that local delivery system, looking at outcomes
    that are meaningful and have value to employers and to job
    seekers--and then working on those areas.
        And I think there are some areas that we can look at as to
    how do we improve? You know, one of the areas from the Democrat
    bill that I would love to see readdressed is mandating the
    percentage of money that goes to training and allow that to be
    a local decision.
        Mr. Tierney. On that issue, let me ask this: The principles
    of the National Association of Workforce Boards have for
    policies state that locally-based, employer-led workforce
    investment boards are in the best position to develop
    strategies that align to the need and economic development
    investments. You go on to say the funds designated to statewide
    use should align with local or regional workforce and economic
    development strategies and that locally-based workforce
    investment boards should have a voice in those funding plans.
    Correct?
        Ms. Moran. Correct.
        Mr. Tierney. Now, I hope--we tried to address that in the
    bill that we filed, but I note in the bill 4297 that is before
    us today, it gives--it consolidates a number of programs, as we
    have talked about, it gives additional authority to governors,
    and in fact, it would allow a governor, if so inclined, to
    combine to just have one board statewide. Now, you state on
    page six that you have a--there is a delicate balance between
    State and local areas. Are you concerned by the prospect that a
    governor could have just one board statewide, might not strike
    that--that balance at all, as well?
        Ms. Moran. We would certainly encourage that that balance
    be between the State and the locals so that you do have local
    regions that make economic sense and that they are labor
    market-driven. So we would very strongly encourage that the
    local areas be engaged in that conversation and decision.
        Mr. Tierney. Okay. Now, one of your association principles
    is also that a physical one-stop shop infrastructure be funded
    separately. Do you see that anywhere in the bill by Ms. Foxx,
    Mr. Kline--the one we are discussing today?
        Ms. Moran. I have not seen that separate funding at this
    point.
        Mr. Tierney. Mr. Van Kleunen, you talked at length about
    the core reasons that we have a workforce investment bill,
    ensuring that all workers have access to education and training
    leading to skills and industry-recognized credentials that will
    allow them to keep family-supporting jobs--broadly stated on
    that. You also said that consolidation was not reform. What
    concerns do you have about consolidation and how it might
    detract from that original core goal that you set forth?
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Well, I think, as I said already, I mean,
    our concern about if we are not making sure that our publicly
    funded programs are giving a wide range of workers an
    opportunity to prepare for the skilled job in a local
    industry--and again, I believe that that is a role of the
    public sector. It is a role of industry to say, ``Here are the
    standards that we are looking for.'' It is the role of the
    public sector to make sure that anybody who wants to train for
    that job, whether it takes them 6 weeks or 6 months, that they
    are going to have an opportunity to do that. And we fear that
    the consolidation proposal will make it harder for those who
    are going to be the harder to serve to actually get to that
    point.
        Mr. Tierney. And harder still if the board doesn't reflect
    at least some people from community-based organizations, and in
    labor, and others.
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Absolutely. Because this is a shared
    process, right? This is something where we are trying to serve
    both businesses and workers and the broader community. And I
    think that we need to have all of those stakeholders around the
    table to figure that out.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you all for your testimony today.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Mrs. Foxx. Your time is expired.
        I just want to say that I find it absolutely amazing that
    the United States of America got to the point it got to, got
    through World War II and won World War II without a single
    federal government worker training program, and now the world
    will end if we don't continue them and in silos.
        Dr. Roe, I believe you are next?
        Mr. Roe. Okay. Thank the chairman, and thank you for having
    this hearing, and I am sorry I have had to jump in and out but
    I have enjoying hearing the testimony, and certainly from the
    folks down at the grassroots level. And having been an employer
    for over 30 years and realizing that what you needed to do was
    to line up the skill set with what you needed as an employer.
        And to me, when I visit our--I am in the service industry
    as a physician, but I have visited a tremendous number of
    manufacturers in our area and you hear that all over every day.
    Can you pass a drug screen? And number two, do you have the
    skills that we need in this job?
        And I think, Ms. Noble, you made the best comment I have
    ever heard. It is really pretty simple. When you train
    somebody, and when industry comes in and you train these people
    do they get a job, and then 6 months later do they still have
    the job? And that is fairly common sense, what you just said,
    and I think that is the metric that you need, and that is the
    metric I would need if I am out there looking for work and I go
    to this one-stop shop and can they train me where I live, as
    Todd Platts was saying--they did not in that case. They did a
    lot of great training but there was not job.
        And having local community line those jobs up, I see that
    as the biggest detriment to people finding jobs. It may not be
    exactly what you want--welding was brought up. We have a 3-year
    wait in my area for people to get into welding. There is a huge
    need for it, and yet we are not training enough welders where
    we are for the jobs we need.
        So I would like to hear your comment, Ms. Noble, on that.
        Ms. Noble. I agree, obviously, that the industry needs must
    be met and must drive what we do. And that is really the best
    way to get services, I believe, to everyone. If I have no
    skills now and I have limited education, if you can show me a
    way to get those skills and to get some--I may start on the
    bottom rung but at least I have a pathway that I can get--that
    is why the State of Oklahoma has invested so much in career
    pathways that align with industry sector work.
        Mr. Roe. Congressman Hinojosa and I have worked on adult
    literacy together, and that is the least investment we see in
    Tennessee, it is several hundred dollars to get a GED but has
    the most bang for the buck. Does this bill address adult
    literacy--just any of you want to take this--in an adequate
    enough way? I am asking this as a question, rhetorically.
        Mr. Van Kleunen. The bill that we are talking about today,
    it does allow for the integration of adult literacy services
    into the larger pot. I think that we have--to your point, and I
    think we have said it several times, making adult literacy
    services guaranteed to be available and to be integrated with
    technical training is absolutely essential. We think the
    consolidation proposal actually may reduce the availability of
    adult literacy services because, again, those who require them
    are often harder to serve clients.
        And so I think that is the concern. We want to see them
    aligned but I don't think we want to see adult literacy
    services diluted by throwing them into the bigger pot.
        Mr. Roe. Okay.
        And, Ms. Moran, do you have a comment? I know the people
    that I really listen to are the people down in the trenches
    every day that do this job every day. Are we making this
    easier--will this bill make this easier for you to do your job,
    to provide the services that you have out there?
        Ms. Moran. I actually believe that the improvements we have
    been talking about today, the principles we have been talking
    about, making sure that it is employer-led, that the local
    areas have the decisions and are delivering the product will
    make it easier. Because I think it is difficult to mandate it
    from the federal government; I think it is difficult to mandate
    it from the State government. These are local decisions that
    really need to be responsive to the business environment in the
    local communities, and that will make it easier for employers
    and job seekers.
        Mr. Roe. And when a business is getting ready to expand or
    a business is going to move into your community you have to
    have those things. You have to have a ready, well-educated
    workforce.
        I am going to give you an example right now. In
    Chattanooga, Tennessee--I don't live there, but Volkswagen is
    expanding dramatically and they are having to bring workers
    into that area because they don't have the fully skilled people
    that they need.
        So community colleges, I think, are--make a turn a lot
    quicker than 4-year colleges and they are able to provide those
    workforce skills much quicker, and then what you all do, also.
    But I think the skills gap is the biggest--I think that is the
    biggest detriment we have in the country. Every employer I have
    gone to has told me that very thing.
        And I yield back my time.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you.
        The gentleman from Tennessee yields back and sets the
    record for ending before the end of time today. We thank him.
        I believe, Mrs. Davis, you are next?
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And I appreciate you all for being here. I have to run out
    for another meeting but I wanted to come back to the question
    and in some ways identify my comments with Mr. Tierney's in
    terms of his questions, focusing on consolidation, because that
    seems to be the biggest difference.
        As I have sat here and listened to you all, sounds to me
    like there is a lot of agreement there and we keep going back
    and forth between two bills that would suggest to me that
    actually there are very good issues that are addressed in both.
    But the one that concerns me is the consolidation and the
    funding.
        One of the things that we know--and if we even go back to
    No Child Left Behind--you have to disaggregate data. You have
    to be able to judge whether all people who are part of
    workforce development have an equal chance of opportunity to be
    successful in the program--can't guarantee results, but an
    opportunity to do that. And what I think I have heard you all
    say in one way or another is that through consolidation, you
    are going to lose the ability to do that, and that is a very
    important thing for locals to be able to evaluate.
        Is that correct? Did I miss that? And could you speak to
    that, whoever wants to?
        Mr. Van Kleunen?
        Mr. Van Kleunen. Absolutely. I think by, again, by putting
    all of these programs together we have lost the ability to set
    standards and establish some accountability to make sure that
    all of those different types of workers are served. And so I
    think you are absolutely right.
        Strategically, it seems that there are a lot of ways that
    we could figure out some agreement across these two bills, but
    it is the funding mechanism that is making it hard for us to
    figure out how it is that we can actually come up with a way
    that is going to guarantee that everybody who wants that
    opportunity can actually train for a job in their local
    community.
        Mrs. Davis. Ms. Harmsen, did you want to----
        Ms. Harmsen. Yes. And I agree, it is the funding mechanism.
    Because I think that we are all concerned about all of those
    populations that are in our local areas that need to be served.
    And so I think that we need to make sure that if we are--what
    we are consolidating is, again, the guidelines over how we are
    serving those different populations----
        Mrs. Davis. Do you see, in the bill that we are addressing
    here today, then, do you see, particularly in 4297, do you see
    that--I mean, do you have questions about that? Because I think
    I have heard you say that on a number of occasions. Is that
    correct?
        Ms. Harmsen. Yes. Because, well, obviously I don't have
    that 50,000-foot view of what is going on with all of the other
    programs that may be--because when I read the bill and it was
    saying that there were programs that were not performing, I
    don't know that. I do know that--I don't know which programs
    are non-performing or performing. I do know that WIA has been
    performing and that we have been partnering with those other
    programs already, so if there was something that was able to be
    put in place to ensure, so that, like we are saying, that each
    of those populations are still serve some mechanism that,
    however you are consolidating this, I still think it is that
    concept of the funding for workforce services.
        Mrs. Davis. Ms. Moran?
        Ms. Moran. And I don't have a magic number of how many
    programs do we consolidate, collaborate, integrate, whatever
    the magic word of the day is, but I do think it is critical
    that the programs come under the umbrella of the workforce
    investment boards so that we do have consolidated efforts in
    the work we are doing, so that we are not duplicating efforts,
    so that we are building upon the strengths of what we need to
    do----
        Mrs. Davis. Could you tell me how you think that the bill--
    the other bill that we are talking about here today--Mr.
    Tierney and others' bill--could you tell me how--why you think
    that doesn't do that?
        Ms. Moran. I am not saying that it doesn't do that. What it
    does allow, and I think what both allow as they look at the
    programs, is keeping it under the umbrella of the workforce
    investment board so that we have a common plan, that we have
    common outcomes.
        And by looking at how we consolidate some of the programs
    or integrate, then I think we also look at how we make
    investments that have the greatest payback and return on
    investment for our local communities. So I do think it is
    important that we have outcomes that are consistent across the
    board and that we are administered through the workforce
    investment system.
        Mrs. Davis. Ms. Noble, would you like to comment, too?
    Where do you see the problem in trying to bring all this
    together?
        Ms. Noble. I think the problem is the lack of a required
    unified plan. You can have separate programs if they are all
    driving toward the same goal, and if they are not driving
    toward the same goal you have what you have now.
        And it is not that individual programs are not performing,
    but they are not performing toward the same end. And the end is
    that you have jobs that are being filled by people who are
    acquiring skills.
        Senior programs, rehab programs, TANF programs, when we
    said--when the council said, we want you to focus on programs--
    your funding toward health services, or--because we had such a
    tremendous shortage, TANF training said, ``We can do that
    through our contracted work. We didn't consolidate.'' WIBs took
    the same approach. They said, we can join together with other
    WIBs and other kinds of training entities. The rehab, in their
    plan of the year, could do the--the problem is that it is not
    mandated.
        Mrs. Davis. Can I just, really quickly--do you think we can
    do this but have far fewer resources to do it?
        Mrs. Foxx. Mrs. Davis, I am sorry. Your time is up so I
    can't let you ask any more questions. Thank you.
        Mr. Hurt is recognized.
        Mr. Hurt. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I want to thank you, and thank the committee, and thank the
    chairman for allowing me to be a part of this hearing today. I
    want to thank the patrons who have led on this issue and have
    the bills there before the committee.
        And I also wanted to thank the panel for joining us.
        I come from rural Southside Virginia. I represent the 5th
    district of Virginia, and of course, as one of our panelists in
    particular knows, we have really faced tremendous economic
    challenges in the southern part of our district in particular,
    but all across the 5th district. In fact, textiles, furniture,
    tobacco have been a mainstay for our rural district for
    centuries, and we have seen over the last 10, 20 years how that
    economy has changed.
        Back in the 1950s, Dan River Mills, which is located--was
    located on the banks of the Dan River, employed 15,000 people.
    It was the second largest employer in Virginia after the
