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

                     DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN

                   SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

                            APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2013

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                    HEARINGS

                                    BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION
                                    ________
      SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
                        EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                        DENNY REHBERG, Montana, Chairman
     JERRY LEWIS, California            ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
     RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana        NITA M. LOWEY, New York
     JACK KINGSTON, Georgia             JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
     KAY GRANGER, Texas                 LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
     MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho          BARBARA LEE, California
     JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
     CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming

     NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
    Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
    Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
                     Susan Ross, Kevin Jones, John Bartrum,
                  Allison Deters, Jennifer Gera, and Lori Bias,
                               Subcommittee Staff
                                    ________

                                     PART 5
                                                                       Page
     Overview--Veterans Employment and Training Programs..............    1
     U.S. Department of Education.....................................   57
     Department of Education--K-12 Education Budget...................  143
     Department of Labor..............................................  201

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    ________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

                     DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN

                   SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES

                            APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2013

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                    HEARINGS

                                    BEFORE A

                               SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                             HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION
                                    ________
      SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
                        EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                        DENNY REHBERG, Montana, Chairman
     JERRY LEWIS, California            ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
     RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana        NITA M. LOWEY, New York
     JACK KINGSTON, Georgia             JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
     KAY GRANGER, Texas                 LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
     MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho          BARBARA LEE, California
     JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
     CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming

     NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
    Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
    Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
                     Susan Ross, Kevin Jones, John Bartrum,
                  Allison Deters, Jennifer Gera, and Lori Bias,
                               Subcommittee Staff
                                    ________

                                     PART 5
                                                                       Page
     Overview--Veterans Employment and Training Programs..............    1
     U.S. Department of Education.....................................   57
     Department of Education--K-12 Education Budget...................  143
     Department of Labor..............................................  201

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    ________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

                                    ________

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

     75-962                     WASHINGTON : 2012

                                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                        HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman

     C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida \1\           NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
     JERRY LEWIS, California \1\             MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
     FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia                 PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
     JACK KINGSTON, Georgia                  NITA M. LOWEY, New York
     RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey     JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
     TOM LATHAM, Iowa                        ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
     ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama             JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
     JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri                JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
     KAY GRANGER, Texas                      ED PASTOR, Arizona
     MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho               DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
     JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas             MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
     ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida                 LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
     DENNY REHBERG, Montana                  SAM FARR, California
     JOHN R. CARTER, Texas                   JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
     RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana             CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
     KEN CALVERT, California                 STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
     JO BONNER, Alabama                      SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
     STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio              BARBARA LEE, California
     TOM COLE, Oklahoma                      ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
     JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                     MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
     MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida              BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
     CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
     STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio
     CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
     TOM GRAVES, Georgia
     KEVIN YODER, Kansas
     STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
     ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi

     ----------
     \1\Chairman Emeritus

                   William B. Inglee, Clerk and Staff Director

                                      (ii)

    DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED
                        AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2013

                                  ----------

                                             Wednesday, March 21, 2012.

              OVERVIEW--VETERANS EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMS

                                   WITNESSES

    LIEUTENANT COLONEL ISMAEL ORTIZ, USMC, RETIRED, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
        SECRETARY FOR VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
        LABOR
    LIEUTENANT COLONEL KEVIN M. SCHMIEGEL, USMC, RETIRED, EXECUTIVE
        DIRECTOR, HIRING OUR HEROES, VICE PRESIDENT, U.S. CHAMBER OF
        COMMERCE
    JOSEPH CARBONE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE WORKPLACE, INC.
        Mr. Rehberg. I want to thank everyone for being here.
        Job creation and unemployment are the top challenges facing
    Congress right now. When we are talking about job opportunities
    for veterans, I think we understand the urgency with which we
    need to identify and implement workable solutions.
        I am fortunate to represent the entire State of Montana,
    where we have the highest per capita rate of veterans in the
    country, other than Alaska. With a population of a million
    people, more than 1 out of 10 people who live in Montana serve
    their country in the armed forces. Montanans are proud of our
    veterans, and rightfully so.
        For the men and women who answer the call to service, it is
    difficult to grasp the personal sacrifice involved. It is
    impossible to fully repay it. They are asked to uproot their
    lives and go where their grateful nation sends them in the
    cause of liberty. They must leave loved ones at home, as well
    as the stewardship of the homeland.
        But in a lot of ways, this country has failed to maintain
    the homeland while its soldiers were away. Today's veterans are
    returning home to find an economy that has no place for them.
    There simply aren't enough jobs.
        And for the past 3 years, the Federal Government has been
    spinning its wheels. Trillions have been spent, borrowed for
    so-called stimulus or for bailing out big banks, bankrupt
    governments, and failing companies. We have got to do better.

                             veterans unemployment

        We are here today to address veterans unemployment. I
    believe that one of the best ways to help returning veterans
    find the jobs they need is to do what needs to be done to
    encourage broad economic recovery. As they say, a rising tide
    raises all ships.
        If our economy is producing more jobs for everyone, our
    vets will have more opportunities when they come home. To that
    end, I am going to keep working with my colleagues here to get
    this economy back on track.
        But once the jobs exist, there are still plenty of
    challenges to getting vets integrated into the workforce. A
    2010 study found that 1 out of 4 post-9/11 veterans reported
    having a service-connected disability. In 2011, there were more
    than twice as many combat-related amputations than there were
    in 2009.
        These soldiers are literally giving their life and limb for
    the service of their country. What is their country prepared to
    offer them in return? I think this is one of those situations
    where everyone--Republican, Democrat, public, and private--
    wants the same outcome.
        How can we work together to leverage this to find the best
    solutions? I look forward to hearing from the experts on our
    panel.
        I know there are some very promising things happening on
    the private front. Microsoft's Elevate America veterans
    program, for example, helps trains vets and their spouses in
    high-tech training and certifications.
        On the public front, the Department of Labor oversees the
    Transition Assistance Program to help returning veterans
    reintegrate into the private sector. I think we can do more to
    leverage the valuable skills they learn in the service to the
    private sector.
        As President Obama winds down our efforts in Afghanistan,
    it will become all the more important to ensure that our shared
    efforts are effective and efficient. In many cases, the
    challenges our men and women must overcome will last a
    lifetime. It is our job to make sure that, as a nation, we are
    there to provide whatever help we can for the long haul.
        Sometimes the challenges we face in Congress are daunting,
    but when I see a young man who needs a job after serving two
    tours in the Middle East, I know we have got to find a way to
    work together. They handled their end of the bargain overseas.
    Now I hope that we can find a way to uphold our end on the
    homefront.
        Before turning to Ranking Member DeLauro, I would like to
    personally welcome the distinguished panel. Mr. Ortiz, Mr.
    Schmiegel, both retired Marines who left the Marine Corps after
    20 years of service, continue to serve our country in the all-
    important civilian capacity. Mr. Carbone, who brings the vast
    experience associated with the Connecticut workforce system, is
    a perfect complement to the panel.
        I thank you all for appearing today and look forward to
    hearing your testimony.
        Ms. DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I apologize for being a few minutes late, but I took my
    grandkids to daycare this morning.
        Mr. Rehberg. Good for you.
        Ms. DeLauro. I did. And I, quite frankly, don't know how--I
    don't know how especially single women get out of the house in
    the morning. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Rehberg. How old are they?
        Ms. DeLauro. One is 7, and one is 4\1/2\. Very independent-
    minded young people.
        Mr. Rehberg. I am shocked. Your grandchild? [Laughter.]
        Ms. DeLauro. Right.
        Mr. Rehberg. Shocked.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
        I want to also say thank you to you, Mr. Chairman, for
    convening the hearing and to thank our witnesses.
        And first, to welcome Kevin Schmiegel and Ismael Ortiz and
    to thank you for your service to our country and for being here
    today to share your insights and expertise.
        A particular hello and a thank you to a good friend, Joe
    Carbone, who is president and the CEO of The WorkPlace. And
    through his hard work, thousands of residents in my State,
    including countless veterans, have found better, richer, and
    more fulfilling employment.
        Recently, Joe's innovative efforts to target the long-term
    unemployed were recognized nationally and spotlighted on CBS's
    60 Minutes. So we thank you, and it is wonderful to see you.
        The brave men and women who serve our Nation overseas
    deserve our admiration, our grateful thanks, and when they get
    back, opportunities for a good, well-paying job to support
    their families. In 2011, the average unemployment rate for new
    veterans, those serving since September 2001, was 12.1 percent,
    compared to an 8.7 percent annual average for nonveterans.
        The most recent monthly reports in January and February of
    2012 have been more encouraging, with last month's unemployment
    figures for new veterans dropping to 7.6 percent. The first
    time below the national average of 8.3 percent since August of
    2010.
        Despite these potentially hopeful indicators, it is clear
    we need to do much more to help our veterans returning from
    Iraq and Afghanistan find work. This is particularly true of
    our young veterans. In 2011, the unemployment rate for new
    veterans aged 18 through 24 was a staggering 30.2 percent,
    almost double the over 16 percent unemployment faced by
    nonveterans in this age group.
        With a projected 1 million more men and women returning to
    civilian life in the next 5 years, we have to be sure we are
    doing everything that we can to facilitate the transition from
    the battlefield back to the job market.
        And we must remember as our veterans are seeking work, they
    are often trying to transition back into their life at home
    with their families. And sadly, far too many are dealing with
    post traumatic stress disorder and other combat-related
    challenges. These transitions take time, and it is important to
    remember that our veterans employment initiatives do not take
    place in a vacuum.

                             vow to hire heroes act

        I am glad that despite our differences on other issues, all
    Members of Congress have come to agreement on the crucial
    importance of veterans employment, as exemplified by the
    unanimous passage of the VOW To Hire Heroes Act last November.
    Under the leadership of President Obama, Jeff Miller, chair of
    the Veterans' Committee here in the House, Senate Veterans
    Affairs Committee chair Patty Murray, Senator Tester, and
    others from both sides of the aisle, this bill includes a new
    returning heroes tax credit of up to $5,600 for veterans who
    have been unemployed 6 months or longer.
        It also includes a wounded warriors tax credit of up to
    $9,600, increasing an existing tax credit for firms that hire
    veterans with service-connected disabilities who have been
    unemployed for 6 months or longer. And this bill overhauls the
    military's Transition Assistance Program to provide veterans
    with the baseline training for getting work in the civilian job
    market. It updates job protection laws for deployed Guardsmen
    and Reservists and creates a job training program for
    unemployed older veterans.
        I hope today that we can discuss how the implementation of
    this overhaul is proceeding, and how we in the Congress can
    best complement these efforts in the 2013 budget. I look
    forward to discussing the impact of this new law on the needs
    of all Department of Labor programs that serve veterans.
        This is something I take seriously. Last Congress, I
    introduced legislation expanding the opportunities under the
    post-9/11 GI bill to include a benefit to support on-the-job
    training and apprenticeship programs on par with that offered
    through the Montgomery GI bill. Similar legislation, though not
    retroactive, was included in the post-9/11 Veterans Educational
    Assistance Improvements Act that was signed into law last
    January.
        Veterans have put their lives on the line for our safety
    and security. They have been overseas, away from their families
    for long stretches. The least we can do to honor their bravery
    and their service is to help them to find good jobs when they
    get back.
        No investment is more critical than investment in our human
    capital. And job training and re-employment services for
    veterans and, yes, for the rest of our citizens are part of the
    core essential role for government, helping responsible people
    succeed from their own hard work.
        In any event, I look forward to today's testimony. I
    welcome all of you. I thank you for being here, and I look
    forward to the discussion and our questions.
        Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rehberg. Great. Thank you very much.
        Colonel Ortiz.

                                dol/vets mission

        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Good morning, Chairman Rehberg,
    Ranking Member DeLauro, and members of the subcommittee. My
    name is Junior Ortiz, with Department of Labor's Veterans'
    Employment and Training Service.
        Thank you for the invitation to testify today and for all
    the hard work that you do on behalf of our Nation's veterans.
        I understand that my testimony will be entered into the
    record. So I would like to use this time to highlight some of
    the important work that we are doing at DOL.
        VETS' mission is to provide veterans, transitioning service
    members, and their families with the critical resources to
    assist and prepare them to obtain meaningful careers, maximize
    their employment opportunity, and protect their employment
    rights.
        As a Marine Corps veteran, I understand the importance of
    the service we provide. I have three sons on active duty and
    one who just left the service. And between them, they have 10
    tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I understand the sacrifice
    made by our service members, their families, as well as the
    challenges they face when they return home.
        Secretary Solis and I believe that we have an obligation to
    serve these men and women as well as they have served us. This
    is what VETS does every day. But we can't do it without the
    support of our partners in the public and private sector. These
    partnerships are critical to the work we do every day.
        That is why I am pleased to be on the panel with Mr.
    Carbone and Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. Mr. Carbone's
    organization does important work that VETS is proud to support.
    Having the head of the Workforce Investment Board here also
    demonstrates the integration of our VETS programs in the public
    workforce system.
        Thank you, sir.

                                 vets programs

        Mr. Schmiegel has stated in his testimony we have been a
    part of the Chamber's Hiring Our Heroes program since the
    beginning. We are proud of the great work they are doing and
    the success of this program.
        Now I would like to highlight what VETS programs are doing
    to prepare, provide, and protect our men and women who have
    served our country. With more than 160,000 active duty service
    members and 95,000 Reserve and National Guard demobilizing each
    year, our first aim is to prepare these men and women for the
    transition from military service to the civilian workforce.
        As part of this transition, DOL provides the TAP employment
    workshops at military installations worldwide. Over 2\1/2\
    days, we provide them with the information and resources they
    will need to succeed when they leave the military.
        We teach them about job searches, current labor market
    conditions, resume preparation, and interviewing techniques. We
    are presently redesigning the TAP employment workshop in an
    effort to bring more effective ways to help our service members
    successfully transition into civilian life.
        Last year, over 144,000 transitioning service members and
    their spouses attended one of these workshops. We anticipate
    that this number will increase dramatically in the coming
    months.
        As these men and women leave the military service and
    complete their transition back to civilian life, VETS continues
    to provide them with the tools they need to succeed. This is
    done at our local level with the State workforce agencies and
    our partners at the Employment and Training Administration.

                         veterans state grants program

        Through the Jobs for Veterans State Grants program, we
    provide State workforce agencies with funds to hire, train, and
    support veterans employment staff. These (DVOPs) and Disabled
    Veterans' Outreach Program Specials and (LVERs) Local Veterans'
    Employment Representative provide intensive service to those
    veterans who face barriers to employment. They are part of the
    workforce system that connects veterans to the full range of
    programs that are available with a priority of service in DOL
    programs.
        Mr. Chairman, I know you are committed to ensuring our
    disabled veterans have the resources they need to succeed. I
    want to assure you that we share the same commitment. In fact,
    last year, over 330,000 disabled veterans were served by our
    DVOP specialists, and we will continue to make them a priority
    in our programs.

                    homeless veterans' reintegration program

        We are also committed in the goal of eliminating
    homelessness among veterans. Last year, we served close to
    16,000 homeless veterans through the Homeless Veterans'
    Reintegration Program. As we move forward, we will continue to
    provide employment services for homeless veterans, including
    homeless female veterans and those with families.
        VETS is not only an employment and training agency, but
    also a worker protection agency. We are committed to protecting
    the rights of our returning service members by enforcing USERRA
    and the statutes requiring veterans' preference in Federal
    hiring.
        Last year alone, we investigated over 1,500 Uniformed
    Services Employment and Reemployments Act (USERRA) claims and
    844 veterans' preference complaints. We will continue to
    vigorously enforce these important statutes, as well as
    educating employers, service members, Guard, and Reserve about
    their employment rights and protections.
        In conclusion, the Department of Labor's veterans'
    employment and training program are part of a large effort to
    help our veterans succeed. It is our job to give them the tools
    they need to be successful in the civilian workforce.
        Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, this concludes my
    statement. I would be happy to answer any questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you very much.
        Colonel Schmiegel, welcome. It was nice having you in
    Montana. Thank you for coming to Gore Hill.
        As I understand--I was there, but as I understand, the rest
    of the day was extremely successful.
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. It was.
        Mr. Rehberg. I saw the numbers and the number of people
    that showed up, and it was a nice public-private combination
    because there was a lot of volunteers that occurred, and a lot
    of people took advantage of it. So I thank you for taking the
    time to come out to Montana and being a part of that.

                     executive director of hiring our hero

        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. Thank you.
        Chairman Rehberg, Ranking Member DeLauro, and members of
    the committee, my name is Kevin Schmiegel. I am the founder and
    executive director of Hiring Our Heroes at the U.S. Chamber of
    Commerce.
        Thank you for allowing me to appear as a witness and speak
    to you about what the chamber is doing to help our Nation's
    heroes find jobs. The reason we are interested is simple. Many
    of our members want to hire veterans and military spouses.
        Even with high unemployment, we have a huge skills gap in
    America that is hindering our recovery and undermining our
    global competitiveness. Several weeks ago, the President of the
    United States in his State of the Union address pointed to 2
    million jobs that aren't being filled right now because we lack
    a trained workforce.
        Veterans can help fill that gap. They have unique
    leadership experience, advanced technical skills. They are team
    players and problem solvers, and they are extremely reliable
    workers.
        DoD spends millions and millions of dollars training our
    forces, and it is a lost investment if we don't repurpose those
    skills for the private sector. In the President's own words,
    ``We have trained these folks to nation-build abroad. Now we
    need nation-building here at home.''
        As a veteran myself, it is an honor to be here today. In
    2009, I retired from the Marine Corps as a lieutenant colonel.
    My own transition was full of good fortune. I was lucky to have
    a mentor like former National Security Adviser General Jim
    Jones, and I was lucky to be hired by an organization like the
    U.S. Chamber of Commerce that understands the value of hiring a
    veteran.
        Not every veteran is that lucky, which is why in March of
    2011, the Chamber launched Hiring Our Heroes. Working with our
    State and local Chambers, DOL VETS, Employer Support of the
    Guard and Reserve, (ESGR), the Military Spouse Employer
    Partnership at DoD, veterans services organizations,
    nonprofits, and the business community at large, we have led a
    massive public-private sector coordinated campaign to help
    veterans and military spouses find careers in hundreds of local
    communities across America.
        In less than a year, we have created a movement. With
    hiring fairs in 115 cities and 45 States, we have connected
    more than 100,000 veterans and military spouses with over 5,000
    different employers, and more than 8,500 of them have gotten
    jobs. And we are just getting started. This year, we are
    expanding our efforts to 400 cities across the country.
        Recognizing the unique challenges that military spouses
    face, the Chamber has also launched a standalone program that
    focuses on job portability and career progression. It will
    include 20 hiring fairs at major military installations across
    the country.

                      veterans employment advisory council

        This past Veterans Day, we also formed a Veterans
    Employment Advisory Council, comprised of more than 20 of
    America's biggest employers, representing 25 million jobs in
    America. With this council, the Chamber will also lead a
    sustained campaign to enlist the support of the small business
    community. With our 3 million small businesses that are part of
    our federation and 3.7 million veteran-owned small businesses
    in America, we will move the needle on the staggering rates of
    unemployment that Ms. DeLauro mentioned in her statement.
        We should view hiring veterans and military spouses as a
    national security imperative. High unemployment for post 9/11
    veterans, members of the Guard and Reserve, and military
    spouses will become both a recruiting and a retention issue if
    we don't act now.
        George Washington once said, ``The willingness with which
    our young people are likely to serve shall be directly
    proportional to how they perceive veterans were treated and
    appreciated by their nation.''
        How can we expect young men and women to raise their right
    hands and volunteer for service if they face higher
    unemployment rates than their peers after serving our Nation?
    And why should military spouses encourage their partners to
    make the military a career and endure long separations and
    frequent moves if they can't achieve their own career
    aspirations?
        Over the past year, many leaders in the public sector have
    called on the business community to do more. I believe we are
    at the point now where our Government must help them do just
    that. We must look for innovative ways to assist transitioning
    service members before they become veterans.
        This includes helping them launch a small business,
    equipping them to make informed decisions about employment, and
    improving and expediting certification and licensing. And
    finally, Government programs, both existing and new, should be
    measured against clear objectives and established metrics so we
    can focus on what is working and stop funding programs that are
    not producing results.
        Chairman Rehberg, Ranking Member DeLauro, and distinguished
    members of the committee, I pledge to you that the Chamber will
    continue to do its part to demonstrate to our Nation's heroes
    that their service is not only appreciated, but valued, namely
    by helping them find jobs.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and I look forward
    to your questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Colonel.
        Mr. Carbone? Welcome. From Connecticut.
        Mr. Carbone. Good morning. Thank you.
        Is this on? Is it okay?