    shipyards in Newport News. Today Dan River Mills does not
    exist, and I think that that tells a very painful story for
    Southside Virginia, but it also tells a painful story for so
    many communities across our country.
        In fact, last week, or maybe earlier this week, we had
    unemployment numbers released for one of our localities in the
    5th district and it was at 16 percent. So that is the challenge
    we face. That is the challenge that I think we are all trying
    to grapple with here, and workforce training is obviously
    critical to finding our way towards the future.
        I think it is also important to remember that as we
    struggle with these issues that we are borrowing 40 cents on
    every dollar we spend and that we are approaching a debt in
    this country of $16 trillion, which is a tremendous drag on the
    economy and something that makes it more difficult for our
    private sector to perform.
        And so again, having an effort like this to really focus on
    those programs that work it seems to me is critical, because at
    the end of the day what we want is we want full employment in
    this country, and I think that we probably all agree that we
    want a balanced budget, and want to have the fiscal
    responsibility in Washington that has been lacking heretofore.
        I am proud, especially, to be here--to be with Laurie Moran
    who is, as was indicated, is not only the chair of the National
    Association for Workforce Boards but also is our Danville
    Pittsylvania Chamber president back in--back home, and I think
    that her expertise on this issue is welcome.
        I guess my question would be maybe--and maybe Laurie could
    answer first and then anyone who would like to add--Laurie, I
    guess my question is, is when you look back on the last 15
    years and how these programs have affected Southside Virginia
    in your experience, and as you, in a larger national position,
    are able to look across the country, can you talk about the--
    specifically how these programs save jobs--how do they save
    jobs, specifically, that are in the community, keep them from
    going other places, and how do we use--how have you all been
    able to use, as a chamber and as a workforce investment board--
    use these to attract new jobs, especially in an area where we
    have had to rebuild an economy and have had some measured
    success with advanced manufacturing, and the service sector,
    and so forth?
        Ms. Moran. Certainly. And I would have to confess and tell
    you, I come from a region of the country that probably didn't
    do a very well job--very good job when we first enacted WIA,
    and so it has been a learning curve for our region. But what we
    have seen in recent years is that our workforce board has
    placed the employer as the primary customer. We have focused on
    jobs that are in demand so we tie our training dollars to jobs
    that are in demand to make sure that people come out of
    training and get good employment in the community.
        We have implemented a business services component to the
    work that we are doing, and to help employers as well as--but
    especially employers to navigate through the many programs that
    are out there right now, because it is difficult and it is
    confusing, and about the 15th person who calls on an employer
    with a different type of program to offer to them, the employer
    throws their hands up in disgust because they no longer can
    understand it.
        So we have really tried to look at a collaborative model in
    our part of the commonwealth and in our part of the country to
    make sure that we are serving employers and that we are serving
    job seekers. And I think what we have today is a much more
    productive program and system that is helping job seekers and
    it is helping employers, and we are seeing measurable results
    as a result of that.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Hurt.
        Mr. Hurt. [Off mic]
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much.
        I want to thank, again, the witnesses for taking time--oh,
    I forgot Mr. Holt.
        I tried to give Mr. Tierney twice and then forget you. I
    apologize, Mr. Holt.
        Mr. Holt. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        It is long past time that we reauthorize WIA, and it is a
    tragedy that this reauthorization process is becoming partisan.
    The bill we are considering today cuts away at WIA under the
    guise of improving it.
        And some of you will remember that in 1998 the initial
    authorization of WIA was a model of bipartisan cooperation. I
    was not in Congress at the time but I was running. I was
    involved in a campaign as a candidate at that time and I
    followed the process closely, and remember eminent journalist
    David Broder wrote a column entitled, ``A Leg Up for U.S.
    Workers,'' which is exactly what WIA has become.
        He also noted that WIA was 5 years in the making and it
    only became law because of bipartisan efforts by members of
    Congress at the time. He reported Senator Wellstone and Senator
    DeWine, opposite sides of the aisle, leaving the floor
    together. Senator Wellstone turned to Senator DeWine and,
    according to Broder, said, ``Mike, this may not lead--this may
    not be the lead story tonight on the network news but it is a
    good piece of work.''
        We should be modernizing WIA and here we are considering
    a--what is a partisan reauthorization bill. I really want to
    thank Representatives Tierney, and Hinojosa, and Miller for
    introducing a sensible and comprehensible WIA reauthorization
    bill. You would think we could agree on measuring performance
    of each kind of activity and program and each kind of worker
    and prospective worker, and we can't even get that far.
        I want to mention two provisions in the Tierney bill that I
    am particularly interested in. A few years ago I introduced the
    Online Job Training Act to modernize WIA. It is based on a
    successful program at Rutgers that gave single mothers
    computers and Internet access, and people said, oh no, they
    will misuse it. They will play games. They will walk off with
    the computers.
        No. They were not being served by the traditional system
    and it worked.
        I also want to talk about another provision of the bill.
    You know, in this day and age our local libraries are job
    placement agencies. They are playing an important role in
    helping the public find employment.
        And I am pleased that Mr. Tierney's bill includes portions
    of legislation that I have called Workforce Investment through
    Local Libraries, the WILL Act. And that is what I wanted to ask
    you about. Let me start with Mr. Van Kleunen.
        Do you know of WIA-sponsored organizations coordinating or
    working with libraries with regard to workforce activities? And
    then as time allows, let me ask the others, please.
        Mr. Van Kleunen. So, yes. I mean, I think that one of the
    things that whatever we are doing in the future of WIA is that
    we need to figure out how to use community institutions that
    already are in existence whereby we are not forcing everybody
    to go down to one physical one-stop in order to be able to find
    out what jobs are available or what services are available to
    them.
        And I think that we have WIA systems throughout the country
    who are trying to do this with institutions like local
    libraries. I know in Philadelphia the library system is now
    playing a big, leading role in adult literacy services and
    trying to align that with what is going on with job training in
    the city.
        So I think it is an opportunity. I think it is kind of a
    lesson to a larger goal, which is trying to make sure that we
    are using our existing community-based infrastructure as
    different entry points into our WIA system.
        Mr. Holt. Ms. Harmsen?
        Ms. Harmsen. Yes. We, in San Bernardino County, do work
    with our libraries. We also work with other areas. We work in
    some areas, because our county is so big--our county is larger
    than many States, and so we have to address the needs, when you
    look at our high desert area and our low desert, very, very
    different from the looks of our East Valley and West Valley.
    And so what we have done is gone into those communities, and in
    some areas we have brought in the technology into the chambers
    offices or into the--actually into the city hall, they have
    made an office--provided office space for us to be able to
    provide services to their--to customers who come in, both
    business and jobseeker.
        Mr. Holt. Ms. Moran or Ms. Noble, could either of you give
    specifics of coordination with local libraries?
        Ms. Noble. Yes. Thank you, Congressman.
        The B-talk program was very successfully implemented in our
    state in that we focused that money to help rural areas get
    broadband. And because of that--and we specifically planned it
    so that the workforce community could deliver services through
    the libraries, because there are libraries all over the state.
        And before then our summer programs, for example, for our
    young people, it would take them 3 hours to go to a center to
    get the program, where by using the libraries and the
    infrastructure that was put in place we could do that. When we
    rolled out our OKJobMatch.com one of the first groups that we
    went to was to train librarians, and they applauded us because
    they had done their own survey and found that, as you said, a
    lot of time is being spent by librarians in helping people not
    to find a book but to find a job.
        Mr. Holt. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Holt.
        Well now let me say again, I would like to thank the
    witnesses for coming today, I know on behalf of the chairman
    and on behalf of the entire committee, for sharing your
    comments with us and enlightening all of us on issues that you
    are dealing with on a day-to-day basis. We really appreciate
    your making the effort to be here and sharing your wisdom and
    sharing your experiences, some of it for longer times than
    others, but we appreciate that.
        Mr. Tierney, I would like to recognize you for closing
    comments.
        Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much.
        And my appreciation, also, to all of the witnesses here
    today. You really did help this panel consider a lot of topics,
    and your considerable wisdom and experience has been enormously
    helpful.
        You know, we should be able to emulate what we did in 1998,
    and that is reach a bipartisan bill on this. We all profess to
    have similar goals; we all understand that that bill, which was
    created back when unemployment was probably 5 percent or less
    and when many of the industries and technologies that we talk
    about today didn't even exist, so there is certainly a need for
    modernization and a need for us to improve and take the lessons
    that have been learned over time.
        You know, I can see some of the larger issues may be
    difficult to deal with but I don't think they are
    insurmountable and I know that streamlining is important to
    some members, and my colleague to my left, in particular, but I
    think that also ensuring that all workers--that all workers,
    whether they are unskilled or lesser educated than others, or
    whether they are incumbent workers who need additional skills,
    or people that are very skilled that have been displaced, that
    all of them get the attention that they need in this bill.
        So I think that is a concern about making sure that
    everybody has access to education and training and that our
    boards both are informed because of local participation--I
    think everybody understands we want this to be a business-
    oriented and majority board, but that we also, I think, would
    hope that we could make some recognition that perhaps that goal
    of getting everybody served in the long run might not do as
    well unless we have representation of others on the board as
    well, whether those are community-based organizations, or
    labor, or others, and that we could put that focus on that and
    come to some resolve on that basis.
        We need to make sure not just for the immediate needs of
    employers, which are important, but also most of our employers
    understand, even though it may not be their most pressing
    issue, that we have to have the pipeline down the line ready,
    and that means with the great diversity that we have here that
    so many of you spoke about today, that even people that may not
    speak the language as well as we would like, that don't have
    the skills that we want or whatever, they need attention and
    sometimes they need prioritization so that that pipeline of
    employees is there for us if we want to keep strong and keep
    competitive.
        And so that is why it is important to have the right
    representation on boards and to have the right protections in
    our law for the use of money to make sure that it gets placed
    where it needs to get placed to move those forward.
        I think that, you know, innovation is important, and in our
    bill we tried to make sure there was adequate attention to
    that, and we have done a lot of things in pilot programs and
    others over the time. Those best practices ought to be taken up
    to scale and our bills ought to be able to give attention to
    that and the flexibility to move in innovative ways so that we
    can move--do that.
        I also think that community colleges were mentioned by a
    number of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle with
    adequate emphasis. I think that that is a piece of work that
    ought to get good attention in this bill. The community
    colleges have a lot to offer and they can participate in great
    ways and create, both at the education level and in some
    respect with the training level, if we get everybody--
    employers, employees, community people working together with
    them on that.
        I see great potential here and I hope others do, as well. I
    think all of your comments today were leading us in that
    direction to show us that we can take either bill as a base and
    improve it with some aspects of the other, and that hopefully
    we will be able to find some way to do that. And again, I want
    to thank you for your comments and your information today.
        Thank you, Ms. Chairman.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Tierney.
        I appreciate all my colleagues for being here today and
    asking their questions, and again, doing their best to bring
    out information. I agree with you. I think that there are
    places where we can agree on what needs to be in the bill that
    we pass. The panel in particular has emphasized local control,
    flexibility, the need for setting standards, and the need for
    accountability.
        One of the things we are attempting to fix in this bill is
    the lack of standards, the lack of accountability that has
    existed in the past, and not only from the GAO report but in
    just looking at other reports that have been made on existing
    programs we see almost a total lack of accountability. The
    American people are really frustrated right now. They are
    seeing these reports about the GSA; they know that is only the
    tip of the iceberg; they know that there is tremendous waste in
    the federal government and they want to see their money being
    well spent.
        They are also frustrated and being unemployed, and being
    unemployed for long periods of time. We know we have at least
    12 million unemployed Americans, and yet we have 3.5 million
    jobs that need to be filled, and they ought to be filled by
    well-educated Americans. They ought to help improve our
    economy.
        So how do we meet the need of the employers out there and
    also help those 12.5 million unemployed Americans get jobs?
        The government isn't going to create the jobs. We can
    create an environment where the private sector can create jobs
    and we can improve existing programs--we can eliminate poorly
    run programs and improve the existing programs to help match,
    again, the unemployed Americans with where there are jobs.
        So I do think there are a lot of areas where we can agree.
    As a former community college president I am always glad to
    hear the community colleges being emphasized, and I think that
    we certainly should be utilizing them more.
        But I appreciate, again, all of you all for being here
    today and helping share your expertise, and I look forward to
    our having a markup on this bill and our--hopefully solving
    some problems and not just talking about them. I am a big
    believer in doing things, not just trying to do things.
        So thank you all very much for being here.
        I thank my colleagues, I thank Mr. Tierney, and the
    committee stands adjourned.
        [Additional submissions of Mrs. Foxx follow:]

                                                        April 16, 2012.
    Hon. John Kline, Chairman; Hon. George Miller, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Education & Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives,
            Washington, DC 20515
        Dear Chairman Kline and Ranking Member Miller: On behalf of
    Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), a national association with
    74 chapters representing 22,000 merit shop construction and
    construction-related firms, I am writing in regard to the full
    committee hearing on the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012
    (H.R. 4297). ABC supports this legislation because it will strengthen
    our nation's workforce development system by creating a more
    streamlined approach that focuses on businesses' hiring and training
    needs, which will increase employment opportunities.
        According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of wage and
    salary jobs in the construction industry is expected to grow 19 percent
    through 2018, while all industries combined are expected to grow by 11
    percent. ABC believes that one of the keys to attracting new workers
    and retaining current craft professionals is flexible training
    programs.
        Specifically, H.R. 4297 will enable small businesses, which create
    more than 65 percent of all new jobs in America, to continue developing
    training programs and career opportunities. By serving their
    communities through the local workforce investment boards that would be
    enhanced by this legislation, business leaders can become more involved
    in career development programs and serve as an authority on training,
    skills and job opportunities in their communities.
        Additionally, this legislation would eliminate current language in
    the Green Jobs Act included in the Workforce Investment Act. The
    current statutory language allows these training grants to be accessed
    by firms associated with a labor union, effectively barring contractors
    with employees that chose not to be associated with union training
    providers from accessing federal training dollars funded by their own
    taxes. This is grossly unfair to the 86 percent of employees in the
    construction industry who chose not to be affiliated with a labor
    organization.
        We appreciate your attention to this important matter, and urge
    immediate passage of the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Geoffrey Burr,
                                       Vice President, Federal Affairs.
                                     ______