                                one-stop system

        Okay. Thank you for this opportunity to talk about how the
    One-Stop system, the umbrella, I think, to broad partnerships
    in communities all over the Nation, offers the best opportunity
    to bring veterans to employment.
        My region is the lower part of Fairfield County in
    Connecticut, and I have got three One-Stops in my region. And
    about 30,000 people a year will come through our centers, and
    at least 2,000 will be veterans.
        We have an opportunity, given the broad partner base that
    we have to basically leverage the Federal dollars that come in
    to support the One-Stop system and create real value added, to
    bring partners that can contribute and help veterans to get
    beyond that. Let me give you some examples.
        The Connecticut Department of Labor, through their LVERs
    and DVOPs, are present at the One-Stops. So they are there to
    provide services. They have got their own area that has been
    identified. They can use the normal One-Stop services and
    things like helping people to create the resume, to develop
    skills in interviewing, to learn about the job--actual job
    search strategies, dealing with things like social media,
    education refreshers, be it in math or in English or whatever
    it may be. There are certified teachers onsite at our One-
    Stops.
        At our One-Stop in Bridgeport and in Derby and in Stamford,
    all three of them, we have got a community resource center.
    That center is supported through dollars from the United Way,
    from foundations, from corporations, and companies like
    JPMorgan Chase.
        We provide financial assistance for people that need it. We
    provide all kinds of counseling, energy assistance. It is a
    location where people can access other Government programs that
    can help them while they are unemployed and in some kind of a
    job search.
        It is also a site, what we call here a Volunteer Income Tax
    (VITA) site, so they can do--get their tax preparation work
    done. We do about 200 a year. About 20 percent of them are
    vets, and the average return is more than $2,000.
        Our One-Stop system has enabled us to make contact under
    that partnership with a number of veteran residential
    facilities, things like Homes for the Brave, which is a 51-bed
    facility in Bridgeport--just opened one for female vets with
    children--and other kinds of supportive housing operations.
    Again, it is value added.
        We have, at the One-Stop, a disability resource center. One
    could actually traverse the entire American workforce system.
    You can look for jobs anywhere. You can get assistance. It is
    completely staffed by people with disabilities, but it can help
    them to get beyond that disability and get to employment.
        We have applied for a number of Federal competitive grants
    that have helped us here with veterans, one of which will be
    called Teleworks. It has been in operation for a number of
    years. And for veterans who are looking for opportunities to
    work from home, we have got a trained counselor at the One-Stop
    to do just that.
        We buy blocks of classes at the community colleges. This is
    where you can create, I think, real value added. You buy the
    class, and it can be veterans and other people that can be in
    it. But you will get better product for a better cost.
        We have got a fatherhood initiative, you know, for the
    noncustodial parents. We have got a coach, a mobile coach, 39-
    footer that can go anywhere that needs to go. We do about five
    job fairs a quarter, mostly for veterans, but for other groups
    as well. It is supported by private contributions.

                     homeless veterans' reintegration grant

        And in the competitive side, we have our third Homeless
    Veterans' Reintegration grant. So we are actually in year 7 of
    doing that, and again, Homes for the Brave and a number of
    other groups are our partners.
        I can go on giving you a litany of different grants that we
    have put together. I think the basic message here is that you
    are investing in a system already under the Workforce
    Investment Act. It opens doors. It puts keys in the door. You
    have got trained staff that are there, offering a whole variety
    of services.
        It is not just the issue of training. It is a lot of other
    things that do contribute in a positive way to help to bring
    people to work.
        Let us not forget that when you have been away from a job
    for a long period of time, be it unemployed or being in the
    service, there are other issues like emotional support needs
    that people have or, basically, the motivation issues, things
    that will help them to get beyond whatever barriers that they
    have.
        I think the One-Stop, for all that it can offer, offers the
    best opportunity for value-added, better product for better
    cost. It is there. It is part of the Federal budget. It works,
    and it ought to be centerpiece for the American veteran
    operation in jobs.
        Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rehberg. Great. Thank you all.

                       employment challenges for veterans

        I appreciate mostly hearing about your success or the
    programs you are working on. If I could get you to dwell on the
    challenges, what are the barriers? What are the problems? Are
    they private sector problems, Government problems? Are they
    financing problems?
        When I went to the job fair at Gore Hill, I am trying to
    remember the two rooms and all the various people that were
    involved in it and the type of people that were coming. I don't
    remember if there were any public colleges. I know there were a
    lot of for-profit colleges there, at least four or five. I know
    the Forest Service was there, BLM.
        So I know the kind of people who are looking for jobs, but
    I don't know where the problem exists between the veteran and
    getting the job. The logical answer would be things like
    sometimes our schools are training them for jobs that don't
    exist.
        I don't know if that is something that sticks out in your
    mind. I just throw that out to start the conversation. So why
    don't we mix it up and start with you, Colonel, and then we
    will go that way and that way just for something different.
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. Sure. I should start by
    saying we are all going to look at this through a different
    lens, obviously, in our roles. Junior has got a very important
    role from the Government perspective. I will provide my
    perspectives based on the strong relationship we have with the
    administration, with the Government agencies, but also just to
    be an honest broker in terms of what the private sector would
    like more help with in order to be more helpful to veterans
    that are transitioning.
        I think the main issue, to sum it up in one word, is
    access. The private sector does not have access to service
    members before they transition. This is apparent in a number of
    different programs that are currently underway.

                      transition assistance program (tap)

        I think if you look at the Transition Assistance Program,
    we know that the Government is working hard to improve that.
    But they need a private sector eye.
        Listen, I was a Marine for 20 years. I was not in a
    position, when I was a lieutenant colonel leading Marines, to
    give them informed advice about what they can expect in the
    private sector. And we need to be a little bit more creative
    and allow the private sector into that process.
        There is a Veterans Employment Task Force that is comprised
    mostly of Government agencies. There is not a seat at the
    table----
        Mr. Rehberg. How soon before they become discharged would
    you do that--weeks, months, years?
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. Well, we spend 13 weeks
    taking someone from jeans and t-shirts and putting them in a
    uniform. We should spend at least 13 weeks to bring them out of
    a uniform and put them in a suit or a pair of coveralls.
        So I would look at a 4-month minimum. I think we should
    start, in my opinion, as soon as they come in the military. We
    should start helping them with their personal brand and start
    helping them think about transition.
        At the end of the day, 3 out of every 4 Marines are leaving
    after their first 4 years. We have a fundamental responsibility
    to start preparing them from the moment they put on the uniform
    because the argument that it disincentivizes them to make a
    career is moot. If 3 out of 4 are going to leave anyway because
    our manpower system directs 3 out of 4 to leave because we want
    to keep a young force, we certainly have a responsibility to
    make sure they are better prepared.
        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Carbone.
        Mr. Carbone. Yes, I would say that they are facing the same
    kind of challenges that other long-term unemployed people face.
    When you have been unemployed for 2 years or you have been in
    the service for 2 years and you have been certainly distant
    from the civilian workforce, I think you are facing a challenge
    in terms of emotional issues and other kinds of things like
    motivation and things of that sort. That if they can be
    addressed in the part of their comeback here with respect to
    job search, they would be a lot better prepared.
        I mean, let us understand that business is still making I
    think very, very great demands in terms of what they require
    for workers. Even businesses----
        Mr. Rehberg. Does what Colonel Schmiegel say----
        Mr. Carbone. I'm sorry?
        Mr. Rehberg. Does that make sense? The same----
        Mr. Carbone. Yes, it does. I think it does make sense. I
    think but once they come into the job sector or the job search
    sector, those kinds of services need to continue, in fact, even
    intensify. That is the moment, I think, that they need to get
    prepared for what business is going to be demanding.
        Even if you can get the most accommodating businesses, and
    we have got a bunch in our region, when the person comes for
    the interview, that employer has to know that that person could
    do the job as well as anybody else. So let us understand. I
    mean, that when they come to us, they are suffering from things
    like long-term unemployment issues.
        Mr. Rehberg. Colonel Ortiz.

                             preparing our veterans

        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. You know, I tend to agree with
    what both Kevin and Joe have said in the sense that preparing
    our veterans to do what needs to be done is very important,
    even from the moment they walk into the service and they go
    out.
        I think it is important that we teach them what their value
    is when they get out because, as Joe has said, the biggest
    thing that happens when these young men and women come in is
    being able to sell themselves to the companies. At the same
    time, the educational piece of teaching the companies of how to
    ask the right questions.
        Because sometimes, sometimes, you know, the person that you
    are looking for is right in front of you, except you are not
    asking the right questions.
        Mr. Rehberg. Yes. Well, thank you.
        One of the things I have recognized over the years, having
    been involved both with veterans and the Department of Defense,
    is the Department of Defense's lack of a desire to recognize
    that anybody is ever going to leave them. And so, you
    especially see that in veterans medical where if you do
    anything to encourage veterans, the Department of Defense is
    all over you, saying, oh, you are trying to steal our best and
    brightest, and you want them to quit.
        So you are probably up against institutional bias in not
    wanting to recognize that 3 out of 4 are leaving the service
    after their first tour of duty. So it is the right answer. It
    just will be interesting to see how that occurs.
        Ms. DeLauro.

                             newly discharged vets

        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Colonel Ortiz, in that vein of continuing this conversation
    somewhat, what type of labor market information do newly
    discharged vets receive when they exit the military? What
    connections are made with the One-Stop centers upon discharge
    in order that vets have the best opportunity as quick as
    possible to look at how they may regain civilian employment?
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Well, ma'am, I think, as Kevin
    already alluded to, I think it starts once they are in the
    service. I think our biggest thing that helps our young men and
    women do this is going through the employment workshop. In
    other words, understanding what it is that they are going to
    face once they get out.
        Understanding----
        Ms. DeLauro. And that is happening at the end of their
    service now?
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.
        And it all depends, ma'am. It depends on if you are
    retiring, it is up to 2 years prior to retirement that you go
    through the TAP, the TAP program.
        Ms. DeLauro. Right.
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Up to a year if you are
    separating from the service. The idea is to get as much
    information to these individuals, which we try to do with the
    TAP employment workshop, teaching them how to write a resume,
    present themselves, be able to dress the correct way, learn the
    different culture of the civilian side of the house, ma'am,
    because that is very important.
        I mean, we are in a culture for 4 years that have taught us
    to be very successful in everything we do. We have to teach
    them how to be able to go out there and do the right job.

                  the education of this generation's veterans

        Ms. DeLauro. Isn't it true, and I will just ask all of you
    this question, that as I read the background material and the
    literature here that in terms of education, education levels,
    and the kinds of preparation that you are talking about, this
    generation of veterans, if you will, has less education, less
    training, not military training they have, but other kinds
    because they are a younger population? They are coming in at a
    younger age into the service, and they are coming in with less
    education than we have seen in the past.
        I think that that is right. I think that that is what I
    have read. So I am just trying to gauge between because I think
    there is a great mix here of Federal, of private, of Chamber,
    and of the again public sector, but working both as to how we
    take these young men and women as to where they are and are not
    imposing something that is top-down with a set of skills that
    are not there. But building from the bottom-up on skills that
    they need to have, whether that is educational or work skills.
        And, yes?

                             veterans under age 25

        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. So, if I may? You hit the
    nail on the head. The population that is suffering the most are
    veterans under the age of 25.
        Ms. DeLauro. Twenty-five, right.
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. So most of them are sergeants
    and below, enlisted troops that have served for 4 years and
    have left the service.
        The fact is that the TAP program, the Transition Assistance
    Program, is a 3-day program. It is very general in nature, and
    it is not specific. It is not pointing service members to a
    pathway to a direct program where there are jobs.
        Service members are not making informed decisions when they
    leave the military. The TAP program does not prepare them in a
    way that shows them there are companies across America that
    have a skills gap. If you go to this community college and get
    a 1-year credential, you can get a job in this company making X
    dollars, and the jobs exist.
        Service members that are leaving make a decision of the
    heart. They go to a geographic location, and they are not
    thinking about what they are going to----
        Ms. DeLauro. But when Mr. Carbone spoke, he talked about
    working with community colleges and providing that kind of
    service and training that is necessary. So I am trying to
    figure out the link that is going from your piece of training,
    then I am making a presumption that it goes--there is some sort
    of a pathway to the One-Stop center, which has these kinds of
    services that are available that then move into working
    together with industry here.
        And you are dealing with almost the credentialing side of
    this thing in some way. Is that right, Mr. Carbone?
        Mr. Carbone. Yes, we are. And I think we are dealing with
    other issues as well. But I think most of the veteran
    organizations in our region eventually make the referral to the
    One-Stop.
        So the One-Stop, in my view, at least in my part of
    Connecticut, is providing the search for a job, education,
    training, whatever it takes to get there. It is coming from the
    One-Stop.
        I think the important thing here is that they have been
    away for 2 years, and there has been a transformative change in
    what business requires. So whatever they might have done before
    may not have any relevance at this point. And if they are
    younger, they are. They are missing education credentials that
    you have to deal with, all right?
        But I think the important thing here is that if you work
    with businesses closely, you can sometimes make that match, and
    businesses are willing to give them a chance and to
    accommodate. So that part of it is important.
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. The only add-on in that is
    triage. It is not being proactive. It is being reactive. So I
    continue to say access earlier.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Alexander.
        Mr. Alexander. I am surprised he called on me. He told me
    yesterday I needed a haircut. [Laughter.]
        Ms. DeLauro. No way.
        Mr. Alexander. He made a good colonel in the Marine Corps.

                                the tap program

        The TAP program, I understand how important it is. But I am
    concerned maybe about the length of training time. We have got
    men and women that have been in the service or in uniform 5,
    10, 15, 20 years. Are 2\1/2\ days enough to properly train them
    for what they need to be doing?
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Sir, as a person who runs a TAP
    employment workshop, sir, I mean, it is a basis, as Kevin
    alluded to. It is a way of preparing them. It is a way of being
    able to give them the fundamental tools so that when they do,
    in fact, get out, they have a basis of what needs to be done.
        Understanding how to write a resume, what should be in
    there, what is the business--what is it going out there, what
    is the economy like, and things like that. Then being able to
    hand them over, if you will, almost like a warm handoff, to
    what Joe and his crew do as far as the One-Stop centers
    throughout the country.
        That is the force multiplier. That is where the individual
    comes in and actually gets the aid that they need in order to
    be able to be successful to find a job.
        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Alexander, if you would yield for a
    minute? Maybe you could expand upon it?
        As I understand it, it is only mandatory for Marines,
    though. It is not mandatory for Army and Navy?
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Well, sir, if I may----
        Ms. DeLauro. It is now mandatory.
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Mr. Chairman, the VOW Act has
    made it mandatory now.
        Ms. DeLauro. Right. Mandatory, yes.
        Mr. Rehberg. For all?
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. For all services.
        Ms. DeLauro. For all the services.

                              gold card initiative

        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. And I applaud that only because
    of the fact that we need to be able to get our young men and
    women prepared to lead. And I have got to tell you, sir. I have
    a young man who just left the service who, when he decided to
    get out, was a little bit shaky on exactly what he needed to
    do. The Gold Card initiative gave him the opportunity to go
    into a One-Stop and be able to get 6 months of intensive
    training.
        Mr. Alexander. Well, the trainers that are doing the
    training are taught by the veterans. Is that correct? The point
    I am trying to make is how much input do Chambers have,
    business people, into training the program?
        And the reason I ask that is a few days ago, I was having a
    meeting down in my district in Louisiana. And I asked an
    employer that was conducting some workshops for the employees,
    I said how often do people from the Education Department and
    the labor force training, how often do they call you and say
    what would you like for us that are educating the young men and
    women, potential employers, what would you like for us to train
    them to do? And he said, ``I have never had anybody to ask me
    thatbefore.''
        So the point being that are we training people sometimes,
    and we don't necessarily know what we are training them to do
    or why we are training them? How much input do the business
    people have with saying this is what we need you to teach these
    veterans so we won't have to train them once again if we hire
    them?

                        access to the business community

        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. There is very little access
    with the business community. There are rules, the joint ethics
    rules. This is what I am talking about, creativity and maybe
    looking at the rules that are in place and inviting the private
    sector in earlier.
        The TAP program, I went through it just under 3 years ago.
    And for someone like me, who is leaving as a lieutenant
    colonel, I probably don't need to go through TAP. It doesn't
    prepare an E5. And to my point exactly, we need to be more
    creative and think about these solution sets earlier.
        How much sense does it make that a driver goes to military,
    gets a military driver's license, and then has to get
    credentialed in each of their States after they leave? They
    have to go through an arduous process to do that. How much
    sense does it make that a man or woman, as a corpsman or medic,
    saves lives in the battlefield, and they have to go through an
    EMT certification?
        We could very easily, if the private sector was invited in,
    get a serviceman or woman a commercial driver's license while
    they are getting their military driver's license. And then they
    have their credential before they leave. Just like we can do
    the same thing for a corpsman or medic and get them their EMT
    certification.
        Creativity, access earlier. If we do those two things, we
    aren't going to be talking about connecting them with One-Stops
    or services after they leave when they are on the unemployment
    rolls. And it is over $1,000,000,000 our country is paying for
    that.
        Mr. Rehberg. I entirely agree. You know, I fly a
    helicopter, and yet the military that are coming out don't
    qualify for a rotorcraft license. They have to go through the
    whole process again. And they are much better pilots. It is
    absolutely amazing the lack of cooperation. What you say is
    exactly correct.
        Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rehberg. Yes, Ms. DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. I am not going to take your time, but I just
    would like to--not at this juncture, Ms. Roybal-Allard is next
    up. But I want to just find out why businesses can't be--you
    mentioned in your early comment about ethics and so forth. So
    when we get around to that again, I am interested in why they
    can't.
        Mr. Rehberg. Okay.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard.