                                                        April 16, 2012.
    Hon. John Kline,
    U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
    Re: Support H.R. 4297, the Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012

        Dear Representative Kline: On behalf of the Associated General
    Contractors of America (AGC), I would like to thank you for holding the
    hearing on H.R. 4297, the ``Workforce Investment Improvement Act of
    2012,'' which will help reform the nation's job training system by
    strengthening employer engagement in state and local workforce
    decisions, as well as giving states and localities more flexibility. A
    strong and skilled workforce is vital to the nation's economic
    recovery.
        AGC is the nation's largest and most diverse trade association in
    the commercial construction industry. AGC's 32,000 members include
    7,000 general construction contractors, 12,000 specialty contractors,
    and 13,000 suppliers and service providers, in a nationwide network of
    95 chapters. AGC represents both union and open-shop contractors in the
    building, highway, heavy industrial, and municipal utility sectors of
    the construction industry.
        The construction industry is made up of predominantly small
    employers. In the past, many employers in the industry have had trouble
    connecting with local workforce investment systems or workforce
    investment boards (WIBs) due to the structure of the boards and types
    of training offered locally. However, H.R. 4297 will strengthen the
    presence and participation of employers on WIBs, and this increased
    participation by employers will be a welcomed change to the
    construction industry. Local employers can ensure local job training
    will address workforce gaps and better fit local population needs.
        The construction industry has many unique workforce demands that
    differentiate it from other industries. Currently, the industry has the
    highest unemployment rate of any industry and continues to suffer
    depression-like conditions. As the economy recovers, baby boomers
    retire, and the construction industry sees a renewed need for a strong
    and skilled workforce, H.R. 4297 will be a step in the right direction
    to offer unemployed construction workers--as well as workers displaced
    from other industries and veterans--a vital path to the training
    necessary for them to become a part of the nation's future economic
    well being.
                Sincerely,
                                              Jeffrey D. Shoaf,
                         Senior Executive Director, Government Affairs.
                                     ______

        [Additional submission of Mr. Ross follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Dwayne Ingram, Chairman,
                   Workforce Florida, Inc. Board of Directors

        Thank you for this opportunity on behalf of Workforce Florida Inc.
    and the State of Florida to provide comments on H.R. 4297, the
    Workforce Investment Improvement Act of 2012.
        Workforce Florida is the statewide workforce investment board
    charged with developing strategies that help Floridians enter, remain
    and advance in the workforce while strengthening the state's business
    climate. We are proud that Florida has been and continues to be a
    recognized leader in workforce development. To that end, we offer the
    following comments for consideration on the Workforce Investment
    Improvement Act of 2012.
    Funding for State-Level Activities
        Our primary concern is the proposed reduction in the Workforce
    Investment Act (WIA) State Set Aside/Governor's Reserve funding.
    Historically, 15 percent of WIA funding has been available to Governors
    to pay the cost of state-level administration and to support state
    workforce innovation. These state set aside funds are essential to
    allowing Governors maximum flexibility to advance statewide workforce
    development and economic development priorities.
        We strongly recommend the House Education and the Workforce
    Committee consider leaving intact the flexible 15 percent state set
    aside for Governors to continue using in innovative ways. Consistent
    with federal WIA and Chapter 445, Florida Statutes, Workforce Florida's
    Board of Directors has historically invested the 15 percent state set
    aside funds in:
         customized projects that respond to both immediate and
    long-term employment and training needs as well as statewide economic
    development and strategic priorities;
         incumbent worker training to ensure Florida businesses,
    especially small businesses, maintain a productive, well-trained and
    competitive workforce (Worth noting: state law requires that at least
    $2 million in WIA state set aside funds be used annually for the
    Incumbent Worker Training (IWT) Grant Program);
         the development and operation of the Employ Florida
    Marketplace, Florida's online, comprehensive job-matching and labor
    market information tool for job seekers and employers, which also
    serves as the case management information system for Florida's
    workforce system;
         programs targeting special populations who may need
    additional assistance to overcome barriers to employment; and
         performance incentives for local workforce investment
    boards.
         development of Employ Florida Banner Centers to support
    training in high-wage
        As a demonstration of the success Florida has had with utilizing
    state set aside funds in innovative ways, some recent examples include:
         industry sectors that help diversify Florida's economy. In
    2008, the International Economic Development Council (IEDC) presented
    Workforce Florida with an Excellence Award for partnership with
    educational institutions for the Banner Centers initiative;
         Incumbent Worker Training grants, which are used to
    bolster skills upgrade training for full-time employees, thus improving
    business productivity and job retention;
         the Employ Florida Healthcare Workforce Initiative,
    designed to help Floridians get back to work in a growing economic
    sector as well as to aid healthcare workers already employed by
    advancing their careers; and
         specially developed initiatives to support the education
    and training of:
          -low-income and at-risk youth;
          -people seeking to transition from welfare to work;
          -those receiving unemployment compensation; and
          -those who remain unemployed after exhausting their unemployment
    benefits.
        If there is a change made to the current funding structure, we
    propose as an alternative to the significant and immediate reduction in
    state set aside funds from 15 percent to 5percent, Florida proposes a
    ``Hold Harmless'' provision that would allow for a graduated
    implementation of the targeted reduction. This graduated reduction by a
    small percentage on an annual basis would enable states to make
    adjustments to statewide programs incrementally until arriving at the
    Committee's proposed 5percent funding level after a few years. It will
    be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for state boards to continue
    to fund additional requirements within the bill at the 5 percent
    funding level.
    Strengthening Business Engagement in State and Local Workforce
            Decisions
        Florida supports the proposed change in state and local board
    structure that would require business leaders, including those
    representing in-demand industries, to make up a two-thirds majority on
    the boards. As Florida has demonstrated, private-sector leadership
    contributes greatly to our responsiveness to emerging needs and our
    strong emphasis on efficiency and accountability as well as our ongoing
    focus on substantive alignment with economic development priorities. We
    believe a business-led focus provides strong alignment with the
    increased emphasis on employers and business services in other sections
    of the bill.
        Furthermore, Florida supports the proposed streamlining that would
    remove all federal requirements on board membership, with the exception
    of business and economic development representation and chief elected
    officials at the state level and business representation at the local
    level. Providing Governors and chief elected officials the authority to
    appoint the remaining one-third membership of boards will make the
    boards more manageable and ensure that the workforce system is demand-
    driven and focused on training individuals for the jobs of today and
    tomorrow.
        Florida supports the proposal within the bill to create regional
    approaches by eliminating grandfather clauses in current law that allow
    certain local areas to remain in place and by repealing automatic
    designations for areas with a population of 500,000 or more. We agree
    that Governors should have the authority to designate local workforce
    investment areas with consideration for existing labor market areas and
    economic development regions in order to end duplicative and
    overlapping service delivery areas.
        In conclusion, while Florida supports the proposed change in state
    and local board structure, Florida does not support the proposal to
    reduce funding for the Governor's Reserve to support innovation.
    Reductions to state set aside funds risk stifling the innovation and
    action that have been a hallmark of the workforce system and could
    result in a solely federally driven workforce development system in
    lieu of the federal-state-local system that exists today.
        We look forward to our continuing collaboration to create an even
    more effective and efficient workforce system for America. Please
    contact the President of Workforce Florida, Chris Hart IV, if you have
    any questions regarding Florida's initial comments on H.R. 4297.
                                     ______

        [Additional submission of Mr. Walberg follows:]

                                    ------

        [Additional submissions of Mr. Miller follow:]

    Prepared Statement of Richard T. Foltin, Esq., Director of National and
     Legislative Affairs, Office of Government and International Affairs,
                           American Jewish Committee

        From its founding in 1906, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) has
    been a strong voice in support of fair and generous treatment of
    immigrants, participating actively in many of the major immigration
    debates of our time. AJC continues to reaffirm its commitment to fair
    and generous immigration policies, as fundamentally good for the United
    States and consistent with Jewish values. According to Jewish
    tradition, ``strangers'' are to be welcomed and valued, as we were once
    ``strangers in the land of Egypt.'' The Torah tells us: ``The strangers
    who sojourn with you shall be to you as the natives among you, and you
    shall love them as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of
    Egypt'' (Leviticus 19:33-34).
        As American Jews, we recall how our parents and grandparents made
    their way to this country seeking a better life, often arriving without
    speaking even a word of English. We know that the American Jewish
    community has prospered because of all that this country has offered
    us, which included programs that taught English and helped them to
    integrate, and that same opportunity should be available to new
    generations of immigrants as well.
        We support the Workforce Investment Act of 2012 (H.R.4227) because
    each day in our congregations, service programs, health-care
    facilities, and schools we witness the human consequences of the lack
    of investment in new Americans. As the English language learner (ELL)
    population continues to grow, it is critical that Congress support
    English language acquisition and integration. According to the Census
    Bureau, more than 19% of the population (54.8 million) speaks a
    language other than English at home. In spite of this fact, there
    continues to be one- to three-year waitlists for English literacy
    education in many areas. This legislation acknowledges that immigrants
    want to learn English, become citizens, and participate fully in their
    adopted country, but are frequently unable to do so because the
    programs they need are underfunded or non-existent.
        These new immigrants deserve the opportunity to succeed, regardless
    of the outcome of current immigration debates. We support policies and
    measures which honor our heritage as a country that welcomes
    immigrants. We must ensure that we continue to be a nation that
    embraces newcomers and facilitates their integration into our society
    as full and equal partners. That is why we urge you to support the
    provisions of the Workforce Investment Act that encourage adult English
    language education, which would go a long way to help with immigrant
    integration and bolstering America's role as a leader in the
    competitive global economy.
        Thank you for considering our views on this matter.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Center for Law and Social Policy