                        military recruitment assessments

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Just following up a little bit on the
    discussion, are any assessments made when someone goes into the
    service so that it is determined that this person is good in
    math, this person is good in something else? Are those
    assessments made when they first go in that could then be used
    to start providing them with the kind of experience within the
    service that would be helpful for them to transition?
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Yes, ma'am. In every military
    service, a person is assessed while they are at boot camp.
    Actually, they are assessed prior to. They are given I guess
    like almost an entrance exam to see where they are placed and
    see how they come out and what their strengths are.
        For example, I will use myself as an example. My strengths
    were in the military police, in law enforcement side of the
    house. So, obviously, my recruiter helped me to get to that
    area.
        So, yes, that is one piece. We also have young men and
    women who come in and they score a certain level. And based on
    what they have, their strengths and weaknesses, they are pushed
    into that area.
        Now we say that our infantrymen don't have that capability.
    I disagree wholeheartedly with that because some of our
    smartest, our smartest Marines are our infantrymen. They just
    chose to be that vice a mechanic or vice anything else.
        And as far as being able to get them into a specific level
    of training, again, ma'am, it depends on, number one, the needs
    of the service, what their capabilities are, and what they are
    able to achieve while they are in the service. That, in itself,
    is one problem, or one thing, excuse me.
        The second thing is let us say they do become a motor
    transporter or a medic or a corpsman. The idea of being able to
    certify them later on is something that we are all working to
    try and achieve. I mean, on the business side of the house as
    well as on the military side of the house because it is very
    important.
        However, ma'am, and with respect, the legislation for each
    one of the States are completely different. You know, unless
    there was a unified stance across the board where all the
    Governors agreed that when a person goes to Fort Lewis or a
    school specifically to be a driver, and when they come out, as
    soon as they finish, they get a commercial driver's license.
        If that was to happen across all lines, ma'am, we wouldn't
    be discussing the problem that we are having right now. But
    unfortunately, that is every State has different rules and
    regulations.

               armed services vocational aptitude battery (asvav)

        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. The test itself that Junior
    refers to, I don't know, because I came from the military, I am
    not sure what the acronym stands for. It is the ASVAV test, A-
    S-V-A-V. If you want, people can look it up.
        But Junior hit the nail on the head. There are two factors.
    Even if you score the ASVAV test and it directs you towards a
    specific MOS, as a service member that is joining, you have
    your own preference. And then, obviously, there is the specific
    needs of the recruiters, and they are trying to fill specific
    spots. So it is never a perfect alignment, but they do use that
    test.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I was just trying to get--no, go ahead.
        Mr. Carbone. Yes, the one point I would like to make here
    is that often, because they have been away for 2 years or
    longer, they will come in and they are interested in getting a
    job as quick as possible. And they might choose the quickest
    way of getting there, which is the shortest form of training.
    It may not be exactly what they want or what is perfect for
    them.
        But one of the things we have tried to do is to keep them
    in touch with our system. I mean, it is important to get them
    what they need immediately. But if they don't continue
    education or training on some kind of a lifelong learning
    basis, they are going to fall out of the workforce at some
    point, and they are not going to achieve their goals and
    objectives.
        So we try to get them the job. But I think our folks at the
    One-Stops have done an excellent job with keeping in touch with
    them once they are employed and with the employer. Because in
    many cases, the employer offers those kind of opportunities.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I would like to change to the Homeless
    Veterans' Reintegration Program. Los Angeles has more homeless
    people probably than any city in the Nation, including 7,000
    homeless veterans on any given day.
        And organizations in my district depend on the HVRP program
    to provide critical job training services to homeless veterans.
    Demand for HVRP funding will greatly increase as our military
    operations wind down in Iraq and Afghanistan. How do you plan
    to meet this increased demand with only the level of funding
    that is being requested in the President's budget?
        Mr. Rehberg. I will ask that you answer that very quickly.
    That was a long question in the last 30 seconds.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes, I am sorry.
        Mr. Rehberg. Unless you want to carry it over into your
    second round so you could have a more meaningful? If you would
    like to expand upon that, we are going to do a second round.
    And so, if you wanted to wait and----
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. If you wouldn't mind, I would
    like to wait a minute, ma'am. If you don't mind?
        Mr. Rehberg. Okay. We will do that.

                       placement and performance metrics

        Then we will begin our second round of questioning. And I
    wanted to go back, Colonel Schmiegel, to something you said
    about metrics and objectivity. And that is one of the things
    that we talk about in this subcommittee a lot is oversight,
    especially as it relates to job service, the Department of
    Labor, One-Stop.
        And so, we always worry that are we really providing the
    service that we intended to provide for the dollars that we are
    spending? And when you see the number of various job training
    duplications in the various agencies, you worry about that. How
    would you set up some kind of a metrics or an objective
    determination as to whether you are providing the service for
    the veterans that you intend to provide?
        And then I will ask the others the same question. And Mr.
    Carbone, I am really impressed with your One-Stop. Eventually,
    we will expand upon that as well. It sounds like you are doing
    it right. There are others that aren't quite.
        So, Colonel Schmiegel.
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. Well, again, our program is
    singularly focused on jobs. So our primary metric is all
    related to jobs. I think that has to drive the debate right
    now. If you look at the fact that 12.1 percent----
        Mr. Rehberg. But would your metric be placement or going
    back in 6 months and seeing if they are still in the same spot,
    that their employer is happy with them, whether they have
    accomplished----
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. Both. I think placement and
    retention. So----
        Mr. Rehberg. Is the Chamber working on that?
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. Yes. We are. We are working
    with a number of different organizations on a smaller-scale
    level in a pilot with an organization called Hire Heroes USA.
    It is an Atlanta-based organization run entirely by Iraq and
    Afghanistan veterans.
        Mr. Rehberg. Is Mr. Ortiz or someone else involved with the
    Department of Labor? Have you even attempted to go outside
    for----
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. No. No. In this case, we
    decided on a parallel track in the private sector only.
        Mr. Rehberg. Colonel Ortiz, would that be something you
    would be interested in learning about, watching, participating,
    or maybe you don't want their participation? I don't know.
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. No, we would be happy for the
    public sector to participate.
        Mr. Rehberg. Colonel?
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Yes, sir. That is something we
    can look at. Kevin and I, we do a lot of things together when
    it comes to the veterans side of the house, sir. So----
        Mr. Rehberg. Are you working on any objective standards so
    that you can see that the programs that you are working on are,
    in fact, working?
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Actually, sir, we try to meet our
    standards based on the needs of our service members, sir. So we
    are in conversation with some of our public sector areas and--
    --
        Mr. Rehberg. That is a yes or a no?
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Yes, sir. We do.
        Mr. Rehberg. Okay. Mr. Carbone.
        Mr. Carbone. Well, I mean, I think the kind of services
    that we talked about earlier that we are providing at the One-
    Stop and kind of bringing together all those organizations that
    can assist people and to get to a career or to get to a job----
        Mr. Rehberg. Do you have a review? Do you have an objective
    standard?
        Mr. Carbone. Yes, the standard is to arrive at placement,
    at placement. So you try to achieve that as soon as you can,
    but I think the important factor is to keep in contact with
    that person, that business that they went to so that you don't
    lose them.
        Mr. Rehberg. Exactly. The important standard is where are
    they in 6 months?
        Mr. Carbone. Where are they in 6 months? Exactly.
        Mr. Rehberg. Do you keep track of that?
        Mr. Carbone. We go to a year.
        Mr. Rehberg. Okay.
        Mr. Carbone. We go to 1 year. But in between that 1-year
    period, I mean, there is a lot of contact made with that
    business. And that is why it is important. Be a little bit
    selective here on the kind of businesses that you try to make
    that connection to. You want businesses that will work with
    them and nurture them, appreciate them and respect them and
    nurture them and try to help them to advance.

                             veterans job retention

        Mr. Rehberg. And Colonel, I guess I would ask what are the
    barriers to your trying to create either the appropriate metric
    or working with the Government?
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. Yes. As you spoke, I think
    you hit the nail on the head, Mr. Chairman. Veterans will have
    3 jobs in their first 3 years on average. So retention is a
    critical issue.
        The private sector innovates 35 times faster than the
    public sector. We should go to a company and ask them how they
    are doing it.
        General Electric knows that their veterans are retained at
    a rate of 7 percent higher than nonveterans that work for their
    company. They have 10,000 veterans. That is a huge sample size.
    Bring the private sector in. Let them explain how they are
    doing it, and adopt that in a Government-wide program.
        Mr. Rehberg. Yes, sir?
        Mr. Carbone. Yes. I think that is--that would be the result
    of a company that cares, a company that is trying to nurture
    that candidate, working with that candidate and helping them
    along every step of the way. If you try to deal with companies
    that have a good culture like that, it makes the difference.
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. I am in agreement, sir.
        Mr. Rehberg. Do you provide a directory of those kinds of
    employers so that I think you suggested they go back to their
    hometown, whether there is a job there or not. Is there a
    central source of information of the kind of friendly employers
    that are out there like GE?
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. We are creating that right
    now, Mr. Chairman. That is the whole basis of the Chamber's
    initiative. And now we are going to major military
    installations to host hiring events because the Chamber is a
    nonprofit organization in this regard.
        So we talked a little bit about access. We are going to go
    and bring dozens of companies to each of the bases, not just
    one.
        Mr. Rehberg. Okay.
        Ms. DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. I have just a couple of things. I just want to
    first of all, make a comment. I think there would be agreement
    that we ought to go to a longer period of training, whether it
    is 2\1/2\ days, 3\1/2\ days, whatever it would be. That
    requires resources.
        I say that because we are an appropriations committee, and
    we need to ask for more time for training and then be willing
    to put the resources where they are necessary to accomplish
    that.

                          veterans program evaluations

        But I also wanted to deal with program evaluation in some
    way, and there are a lot of new efforts that are underway with
    regard to both the Federal Government and your program, Colonel
    Schmiegel, started in March of 2011.
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. That is right.
        Ms. DeLauro. So we are looking at a year in terms of trying
    to deal with it.
        But I would just say, and I am not going to go through all
    the data, but I think it ought to be useful to put into the
    record program evaluation data. A new initiative, Joining
    Forces. Since August, 45,000 hires have been reported. They
    have got businesses pledging to hire in excess of 195,000
    veterans.
        The Veterans Jobs Bank, a joint venture between Department
    of Labor, the VA, and Google, there are 1 million jobs posted.
    The site has a skills translator that is embedded.
        The tax credit for business hiring veterans, waiting to
    hear about whether that is working or not. And again, there is
    Jobs for Veterans States Grants, the VETS program, transition
    programs. There is data on results in those, all of those
    programs.
        The Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Program, 2010, awarded
    140 of those grants. Almost 16,000 homeless vets received
    services. So the data and the statistics are important, and I
    am just saying that they are there at the Department of Labor
    for people to look at.
        I understand, Colonel Schmiegel, that you are now putting
    these pieces in place. You are a year old. And the question
    becomes, again, what you have said is that when a company comes
    out with a public pledge, do you have a mechanism for following
    up to confirm that the hires actually occurred? I presume you
    do. Yes?
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. Yes.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Are you able to track actual placements
    from job fairs and the satisfaction rates of service members
    once they are on the job?
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. Yes.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Is there data yet on the retention in
    the positions that have been secured? All that is----
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. No, not yet.
        Ms. DeLauro. No, exactly.
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. It is a year old.
        Ms. DeLauro. You are a year old. I am making the point that
    you have got some programs that have been there that are
    existing programs, and Mr. Carbone, you go back, you said, I
    thought I heard you say you go back it is a year to see whether
    they are on the job in a year.
        Mr. Carbone. One year.
        Ms. DeLauro. So that I think we have seen that we have got
    the real basis and cooperative relations here between both
    business and the private and the public sector to make sure
    that the programs are not duplicative, that they are doing the
    job that they are supposed to, that they are supposed to be
    doing.
        And I think that that is gratifying. I think I am hearing
    for the first time a kind of a relationship here that exists
    that is workable.
        Let me just, I am going to ask a question about military
    spouses, because this is a problem. Spouses are on their own,
    for the most part. It seems again from the data that they are
    educated people, and they are looking for a way to demonstrate
    self-worth.
        And so, I guess there are two pieces here. Are we going to
    do another round, Mr. Chairman? Will we have enough time for
    that? I think so. It is only 11:00 a.m.
        Mr. Rehberg. Excuse me? [Laughter.]
        Ms. DeLauro. We are supposed to be on from 10:00 a.m. to
    12:00 p.m., right?
        Mr. Rehberg. We will do another round.

                        community colleges and one-stops

        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        But there is this certification piece on the people that
    you have there. It is not there at the moment. There ought to
    be if you can be in the motor pool in one place, you can be in
    a motor pool in another place.
        But it is actually working with the community colleges on
    the certifications. What is being done on the certification
    area to speed that process up? Is there anything, Mr. Carbone?
        Mr. Carbone. Yes, I can tell you that the fact that we
    bought these blocks of classes at the communities colleges.
        Ms. DeLauro. What does that mean, you bought blocks of
    classes?
        Mr. Carbone. You buy the whole class. I mean, when you are
    dealing with the One-Stop, it is not only the vets. It is your
    entire customer base that there are folks from each of them
    that may need those services. The colleges, by and large,
    cannot take a loss. They can post that they are going to do the
    class, but they have got to get a minimum number of people.
        So if we buy the class, we are sure it is going to happen,
    and we can take people from all sectors of our customer base
    and put them in there. That makes a big deal here because you
    can get it done on time. And often then it can correspond with
    the needs that businesses have to have the person actually
    complete that program on a certain date.
        Ms. DeLauro. Is Pell useful in that process?
        Mr. Carbone. Pell is not needed in that process, no.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Alexander.
        Mr. Alexander. Kevin, you have mentioned that you would be
    happy for the private sector to participate. Can you expand on
    that a little bit?
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. I am putting that into
    action, and I actually went to the individual services myself.
    I spoke to the head of their different manpower departments
    and, in some cases, the service chiefs directly. Sometimes it
    is helpful to know and to work for a former service chief like
    General Jim Jones. And we have asked for access to the bases.
        I referred earlier to joint ethics regulations. A lot of
    companies that we work with have individual contracts with the
    Government. So they are defense contractors. But if the Chamber
    comes on and offers to work in 40 bases and stations to do
    these hiring fairs, we can have access, but we invite all the
    companies from the individual industries and sectors to take
    part.
        The only criteria is that they have jobs for transitioning
    service members and spouses that will attend those fairs. If
    they don't have jobs and a service member or their spouse says
    that they were referred to a Web site or that company doesn't
    have a job, they want to hand out pamphlets, they are not going
    to be invited to our hiring fairs anymore.
        Mr. Alexander. Well, let us know what we can do to help
    with that.
        Colonel Ortiz, how often do you find that the employers
    simply are just unaware of the regulations in the USERRA?
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. USERRA, sir?
        Mr. Alexander. USERRA. Do they ignore them, or do they just
    not know about them?
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. I would say about 95 percent of
    the time, sir, that the companies are aware of them, and they
    pretty much stick by them. Other times, it is a matter of
    education, of being able to outreach them because sometimes
    they don't know the specifics behind it.
        Mr. Alexander. Okay.
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. And especially when you are
    talking about low and medium companies. They may not know the
    specifics behind it. But I would say, sir, that the majority of
    our companies out there are very, very supportive of our
    troops.
        Mr. Alexander. Thank you.
        Mr. Rehberg. Ms. Roybal-Allard.

                             accessibility obstacle

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Before I go back to my original
    question, if I understood what Ms. DeLauro was saying, it seems
    like all the pieces are there to achieve the goals that we all
    want to get to and that you are moving in that direction.
        What are some of the obstacles that you are running into or
    some of the things that concern you the most that aren't
    enabling you to move more quickly in that direction or that are
    actual obstacles to what the objectives are? And how could we
    be helpful in that way?
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. I go back to the original
    point. I think access earlier is the most important issue. A
    lot of the stuff that Mr. Carbone addressed is after the fact.
    The service members are leaving. When we go on base for these
    40 hiring fairs, we are going to do something very interesting.
    I think Mr. Carbone and Junior would agree that this is the
    right way of going.
        We have enlisted the support of 20 companies that have huge
    pockets of employment. If you take a company like Entergy in
    Louisiana, they are not employing in all 50 States. You take a
    company like Chesapeake Energy in Texas. You take a company
    like Capital One, which is actually a bank that is growing.
    They are looking for hundreds of people.
        So imagine if you go to a hiring fair on base with 50
    companies, but the Chamber sets up its own booth with 20
    companies that have 10,000 jobs in 100 cities, and we just lay
    on a 6-foot table a map with 100 pushpins. And there is 100
    packets that a service member can take with them.
        And it shows them if you use your GI bill to get
    credentialed for 1 year or 6 months or whatever the case may
    be, you get a job guaranteed with one of these 20 companies in
    those 100 cities. Then we are not doing it after. We don't have
    to worry about the service they get after.
        We are going to where they are making the decision, and we
    are helping them make an informed decision because you have
    young men and women that are using their GI bill to get a
    history degree or a geography degree, and they are dropping out
    after 2 years.
        This has to be holistic, and you have to bring it to them
    before they leave, not after they are already unemployed.
        Ms. DeLauro. Would the gentleman yield for one----
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. I am sorry, ma'am. I will tell
    you, ma'am, that in principle I do agree with everything that
    Kevin is saying, based on the fact that being able to get to
    the individuals earlier. Because the earlier you get to an
    individual, the more informed they are, the easier it becomes
    for them to be able to move in that life cycle, if you will.
        However, the biggest problem that occurs is, and this is
    where, at least from what I see, that Junior Ortiz sees, is the
    fact of being able to bring in a company that wants to hire
    Kevin, but yet he has 6 months left in the service or 12 months
    left in the service, you know?
        There are some companies out there that are willing to wait
    because they know what the value is of that individual.
    However, there are a lot of them that are trying to fill the
    ranks now, and they want to be able to do what needs to be
    done. I think once you are able to get that information out to
    everybody and let them know that there are jobs available and
    that there are jobs available for you when you get out, that is
    one thing.
        To guarantee them a job and everything as they get out, you
    know, if a company can do that, we are all for it, ma'am. The
    point being is the needs of the service, the military member
    doing what needs to be done, and believe me, ma'am. I am very
    supportive of trying to get our kids--and I say ``kids''
    because I can--out and be able to get jobs once they leave.
        Again, it is the accessibility of being able to hit them
    early that runs into problems.

                           homeless veterans program

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Do you want to answer the previous
    question with regard to----
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Yes, ma'am. I mean, we were
    talking about since the administration took office, HVRP has
    increased about 46 percent, ma'am. We approximately--we had
    about 26 million, and right now, it is over 38 million. You
    were talking about how many grants we will be able to fill and
    especially in your area, ma'am.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Given the increase.
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. We have 151 grants right now. The
    grantees are using what needs to be done based on the money
    that they are given. I think one of the things that we need to
    understand is we need to protect the funding stream. We
    definitely need to protect that, making sure that our newly
    separated service members don't become homeless.
        I mean, the key in this whole entire thing is if we can
    stop the homeless piece, then the HVRP programs, as well as
    they are, as well-intended as they are, will cease to exist.
    And if we could do that, you ask how do we help the future? Let
    us hope to God that we don't get our young veterans--and
    believe me, ma'am, now we are seeing in the homeless programs,
    we are seeing younger and younger veterans going in there and
    especially young women.
        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you.
        We will begin the DeLauro final round.[Laughter.]
        And first of all, may I ask a question? What was your
    expertise or your specialty in the Marine Corps?
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. I had a few, sir.
        Mr. Rehberg. Okay. Couldn't keep a job? [Laughter.]
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. You are right, sir. I could not.
    I was an airlifts control officer. I was a counterdrug/
    counterterrorist specialist. I was an administrative officer. I
    was an operations officer. I was also an instructor at the U.S.
    Naval Academy. I taught Spanish and leadership.
        I was also the director of marketing and advertising for
    all the Marine Corps, a professional recruiter, if you will.
        Mr. Rehberg. You were all-around.
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. And a few other cats and dogs.
        Mr. Rehberg. Well, first of all, let me thank you for your
    service. But more importantly, your kids. That is a testament
    to you and your leadership and your fatherhood. So thank you
    for doing that.
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Rehberg. What was your----
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. I was an artillery officer. I
    deployed for the first Gulf War as an artillery officer. And
    the latter half of my career, I was very focused on the human
    resources process in the Marine Corps. I ran----
        Mr. Rehberg. That shows, and thank you.
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. Thank you.
        Mr. Rehberg. And I won't put you through it, but thank you.
    Very impressive. I like what I am hearing about your program. I
    would like to see more about the One-Stop because One-Stop is
    something that actually does concern me nationwide. I am a
    little concerned that some get it, some don't.
        There is a certain level of disjointment going on, and it
    sounds like you have got your act together.
        Mr. Carbone. Yes. I would say that for sure the structure
    of the system is there, and it was put there for the right
    purposes. It may not be used evenly. It may not be the same all
    across the Nation. But----
        Mr. Rehberg. Well, and maybe it doesn't need to be. You
    know, we call it One-Stop, but maybe the flexibility sometimes
    is important as well.
        Mr. Carbone. That is right. Right.
        Mr. Rehberg. Inefficiency is unacceptable, especially when
    it comes to veterans. But we don't want to create inefficiency
    by making everybody fit into the same piece, and it sounds like
    you have got a handle on it.
        And thank you, Ms. DeLauro, for bringing or inviting him to
    come down.

                     tax credits for businesses hiring vets

        Now I really want to ask a question about the success or
    perceived lack of success perhaps of the tax credits for
    businesses for hiring. You have a piece of it because you are
    supposed to be monitoring it. You see it day in and day out.
        Do you think it is working or not? And the only reason I
    ask that question is because I come from the State legislative
    arena. I was a Lieutenant Governor. Before that, I was a State
    legislator. And I was always very active and helped to
    cosponsor veterans' preference, and we had a miserable time
    making it work. It was so difficult to make a veterans'
    preference.
        And we wanted to, and it was the best intention, and we
    thought everybody was going to participate. It just never
    worked as well as we wanted. And that is why I worry that the
    tax credits are available. Are the businesses taking advantage
    of it? Is it working as well as you thought it was going to?
        And Colonel Ortiz, are you monitoring it? And what would
    you be, your opinion as to whether it is working or not? Not
    that I want to change anything. I just want to know from your
    perspective is it working?
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. Sure. I think, one, Mr.
    Chairman, there are two pieces. There is a big business
    component and a small business component. I will give you the
    top line because I don't think the tax credit is being
    utilized.
        I can tell you that we have worked with several thousand
    companies, and I have spoken to hundreds of them, and not a
    single company that I have spoken to has used the tax credit. I
    think big businesses are figuring it out because they have an
    HR team. They have tax consultants and lawyers.
        Small business, if you offer them $5,000 or $10,000, they
    don't have an HR manager. They don't have a tax consultant, and
    they don't have someone to advise them in the legal side of
    this on whether or not they should take advantage of the tax
    credit.
        And if you are small business owner, and there are 27
    million in America, you are not going to take an extra hour at
    the end of a 16-hour day to figure out whether or not it is
    worth your time to get a $5,000 tax credit.
        So I don't think on the small business side it will be
    used. I think we might see some movement on the big business
    side.
        Mr. Rehberg. Colonel?
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. I tend to agree with Kevin in the
    sense that is it being utilized as much? I am not seeing that,
    sir. I can't--I can't answer that specifically.
        I see a lot of the organizations and a lot of companies out
    there hiring veterans because they think it is the right thing
    to do. And in actuality, that is what it should be.
        Mr. Rehberg. Right.
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. You know, the tax credit, it is
    great to have it. Especially if you are a medium size or a
    small company, that may help you. But the bottom line on that
    is you shouldn't be hiring a veteran because you are going to
    get a tax credit.
        Mr. Carbone. I can tell you that in our practices I
    consider them to be really worthless. I don't--I think in
    particular in the post recession economy, businesses are not
    all that focused on whether or not the tax credit is going to
    be there. They are looking for a skilled person who is going to
    make a difference in terms of their bottom line.
        So tax credits don't open doors, don't get people employed
    unless there is a lot more reason to hire the person than just
    that. If it is the right candidate for the right job, and that
    person happens to have a tax credit, then fine. They will take
    advantage of it. But it is not going to make the difference, in
    and of itself.
        Mr. Rehberg. Ms. DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. Just several points. We have talked about
    access. I just want to pursue one comment on the credentialing
    and certification. Are we looking at getting credits,
    certifications, it seems to me that we have got to get both
    business and the academic side to accept the work that is being
    done in the military as work experience that goes toward
    accreditation in some way.
        And I just need a quick answer on this. Is that happening
    or not happening?
        Mr. Carbone. It is not--I have not seen it happen, at least
    in my region.
        Ms. DeLauro. Yes?
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. The Chamber with the American
    Legion hosted a credentialing licensing summit. DoD is looking
    at that right now.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay. I think that this is just like what is
    your work experience? The job description says 4 years of
    college or equivalent work experience, you know, whatever it is
    to be able to use as a lever to move this process more quickly.
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. DoD is looking at it.

                               userra enforcement

        Ms. DeLauro. The other--let me just again quickly, Colonel
    Ortiz, USERRA enforcement. Department of Labor is working at
    making sure these rights are enforced here for these folks to
    be able to go back to their jobs?
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Yes, ma'am. We are committed to
    aggressively enforce these laws.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay.
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. We provide them as best as we
    can. We have--we have representatives throughout the country
    that make sure that these things are investigated properly, any
    complaints that we have.
        Last year alone, as I had stated in my testimony, ma'am, we
    had 1,500 USERRA claims. Through the efforts, we have recovered
    almost $2,000,000 worth of lost wages and benefits. So we are,
    in fact, doing what needs to be done.
        Ms. DeLauro. I want to--a couple of other things. There are
    some things happening here which I think are worth noting. And
    we may be in the midst here of two things. One, and I know the
    legislation I think that we have all signed on to, new
    incentives to hire veterans as first responders--Department of
    Justice, FEMA, hiring vets to protect Americans as first
    responders, law enforcement people. Putting people to work. Now
    those are public sector jobs.
        And one of the issues that comes up here is that, and I
    think the statistic is, is that men--it is about 21 percent of
    veterans are in public, Government and public sector jobs, the
    vets, and about 29 percent of women veterans are in those jobs.
    Now we are looking here at one, there is the issue of
    sequester, which may be coming up, which would then be, you
    know, what, 7, 8, 8.5 percent cut across the board.
        And that is for the Federal workforce system that is
    serving that veterans group, targeted veterans programs, as
    well as employing veterans. What is your sense of what that
    means in terms of the future for veterans here?
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. I think it means we need to
    do more. It is not, it is no surprise that veterans are 50
    percent more likely to serve in the public sector if the public
    sector is using resources to encourage them to serve in the
    public sector.
        The answer to all these questions, the answer to solving
    the issue of veterans employment lies with small business. That
    is the job growth engine of this country. As we come out of the
    recession, jobs will be created in small businesses.
        So if we are going to look at programs, we have to look at
    the private sector and small businesses.
        Ms. DeLauro. Well, I understand that, and I would concur
    except that we are looking at, again, the COPS program. And
    again, we have all supported these----
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. Sure.
        Ms. DeLauro. Veterans bills. We are talking about making
    sure that veterans come out of the military with the training
    or the cert that they have that they are looking at employment
    that is somehow based on their experience. And we are
    encouraging people to actively go into these efforts.
        I might also add that the SBA is working very, very closely
    with veterans to look at how they can be set up as
    entrepreneurs, et cetera. So that is working with business, et
    cetera.
        But we should be careful is what I am saying here as to
    what we are all doing on our side of the table, and what we are
    demanding that our agencies do and who they are hiring. And
    then, by the same token, then on the other side of it saying
    that we are going to look at public sector jobs cut because of
    budget tightening at the State level, at the Federal level, and
    then if that is the case, what are the assurances that we are
    moving veterans into long-term and sustainable jobs?
        And unless we have that full discussion, we are going to
    find ourselves in a position where we have brought people in to
    jobs that we think they ought to fill, and then we cut them out
    of them, and then they have no place in which to go.
        Mr. Rehberg. Ms. Roybal-Allard.

                       educating veterans about services

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I just wanted to raise one issue with
    regard to the fact that representatives of the Los Angeles
    County Workforce Investment Board have told me that it is going
    to be very difficult for veterans to find information about the
    employment services that are available to them. Are the VA and
    the Department of Labor and other agencies coordinating efforts
    to address this issue and to help educate veterans about the
    services?
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. For me, ma'am?
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes.
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Yes, ma'am. We are working hand-
    in-hand with a lot of our agencies, with some of our partners
    also. The majority of the things that we are trying to achieve
    is the fact that we are making everything feasible by starting
    them off by the Transition Assistance Program, which the DoD,
    VA, DHS, and DOL work.
        We also work hand-in-hand with the agencies as far as our
    reintegration programs and also our--the Veterans Reintegration
    Employment part where VA gives them a certain amount of--
    prepares them for work and then brings them, puts them over to
    the DOL One-Stop shops where we are able to help them find
    employment through this.
        So, yes, ma'am. We are, in fact, working hand-in-hand to
    make sure those things happen.
        Mr. Carbone. Yes. I can say that that has not been a
    problem in my region. If the One-Stop or the WIB is operating
    the way it should, you have got avenues to all of those groups.
    And as information is available, it is made available to the
    One-Stops and to the system.
        I think the point I have been trying to make here today is
    that that infrastructure is in place. How it works is up to the
    Department of Labor and, of course, to the Congress. If funding
    is reduced, it means you have got to make less money available
    because it does not reduce the number of groups that you have
    to serve.
        And what I have given you here with respect to veterans is
    that in some respects they are no different than long-term
    unemployed. They come with the same kinds of emotional
    challenges and a need for self-confidence building and other
    factors that sometimes cost a little bit more. But in the long
    run, they certainly provide a great difference in terms of the
    eventual outcomes that you have.
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. I would say, if I could, two
    things. One, the idea of a hiring fair being the be all to end
    all for hiring, getting veterans jobs is not. I don't want to
    give people that impression.
        But we do bring the VA, Department of Labor, ESGR, and
    other Government agencies and nonprofits around this single
    event. So if those communities come together around one event,
    they can certainly meet twice a month to help veterans and
    military families reintegrate into communities.
        We have done events in L.A. It is a big city. We are going
    to be back in L.A. What you see when you do this in a community
    is a different core group of leaders, and it will look
    different because sometimes the DOL leader may be weak.
    Sometimes the Chamber leader may be weak. So you need kind of
    some depth there.

                           opportunities for america

        The last thing I want to say and it keeps on coming up,
    whether or not it is the right thing to do for business. This
    is not charity, and if anything, we are helping businesses do
    the smart thing, not just the right thing.
        We have to bring that point home because this is an
    opportunity for America. In World War II, millions of veterans
    went back into the workplace, and they raised our economy and
    made our manufacturing sector the strongest in the world.
        There are sectors growing in America right now. We have an
    opportunity with a million service members leaving over the
    next 5 years to infuse the energy sector, the healthcare
    sector, the infrastructure sector with talented people. This is
    not charity.
        Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Chairman, I just have or two----
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Can I just ask one quick? Do you know
    when you are going to be in L.A.?
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. I don't know off the top of
    my head. We have 400 dates on the calendar. But I will send
    them to you, ma'am.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Rehberg. Ms. DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. Just a couple of things, and Mr. Ortiz, if you
    could, I don't know if you can do it briefly or do it for the
    record, but this is on the DOL performance measures. If you can
    get us that information, that would be very useful and helpful
    information.
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. DeLauro. Of course, I don't know if you could say
    anything quickly because I know the chairman wants to wrap up.
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. I will be more than happy to
    provide that for the record, ma'am.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. DeLauro. If you can, because I think it is important.
    And we are getting information about what is happening with the
    Chamber. I think that is critical.
        And the same with Mr. Carbone, you know, with what are the
    objects?
        And I would just like to--Mr. Chairman, we didn't get at
    all to talk about, I think, an issue which is so critically
    important, and that is the issue of women veterans.
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. DeLauro. And they, quite frankly, are behind the curve
    in every effort here, and they are most unemployed. They are
    most of our homeless, and it is becoming a very serious
    problem. And they are serving in the same capacity that male
    veterans have, and what I wanted to try to do was to get some
    quick appraisal of what you all are doing with regard to female
    veterans?
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Well, ma'am, I will tell you. The
    Department of Labor, we have HVRP programs specifically for our
    females.
        Ms. DeLauro. For women.
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. And we have 26 grants last year
    that we gave out. The Women's Bureau holds listening sessions
    across the country to make sure we cover, we go to women stand-
    downs specifically for our women veterans.
        We are part of the women's veterans groups to make sure--
    Secretary Solis is very, very adamant to making sure that we
    reach out specifically to them. Not just to veterans, but to
    female veterans and female veterans with families.
        Ms. DeLauro. Right.
        Lieutenant Colonel Ortiz. Because sometimes it is hard for
    them to be able to do certain things. So it is important for us
    to do that.
        Mr. Rehberg. Real quickly, the other two gentlemen, please.
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. I will be quick.
        Mr. Rehberg. And then I will point out that the record will
    be open for a period of 14 days for the Members to ask
    additional questions. If asked, I hope you will answer in a
    timely fashion.
        Mr. Rehberg. And we will conclude then with the two
    gentlemen, please.
        Thank you.
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. Thank you.
        I would like to tie two points together. You mentioned
    military spouses earlier, and we didn't get to it.
        Ms. DeLauro. Right. We didn't get to that.
        Lieutenant Colonel Schmiegel. Forty percent of military
    spouses are women veterans. It is not surprising given they
    meet their mate at that point in their life. My wife was a
    military spouse for 15 years, serving alongside me. Twenty-six
    percent of military spouses are unemployed. So they face an
    equally challenging issue as women veterans.
        I think you need to approach this differently. Women
    veterans, first, one out of three don't self-identify, and they
    don't like to go to hiring fairs to find a job. We have hired
    three women veterans in our program. We have also hired a woman
    named Laura Dempsey, who is the founder and co-chair of Blue
    Star Families.
        She has started a couple of initiatives. She brought
    together nine nonprofits under one entity, one umbrella called
    the Military Spouse Business Alliance. And we are starting an
    e-mentor platform. And I think mentoring women, and business
    executives need to mentor women veterans and military spouses
    about the challenges they face when they transition.
        Ms. DeLauro. We also have on our committee Ms. Granger, and
    she is not on our committee, but on Armed Services, Susan
    Davis, are on the board, Mr. Chairman, of Joining Forces, which
    is active in this area as well. And our State commissioner of
    veterans in Connecticut, Linda Schwartz----
        Mr. Carbone. Schwartz.
        Ms. DeLauro. Sits on that effort as well.
        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Carbone.
        Mr. Carbone. Yes, we were--we did win one of those awards,
    by the way, that you alluded to, and it does serve the female
    veterans. We have got a program now in Stamford, and we have
    got one in Bridgeport as well, and both are working well. In
    fact, we have got a residential facility that was just opened
    in Bridgeport as well.
        Just want to make one point on the performance measurements
    that you made reference to earlier. One of the things that is
    not really a performance measurement, but I think says a lot as
    to whether or not that One-Stop or that WIB is being effective
    is whether or not they can leverage those formula dollars to
    grow the business, to create some kind of an environment where
    you can do a lot more things and do greater things as a result
    of money that you may even have a lot more flexibility with.
        I think that is important, and I think that has made the
    difference here in some of the programs that you have read
    about at The WorkPlace.
        One last point I would like to make with respect to the job
    fairs. It is not unusual sometimes that you will get 75 or 80
    businesses that will want a table at the job fair. Your
    reference before about not inviting businesses back that just
    come there to put up their shield, kind of take advantage of
    the nice picture or something of that sort, but don't respond
    with jobs, all right?
        Just like you do, I am doing that herein because we have
    got 5 that we are doing over the next 2 months. And there is a
    good 30 or 40 businesses that come there, proudly put up their
    shield, but don't hire anybody.
        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you very much.
                                              Thursday, March 22, 2012.

                          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                                   WITNESSES

    HON. ARNE DUNCAN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
    THOMAS P. SKELLY, DIRECTOR, BUDGET SERVICE

                           Introduction of Witnesses

        Mr. Rehberg. We do start on time here.
        Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Welcome to the subcommittee.

                           Chairman's Opening Remarks

        This morning we have an opportunity to talk about what I
    think is one of the most important investments we can make in
    our country, the education of our young people.

                   FISCAL YEAR 2012 EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS

        I am proud to say that last year, even under very difficult
    budget circumstances, we were able to maintain the maximum Pell
    grant at $5,550 while making commonsense reforms to put the
    program on a solid financial footing this year. We were also
    able to increase IDEA grants to States by a modest amount, $100
    million. It isn't as much as the $1.2 billion increase that I
    had proposed in the bill I introduced last fall, but I know
    that every penny makes a difference to struggling local
    districts. And, finally, Title I grants to States were
    increased by $60 million.
        Although the overall funding level at the Department of
    Education actually represented a cut from the prior year, we
    made the tough decisions to prioritize these core, large
    formula grants that benefit almost every district in the
    country.

                   FISCAL YEAR 2013 EDUCATION BUDGET REQUEST

        So I was very disappointed when I saw that, with the nearly
    $2 billion in new money allocated for education resources in
    the President's budget this year, he didn't put funds into IDEA
    to help meet our Federal commitment there, you didn't put them
    into Title I, you didn't put them into Impact Aid basic support
    payments or rural education programs or TRIO--not one penny.
        Instead, your budget requests $1 billion for a new, never-
    authorized Race to the Top program which would be operated at
    the college level. The budget request does not provide any
    authorizing legislation to carry it out or details about how
    this program would work. Your request also includes a $300
    million increase for the K-12 Race to the Top program, which
    members of this subcommittee as well as members of the
    authorizing committees have serious reservations about. I think
    you should have gotten that message loud and clear last year. I
    notice a pattern here.
        Many other aspects of your budget request also echo the
    theme of less money for tried-and-true formula grant programs
    to States and more money in flexible pots for brand-new ideas
    left entirely to your discretion, and yours alone, without
    congressional input. Why are these large grant programs all
    level-funded in your budget while new and untested ideas like
    Race to the Top and the so-called First in the World
    competition get huge increases? This is a question we will
    address.
        Sometimes it is necessary to level-fund a program in tough
    budget times. I understand that. But I do not understand why,
    instead of investing the nearly $2 billion in additional
    educational resources you had to help meet our Federal
    commitment to IDEA, you chose to create brand-new programs out
    of whole cloth that you must know are not going to go over
    particularly well within this congressional committee.
        I will ask some questions along these lines in a moment,
    but at this time I would like to yield to my ranking member,
    Ms. DeLauro, for her opening statement.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        Ranking Member's Opening Remarks

        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Good morning. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Skelly, good to
    see you.

                    PAST AND PROJECTED EDUCATION BUDGET CUTS

        As we think through the President's budget proposal for
    2013, I think it is critical to remember the context in which
    it comes. This year's request arrives after two successive
    rounds of budget cutting. It comes as the House majority is
    once again proposing a budget that asks the middle class to pay
    for more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, including by
    making significant cuts to investments in education.
        Under the 2012 legislation enacted in December,
    appropriations for the Department of Education, excluding Pell
    grants, are $1.5 billion less than the comparable level 2 years
    earlier. That is the cut in actual dollar terms without taking
    into account rising costs, growing population and student
    enrollment, and unusually high levels of need.
        An enormous number of critical programs and services have
    already been cut and, in many cases, completely eliminated. A
    few examples: Education Technology State Grants, Smaller
    Learning Communities, Civic Education, Teaching American
    History, Foreign Language Assistance, Javits Fellowships, Even
    Start. The list goes on.
        Meanwhile, many of the foundational grant programs that are
    at the core of the Department's mission have simply been
    frozen. And it goes without saying that after considering
    rising student enrollment, local and State budgets, growing
    pressure to improve student achievement, providing level
    funding to these programs serves as an effective cut in
    services.
        I should note that, had the majority had their way, these
    cuts to education would have been even more severe. A year ago,
    we were debating H.R. 1, the chairman's proposed budget for the
    remainder of 2011, which would have cut Federal education
    accounts by $5 billion. A total of 957,000 children would have
    lost Title I support; 482,000 children would have seen School
    Improvement Grant funding dry up; 196,000 children would have
    lost access to Head Start; and college students would have lost
    $845 a year in Pell grants.
        In the final 2012 budget, I was pleased to work with
    Chairman Rehberg to instead secure some modest increases for
    some of our education priorities, such as Title I, IDEA,
    Promise Neighborhoods. But the 2013 budget proposal put forward
    by Budget Committee Chairman Ryan earlier this week argues for
    similarly deeper cuts. It rolls education, job training, social
    services into one budget function that is 20 percent less than
    2012 levels.
        Further information was put out by OMB, and in their
    calculation the Department of Education would be cut by more
    than $115 billion over a decade. For IDEA, it would be a 5.4
    percent cut, $645 million cut to IDEA if this budget goes into
    effect, that is 18.9 percent below 2012. That clearly doesn't
    meet our commitment, nowhere meets our commitment to 40 percent
    funding for Special Education.
        This is wrong. It does not make sense to roll back our
    critical investments in education, particularly at this
    difficult and delicate economic moment. If we want to create
    jobs, grow the economy, reduce the deficit in the long term, we
    have to maintain our investments in education, work to ensure
    educational opportunity for all.

                   FISCAL YEAR 2013 EDUCATION BUDGET REQUEST

        Education is the great equalizer. It sets aside your
    gender, your race, your socioeconomic status, your religion,
    your political party, and it says, your God-given talent is
    what ought to drive your ability to succeed. Education, all
    types of education, including vocational, community colleges,
    is the key to our successfully navigating this transitioning
    economy. I am glad to see the administration recognizes this by
    increasing the Education Department's budget by 2.5 percent.

                    COMPETITIVE VERSUS FORMULA-GRANT FUNDING

        Mr. Secretary, you know, and we have had these
    conversations, I continue to be concerned with the emphasis on
    competitive grants in the budget at the expense of formula
    funding. The 2013 request puts a full 18 percent of funding
    into competitive grants. That is a 50 percent increase from
    last year. Formula funds fall by $1.2 billion, while
    competitive grants go up by about $2.8 billion.