        Chairman Kline, Representative Miller and Members of the Committee:
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony for the April
    17th hearing. CLASP develops and advocates for policies at the federal,
    state and local levels that improve the lives of low income people. In
    particular, we focus on policies that strengthen families and create
    pathways to education and work.
        Our testimony for the record describes our serious concerns about
    many provisions in H.R. 4297, which was recently introduced by Rep.
    Foxx, Rep. Heck and Rep. McKeon. It includes the following two
    documents that are available on the CLASP website at www.clasp.org:
    1. Reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act: The House Workforce
            Block Grant Bill Heads in the Wrong Direction
    http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/Wrong-Direction-for-
    WIA.pdf
    2. Workforce Investment Act Reauthorization May Move Youth Development
            Field Back a Decade
    http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/WIAYouthHR4297-
    Final.pdf
    Analysis of H.R. 4297
        To help advocates and stakeholders, CLASP has developed a set of
    criteria for evaluating this bill and other proposals that consolidate
    programs offering workforce services to low-income families and
    individuals. These criteria are informed by a review of the merits and
    problems of block grants, program consolidation and super-waivers. The
    six criteria for any such legislation are:
         Does the stated purpose of the legislation include a
    vision and provide sufficient direction for improving outcomes for low-
    income adults and youth?
         What is the likely impact on funding?
         What is the likely impact on access to services for
    populations currently targeted for services?
         Are there strong safeguards or incentives to focus
    appropriate services on those most in need?
         Does it support the capacity needed to administer and
    deliver services?
         Does it include data collection and accountability
    provisions designed to ensure equitable service provision and robust
    outcomes?
        In applying these criteria to H.R. 4297, CLASP finds that the bill
    fails on most counts. It consolidates programs targeting specific
    populations into a block grant, which is expected to serve all job
    seekers without providing adequate assurances that individuals with
    employment challenges will receive suitable services. More
    specifically,
        1. It is likely to shift funding and services away from currently
    targeted populations and to weaken the capacity to serve them
    effectively.
        2. It limits the range of services needed to assist low-income
    individuals, low-wage workers, those with barriers and unemployed
    workers generally, instead of providing a more comprehensive set of
    services.
        3. It has inadequate safeguards or incentives to ensure that states
    and local areas improve outcomes for individuals with barriers to
    employment, although it strengthens some accountability provisions.
        H.R. 4297 is likely to shift funding and services away from
    currently targeted populations and weaken the capacity to serve them
    effectively.
         Under the proposed Workforce Investment Fund, HR 4297
    eliminates a separate youth funding stream for local areas and pits
    youth against other populations. A large proportion (about two-fifths)
    of the fund comes from funding streams currently dedicated to serving
    low-income and disadvantaged youth. Yet it caps funding for Statewide
    Youth Challenge Grants at 18 percent of the total amount allotted to a
    state rather than setting this as a floor. In practice, a governor
    could spend much less than 18 percent on youth programs. The statewide
    competition for these youth grants would put national programs based on
    established models into direct competition with local programs.
    Together, these changes are likely to weaken or potentially dismantle
    local programs that exited about 122,000 young people in PY 2010.\1\
         The new Statewide Youth Challenge Grants include no
    protections to prevent funding from shifting away from economically
    distressed communities toward other parts of the state. At the same
    time, the Workforce Investment Fund is likely to divert funding away
    from areas with large concentrations of disadvantaged adults because it
    drops this factor from the formula for distributing federal workforce
    dollars to states and within states.
         The bill eliminates the current priority of service for
    low-income adults under the new Workforce Investment Fund, while
    allowing unlimited spending on incumbent workers regardless of income
    eligibility or barriers to employment. Trends observed under WIA are
    likely to accelerate if current programs are replaced by a broad block
    grant designed to serve a wide range of job seekers, including adults,
    dislocated workers, youth, older workers and others. Low-income adults
    now represent only about half of those receiving intensive or training
    services with adult employment and training funding. Elimination of the
    priority of service would further undercut access to services for the
    nearly 254,000 low-income adults who exited after receiving intensive
    or training services during PY 2010.\2\
         Creating Statewide Grants for Adults with Barriers to
    Employment is likely to weaken existing capacity to provide services by
    depriving programs of reliable funding and by pitting national programs
    against local programs and for-profit organizations. It is also likely
    to shift management responsibilities and administrative costs from the
    federal government to the states without increasing efficiency. States
    do not have, and would have to build from scratch, the administrative
    capacity to procure and oversee programs serving the individuals
    currently served by the national programs.\3\ It is difficult to
    envision that requiring states to administer multiple competitive grant
    programs would add to the efficiency or effectiveness of delivering
    comprehensive services to adults or youth with barriers.
         Equally troubling is the inclusion of a form of super-
    waiver that allows states to consolidate funds from a list of mandatory
    and discretionary programs (including Temporary Assistance for Needy
    Families, Trade Adjustment Assistance and Unemployment Insurance as
    well as Adult Education and Vocational Rehabilitation programs). These
    funds can be diverted from serving unemployed and low-income
    individuals targeted by those programs and added to the new block grant
    for states--to be used for a wide range of functions and services
    without respect to the original intent of Congress.
        Instead of providing a more comprehensive set of services, H.R.
    4297 restricts the range of services needed to assist low-income
    individuals, low-wage workers, those with barriers and unemployed
    workers generally.
         While the bill provides more options for delivering
    training, it eliminates the ability of local areas to provide
    supportive services, such as transportation and child care, and needs-
    related payments for low-income individuals and unemployed workers who
    need assistance while participating in services. Supportive services
    are critical to helping participants stay engaged with and complete
    education and training programs.
         Elimination of supportive services limits rather than
    expands customer choice by making it more difficult for participants to
    engage in long-term programs or participate in services that are
    unavailable in the community. A study of the use of Personal
    Reemployment Services Accounts during a U.S. Department of Labor
    demonstration found that dislocated workers, who had the choice of how
    to spend a fixed amount of money on a range of services, spent
    substantial funds on supportive services; in fact, in five of the seven
    sites, participants spent more on supportive services than on any other
    service.\4\
         The bill eliminates the 10 youth program elements
    authorized in WIA, including leadership development and adult
    mentoring, which are based on research and what is known about
    effective youth development. Elimination of this framework for youth
    services would diminish the appropriate capacity to serve youth, which
    is quite different from the service capacity typically available to
    adult participants through one-stop centers.
         The bill reduces the voice in state and local governance
    of community organizations and stakeholders with expertise and interest
    in serving vulnerable populations.
        Although H.R. 4297 strengthens some accountability provisions in
    WIA, it lacks strong safeguards or incentives to require or encourage
    states and local areas to improve outcomes for vulnerable populations.
         To its credit, the bill includes some improvements to
    performance accountability for workforce programs. These proposed
    changes include the introduction of shared measures for programs; the
    use of robust outcomes including longer-term employment and credential
    attainment; and, most important, a new requirement for adjusting state
    and local performance levels that should remove some disincentives for
    providing services to participants who are least job-ready. These
    provisions could be strengthened by including a wage-gains measure in
    addition to or in place of the proposed earnings measure. A wage-gains
    measure better captures successful earnings outcomes for welfare
    recipients and other low-income individuals who receive employment and
    training services.\5\
         The bill includes enhanced state and local planning
    requirements that ask for information on how the needs of low-income
    individuals and other populations are to be met. Yet such requirements
    are likely to prove hollow because the bill does not hold states and
    local areas accountable for achieving goals or meeting the needs
    identified in the plans.
         Apart from the requirement to adjust performance levels,
    the bill lacks safeguards to prevent services from shifting from
    vulnerable populations to more job-ready individuals with fewer
    barriers. Under the proposed framework of performance measures and
    reporting requirements, a state or local area could meet the benchmarks
    while serving few disadvantaged individuals and without improving
    outcomes for those with severe employment challenges. In a little-
    noticed but potentially significant change, the bill also requires the
    Secretary of Labor to reduce funding for states that fail to meet
    performance levels (and there is a corresponding requirement for
    governors to reduce local funding). By strengthening financial
    sanctions and removing performance incentives, the bill is likely to
    increase the pressure on states and local areas to meet negotiated
    levels in a way that may dilute or even counteract any benefit to be
    derived from adjusting performance levels.
         The experience of implementing block grants suggests that
    tracking and measuring results are a major challenge.\6\ In a review of
    block grants begun during the 1980s, the Government Accountability
    Office found that Congress received ``limited information on program
    activities, services delivered and clients served'' as a result of a
    reduction in reporting requirements.\7\ A more recent review found
    that, under the Program Assessment Rating Tool system previously used
    by the Office of Management and Budget, one-third of block grant
    programs were rated ``results not demonstrated.'' \8\
         The experience of implementing WIA suggests that data
    collection and reporting are already problem areas. In a series of
    reports, GAO found that the diversity of local policies for registering
    and tracking participants made it difficult to obtain comparable and
    meaningful data.\9\ It is already difficult under WIA to track spending
    by level or type of service--that is, to determine precisely how WIA
    funds are being used at the state and local levels. Under a broad block
    grant it would be even more difficult to obtain good data and evaluate
    services provided to multiple populations.
    Conclusion
        As this analysis indicates, H.R. 4297 does not meet the criteria
    that CLASP has developed for evaluating workforce legislation. Of
    primary concern is the lack of strong safeguards to ensure that
    vulnerable populations receive services and that appropriate services
    reach those most in need. In fact, the bill proposes to eliminate an
    existing safeguard in WIA--the priority of service for low-income
    adults. This provision is based on a long-standing principle shared by
    members on both sides of the aisle.
        Focusing public resources on disadvantaged individuals ensures that
    appropriate services go to those who need them and who are likely to
    benefit from them. It is also important to ensure that federal funds
    have maximum impact. In a tight budget environment, public resources
    should target those who are generally not the beneficiaries of
    education and training investments made by the private sector.\10\
        As research shows, training and intensive services for
    participants, particularly for disadvantaged adults, are likely to pay
    off.\11\ Recent evaluations of WIA found that workforce services,
    particularly occupational training, increased employment and earnings
    for participants served with adult employment and training funds.\12\
    As WIA reauthorization proceeds, policymakers should not ignore this
    evidence; rather, they should build on the capacity of the workforce
    system to improve outcomes for low-income adults, disconnected youth
    and individuals with barriers to employment.
    Analysis of H.R. 4279 through a Youth Advocacy Lens
        More than a decade ago, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998
    restructured the youth service delivery system in this country by
    enabling youth services organizations to provide more intensive
    services of longer duration; infuse the best of what was learned from
    research and practice into youth development programming; build the
    youth service delivery capacity in high-poverty communities; and,
    through youth councils, introduce more strategic and collaborative
    approaches to youth programming. As a result, during the last decade,
    many innovative practices and comprehensive interventions to meet the
    needs of low-income youth occurred within the local WIA system, through
    partnerships with education and other funding streams. The local
    workforce system enrolled nearly 250,000 low-income youth in 2011. Of
    the quarter million youth who exited WIA during 2010 and 2011, nearly
    two-thirds were minority youth, 45 percent were out of school, and 72
    percent found employment or enrolled in postsecondary education or
    advanced training. Of those who were high school dropouts upon entry,
    50 percent earned a high school diploma or GED.\13\
        This is the time to be fortifying our local WIA youth delivery
    system and building on its strengths. The ongoing recession has been
    unforgiving for youth, and youth employment rates are at a 60-year low;
    fewer than one in five minority teens had a job at the height of last
    summer, and nearly half of youth in many of our poor and minority
    school districts are dropping out of school. For many low-income youth,
    WIA services are the only resources that provide a lifeline and an
    opportunity to get back on track, train for and get jobs, and earn
    wages.
        On March 29, 2012, Rep. Virginia Foxx, Rep. Joseph J. Heck, and
    Rep. Howard P. McKeon introduced the Workforce Investment Improvement
    Act of 2012 (H.R. 4297), which, among other things, consolidates 27
    federal employment and training programs into a single workforce
    investment fund, devolves more power and decision making to state and
    local workforce boards, eliminates many of the requirements and
    mandates that governed the now consolidated streams and increases the
    role of employers on state and local workforce boards.
        H.R. 4297, if enacted, would dissolve the local youth workforce and
    development system in the nation and its ability to respond to current
    and future education and employment challenges facing low-income youth.
    In short, the bill would result in a reduction of employment and
    training services for youth.
        In 2010, in anticipation of a WIA reauthorization, CLASP released a
    set of recommendations explaining how reauthorization could be a
    vehicle to create an even more robust youth delivery system to prepare
    low-income and disconnected youth for opportunities in a twenty-first
    century economy. Our recommendations focused on five areas of concern:
    1) increasing the focus on dropouts and high-risk youth: 2)
    strengthening the strategic role of youth councils and workforce
    boards; 3) building a comprehensive, integrated local youth delivery
    system; 4) removing from performance systems some disincentives to
    serving high-risk youth; and 5) increasing opportunities for youth to
    obtain work exposure. This paper analyzes the impact of the Workforce
    Investment Improvement Act of 2012 for youth services against the
    backdrop of these original recommendations.
    1. Increasing the Focus on Youth in High-Risk Categories
        Current WIA law provides a separate funding stream for youth
    activities and requires that a minimum of 30 percent of funds be