                        TESTING AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

        When we are looking at how we distribute these awards or
    measure program success, I also urge caution against
    overemphasis on testing. A recent systematic study by the
    National Academy of Science concluded that test-based incentive
    programs have had little to no effect on student achievement
    and that exit exams have depressed graduation rates by 2
    percent with no impact on achievement.
        Testing can be a very valuable diagnostic tool for
    identifying problems and determining how best to help a child
    succeed. But making tests, rather than the kids, the
    centerpiece of the education system and the one and only
    indicator of success or failure is problematic, in my view.
        Instead, I believe we should be taking a more comprehensive
    approach to improving education. That means recognizing the
    profound impact that poverty, grinding poverty, has on learning
    so that we invest in early childhood education--yes, and I
    support universal preschool; I wish we could get to universal
    preschool education in this country--after-school programs,
    ensuring that our kids have access to good nutrition, good
    health care, and good counseling.

                           EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

        With that in mind, I am excited about the Early Learning
    Challenge Grants included that have already been awarded in
    nine States. I look forward to seeing some great results. I
    strongly support the administration's prioritization of early
    childhood in this year's budget proposal, and I firmly believe
    that the earliest experiences are essential and supportive
    environments are critical to long-term outcomes for children.

                        COLLEGE ACCESS AND AFFORDABILITY

        I am glad to see the President is continuing his effort to
    increase college access and affordability in this budget.
    Continued support of the Pell program is vital to these
    efforts. More than 9 million low-income students depend on this
    benefit to keep them in school so that they can earn their
    degrees and find quality, well-paying jobs.
        Unfortunately, Pell grants continue to be a target for both
    cuts and heated rhetoric by Members of the majority. In the
    national dialogue, some have been impugning the value of higher
    education and telling students to aim for second-best.
    Education is about telling people to reach for the stars, to
    aim for being the first, not to settle. That is what our goal
    should be. It is the great equalizer. It opens doors to
    opportunity, to jobs, to higher wages, and a better life for
    those who work hard. And I hope today we can discuss how best
    to provide that opportunity to all of our students.
        In any event, on behalf of the students in my district and
    across this Nation, I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I
    want to say a thank you to the President for continuing to
    invest in education. It is the right thing to do. It is what
    our economy needs.
        And we thank you for coming today. I look forward to
    hearing your testimony and for our dialogue.

                      Committee Chairman's Opening Remarks

        Mr. Rehberg. Full committee Chairman Rogers.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Mr. Secretary and your colleagues.

                     EDUCATION AS A FOUNDATION TO DEMOCRACY

        For years, in giving tours to young people through the
    Capitol, I close out my tour by saying that there are three
    basic reasons why we are a great country, one of which, I like
    to say, is universal free public education. As one of our
    Founding Fathers said, and I am paraphrasing, only an educated
    population knows how to run a democracy or can be a democracy.
    And I firmly believe in it and have voted that way down through
    the years.
        The importance of education as an investment in future
    generations is a value that can be traced all the way back to
    our Founding Fathers. John Adams extolled the virtues of
    educational attainment. Thomas Jefferson founded that great
    university. Others promoted education across all classes, no
    doubt about that.

                        EDUCATION INVESTMENT AND RESULTS

        We have spent billions of dollars over time with the goal
    of improving the quality of and access to education for all
    Americans. Forty years ago, we spent about $4,500 per student
    in the country; today, that figure is over $10,000. Yet we
    continue to see our students' achievement fall behind students
    in other countries.
        When we see Federal dollars funneled to programs which have
    not improved outcomes, when examples arise of those dollars
    being wasted at the school-district level, and when groups
    demand more dollars with no oversight or reform, it makes some
    of us wonder if this Federal investment is being effectively
    used or is even worthwhile. As policymakers, it is our job in
    the Congress to ensure, along with you, that these investments
    have good returns.

                MANDATORY VERSUS DISCRETIONARY EDUCATION FUNDING

        Which brings me to this final thought. Two-thirds of
    Federal spending is now on automatic pilot--entitlements,
    mandatory spending. Only one-third is what is appropriated--
    that is to say, discretionarily advised by the Congress. When I
    came here 32 years ago, it was just the opposite. We
    appropriated two-thirds, and entitlements were, like, one-
    third.
        The result is, we owe $16 trillion. It is advancing by a
    trillion and a half a year. We are borrowing over 42 cents of
    every dollar we spend, a lot of it from people that don't wish
    us well around the world. We are digging a hole that is going
    to be almost impossible for even our grandchildren to dig their
    way out of.
        So we have a problem. And although I am a strong believer
    in spending on education, like I have told the Supreme Court in
    their budget request, no one should be exempt from the
    austerity that we all have to face. And that includes
    education, unfortunately, but it does.
        Mandatory spending, the largest driver of our debt, largely
    outside the purview of the Congress to oversee, is a big part
    of the problem. And I strongly believe that leadership from the
    administration and collaboration in Congress is urgently needed
    for us all to pull together to try to solve this problem that
    is eating away at our future. Unfortunately, the budget request
    that you have given to us doesn't help that problem. Your
    budget request seeks to add another $9 billion to mandatory
    spending, putting critical dollars on autopilot, as I have
    described.
        Mr. Secretary, basic economics tells us that if we do not
    bring mandatory spending under control and cease the trillion-
    dollar annual spending deficit, we will not only make it more
    difficult for our kids to receive a world-class education, we
    will have saddled them with a burden that severely limits their
    freedom and their opportunity and their future. And I just
    think we all need to pull together in the same harness to be
    sure that we stop this cancer that is eating away at the future
    of our country.
        Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

                   Committee Ranking Member's Opening Remarks

        Mr. Rehberg. Ranking Member Dicks.
        Mr. Dicks. I thank Chairman Rehberg for recognizing me. And
    I want to join him, Ranking Member DeLauro, Chairman Rogers,
    and the rest of my colleagues in welcoming Secretary Duncan and
    Mr. Skelly.

                               PELL GRANT PROGRAM

        Let me begin by raising the problems facing the Pell grant
    program. As my colleagues know, Pell grants are the foundation
    of our student aid program, helping almost 10 million students
    afford to go to college every year. The need for Pell grants
    expanded rapidly during the recession. People who lost their
    jobs decided to go back to college and get more education and
    better skills. And we know that there are jobs out there for
    people who have appropriate training. Also, the amount of your
    grant depends on your income and on your parents' income, and
    we had more people with less income qualifying for full Pell
    grants.
        Working in a bipartisan fashion, Congress has now made some
    substantial changes to the Pell Grant program to help contain
    costs. CBO tells us that we have reduced the appropriation
    needed by more than $20 billion over 5 years. There has also
    been some additional temporary funding derived from savings in
    other student aid programs that have helped us keep Pell going.
    And now it looks like we have a surplus in the program in the
    current fiscal year and again in 2013. That is great news.
        Unfortunately, I would add quickly, we haven't found a
    permanent solution. When the additional funding runs out in
    fiscal year 2014, the Pell grant program will be back in
    deficit again by about $6 billion under current estimates. All
    of us in both the legislative and executive branches need to
    get together on a workable long-term funding approach for Pell
    grants. This program is too important for us to fail. Cutting a
    lot of students out of the program or making big cuts in grant
    amounts just isn't an acceptable option. I am eager to hear the
    Secretary's thoughts on how we can address this serious
    problem.

                RACE TO THE TOP COMPETITION AND WASHINGTON STATE

        I also would like to raise my concern with the narrow
    definition of ``innovative schools'' that the Department of
    Education adheres to frequently when determining policy and
    awarding grant money. Perhaps the highest-profile example would
    be during the second round of the Race to the Top competition,
    the State of Washington applied after the State legislature
    approved a number of education reforms sought by the
    administration. Ultimately, the request was rejected by the
    Department of Education.
        According to the Governor and the State superintendent of
    public instruction, a leading factor in the rejection was that
    the State does not allow charter schools. On three separate
    occasions, voters in Washington State have rejected charter
    schools on the ballot.
        Washington has a long and progressive history of promoting
    choice, fostering innovation, and offering alternatives within
    the public school system. I have a list with me of more than
    300 schools in the State that would qualify as ``innovative''
    under any definition except perhaps that of the Department of
    Education. Aviation High School, for example, in the Highline
    School District near Seattle provides a unique focus on the
    STEM disciplines--science, technology, engineering, and math--
    in partnership with Boeing, Microsoft, and other premier
    Northwest companies. In my own congressional district, many
    school districts are engaging in very innovative programs, such
    as the new STEM Academy at West Hills in the Bremerton School
    District, the Tacoma School of the Arts, and the Science and
    Math Institute in the Tacoma School District.
        These schools are the equal of any charter school in terms
    of innovation and accomplishment, but, unlike many charter
    schools, they also have the discipline and accountability that
    public schools have and Washington State voters demand. I hope
    the Secretary understands that you can have innovation in
    education without charter schools and that the Department in
    the future will consider what these schools accomplish, rather
    than what label they may carry, when determining policy and
    grant awards.
        I thank the chairman again for yielding to me, and I look
    forward to hearing the Secretary's testimony.
        And, again, I support what Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro said.
    Education is fundamental in this country, and somehow we are
    going to have to figure out a way to keep supporting it and
    especially the Pell Grant program.
        Thank you.

                    PROPOSED COMMITTEE RECESS FOR HOUSE VOTE

        Mr. Rehberg. I would like to welcome you to the committee.
    As I mentioned to you before we began today, it looks like we
    are going to be called to a vote somewhere between 11:00 and
    11:30. We will do everything we possibly can to get through at
    least one round of questioning, and I understand then that
    would probably complete our hearing. So if you can shorten your
    statement--we have it for the record--that would give us an
    opportunity to open up a dialogue.
        But the time is yours, Secretary Duncan. Welcome.

                   Opening Statement of Secretary Arne Duncan

        Secretary Duncan. Thank you so much, Chairman Rehberg,
    Ranking Member DeLauro, and members of the committee.
        Thank you for this opportunity to talk about President
    Obama's fiscal year 2013 budget for the Department of
    Education. This budget request reflects President Obama's firm
    belief that our country has always done best when everyone gets
    a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays
    by the same rules.

                EDUCATION INVESTMENTS TO SECURE AMERICA'S FUTURE

        Our budget reflects the administration's dual commitment to
    reducing spending and becoming more efficient while investing
    to secure our future--investments that improve our global
    economic competitiveness, and, as the Council on Foreign
    Relations' Task Force on Education stated this week,
    investments that directly impact our national security.
    According to the task force co-chairs, former Secretary of
    State Condoleezza Rice and former New York City Schools
    Chancellor Joel Klein, the State Department is struggling to
    recruit enough foreign language speakers. U.S. generals are
    cautioning that enlistees cannot read training manuals for
    sophisticated equipment. And a report from the 18th Airborne
    Corps in Iraq found that out of 250 intelligence personnel,
    fewer than five had the aptitude to put pieces together to form
    a conclusion.
        Few issues touch so many parts of our lives and few
    investments are as important to our safety and wellbeing as the
    commitment that we make to education in America.

                    FISCAL YEAR 2012 EDUCATION APPROPRIATION

        And I want to begin by thanking all of you for your work on
    the 2012 appropriation for education. I know that you faced
    some real challenges in reaching an agreement, but I believe
    the final appropriation reflected a reasonable balance of
    continued support for programs designed to help State and local
    leaders achieve groundbreaking education reforms as well as
    reductions in other areas where budget savings were difficult
    but a necessary decision.

                RACE TO THE TOP AND INVESTING IN INNOVATION FUND

        In particular, I want to thank you for your continued
    support for both Race to the Top and the Investing in
    Innovation Fund, the i3 Fund. As a result of Race to the Top,
    46 States have created bold, comprehensive reform plans, with
    buy-in from Governors, legislators, local educators, union
    leaders, business leaders, teachers, and parents.
        For an investment of less than 1 percent of total K-12
    education spending, we have seen more reforms across the
    country in the last 3 years than we have seen in all the years
    of the previous decade put together. Even before we spent a
    single dime of taxpayer money, 32 States changed over a hundred
    laws and policies to improve the opportunities for children to
    learn.
        We have also seen the transformative impact of Race to the
    Top in communities across the country. From Ohio, where funds
    have helped rural districts partner on principal and teacher
    training, to Tennessee, where STEM coaches are helping to
    improve the skills of K-12 math and science teachers, and
    Georgia, where public-private partnerships have formed to
    prevent at-risk youth from dropping out of school, Race to the
    Top is making a big difference in children's lives and
    transforming public education as we know it.

                        EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE GRANTS

        I am happy to report today that, thanks to your continued
    support for comprehensive education reform, we plan to use our
    fiscal year 2012 Race to the Top funds for both the district-
    level competition and another round of Early Learning Challenge
    Grants. We know that early-learning investment is probably the
    best investment we can make. We were fortunate to be able to
    fund nine States in the last round. We had many other great
    applications; we just simply didn't have enough money to fund
    them. And we want to continue to invest there this year and
    going forward. And we are still working out the details, but we
    look forward to updating the committee in the coming weeks with
    more information.

               INNOVATION THROUGH FORMULA AND COMPETITIVE GRANTS

        At their core, Race to the Top and i3 are about spurring
    reform by rewarding success and giving flexible funding to
    implement good ideas. Especially in a time of tight budgets, we
    need to make the most effective use of Federal funds. Formula
    funds alone can't drive the kind of transformational reform our
    education system needs. We need to combine a strong foundation
    of formula funding, which is the vast majority of our budget,
    about 84 percent, with targeted use of competitive grant funds.

                        PROMISE NEIGHBORHOODS INITIATIVE

        I was also pleased that you have doubled the funding for
    our Promise Neighborhoods initiative. The growing income
    inequality in America over the past 30 years has led to
    historically high child poverty rates. Sort of a staggering
    number, but close to one-fifth of America's children live in
    poverty. And in some States poor children represent almost 50
    percent of all public school students. This is morally
    unacceptable, and it is economically unsustainable.
        Education, as Congresswoman DeLauro said, education has to
    be the great equalizer. And if we ever hope to lift our
    children out of poverty, we must give them access to effective
    schools and to strong systems of family and community support.
    We think Promise Neighborhoods can help to break cycles of
    poverty, and I really appreciate your support for this
    initiative.

                               PELL GRANT PROGRAM

        We also recognize the committee made some difficult choices
    with respect to the Pell grant program, but we appreciate that
    the maximum Pell grant award was maintained at its current
    level, which will help close to 10 million students across the
    country pursue higher education.

                       REPRESENTATIVE RYAN'S BUDGET PLAN

        Before I give you an overview of our budget request for
    next year, I would like to take a moment to address an issue
    that could threaten our ability to prepare America's students
    to compete in this globally competitive economy and undermine
    our national security. As you know, yesterday Congressman Ryan,
    whose leadership I respect, unveiled an alternative budget plan
    which you may soon be considering here in the House. And
    however well-intentioned, the Ryan plan would lead to
    catastrophic cuts in education programs by balancing the budget
    on the backs of America's students, teachers, and families.
        If the Ryan budget is voted into law, we could see
    disastrous consequences for America's children over the next
    few years. By 2014, Title I, which helps fund educational
    programs and resources for millions of low-income, minority,
    and rural and Native American children, could see a $2.7
    billion reduction that might deny resources to over 9,000
    schools serving more than 3.8 million students.
        Mr. Rehberg. Secretary Duncan, please summarize your
    comments.
        Secretary Duncan. Okay. I would like to walk through a
    couple more challenges there.
        Funding to help educate special-needs students, students
    with disabilities, would be cut by over $2.2 billion, which
    would translate to a loss of over 30,000 special education
    teachers, aides, and other staff. One hundred thousand children
    could lose access to Head Start. Work-study programs for folks
    going to college, would be cut; 130,000 would lose access. TRIO
    programs, $159 billion cut, leaving about 148,000 students in
    the lurch. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. Simply put,
    this country cannot afford to go backwards here.

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Likewise, we can't afford the disastrous across-the-board
    cuts known as budget sequestration that could take effect next
    year. We look forward to your collective leadership to make
    sure that we don't go down that route.

                  FISCAL YEAR 2013 EDUCATION BUDGET PRIORITIES

        As a country, we have to continue to invest, and that is
    why we are requesting in fiscal year 2013 $69.8 billion in
    discretionary funding, an increase of about $1.7 billion. Four
    areas of significant increase: supporting State and local
    reforms at the K-12 levels, elevating the teaching profession,
    strengthening connections between school and work, and trying
    to make college much more affordable, which is by far the
    largest share of this.
        Our young people today have to get a higher education
    through 4-year universities, 2-year community colleges, or
    trade, or technical/vocational school training. We all must
    invest. We at the Federal role have to play our part. States
    have to continue to invest even in tough economic times. And
    universities have to keep down their costs and be reasonable
    there. The vast majority of the jobs of the future are going to
    require some form of higher education, and we have to make sure
    we are committing there. So whether it is maintaining the Pell
    grants that are so important, whether it is trying to double
    the number of work-study opportunities, or making the American
    Opportunity Tax Credit--AOTC tax credit permanent, we have to
    continue to make sure these options are out there for our
    Nation's hardworking young people.

                       ELEVATING THE TEACHING PROFESSION

        We need to elevate the teaching profession. We have the
    baby-boomer generation that is retiring, and we want to invest
    heavily to bring in the hardest-working and most committed to
    fill those slots over the next 4 to 6 years. This is a once-in-
    a-generation opportunity.

                        INVESTMENT IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES

        We want to invest in community colleges. We think they are
    a hugely important piece of the education continuum. And as
    folks get back on their feet--green energy jobs, health care
    jobs, IT jobs--community colleges have a huge role to play.

              BIPARTISAN SUPPORT NEEDED FOR EDUCATION INVESTMENTS

        I think these investments in education, again, aren't
    Republican, aren't Democratic ideas; these are American ideas.
    Education is the great equalizer. We have to educate our way to
    a better economy, and we look forward to partnering with you to
    help strengthen our Nation.
        Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement and biography of Secretary Duncan
    follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     SUPPORT FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

        Mr. Rehberg. I would like to begin the questioning. And I
    would just ask the Members, again we are now being notified
    maybe 11:00 to 11:15. Don't feel compelled to fill the time.
    Ask your question as concisely as you can, and we can hopefully
    get through at least one round.
        Mr. Secretary, I understand you wanted to make some comment
    about early learning. One of the things that Ranking Member
    DeLauro and myself were particularly concerned about, and we
    have talked about this, is a lack of recognition or either
    understanding on your part or at least a recognition within the
    President's budget of our priority for early learning.
        And so I guess I would like to ask you what you intend to
    do with early learning. And give me a specific amount that you
    are going to appropriate--or, not appropriate, but set aside
    within the fiscal 2013 budget if we give you the funding. I
    want to know exactly how much.
        Secretary Duncan. Well, far from a lack of recognition,
    historically our Department has invested in early childhood
    education. This is something that has always been desperately
    important to me. I keep saying we don't need another study
    telling us, if we want our children to enter kindergarten ready
    to learn and ready to read, that high-quality early childhood
    programs are hugely important.
        So, thanks to your support this past year, we invested
    heavily in States, with the partnership of HHS, cutting through
    bureaucratic silos. I felt great about that. We were able to
    fund nine states.
        I am not prepared to give you an exact dollar figure today,
    but we want to use a significant piece of the Race to the Top
    resources this year to fund----
        Mr. Rehberg. When will you give me an exact figure?
        Secretary Duncan. Over the next couple weeks. We are
    working on this very, very quickly. We want to do two things--
    --
        Mr. Rehberg. So I will be able to put language in my bill
    in this committee specifically to that number?
        Secretary Duncan. Again, I will have to check on the
    timing. But we want to fund a district-level competition;
    districts have been working very, very hard. And we want to
    continue to fund States that are doing a great job in their
    early childhood space.

              EDUCATION BUDGET PRIORITIES--BASICS OR NEW PROGRAMS?

        Mr. Rehberg. I appreciated your comments about the Ryan
    budget. It is always nice to talk about something that may or
    may not happen in the future. This is not necessarily the
    appropriate venue because you are here to defend your budget.
        And so I guess the question is, with all of this ``woe is
    me'' about the Ryan budget, then why did you lack the
    priorities that we have tried to identify, as in the education
    basics of IDEA, Impact Aid, Title I and such, to move forward
    on unauthorized projects that seem to be the President's
    priority but are not necessarily the Congress' priority?
        So, you know, if the Ryan budget, let's say, doesn't pass
    and there is a level funding, you personally, within your
    agency, are doing the same damage that you are blaming him for
    to a greater extent in his budget. So, explain why the lack of
    priority among your administration for things like Impact Aid.

                     IMPACT AID--AN ADMINISTRATION PRIORITY

        Secretary Duncan. No, Impact Aid is a huge priority. So,
    again, whether it is Impact Aid or funding for----
        Mr. Rehberg. Then why not increase the funding?
        Secretary Duncan. So, again, these are very tough economic
    times. We were able to maintain existing funding for that. And
    I think so many of the investments we are making----

                 FUNDING FOR EDUCATION BASICS AND NEW PROGRAMS

        Mr. Rehberg. So, in your mind, new programs are more
    important than the existing basic education programs of Impact
    Aid, Title I, or making up for a lack of funding within IDEA.
        Secretary Duncan. No, I think we are trying to do both. And
    I think what is so important is some of these competitive
    dollars have actually helped to leverage Impact Aid.

                  IMPACT OF COMPETITIVE FUNDING ON IMPACT AID

        Let me give you a concrete example. One of the things that
    I do is--I go talk to military families across the country. One
    of the things that they most struggle with is the huge
    disparity in standards State by State, and every time they move
    they get hit by that. Thanks in part to some incentives through
    Race to the Top, States voluntarily adopted higher standards.
    As I talk to military families, they so appreciate that.
        And, so, again, using some of the competitive money to
    better leverage Impact Aid, Title I, and IDEA funding, we think
    you get a bigger bang for your buck that way.
        Mr. Rehberg. I think I am hearing a different answer from
    those that are receiving the Impact Aid dollars. They would
    rather see the funds going to the Impact Aid schools or the
    program itself or to IDEA. They just definitely disagree with
    you.
        And so, you know, as Chairman Rogers said, in a time of
    tough fiscal times, you know, it is nice to have ideas and look
    for newer opportunities, but you are underfunding now, in our
    estimation, the basic programs.

              INCREASING AND PROTECTING FUNDS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

        Secretary Duncan. Those are great questions. These are
    really tough economic times. The largest increase we are
    looking for in this year's budget is to try and create some
    incentives to get States and universities to continue to invest
    in higher education. And we desperately want to protect Pell
    grants and increase them.
        We at the Federal level can't do it by ourselves, when you
    have 40 States cutting funding, when you have universities with
    tuition skyrocketing much faster than the rate of inflation.
    Again, we have to put some incentives out there to try and
    encourage universities to be full and equal partners at the
    table. Otherwise, the benefits of Pell grants get diminished.
        Mr. Rehberg. I would just caution you, before you start
    laying comments on a proposed budget, the Ryan budget or any
    other budget, look at your own budget to see what you have done
    with the basic programs, the ones that we consistently have
    prioritized. And you seem to have lessened the prioritization
    within your administration. So let's not cast those stones yet.
    Let's take a look at your budget.
        Secretary Duncan. Absolutely. And, again, I think in very
    tough economic times, to maintain funding in those areas, to
    not cut, and then to try and create some funding opportunities
    that would help leverage the impact of that funding, again, in
    serious economic times, we think that is the right way to go.
        Mr. Rehberg. Ms. DeLauro.

                           EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Secretary, first of all, I want to say thank you
    to your commitment to early childhood. From my opening
    statement, you know where my commitment is in that effort. And
    I truly do hope we would get to universal preschool in this
    Nation at some point and we would make the commitment of
    resources to do that. I look forward to hearing from you in the
    next couple of weeks about the amount of money we are going to
    devote to this area.
        I would just reinforce that I think the States have done an
    incredible job. There is real excitement out there amongst the
    States. And I would encourage the continued use of that vehicle
    in order to move forward on----
        Secretary Duncan. If I could just say on the early
    childhood topic, we are in this for the long haul. So we are
    thrilled to be able to help this past year. We want to do it
    this year, and we want to do it going forward. I just want to
    be very, very clear about this. This is a hugely important area
    for us to continue to invest in.

                NEED TO ANALYZE IMPACT OFF SEVERE EDUCATION CUTS

        Ms. DeLauro. I also have just this one comment. I think one
    can't keep your head in the sand, any of us. If there is a
    document on the table, whether it is the President's budget or
    whether it is the Ryan budget, a massive cut, $115 billion over
    a decade, what it means to Pell, what it means to the reforms
    in K-12 education, what it means to IDEA is critically
    important in the context of what we are undertaking today.

             SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT--CONSULTANTS VS. TURNAROUND MODELS

        With that said, let me just move to an issue that I want to
    talk about. This is about the School Improvement Grant program,
    SIG.
        Turnaround is hard; we all know that. No one can make
    guarantees that any school or program is going to work. I am
    concerned that we are asking some of the toughest schools in
    the country to reinvent the wheel for themselves. They are
    relying particularly on advice from consultants rather than
    using what has been proven, whole-school models that are ready
    to go. We are seeing reports that some of the SIG schools are
    having serious difficulties. Even where programs seem to be
    working in individual schools, we don't know how to extend what
    they are doing to additional schools.
        On the other hand, I think that you have made an investment
    in the i3 program to look at the most promising school models
    and the scale-up for school improvement. It is my understanding
    that the top-rated scale-up and validation programs--Success
    for All, Reading Recovery, KIPP--the Knowledge is Power
    Program, and Talent Development High Schools--have not been
    extensively called upon to work in SIG schools. It would just
    seem to me to be logical to take advantage of the growing
    investment in this effort, which is very, very promising, other
    than having these schools look to consultants, which is
    becoming a cottage industry, and they are not dealing with the
    proven programs.
        What the difference is--because I think this is important--
    between a program and a consultant is that the program provides
    specific materials, software, training, organizational plans
    that have been tested in high-poverty schools, found to be
    effective. The consultant can give you good advice, but it is a
    long road from advice to action.

                     WHOLE SCHOOL REFORM--HARKIN-ENZI BILL

        I know in the Senate we have the Harkin-Enzi bill that is
    offering a whole-school reform. I won't go into it; I think you
    know about it. And it is an option for SIG schools focused on
    the evidence of effectiveness. So it says that they can use
    that model.
        I would like to see this committee continue to fund SIG, a
    long overdue focus for Title I funds. Why not expand the
    program a bit, just to incentivize schools to use the programs
    that the Department is already endorsing in that i3 program?

             SCHOOL TURNAROUND MODELS FOR REDUCING SCHOOL DROPOUTS

        Secretary Duncan. Great point. And so, just first of all, I
    am thrilled, again, to thank this committee and everybody for
    their support.
        For decades, Congresswoman, we just passively watched as
    these dropout factories perpetuated year after year after year,
    like we didn't expect poor children to learn or that black and
    brown children can learn. As a country right now, we have over
    a thousand schools that are in the process of being turned
    around, and we are seeing some amazing success stories. Some
    are struggling, some have a long way to go, but folks are
    engaged in this work.
        But your point of, you know, using best practices, using
    proven players, getting folks who know how to make a difference
    for the children who historically have been desperately
    underserved by public education, I am absolutely with you on
    that.
        Ms. DeLauro. Are you open to a fifth model, if you will, in
    terms of----
        Secretary Duncan. I am open to anything that will work. And
    just to be real clear, so what we did on this, again, we put
    this money out to States, States competed it out to schools.
    And we are seeing some, you know, really interesting work going
    on there. There was an announcement this week with America's
    Promise Alliance that the number of dropout factories have gone
    down in this country. We have about 400,000 fewer children in
    this country going to dropout factories. That is very
    encouraging.
        But if folks can show me what they are doing to transform
    schools and offer opportunity and to do it with a sense of
    urgency, that is why we are doing this work.
        Ms. DeLauro. Uh-huh. I would like to continue our
    discussion on this because I think that there are more models,
    and we can use what you have done with i3 and additional models
    in order to effect the change that you would like to make.
        Thank you.
        Secretary Duncan. As a country, we are finally in this
    business, and we want to get smarter and better every single
    year.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
        Mr. Rehberg. I usually ask in order of attendance at the
    time the gavel is dropped.
        Mr. Alexander.
        Mr. Alexander. I will yield.
        Mr. Rehberg. He yields to the chairman, which is a smart
    thing to do. We were going to ask if you wanted to, and I
    thought you would do the right thing.
        Mr. Rogers.
        Secretary Duncan. You saw that one coming.
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Alexander.

                      MANDATORY SPENDING INCREASE PROPOSED

        Your budget request for fiscal year 2013 includes a $9
    billion increase in mandatory spending--that is to say, money
    that will not be overseen by the Congress or by this
    subcommittee. You are asking for another $9 billion to go onto
    automatic pilot without the public's chance, through the
    Congress, to oversee that spending.
        What I want to know is, why is it so important to give the
    money for these programs outside the purview of the Congress
    and borrow the money from Red China to pay for it? Why is it
    that important?
        Secretary Duncan. First of all, again, I think the
    President has a proposal, which folks may agree or disagree on,
    but he has a proposal that has a balanced approach. We all want
    to reduce the debt and not borrow from folks.

                        INVESTMENT IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES

        But I think a couple of those investments, again, that we
    are making, one in community colleges, I can't overstate how
    important they are to our Nation. As I travel the country, I go
    to hundreds and hundreds of great schools; some of the most
    inspiring are my visits to community colleges. You have 18-
    year-olds, you have 58-year-olds, you have folks from all over
    the globe going back to retrain and retool--green energy jobs,
    healthcare jobs, IT jobs. You have some community colleges
    today literally offering classes 24 hours a day--24 hours. So
    we are trying to help meet that capacity.

                         INVESTMENT IN CAREER ACADEMIES

        Secondly, we want to invest in career academies. And we are
    serious about preparing students for college and for careers.
    And we think there are great jobs out there in the technical
    world that we are not preparing students for. Again, we have to
    educate our way to a better economy. And the only way we are
    going to reduce this dropout rate and build these 2 million
    high-wage, high-skilled jobs is through those investments. We
    think it is a really good thing for the country.

                          DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CUTS

        Mr. Rogers. Look, last year, last calendar year, this
    committee took on the chore--and it was not fun, and we have
    not been thanked for it either--but we took on the chore. And I
    had a great relationship, working relationship, with my
    Democratic partner, Norm Dicks, and the other members of this
    committee. We took on the chore and successfully cut
    discretionary spending, which is one-third of the budget, one-
    third of spending. We cut it by some $95 billion and we did it
    over 2 years, which has not been done since World War II.

              MANDATORY SPENDING INCREASE AND THE GROWING DEFICIT

        We have bit the bullet. And we are going to have to bite
    the bullet again, mainly because of the growth in mandatory
    spending, entitlement spending, over which the Congress,
    through the committee, has no oversight or control. And I am
    asking all of us to ask of every person requesting funds, is
    this important enough that we borrow it from Red China to pay
    for and give the bill to our grandkids?
        Now, under that kind of a test, where we are having to look
    at every dollar we spend--and there is spending on programs
    that are dear to a lot of us, including in education. But
    everyone has to bite the bullet. We haven't gotten that message
    through to the country yet.
        But we have got a severe problem. And I just want to ask
    you, are you telling us this is important enough that we would
    run it past the Congress and not let them oversee the spending
    and then borrow the money from Red China and pass the bill to
    our grandkids? Is this that important?
        Secretary Duncan. So, again, obviously, I just really
    appreciate your leadership. And I and the President absolutely
    share your concern on the debt side. We want to reduce debt. We
    may have slightly different strategies for getting there, but
    we want to do that.
        But these are one-time investments to get our families back
    on their feet and ultimately our country back on its feet. And,
    again, we have to educate our way to a better economy. That is
    the only way we are going to get there. So I think these are
    critically important one-time investments.
        We can get a lot more people retrained and retooled through
    the community college. You know, last week, 2 weeks ago,
    actually, a deaf individual had been an electrician. He lost
    his job, was back in community college for retraining, not
    asking for a handout, not asking for anything. He wants to get
    new skills for the new economy. We have to support those kinds
    of efforts.
        Mr. Rogers. Surely you must have realized, through all of
    last year and today even, that asking for a new mandatory
    spending program is not the most popular thing in the world
    with the Congress.
        Secretary Duncan. I fully understand.
        Mr. Rogers. Yeah. That being so, it seems to me that you
    would be thinking about spending your effort and your chits
    with the Congress on those very basic programs that are in
    jeopardy now in education and not be looking at these new
    mandatory programs that the Congress has been rejecting.

                        ENSURING HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETION

        Secretary Duncan. I hear the concern. Again, where I think
    we may have a difference of opinion is, right now we have a 25
    percent dropout rate in this country. There are no good jobs
    out there for a high school dropout. We have to make sure our
    young people graduate from high school and are college- and
    career-ready. And if we don't do that, if we just sort of
    maintain what we are doing with the 25 percent dropout rate, we
    condemn a whole set of folks around this country to poverty and
    social failure.
        And this has changed. Thirty years ago when I was in high
    school, my friends actually could drop out of high school on
    the south side of Chicago and go work in the stockyards and
    steel mills----
        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Duncan [continuing]. And have a decent life,
    and----
        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Dicks.
        Secretary Duncan [continuing]. Those days are gone.
        Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                               PELL GRANT PROGRAM

        Let me ask you, you know, I have not served on this
    subcommittee during my tenure here, but I am concerned about
    the Pell grant issue, as I mentioned in my statement. As I
    understand it, in 2014 we are going to be $6 billion short
    unless something is done. I think that is unacceptable both, I
    would hope, to the committee and to the administration.
        How do we get out of this box we have gotten ourselves into
    without just destroying the program or severely hurting the
    program?
        Secretary Duncan. I will ask Tom to walk through the
    details. We have a couple ideas of what we would do to maintain
    this critical investment.
        Mr. Skelly. We have seen a drop-off in the increase in Pell
    grant recipients. We don't think it is going up as fast, but we
    would have a $6 billion shortfall in 2014.
        The budget makes three proposals to try to offset those
    costs through some savings in mandatory programs. One is to
    expand the Perkins Loan Program. One is to reduce the amount
    that guaranty agencies get when they rehabilitate defaulted
    student loans. Another is----
        Mr. Dicks. Would you pull the microphone a little closer? I
    am having----

                       IN-SCHOOL LOAN SUBSIDY LIMITATION

        Mr. Skelly. A third policy would reduce the length of time
    during which the in-school interest subsidy is given to
    students. Under subsidized loan programs, we would limit loans
    to only those who would use up 150 percent of the time that
    they are supposed to spend in school. If they are supposed to
    spend 4 years to get out of a program, we would give them 6
    years before we cut it off. The same kind of thing we did with
    Pell grants last year, we would do that with loans.
        In total, those things would save $6 billion through 2014.
    That plus the surplus that we got from 2013 going into 2014
    would mean you don't have any shortage through 2014.
        Mr. Dicks. Would that take care of the problem into the
    future?
        Mr. Skelly. No, sir.
        Mr. Dicks. Or do we have to do this every year?
        Mr. Skelly. We are going to have to do something in the
    future, also. We think this is a good way to make a downpayment
    on preserving that maximum Pell grant.
        Mr. Dicks. Okay.

                   TIMELINESS IN ALLOCATING IMPACT AID FUNDS

        Mr. Secretary, you and I have talked a couple times on
    the--and I appreciate the chairman's support for the Impact Aid
    program. Sometimes we have a hard time getting the money out
    the door on Impact Aid. And sometimes they get, I think, 87
    percent or something, but then the rest of it takes a while.
    And, you know, this is a hardship for some of these school
    districts.
        Are we doing any better on that problem?
        Secretary Duncan. We are. And where we haven't done as well
    as we would like to in the past, historically, and obviously
    for preceding administrations as well, it is a real challenge.
    We have basically eliminated that backlog, so we have made real
    progress there.
        Mr. Dicks. Great.
        Secretary Duncan. And we are going to try and do everything
    we can to stay on top of it. And my staff is working
    extraordinarily hard.

                               IMPACT AID FUNDING

        Mr. Dicks. So I understand the cut in Impact Aid is like
    5.7 percent? Is that----
        Secretary Duncan. It is smaller than that.
        Mr. Skelly. No, it is not that much. The proposed cut is
    $67 million. We would still fund Impact Aid at $1.2 billion.
    Most of the money is still there. The programs that fund
    students, in particular, are going to be retained.

                      SCHOOL BREAKFAST AND LUNCH PROGRAMS

        Mr. Dicks. Now, let me ask you this. A lot of these kids,
    as I understand it, you know, are eligible for school
    breakfast, school lunch. Tell us about that. And how many kids
    are involved in that?
        Secretary Duncan. So, again, we have as many as 20 percent
    of young people in some States eligible here. And, you know, it
    is a real challenge. We worked very, very closely with, you
    know, my counterpart at Agriculture----
        Mr. Dicks. I mean, in some districts it is 70 or 80
    percent.
        Secretary Duncan. When I was in Chicago, it was 85 percent
    of my children on free or reduced lunch.
        Mr. Dicks. Yeah.
        Secretary Duncan. And I served tens of thousands of
    children three meals a day--breakfast, lunch, and dinner. And
    you do what you have to do. So----
        Mr. Dicks. How do they get by during the weekends?
        Secretary Duncan. Well, what we did very quietly is, for a
    couple thousand children during the school year, we actually
    sent them home with backpacks of food on Friday afternoon so
    they would not come back to us hungry. And we worked closely
    with the food depository. We see lots of interest in public-
    private partnerships.
        But if our children's stomachs are growling, they can't
    learn, they can't concentrate. There are some basic physical,
    social, emotional needs we need to meet, with food being at the
    top of that list. And I got some critique for that, but, again,
    if children are hungry, I don't know how in God's name they can
    concentrate on algebra, biology. It is just not going to
    happen.

                     NATIONAL GUARD YOUTH CHALLENGE PROGRAM

        Mr. Dicks. You know, one program that I have been a
    supporter of is the National Guard Youth Challenge program.
    They take care of these dropouts, and they have had an
    enormously successful record. Are you familiar with that?

                          DROPOUT PREVENTION PROGRAMS

        Secretary Duncan. Yes. Those kinds of programs, the JROTC,
    are all very, very positive programs.
        Mr. Dicks. We have to work with the Labor Department, Mr.
    Secretary. You know, I think this is a model that could work.
    And we have all these disparate programs, and trying to pull
    them together and maybe use this as a model is something we
    ought to talk about.
        Secretary Duncan. We would love to do that. And talking
    about career academies, we actually had in Chicago JROTC
    running a number of our career academies. So there are some
    interesting partnerships we wanted to do here.
        Mr. Dicks. And I am short of time. I have saved you a
    couple minutes.
        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you. And I appreciate your interest in
    these challenges. You know we have worked together.
        Mr. Dicks. Right, no, I appreciate it.
        Mr. Rehberg. You bet. I think it is a good program, as
    well.
        Mr. Dicks. Mr. Lewis and I will keep on it.
        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Alexander has deferred one more time to
    Mr. Lewis.
        Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS

        Mr. Secretary, we very much appreciate your being here.
        In the meantime, in Race to the Top and the additional
    funding for higher education, my district involves enough
    territory to put four eastern States in it, including the two
    major military bases. But probably your department doesn't know
    that the first funding, the very first funding that ever went
    in for HSIs--Hispanic-serving Institutions--was a proposal of
    my own.
        And could you give me an idea of what you are proposing for
    Hispanic-serving institutions last year versus this year versus
    the coming year?
        Secretary Duncan. I will have Tom walk you through the
    details. But HSIs, and HBCUs--Historically Black Colleges and
    Universities--are hugely important to us. We are going to
    continue to invest there.
        Obviously the Pell Grant program has been very, very
    beneficial to students in those places. And we are trying to
    equalize opportunity. So many of our young people of color, if
    they are first-generation college-goers, have a chance to go to
    school at HBCUs and HSIs, and we do whatever we can to support
    them.
        One thing I am actually very, very encouraged about, over
    this past year we saw a 24 percent increase in the number of
    Hispanic students enrolled in college. And we have to make sure
    they are graduating. So we want to continue to invest there.
        And the final thing I will say is that we want to continue
    to recruit great teachers. We want to make sure our teachers
    reflect the diversity of our Nation's young people. I worry
    about the lack of diversity. And HSIs, HBCUs have been a huge
    pipeline of talent coming into education.

                   FUNDING FOR HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTIONS

        Tom is going to walk you through the specifics of the HSI
    funding.
        Mr. Skelly. It is the same amount of money that we have had
    in 2012; $221 million is the discretionary and the mandatory
    share of the HSI program.