    expended on interventions directed to out-of-school youth without a
    high school diploma or those with a secondary school credential who
    have significant barriers to obtaining employment. The inclusion of
    this ``set-aside'' serves as a safeguard to ensure local areas plan and
    program for youth with significant barriers. Even with these
    provisions, youth in high-risk categories, such as dropouts and
    offenders, are underserved by the WIA system. WIA reauthorization
    provides the opportunity to strengthen priorities for serving these
    disconnected youth, who have few other options to connect to pathways
    to labor market credentials.
        As it is currently drafted, however, H.R. 4297 moves in the
    opposite direction. The bill eliminates an estimated $2.6 billion of
    funding that was previously dedicated to serving the needs of low-
    income youth and consolidates it into the approximately $6 billion,
    adult-focused ``Workforce Investment Fund.'' Although the youth funding
    streams that were consolidated into this single fund account for 42
    percent of the total fund amount, there is no language in the bill that
    requires expenditures for youth programming and no accountability
    measures that would ensure equitable and comprehensive services are
    provided to youth. While the bill does allow governors to set aside up
    to 18 percent of the fund for ``Youth Challenge Grants,'' this is at a
    governor's discretion and, because many competing workforce priorities
    exist, governors might choose much reduced levels of service to youth
    instead.
        Current WIA law recognizes that the low-income youth population
    needs services and supports that are differentiated from those targeted
    to adult and dislocated worker groups. There is much to lose by
    consolidating the youth funds into the ``Workforce Investment Fund''
    and no value added. Simply folding youth into the broad pool of
    unemployed adults to be served by the ``Workforce Investment Fund''
    ignores decades of practice, experience, and research about what works
    best to prepare youth for labor market success.
        Recommendation: Maintain a separate WIA youth funding stream that
    is allocated by formula to local areas to serve youth ages 16 to 24.
    Require that at least 50 percent of those served with formula funding
    be in the high-risk category, to include dropouts along with homeless
    youth, young offenders, disabled youth, low-income pregnant and
    parenting teens, and youth in the foster care system.
    2. Strengthening the Role of Youth Councils and Workforce Boards as
            Focal Points for Strategic Coordination of Youth Service
            Activity
        H.R. 4297 would eliminate youth councils. The establishment of
    youth councils was a key component of the original WIA legislation,
    designed to bring strategic focus to youth programming in local areas
    around the country. In communities like Los Angeles, San Diego,
    Seattle, Hartford, Philadelphia, Boston, and many others, youth
    councils, in conjunction with workforce boards, work to bring
    stakeholders together and leverage resources from multiple sources and
    systems to support programming for vulnerable youth. This function
    should be encouraged, built upon, and expanded, rather than disabled.
    The elimination of youth councils would be a significant step backwards
    and result in the loss of expertise and leadership at the local level
    on behalf of youth.
        H.R. 4297 would also change requirements for local board membership
    by requiring a two-thirds business majority and removing requirements
    for representation on the board of other types of relevant
    stakeholders, including education entities, community-based
    organizations, and others with a record of working with disadvantaged
    populations, including youth. There is also no requirement that local
    boards develop a strategic youth plan.
        Together, these changes raise many concerns. The elimination of the
    strategic planning body, weak requirements relating to youth in the
    local plan, the limitation of participation of key stakeholders on
    local boards, and the lack of a floor for youth services in the
    ``Workforce Investment Fund'' together make it easier for states and
    local areas to retreat from investing in a youth population, which is
    more complicated to serve and whose interventions are much more costly.
        Recommendation: Reauthorization legislation should maintain youth
    councils or require an alternative entity--designated by local elected
    officials in consultation with the local Workforce Investment Board
    that assembles the stakeholders in the field of youth policy and
    practice, leadership from key education and youth-serving systems,
    employers, and youth--to advise on programs, strategies and cross-
    system alignment. Youth councils and workforce boards should be charged
    with identifying how vulnerable youth populations will be served in the
    local area and how WIA resources will work in conjunction with
    education, other funding streams, and youth-serving systems to meet the
    needs of vulnerable youth populations. The current WIA statute is
    overly prescriptive about board membership, responsibilities, and
    authority. New language is needed in the reauthorization legislation to
    allow local areas the flexibility to configure youth council
    membership, roles, and responsibilities appropriate for their areas--as
    long as the council consists of experts and stakeholders in the local
    youth arena, including youth.
    3. Building a Comprehensive, Integrated Local Youth Delivery System
        H.R. 4297 would eliminate the 10 youth program elements authorized
    in WIA. The required elements are based on research-driven youth
    development principles and support a comprehensive framework to serving
    youth, including integrated approaches that consist of blended
    education and basic skills instruction, career preparation, work
    exposure and work experience, leadership, mentoring opportunities, and
    strong case management, to deliver a variety of support services--such
    as mental and physical health services, transportation, financial
    support and housing assistance. The bill assumes existing one-stop
    centers will have the expertise, knowledge base, and capacity to serve
    youth. This is not likely, given the fact that under the current WIA
    system youth are not typically provided comprehensive services through
    the one-stop system. The elimination of both the youth program elements
    and the youth council would stifle a community's ability to ensure the
    quality of youth program design or coordinate across systems to promote
    data sharing, quality improvement, and partnerships with other youth-
    serving systems--justice, child welfare, and education.
        As mentioned, H.R. 4297 does include a statewide ``Youth Challenge
    Fund,'' which is targeted to youth ages 16 to 24 and is designed to
    support five primary program activities: training and internships for
    out-of-school youth in high-demand industries; dropout recovery
    activities that lead to a secondary school credential; interventions
    specific to special youth populations, including foster care and
    homeless youth, court-involved youth, young parents, and youth with
    disabilities; contextualized learning strategies that link to
    postsecondary education opportunities and career pathways; and
    operating a residential center, such as Job Corps. The inclusion of a
    ``Youth Challenge Fund'' and the five program activities are laudable.
    The construction of this fund, however, is problematic for several
    reasons: (1) its 18 percent funding cap is less than current dedicated
    spending levels, and the amounts to be spent in this fund are at a
    governor's discretion, which could jeopardize continuous and consistent
    funding for innovation; (2) there are no real requirements to target
    the most vulnerable youth, as this fund can serve any low-income youth
    ages 16 to 24 without regard to education status or barriers; thus,
    college students and college graduates are also eligible, and no
    priority is assigned to youth with greater needs; and (3) the ``Youth
    Challenge Fund'' is the only funding stream made available to fund the
    national youth programs that were repealed by this legislation. The
    U.S. Department of Labor national youth programs, including YouthBuild
    and Job Corps, will only continue to be funded through the ``Youth
    Challenge Fund'' and at the discretion of the state. This pits local
    programs against national program models to compete for a very limited
    pool of dollars.
        Recommendation: Retain the existing 10 WIA youth program elements
    and include a ``Youth Challenge Fund'' that is not subject to a
    governor's discretion for funding. Specifically:
         Require local plans to identify the vulnerable youth
    populations that will be served, how the 10 program elements will be
    built into service delivery, and how WIA dollars will be used to
    leverage other resources, including education and other youth-serving
    systems, to provide more comprehensive programming for youth.
         Eliminate the current funding mechanism for ``Youth
    Challenge Grants'' and establish a set funding stream for them.
    Strengthen the fund and direct funding to local, cross-system
    partnerships, led by existing youth councils or other appropriately
    designated entities, in high-poverty areas, and assign priority to
    youth in high-risk categories.
    4. Removing Disincentives to Serving High-Risk Youth that Currently
            Exist in the Performance System
        H.R. 4297 establishes a performance accountability system of core
    indicators which apply to the employment and training activities in the
    ``Workforce Investment Fund,'' adult education and literacy program
    authorized under Title II and much of the vocational and rehabilitation
    programs for individuals with disabilities authorized in Title I, and
    is presumably designed to assess outcomes for the entire workforce
    system. Yet, there are no specific performance measures established for
    youth within the ``Workforce Investment Fund''. This represents a stark
    departure from current law, which takes into account age-appropriate
    factors and includes measures for both older and younger youth.
    Instead, the bill includes youth-specific measures that only apply to
    the ``Youth Challenge Fund''.
        Both funds have six similar measures related to 1) entered
    employment rates 2) retaining employment 3) wage gains 4) credential
    attainment 5) interim academic progress, and 6) obtaining training
    related employment. The measures for the ``Youth Challenge Fund'' allow
    entrance in unsubsidized employment and enrollment in education,
    training, or the military upon exit to count in the calculation of the
    first two outcome measures. This is not the case for youth served in
    the ``Workforce Investment Fund,'' which only counts those individuals
    who obtain unsubsidized employment in the first two measures. Thus,
    local areas that use the ``Workforce Investment Fund'' to serve young
    dropouts and transition them to postsecondary education and training
    may experience a negative impact on their performance outcomes on the
    two entered employment measures. It also means that there will be
    different performance standards for youth across the various WIA
    funding streams, making it more difficult to integrate programming.
        Though H.R. 4297 presents deficits in terms of appropriately
    assessing youth outcomes within the larger ``Workforce Investment
    Fund,'' it does incorporate important changes that represent a step in
    the right direction and an improvement over current measures. The bill
    includes a measure of interim progress toward achieving a credential or
    employment. This is an important addition to the performance system
    because providing adequate interventions for out-of-school youth and
    those with limited basic skills may require longer and more intensive
    services. The bill also requires a governor to ensure that standards
    are adjusted to take into account differing economic factors of the
    local area and demographic characteristics of populations served. This
    is important because it helps remove disincentives to serving difficult
    populations.
        Recommendation: Draw from the existing youth performance measures
    incorporated in the ``Youth Challenge Fund'' and establish one set of
    youth performance measures to be administered across the various funds
    within the bill for youth ages 16 to 24. It is recommended that further
    adjustments to these measures be added that take into account the
    challenges associated with the multiple barriers vulnerable youth can
    face, including being a high school dropout, teen parent, or criminal
    offender, living in foster care, or having limited English proficiency.
    5. Increasing Opportunities for Youth Work Exposure
        Youth have been hit particularly hard by the economic recession and
    slow job growth. The rate of joblessness in our low-income and minority
    communities is of great concern. The development of appropriate work
    skills and a work ethic is best learned through exposure to the
    workplace and consistent, progressive work experiences. At a time when
    youth employment is at a 60-year low, the role of the workforce system
    in brokering opportunities for youth work experiences, summer jobs, and
    internships should be paramount. WIA reauthorization should provide the
    mechanisms for local areas to provide low-income youth with access to
    summer jobs and year-round work experiences. When funding was made
    available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
    for summer jobs, the local workforce system responded by putting over a
    quarter million youth to work, demonstrating that the capacity exists
    to implement quality efforts. Research studies have shown that early
    work experience correlates with labor market success and higher
    earnings.\14\ Thus, this type of investment would pay off in the long
    run in terms of a better equipped pool of new entrants into the
    workforce.
        Recommendation: Establish a separate funding stream for work
    experience and work exposure activities, including summer and year-
    round jobs, apprenticeships, internships, youth corps, transitional
    jobs, and on-the-job training to serve low-income youth ages 14 to 24.
                                    endnotes
        \1\ Social Policy Research Associates, PY 2010 WIASRD Data Book,
    November 2011.
        \2\ Social Policy Research Associates, PY 2010 WIASRD Data Book,
    November 2011.
        \3\ Kenneth Finegold, Laura Wherry, and Stephanie Schardin, Block
    Grants: Historical Overview and Lessons Learned, The Urban Institute,
    April 2004, http://www.urban.org/uploadedPDF/310991--A-63.pdf. This
    analysis suggests the difficulties of building new state capacity for
    administering services under a block grant.
        \4\ Responses to Personal Reemployment Accounts (PRAs): Findings
    from the Demonstration States, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. and
    Coffey Consulting, LLC, 2008.
        \5\ Evelyn Ganzglass, Recommendations on Performance Accountability
    in the Workforce Education and Training System, CLASP, 2010. http://
    www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/Workforce--Investment--
    Act--Recommendations--for--Shared--Accountability--System.pdf.
        \6\ Margy Waller, Block Grants: Flexibility vs. Stability in Social
    Services, Center on Children and Families Policy Brief #34, The
    Brookings Institution, December 2005, http://www.brookings.edu/papers/
    2005/12welfare--waller.aspx.
        \7\ Government Accountability Office, Block Grants:
    Characteristics, Experience and Lessons Learned, Government
    Accountability Office, February 1995, http://www.gao.gov/products/HEHS-
    95-74.
        \8\ Congressional Research Service, Block Grants: Perspectives and
    Controversies, April 5, 2011.
        \9\ Government Accountability Office, Workforce Investment Act:
    Additional Actions Would Further Improve the Workforce System, June 28,
    2007, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1051T.
        \10\ The Aspen Institute, Sector Strategies in Brief, Workforce
    Strategies Initiative, November 2007. Employers tend to invest in
    training for more educated workers and are least likely to invest in
    those who earn low wages, have low education and skill levels or occupy
    entry-level positions.
        \11\ Neil Ridley and Elizabeth Kenefick, Research Shows the
    Effectiveness of Workforce Programs: A Fresh Look at the Evidence,
    CLASP, May 2011, http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/
    workforce-effectiveness.pdf.
        \12\ In a recent letter to Congress, seven researchers cited the
    evidence showing the value of workforce services to participants,
    especially disadvantaged adults.
        \13\ PY 2010 WIASRD Data Book (2011). Prepared by Social Policy
    Research Associates for the Office of Performance and Technology,
    Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor,
    http://www.doleta.gov/performance/results/pdf/py--2010--wiasrd--data--
    book.pdf
        \14\ Sum, Andrew, Joseph McLaughlin, and Ishwar Khatiwada. 2006.
    Still Young, Idle, and Jobless: The Continued Failure of the Nation's
    Teens to Benefit from Renewed Job Growth. Boston: Center for Labor
    Market Studies, Northeastern University.
                                     ______

                                    ------

        [Additional submission of Ms. Harmsen follows:]

             Additional Submission for the Record From Ms. Harmsen

        Thank you for recognizing Local Workforce Investment Boards as a
    program that is instrumental in developing a comprehensive workforce
    development system. The San Bernardino County Workforce Investment
    Board believes in a workforce system that serves customers--businesses
    and job seekers alike--in an efficient manner that maximizes resources.
        In response to multiple questions relating to program consolidation
    asked by several Committee Members:
        The San Bernardino County Workforce Investment Board (WIB) fully
    supports the effort to create a solid, receptive workforce development
    system. We support that there is a need to address the shrinking
    availability of funding by creating an effective, efficient workforce
    development system. We recognize that congress has the ability to view
    programs at a higher level and can identify under-performing workforce
    programs. We understand there may be a need for consolidating some of
    these programs in order to preserve resources and increase efficiency
    in providing workforce development activities. If consolidation of some
    programs needs to take place, it should be under the local WIBs. Local
    WIBs across the nation currently collaborate with other entities to
    serve special populations through contracted services. We recognize
    that different populations have different priorities, needs and skill
    sets. Through collaborative contracted services local WIBs provide
    needs assessment, career assessment, employability skills development,
    job training and job placement for special populations. With a private
    business majority, the WIBs also have knowledge of the skills needed by
    the local workforce and can effectively develop strategies to train
    individuals in those skills. Strong collaborations maximize funding and
    efficiency at the local level instead of relying on small, targeted
    national programs to accomplish this goal. Flexible performance
    standards to address special populations and the effective utilization
    of funding through collaboration enable communities to effectively
    respond to the job training needs of all job seekers.
        In response to various questions relating to the membership of
    Local Workforce Investment Boards by several Committee Members:
        Local flexibility is necessary to serve specific needs in a
    designated area. A strong majority of private business is a key
    component to the workforce development system because it enables the
    WIB to identify local demand occupations and local growth industry
    sectors. With a private business majority, the WIBs are able to
    identify skills needed by the local workforce and can effectively
    develop strategies to train individuals in those skills. Flexibility in
    determining membership will enable local officials to establish boards
    that are effective, efficient and representative of the entities and
    populations present in their local areas. To ensure that boards do not
    become homogenous, local WIBs should be able to demonstrate the process
    they used to determine their design.
        In response to various questions relating to national industry-
    recognized training certificates by several Committee Members:
        The San Bernardino County WIB agrees that industry-recognized
    certificates are important to ensuring that America has a well-trained
    workforce to support job growth. Our WIB helped establish a local
    Manufacturing Industry Council and a Transportation and Logistics
    Council. The WIB is also active as members of the Aviation Industry
    Council, the Healthcare Workforce Advisory Board, and the California
    Clean Energy Collaboration. These councils in turn connect to national
    industry organizations. We recognize that to be effective, local
    workforce development systems must actively develop and participate in
    these types of networks in order to develop nationally recognized
    certificates.
        In response to various questions relating to flexibility in
    utilizing community colleges and trade schools in workforce development
    system by several Committee Members:
        The San Bernardino County WIB fully supports local flexibility in
    using community colleges and trade schools. We recognize it is an
    effective and efficient utilization of our training funding. Recently,
    the WIB worked with a local community college to implement a training
    program for the region's growing mining industry. The WIB and the
    Manufacturers Industry Council worked with two other community colleges
    to develop and implement an Electrical and Mechanical training program
    in Advanced Manufacturing to develop skill sets needed by local
    manufactures. The WIB also worked with a local vocational school to
    develop a work-based training program to provide skilled machinists for
    the manufacturing industry. This initiative was recognized in the
    January 2012 GAO Report.
        In response to various questions relating to adequate funding for a
    workforce development system by several Committee Members:
        The San Bernardino County WIB recognizes the reality of shrinking
    national resources and the importance of ensuring that public funds are
    utilized in the most effective and efficient manner. To this end, we
    believe that local control of workforce development programs through
    local Workforce Investment Boards is key in reducing administrative
    overhead, eliminating duplication of efforts and ensuring that training
    is tied to local business needs and employment opportunities.
                                     ______

        [Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]