                             CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

        We also have an investment this year in the budget in
    something called the Hawkins Centers of Excellence program,
    which is designed to help schools that have a large number of
    minorities do a better job of preparing teachers.
        Mr. Lewis. I feel very strongly that there is huge
    potential here, especially for the Hispanic communities. I am
    concerned that we haven't evaluated very well the money that we
    have spent in the past and where we ought to be going. I am not
    looking for you to change the world here, in terms of
    additional funding, but level funding is not necessarily a
    reflection of what I am suggesting.
        Secretary Duncan. Well, I would love to work with you on
    that. And I have said repeatedly and publicly that we need
    these institutions not just to survive but to thrive going
    forward. And they have a critical role to play to try and
    strengthen our Nation's economy.

                             CHARTER SCHOOL FUNDING

        Mr. Lewis. Mr. Dicks mentioned a specific problem relative
    to the charter schools. And his State has voted to not have
    charter schools; that is not true in California. And we see
    some very good results; we see some that aren't so good.
    Specifically, out in the desert territory, there is a science
    and tech institution that does fabulous work. And I happen to
    think that those charter school funding flows are important.
        So would you respond to that and also respond to Mr. Dicks'
    problem of----
        Secretary Duncan. I actually agree with you; we just want
    innovative schools. And they can be charter, they can be
    traditional. Mr. Dicks referenced Aviation High School. I
    actually visited there. It is a fantastic school. We just want
    more great schools. And so you have high-performing district
    schools, that is great. Innovative schools, you have high-
    performing charters, that is great. But we have low-performing
    charters and----
        Mr. Dicks. Mr. Secretary, we did not get funded.
        Secretary Duncan. Well, that wasn't necessarily the reason.
        Mr. Lewis. That is because of Norm. You didn't want to fund
    him, I know that.
        Mr. Dicks. You just wanted to make that point.
        Secretary Duncan. And in all these things, to be really
    clear, we had many more good applicants in all these things
    than we had dollars available. That is just the fact, in every
    single one of these. The Promise Neighborhoods, for example,
    the first round, we could fund 20 communities, yet we had 300
    applicants.
        Mr. Lewis. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your being
    responsive to my district and not paying attention to Norm's
    district.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Mr. Rehberg. Ms. Roybal-Allard.

                              PERKINS LOAN PROGRAM

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Secretary Duncan, it is my understanding
    that the administration is proposing a major overhaul of the
    Perkins Loan Program, which offers need-based, flexible, low-
    interest loans. And while I strongly support efforts to
    increase college access and affordability, I am concerned that
    this proposal preserves the existing Perkins program in name
    only.
        As I understand it, the new program will reach more
    students but is a costlier alternative because interest will
    accrue while students are enrolled. Students will be subject to
    a 1 percent loan origination fee. The current public service
    cancellation benefits will be lost. The 9-month grace period
    will be reduced to 6 months. And the interest rate will
    increase to 6.8. In other words, the program bears little
    resemblance to the Perkins program that currently benefits low-
    income students.
        How does this program differ from the student loan program?
    And is there a way of preserving the existing Perkins program
    while also expanding loan volume, as you have proposed?
        Secretary Duncan. I will have Tom walk you through the
    details. But to be clear, we are trying to keep Subsidized
    Stafford loan rates at 3.4 percent, not have them double. We
    need Congress to act on that. That is part of our budget
    proposal, that, you know, by July 1st, if Congress doesn't act,
    we will go from 3.4 to 6.8 percent going forward. We don't want
    to see that happen. So we are absolutely taking that battle on.
        Tom, do you want to walk through the changes?
        Mr. Skelly. The Perkins loan proposal is one you described,
    but the idea is to expand the number of schools that benefit.
    Right now there are only about 1,700 schools that get Perkins
    loans. We would like to expand that to about 4,400 schools. So
    more students at more schools would be able to benefit. We
    would also increase the loan volume. Right now we only make
    about $1 bilion in loans each year. We would expand it to about
    $9 billion a year.
        So, more loans, more students, more schools. We think we
    ought to provide incentives by giving money to schools that
    would do things like look at college affordability reforms,
    higher completion rates, or getting students good value out of
    their school.
        Secretary Duncan. We desperately wanted to invest and
    invest in many, many more young people, at many more colleges,
    and a lot more resources there. But, again, we also want to
    challenge universities to keep their costs down and to make
    sure they are graduating students, particularly first-
    generation goers, you know, Pell grant recipients, and to try
    to get some partnerships underway. Here again, I don't think we
    can do this by ourselves.
        So if we have a chance to dramatically increase access to
    the Perkins Loan Program, we think that is a great thing for
    our Nation's young people.

                     COLLEGE PREPARATION AND AFFORDABILITY

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I know that the President's goal is to
    significantly increase the percentage of Americans with college
    degrees. And to reach this goal is going to require closing
    that achievement gap that persists among low-income and
    minority students.
        Therefore, again, I was surprised that TRIO, GEAR UP, and
    the High School Equivalency and College Assistance Migrant
    Programs have been level-funded. And, unlike your higher-
    education initiatives, these are proven college-preparation
    support programs that have successfully helped low-income
    students achieve.
        So why, again, is the administration investing in new,
    untested programs instead of giving more resources to the
    existing programs that we know successfully reach low-income
    students?
        Secretary Duncan. That is a great question. I guess the
    challenge to the country is that college is becoming
    unaffordable, not just for low-income folks but for middle-
    class folks. And I can't tell you how many town-hall meetings I
    have done in rural communities, suburban, urban, where
    hardworking middle-class folks are starting to think college
    isn't for them.
        And so, we need to do something to encourage, to
    incentivize States to invest, to do something to incentivize
    institutions themselves to keep down their costs--some are
    being very creative here; most are not. The tuition cost of
    higher education is going up much faster than the rate of
    inflation. So putting out some carrots there so that States
    will continue to invest, that universities will do the right
    thing, we need to do that or else whatever we do in Pell
    grants, or Perkins loans, just won't be enough.
        Mr. Dicks. Would you yield just quickly?
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Sure.

                    IMPACT OF STATE BUDGETS ON TUITION COST

        Mr. Dicks. What I am told is, you know, in our State of
    Washington again, it is the legislature that has dramatically
    cut back the funding----
        Secretary Duncan. That is correct.
        Mr. Dicks [continuing]. Because they don't have any choice.
    And the university actually is--the cost per student is
    actually down from where it was 20 years ago. It is an amazing
    thing.
        I mean, I think you have to be very careful not to
    criticize the universities unfairly here for what the States
    are doing to them, especially the public universities.
        Secretary Duncan. Yes, that is absolutely correct. But,
    again, this is about shared responsibility. You have some
    institutions and States that, in these tough economic times,
    are acting better than others--there is a variation here, there
    is a spread. Some are being very responsible; others are not.
    And we just want to incentivize all actors to keep costs as low
    as possible.
        Folks are doing some really interesting things with
    technology to increase pass rates in classes, and also to
    reduce costs. Folks have to change, and universities have to be
    part of it. They can't do it by themselves, States can't do it
    by themselves, we can't do it by ourselves. All of us, all of
    us, have to come to the table and behave in different ways.
        Mr. Dicks. Just be careful not to punish the people who
    have done good work.
        Secretary Duncan. Absolutely. And I feel for States. Again,
    States are under huge budget pressure. I just think we have to
    invest in education.
        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Dicks, what I find ironic is somehow we
    expect our local governments to balance their budget, the
    universities to balance theirs, States are doing the same, and
    the Federal Government is the endless pit of money. We cannot
    continue to expect the Federal Government to make up for all of
    the shortfalls at the local level. The local level is probably
    where they recognize most there is a lack of funding. And
    somehow this administration thinks that they can continue
    putting money into new programs, but we are trying to keep the
    basic programs alive at the local level.
        Mr. Alexander.
        Mr. Alexander. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Simpson. You are not going to yield to me? That tells
    you where I sit.
        Mr. Alexander. I have a great deal of respect for Dr.
    Simpson but not that much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                             COLLEGE AFFORDABILITY

        Mr. Duncan, you used the word ``skyrocketing'' a while ago
    when you talked about tuition rising in relation to the
    inflation. Why? Do you have an idea of why that is----
        Secretary Duncan. I don't have a simple explanation. And,
    again, I think a decent part of it, particularly in the public
    sector--Congressman Dicks is exactly right--is, when States
    disinvest, you know, one thing you do see is tuition goes up.
        But, again, we are seeing some real spread. You are seeing
    some institutions actually reducing their tuition. You see some
    folks going to 3-year programs. I was in Texas recently; they
    are looking at $10,000 college degrees.
        And so I think there is some real creativity there in these
    tough economic times in how folks become more efficient, how
    they increase completion rates, how they use technology. There
    is some really good work going on out there. We just want to
    see that become more the norm rather than the exception.

                    FEDERAL STUDENT AID AND COLLEGE TUITION

        Mr. Alexander. Do you have any concern at all that
    federally subsidizing tuition might cause that tuition to go
    up?
        Secretary Duncan. We have looked at that very closely over
    the past 30 years, and tuition has gone up every single year
    whether we increased Pell grants or not. And, in fact, in a
    year when we reduced Pell grants, tuition still went up.
        So, you know, we have looked very, very closely at the
    history of this, and tuition has gone up regardless of what the
    Federal Government does--Pell grants went up, Pell grants were
    flat, Pell grants went down, tuition still went up.
        Mr. Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rehberg. Dr. Simpson.
        Mr. Simpson. If you don't quit saying that, I am going to--
    --
        Mr. Rehberg. All right. Mr. Simpson.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.

                       EDUCATION FUNDING AND THE DEFICIT

        I found your opening statement and your testimony kind of
    riveting. I felt like I was back on the Budget Committee that I
    sat on yesterday for 12 hours doing a markup of the Ryan
    budget. But the reality is, I will tell you what is the biggest
    threat to education today. It is a $15.5 trillion deficit. And
    if you accept the President's budget as a blueprint for the
    future, it never gets to balance--never. That is the biggest
    threat to education and to every other program.
        Somehow we have got to get--the reality is--do you know
    what the 302(b) allocation is going to be for this committee?
    Because I don't. Do you?
        Secretary Duncan. No, sir.
        Mr. Simpson. So, in reality, you don't have a clue how the
    Ryan budget is going to affect education.
        Secretary Duncan. No, no, we have----
        Mr. Simpson. Because you don't know what this committee is
    going to do and what the 302(b) allocation is going to be. It
    may decide that it is going to be higher for this and lower for
    something else.
        Secretary Duncan. That is correct. But we have a pretty
    good estimate, and if those cuts go in place, it would be----
        Mr. Simpson. But they are just estimates. You are guessing
    what we are going to do. So don't come out with your--I am
    tempted to ask if OMB wrote your testimony or you wrote it.
        Secretary Duncan. No----
        Mr. Simpson. But I won't ask that.
        Secretary Duncan. Our staff did it. And it was very, very
    simple, and----
        Mr. Simpson. Well, then they are not any smarter about what
    this committee is going to do than you--anyway, let me ask a
    question.
        Secretary Duncan. Of course we don't know, but if that
    budget passes----
        Mr. Simpson. And maybe I am just being a little upset
    because I spent 12 hours having these debates yesterday about
    all this and about all the gloom and doom that was going to
    happen. The gloom and doom is going to be if we don't balance
    this budget and start addressing the $15.5 trillion deficit.
    And, as I said, the President's budget never gets to balance.
        Let me ask you an education question.
        Secretary Duncan. Yes, sir.

                              UPWARD BOUND PROGRAM

        Mr. Simpson. The one program that has a great deal of
    impact on my State is Upward Bound. And I am a big supporter of
    the TRIO programs--I am co-chairman of the Congressional TRIO
    Caucus. It has recently come to my attention the Department of
    Education instituted a competitive priority that eliminates the
    opportunity for applicants from my State and other rural States
    while enhancing the opportunities for applicants from some
    States, including Illinois, including the city of Chicago.
        Specifically, the Department's so-called persistently low-
    achieving schools, for which Upward Bound applicants can
    receive up to five additional points on their applications,
    does not include any high school in Idaho. Yet the list from
    Illinois only includes high schools, including 66 from Chicago.
        Certainly you understand what this looks like, when you
    have----
        Secretary Duncan. I am happy to----
        Mr. Simpson. And let me also say that only one high school
    under the authority of Bureau of Indian Education across the
    entire Nation is eligible under this priority.
        An explanation would be helpful.
        Secretary Duncan. No, absolutely. I am happy to look at
    that. I am a big fan of Upward Bound. And we will make sure we
    are doing the right thing.
        Mr. Simpson. I would like to have a discussion with you
    later about it.
        Secretary Duncan. Absolutely.
        Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Flake.
        Mr. Flake. Thank you.

                   FISCAL YEAR 2013 EDUCATION BUDGET INCREASE

        Just continuing with the discussion on the overall budget,
    when you have seen the increases over the past several years in
    the Department of Ed budget, and then to see a 5.4 percent
    increase in the fiscal year 2013, I ask, how do you do that? I
    mean, how with a straight face can you come and say, you know,
    with a department that has increased the budget so massively--
    and I am not just putting all the blame on the Obama
    Administration; it went up precipitously under the Bush
    Administration, for which I think we all should be ashamed.
        And I just would like to know, why? Why a 5.4 percent
    increase?
        Secretary Duncan. Two-point-five percent. It is about a
    $1.7 billion increase, so it is about 2.5.
        And I just fundamentally believe education is an
    investment. We can't invest in the status quo; we have to
    invest in reform. I think this investment in early childhood
    education, which is a newer one for our department, we think
    that is critically important. We have to continue to drive K-
    12. And we want to put some incentives out there, again, on the
    higher-education side, so that States will continue to invest
    and universities will be reasonable in tough economic times
    with their tuition.
        So these are the right investments to make. And, again,
    going forward, the jobs of the future are all going to require
    some form of higher education. And if we continue to have a 25
    percent dropout rate in this country, if we continue to just
    perpetuate the status quo, we do our country a great
    disservice, we cut off our nose to spite our face. That is what
    I am fighting against.
        Mr. Flake. Your figures are right. I was wrong. I was
    looking at the federally subsidized and unsubsidized student
    loans. That is the increase of 5.4 percent. The actual increase
    is 2.5. Still, it would seem unjustified when we are going to
    have to cut, we know it, everywhere, to come in with an
    increase here.

                    FEDERAL STUDENT AID AND COLLEGE TUITION

        With regard to the relationship between federally
    subsidized student loans and Pell grants and the increased cost
    of tuition, since 1980 there has been a 475 percent increase in
    Pell grants, after adjusting for inflation; and a 439 percent
    increase in the cost of college. You may say, well, one year
    when Pell grants didn't go up, tuition still did. But how in
    the world can you deny a relationship between Pell grants
    increasing this much and federally subsidized student loans and
    the cost of education. I think that that is putting your head
    in the sand, really. Four hundred seventy-five percent, 439
    percent over the same time period. There is a relationship.
        Secretary Duncan. So, again, just looking at the past 30
    years, for 19 of those years there was an increase in the Pell
    grant, 11 of those years there was no increase, and 1 year they
    went down, and every single year tuition went up. So two-
    thirds, one-third, but whatever happened on Pell, tuition still
    went up.
        Mr. Flake. I think there is a knowledge that Congress will
    come in and increase it. Which is the dog and which is the tail
    and who is laying chase I think varies from year to year, but
    there is a relationship here as we go along.
        Secretary Duncan. So, again, that is why we can put out
    some incentives to change that behavior. That is what we are
    desperately trying to do with this year's budget.

                         D.C. OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIPS

        Mr. Flake. One more question. With the D.C. Opportunity
    Scholarships, did ending the program, as the President did,
    after current enrollees go through, is that saving the taxpayer
    any money?
        Secretary Duncan. What we are trying to do, obviously, is
    maintain those children who were in the program so that they
    can complete.
        Mr. Flake. But----
        Secretary Duncan. I am sure there are some savings there.
    But I think the goal for us is to invest in the D.C. public
    schools so that every child will have a chance to get a great
    education, not just a tiny handful of children.
        Mr. Flake. I could see if you say these students are more
    costly. That is not the case. These vouchers aren't for any
    more than they were spending in their current schools. And so
    it would seem, just like the question that Mr. Simpson raised,
    there is something that just doesn't look right. It looks like
    a bow to the unions and basically telling those parents, we
    don't value your judgment. And I just--I don't know how else
    you can explain that.
        Secretary Duncan. Again, we wanted to maintain those
    children who were in those schools. At the end of the day, I am
    not interested in saving, you know, 3 children and letting 500
    drown. I want to make sure every child has a chance to get a
    good education. D.C. public schools are getting significantly
    better. They are going to serve the vast majority of young
    people in the city, and we want to support those efforts.
        And, again, if private philanthropy, if folks, if
    individuals want to donate, we think that is appropriate. We
    think for the Federal role to do that doesn't make sense.
        Mr. Flake. You have been good on competition and
    accountability and whatever else, but this seems to be just a
    complete opposite there.
        To the extent that D.C. schools are getting better, do you
    not see a relationship between choice and accountability there?
        Secretary Duncan. I think there is a huge choice, and that
    is probably why they are getting better, but it is within the
    public school system. So you have a thriving charter sector
    here, a huge number of students going to charter schools.
        Again, I want to just make sure that every single child has
    access. And if the private sector wants to help a couple
    individuals, more power to them. I think we have to be more
    ambitious than that here at the Federal level.
        Mr. Flake. Thanks.
        Mr. Rehberg. I want to thank the committee for being as
    quick as they can. We will do the best we can to begin a second
    round. I understand we are going to vote at 11:15. We will turn
    the TV on, and I will cut the meeting off at 10 minutes left on
    the vote. So adjust your time accordingly.
        And I am going to then pass on my first question and move
    to Ranking Member DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                       REPRESENTATIVE RYAN'S BUDGET PLAN

        And I just wanted to reiterate that I think last evening, I
    don't know what time it was, but the Ryan budget was passed in
    the Budget Committee, and so, therefore, it brings it into the
    realm of debate and discussion. If it passed there, it will be
    brought to the floor, and we will see what happens with that
    effort. And if people disagree with it, then they will have a
    chance to vote for it or against it. But the fact of the
    discussion about it and what its implications and what its
    effect are are absolutely relevant to what we are talking
    about. And if you have $115 billion in a potential cut in
    education over the next 10 years, we ought to be thinking about
    what that means to the education of our children.

                               TEACHER EVALUATION

        I want to talk about teacher evaluation, Mr. Secretary. We
    are in agreement; we need to attract and retain the strongest
    teachers, visionary school leaders, et cetera. You have made
    this clear in your budget proposal with the RESPECT Program.
    This means not only making pay but conditions in the schools
    attractive, raising teacher morale.
        We want to make sure that we are looking at how we
    identify, remediate, and, if necessary, remove teachers who are
    persistently ineffective. I want to comment to you because--and
    this is my view. I think what happened in New York was very,
    very unfortunate, the release of individual teacher value-added
    scores. I think it has undermined the objectives that you so
    firmly want to take a look at. And I think you may have a
    difference of opinion on this effort.
        We have seen respected experts warn against the use of such
    data for high-stakes decisions, and that is about pay,
    consequences that result there. And that is not, you know,
    people randomly. You are looking at RAND, Educational Testing
    Service at Princeton, National Research Council, National
    Academies of Science. Experts have warned that when you put
    this kind of enormous pressure on educators, that you abandon
    other aspects of the curriculum--science, history, arts,
    citizenship, et cetera.
        I will also say that someone like Bill Gates, for instance,
    being one of the biggest proponents of evaluation, he said that
    using such a system--he would never consider using such a
    system in Microsoft or any other smart business context. And
    that is that this public shaming of teachers is
    counterproductive, especially--and I come from a household that
    deals with margin of error. And you are looking at a margin of
    error, you know, that is from, what, 35 to 53. That is a very
    big margin of error in looking at the stability of this data.
        So I will cut to the chase on this. I just think that--what
    do you say--if we are trying to turn schools around, we are
    trying to create--and I will tell you, I can read you from the
    Hartford Courant today about the morale of the teaching
    profession in my State of Connecticut. What do you say to
    teachers, you know, who have been in The New York Times, other
    media outlets? Botched scores have been made public, their hard
    work has been discredited. They have to face parents who now
    think less of them. What do you say to principals, you know, in
    this effort? How do we develop and retain the great teachers
    that we want to have?
        I just will--one final thing is MetLife, their survey data.
    Teacher morale is at a record low, teachers reporting their
    intent to leave their job at a higher rate than anytime in the
    past 2 decades. How are we going to turn that around and make
    support and the development of quality teachers a higher
    priority than the public shaming of teachers?
        You know, look, what about doctors and value added? Members
    of Congress and value added? Anyway.
        Secretary Duncan. That might be a good idea.
        Ms. DeLauro. Hey, maybe. Or agency people and value added?
    There we go. I mean, because when people are trying to do the
    best job they can----
        Secretary Duncan. I think we are actually very, very much
    on the same page, and I share many of your concerns. And that
    teacher morale is at an all-time low is a big, big deal.

                   INVESTMENT IN EDUCATION AND TEACHER MORALE

        The biggest reason it is so low is the underinvestment in
    education. They see their friends being laid off. They worry
    about losing their jobs. We have lost a couple hundred thousand
    teaching jobs. We were lucky enough through the Recovery Act to
    save a couple hundred thousand. But that is the biggest driver
    of that.

                    MULTIPLE MEASURES FOR TEACHER EVALUATION

        What teachers want--I have never met a teacher who is
    scared of accountability; they just want it to be fair. It has
    to be multiple measures, performance evaluation has to involve
    multiple measures.
        Ms. DeLauro. Right.
        Secretary Duncan. So you look at what is important: peer
    observation, principal observation. You know what is actually
    very important is student surveys, asking students. Looking at
    growth and gain--you have to look at multiple things, and it
    has to be fair.
        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Lewis.
        Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Lewis, can I beg you for 30 seconds?
        Mr. Lewis. Of course.
        Mr. Dicks. I will yield my time to her, if that would be
    acceptable.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I
    really do.
        You were going to finish a comment, but I want to make a
    final comment.

             RESPECT PROGRAM--TRANSFORMING THE TEACHING PROFESSION

        Secretary Duncan. This is why this RESPECT Project--
    Recognizing Educational Success, Professional Excellence, and
    Collaborative Teaching--is so desperately important. Our
    ability to attract and retain great talent, to elevate the
    teaching profession over the next 4 to 6 years, shapes public
    education for the next 30. So this is a teacher-led initiative.
    We have our teacher ambassador fellows holding conversations
    with teachers around the country. We have held over a hundred
    roundtables. We have to give teacher voice to this policy
    debate. That is what we are trying to do.
        Ms. DeLauro. What I am just saying to you is there have
    been two examples, in Los Angeles and in New York. And this
    value-added mantra is existing everywhere. And, in fact, having
    a public display of this, I would hope--because you have said
    in newspaper articles that you are supportive of this effort--I
    would hope you would reconsider your support for this kind of
    shaming and humiliating teachers.
        Secretary Duncan. Let me be very, very clear because,
    actually, I think I am very much in agreement with you. I
    encouraged it in L.A. because teachers were denied access. They
    never had this data. And it took this sort of crazy--because
    the district and union were--whatever was going on. The only
    way--teachers desperately wanted it--the only way they got it
    was the L.A. Times printed it out. It should never happen that
    way. It was totally crazy. But teachers want this to improve.
        Mr. Lewis. Reclaiming my time, please.
        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Lewis.
        Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.
        Mr. Lewis. You are welcome, certainly.

                   MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT IN EDUCATION FUNDING

        Mr. Secretary, education is a priority in all the States.
    Our Constitution says that the number-one dollar will go for
    education. Over the years, we have been frustrated by the fact
    that the State legislature and others, in their partnership
    with local government, have decided on other priorities.
        Now, within your budget and specific language direction,
    are you going to reduce funding or take back funding that has
    been increased during this President's administration to those
    districts or those States where there has been a percentage
    reduction in the portion going to education? Do you have
    specific disincentives, as it were, for that kind of pattern?
        Secretary Duncan. So what we have tried to do is make sure
    that education wasn't cut disproportionately. And we understand
    States have to make tough calls, but where States are cutting
    education----
        Mr. Lewis. Well, do you have language that says, you are
    going to be cut back if you have been doing this?
        Secretary Duncan. It depends, again, on the program. But,
    going forward, part of what we want to do in Race to the Top
    for higher education is to put in place the incentives to
    encourage the right behavior.
        Tom, do you want to add something?
        Mr. Skelly. I would just point out we have at least two
    laws where there is a maintenance of effort requirement, and we
    have enforced it, and there have been consequences where States
    haven't gotten Federal funding recently--IDEA and College
    Access Challenge Grants.
        Mr. Lewis. It is important to know that all of us believe
    in the fundamental drive of education. We are not convinced
    that the Federal Government knows what the fundamental
    direction ought to be. And sometimes the results you get for
    the money you spent cause you to scratch your head even more.

                            SUPPORTING LOCAL REFORM

        Secretary Duncan. So I actually agree with you. To be
    really clear, what we are trying to do is put in place
    incentives to get the best ideas at the local level. I say all
    the time that myself and no one else in Washington, we don't
    have the best ideas in education; they come at the local level.
    We want to put a lot more resources behind those great teachers
    and principals who are doing the right thing.
        Mr. Lewis. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Dicks for the final question.

                               COMMUNITY COLLEGES

        Mr. Dicks. You mentioned community colleges. I happen to
    believe in Washington State one of our great strengths is our
    community colleges. Tell me, what is your take on that?
        Secretary Duncan. Again, I have just fallen in love with
    community colleges. It is not a coincidence that my Under
    Secretary, Martha Kanter, is a former community college
    president. That has never happened before in the history of our
    department. We are trying to put a huge spotlight on this.
        Along with the Department of Labor, we have invested $2
    billion in real public-private partnerships where that training
    is leading to real jobs in the community. That is going to vary
    from Washington to Florida to wherever it might be. But where
    you have these real strong partnerships and community colleges
    aren't an island, you are seeing this amazing transformation in
    those local economies, and community colleges are driving this
    thing.
        We just see tremendous capacity needs--again, literally
    offering classes 24/7. I have been to places with waiting lists
    of thousands of students. We want to continue to invest, and
    that is the request. We want to continue to partner with the
    Department of Labor to do that. But as our Nation gets back on
    its feet, community colleges will play a huge role in helping
    the Nation do that.

                       COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND PELL GRANTS

        Mr. Dicks. And they are very dependent on Pell grants,
    right? I mean, they are absolutely critical.
        Secretary Duncan. Hugely critical. And with a Pell grant,
    at most community colleges you can basically go for free. I
    mean, you can basically remove that huge financial barrier.
        I will tell you something else fascinating which I hadn't
    realized. I have been to a number of community colleges
    recently where folks who have 4-year degrees are going back to
    community college to get the real training they need to get a
    job. It is really, really interesting.
        Ms. DeLauro. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Dicks. I yield.
        Ms. DeLauro. I would just say, I think that this is so
    critical. We had a hearing yesterday on employment and veterans
    training, and we listened to the One-Stops and what was going
    on. And the effort of trying to take veterans or even the long-
    term unemployed, couple them with community colleges and with
    industry, and industry making a commitment to offer jobs, and
    they help to design the curriculum, working with the community
    college. This is a model for the future, and Pell is critical
    to that effort.

                  IN-SERVICE TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

        Mr. Dicks. Let me ask you one quick question. What are we
    doing to help teacher education/training once they are a
    teacher? I know we have had these programs in the past where
    they could get extra education. Have they gone away or are we
    still doing them?
        Secretary Duncan. No, I think with schools of education,
    like anything else, you have a mix. You have some very high
    performers, but you have many, unfortunately, that I don't
    think are doing a good enough job, and you have too many great
    young teachers who feel ill-prepared to enter the classroom.
    And so we are trying to, sort of, shine a spotlight on the
    successful ones. But, frankly----
        Mr. Dicks. But what about once they are a teacher? What can
    we do?
        Secretary Duncan. Once they are a teacher? So we need to--
    you look at high-performing countries, Singapore, Finland,
    other countries, they pay a heck of a lot more money, they have
    much better mentoring, they have much better career ladders.
    This is not rocket science; this is transformational change.
    That is what this RESPECT Project is about. We lose far too
    many of our good young teachers who wash out because we don't
    support them, and that is a big challenge for our country.
        Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield you my
    remaining time.
        Mr. Rehberg. Appreciate that, Mr. Dicks.
        And, as always, the record will remain open for the 14-day
    period for Members to add additional questions. We hope that
    you will answer them in a timely fashion.
        [The following questions were submitted to be answered for
    the record:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rehberg. We thank you for being here. Sorry that it
    didn't last until noon. I know you are sorry, as well. But we
    will see you another day. And, Secretary Duncan, thank you.
        Secretary Duncan. Thank you for your leadership.
        Mr. Rehberg. You betcha.
                                               Tuesday, March 27, 2012.

                 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION--K-12 EDUCATION BUDGET

                                   WITNESSES

    RON SEAVER, SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, LEMOORE,
        CALIFORNIA
    GWILE FREEMAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF CATAHOULA PARISH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
        HARRISONBURG, LOUISIANA
    TIMOTHY MITCHELL, E.D., SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS FOR THE RAPID CITY
        AREA SCHOOLS, RAPID CITY, SOUTH DAKOTA
    JOSHUA P. STARR, SUPERINTENDENT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
        MARYLAND
        Mr. Rehberg. Good morning, all. Good morning.
        Thank the panel of witnesses for being here today. I look
    forward to learning from your valuable input regarding Federal
    K through 12 education programs funded through this
    subcommittee.
        As we look at today's economic challenges in the global
    context, education is becoming more important to sustain our
    competitive national edge and maintain our quality of life.
    Education, they say, is the great equalizer.
        Globalization and technical advancement has required us to
    educate our young people more effectively and more efficiently.
    In order to prepare our kids for success as adults, a strong
    secondary and elementary education is essential.
        For my family, education is a family tradition. My mom was
    a teacher. My sister is a principal. My daughter just started
    her first year teaching, and both my grandmothers taught in
    Montana. I am proud of them all because teachers really do make
    a big difference in our future.
        As appropriators, we have got to find a way to spend less
    so Federal deficits don't rob the next generation of their
    future. We have got to learn to say no, and it means setting
    priorities. Education is one of our highest priorities on this
    subcommittee, as I know it is yours.
        As I said to Secretary Duncan last week, I am proud to say
    that last year, even under very difficult times, we were able
    to increase IDEA grants to States by $100,000,000. It is not as
    much as the $1,200,000,000 I wrote into the bill that was not
    accepted by the Senate, but I know that every penny makes a
    difference to struggling local school districts.
        We also managed to increase Title I grants to States by
    $60,000,000. Although the overall funding level at the
    Department of Education actually represented a cut from the
    prior year, we made the tough decisions to prioritize these
    core large-formula programs that benefit almost every district
    in the country.
        The Federal Government should not try to micromanage
    education. What works in downtown New York City isn't going to
    cut it in Two Dot, Montana. It is the job of the Federal
    Government to support local school districts so that they can
    deliver the best education to the children of their community.
        I look forward to hearing your thoughts about how best this
    subcommittee can appropriate dollars so that students across
    America can grow and succeed.
        At this time, I will turn it over to my ranking member, Ms.
    DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And I might add I don't have the same pedigree in terms of
    family in teaching, but I have the personal experience of being
    a substitute schoolteacher. Now let me just tell you, you want
    to talk about the firing line, being a substitute teacher is
    it--in the public school system in New Haven, Connecticut.
        Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to say a thank
    you to our superintendents who are here today. I appreciate
    your time in joining us, but most of all for the work that you
    do and what your efforts are in terms of improving education in
    your communities, and I do look forward to hearing your
    thoughts and your insights on the 2013 budget.
        Yours is not an easy job. And I know the budget situation
    in recent years has made it particularly difficult. According
    to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 37 States
    across the Nation provided less funding per student to local
    school districts in the 2011-2012 school year than they did the
    year before. Thirty States are providing less than they did
    2008, sometimes significantly less.
        So I want you to know I very much appreciate your hard work
    and your commitment in what are difficult economic times. These
    huge State and local cuts, sometimes as much as 20 percent in
    States like California, South Carolina, make our continued
    Federal support to K-12 education more vital than ever.
        With that in mind, I am pleased as well that in a time of
    severe budget constraints, Chairman Rehberg and I were able to
    secure modest increases for some of our key formula funding K
    through 12 programs, Title I and IDEA, in the 2012 budget.
        That being said, the 2013 budget poses new challenges for
    States. For one, the President's budget continues to shift
    resources away from formula funding programs and toward a
    competitive grant model. In their budget proposal, formula
    funds fall by $1,200,000,000, while competitive grants go up by
    $2,800,000,000. I voiced my concerns on this issue with the
    Secretary of Education when he was before us last week.
        I am even more concerned by what I am seeing in the
    majority's recently released budget proposal put forward by the
    Budget Committee. Like H.R. 1, the majority's original budget
    proposal for 2012, this plan cuts deeply into Federal support
    for education.
        Under the new Ryan plan, Title I would face a 5.4 percent
    cut next year and an 18.9 percent cut in 2014. That would mean
    that over 12,000 schools serving close to 5 million
    disadvantaged students would be denied funding; 49,000 teachers
    and aides could lose their jobs over the next 2 years.
        IDEA is similarly impacted. If those cuts are enacted,
    close to 35,000 special education teachers and aides serving
    children with disabilities could lose their jobs over the same
    time period.
        The majority's proposed cuts notwithstanding, we must still
    also contend with the impact of upcoming budget sequestration
    called for by the Budget Control Act. Because the deficit super
    committee failed to come to an agreement last year,
    $1,200,000,000,000 in automatic cuts go into effect in January
    of 2013, meaning an 8 percent cut across the board to domestic
    and military Federal spending.
        Depending on the estimate, this sequestration would cut the
    Department of Education's next year budget by between
    $3,500,000,000 and $4,100,000,000. That means as many as 7.5
    million students would be impacted by reduced aid and services,
    and up to 51,000 teachers, aides, and staff could lose their
    jobs. This goes up by 89,000 jobs lost if you count Head Start.
        My State, Connecticut, for example, would lose close to
    $24,900,000 in funding, hurting over 61,000 students, costing
    600 jobs. California would see $318,600,000 cut, impacting over
    1 million students and costing over 7,400 jobs.
        I am sure that I do not need to tell you the profound
    impact these cuts would have on our school systems, especially
    in the current environment where every penny is already
    stretched so thin. As superintendents on the front lines, you
    know exactly what they mean.
        They mean overcrowded classrooms, overworked teachers. They
    mean further cuts to after school programs, arts, sports, and
    even key subjects like history. And they may even mean more
    drastic changes. Many school districts have switched to a 4-day
    week to save money, and of course, more layoffs mean more
    unemployment and more economic misery.
        So I hope today you can give us a sense of the unique
    challenges that your districts and States are facing and how
    the Federal dollars are being best leveraged to help your
    students. In the end, education is local.
        So I am excited to have administrators here today from all
    corners of our country. I thank you for coming. I thank you for
    your hard work and your service, the service you provide to our
    communities and nations.
        You are often unsung heroes. So I commend you for your
    willingness to tackle one of our greatest challenges, and that
    is ensuring that all of our children are given the best
    opportunities to succeed.
        I look forward to benefitting from your expertise today,
    and I thank you.
        Mr. Rehberg. I am pleased today to welcome our panel of
    witnesses. All of them are school superintendents from
    different areas of the country with different stories and
    different sorts of challenges.
        We first will hear from Ron Seaver, superintendent of
    Central Union School District in Lemoore, California. Central
    Union Schools serve both a naval air station and an Indian
    tribe.
        Next we will hear from Gwile Freeman, is the superintendent
    of schools for Catahoula Parish, Louisiana, a small, rural
    district in East Central Louisiana.
        And I will yield to my colleague Mr. Alexander to introduce
    her.
        Mr. Alexander. It is rural, but it is not small. It is
    almost as big as Montana.
        Mr. Rehberg. Rural, not ``rule.'' [Laughter.]
        Mr. Alexander. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Rehberg. What do you teach these kids down there?
    Rural.
        Mr. Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Gwile Freeman is the superintendent of schools and the
    largest employer in Catahoula Parish, a student body
    encompassing 57 percent Caucasian, 41 percent African American,
    1 percent Hispanic, and 0.3 percent Asian. Seventy-six percent
    of the study body population receives free or reduced lunch.
        Her 24\1/2\ year career has including teaching in grades 1
    through 8, adjunct instructor at three universities, librarian,
    Title I school improvement coordinator for the Louisiana
    Department of Education, secondary instructional supervisor,
    assistant superintendent, and superintendent.
        Her certifications include elementary grades, supervisor of
    child welfare and attendance, supervisor of student teaching,
    parish or city supervisor of instruction, principal, and school
    superintendent.
        Her preparations include a B.A. degree in elementary and
    secondary education, a master's degree in educational
    leadership from the University of Louisiana at Monroe, and a
    doctor of philosophy from the University of Mississippi.
        Dr. Freeman is married to David Freeman, and they reside in
    Harrisonburg, Louisiana.
        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Mr. Alexander.
        Mr. Alexander. You are welcome.
        Mr. Rehberg. The next panelist is Dr. Tim Mitchell,
    superintendent of Rapid City Area Schools in Rapid City, South
    Dakota, the second-largest school district in the State of
    South Dakota.
        And finally, Dr. Joshua Starr. Sorry about that.
    Superintendent of Montgomery County Public Schools right here
    near the Nation's capital in Montgomery County, Maryland.
        We look forward to hearing your testimony and your
    recommendations on how you feel that we at the Federal level
    can do a better job supporting your work on the ground.
        And I will always suggest, and I will at the end of the
    hearing, that our records will remain open for 14 days for
    Members to have an opportunity to provide written questions to
    you if we have additional questions or run out of time. Hope
    that you will answer those in a timely fashion.
        And so, Mr. Seaver, you may begin.
        Mr. Seaver. Thank you.
        Good morning, Chairman Rehberg, Ranking Member DeLauro, and
    members of the subcommittee. I am Ron Seaver, superintendent of
    Central Union Elementary School District in Lemoore,
    California.
        I am here to share with the subcommittee the importance of
    Impact Aid to our school district and showcase the direct
    impact that these dollars have on our successful total school
    program.
        I would also like to share that my daughter is a sixth
    grade teacher at Great Falls, Montana, which serves Malmstrom
    Air Force Base.
        Central Union School District serves Naval Air Station
    Lemoore and the Tachi Yokut Tribe. Our district is situated in
    the heart of the San Joaquin Valley in rural Kings County, one
    of the Nation's richest agricultural areas.
        The district is comprised of four schools--one located in
    Stratford, a farming community; one serving the Tachi Yokut
    Rancheria; and two schools serving the Naval Air Station
    Lemoore. We are also members of the NAFIS, the MISA, and NIISA
    associations.
        Impact Aid is huge to our district. It is 30 percent of a
    $20,000,000 budget. Our enrollment is 59.82 percent military
    dependents, 12.5 percent Native American children, and because
    of these demographics, we are considered a 100 percent learning
    threshold district.
        Let me take a minute and share six areas that have really
    highlighted our district and the Impact Aid community. In
    technology, for instance, visualize a spring program at night
    with all the kids out there performing, and all of a sudden on
    the big screen comes the captain of the combat naval air force
    base, live from the ship, addressing the whole community.
        Visualize that the child didn't know that was going to
    happen, nor the mother, and the emotions that were there. It
    was incredible. This is all a result of our wireless broadband
    facility with multiple drops in the classrooms, 6 computer
    labs, 4 mobile iPad labs, 26 iPod touch labs, with a ratio of
    1.7 ratio of students per devices.
        The classroom teachers all have laptops that they take
    home, and students are able to videoconference with their
    parents at work, at home, or when the parent is on deployment.
        In fine arts, all of our schools have a fine arts program,
    which have music, art, dance, band, and drama. Each of the
    schools has a great program with high student participation and
    community support.
        We have a jazz band that meets, a Pre-1st. Thirty kids show
    up every day with the teacher. He gets no extra pay, by the
    way, and has an incredible program that performs all over the
    community.
        In staffing, our personnel costs are 80.77 percent of our
    district's budget. We have custodial staff, obviously,
    psychologists, opportunity class teachers, two registered
    nurses.
        And with our Tachi Yokut Rancheria, our staff uses
    constructivism teaching approach to what is called a guided
    discovery. Teachers lead students to questions and activities
    to discover, discuss, appreciate, and verbalize the new
    knowledge or the learning objective.
        In our social development and community outreach area,
    Stratford School is home to one of our Family Resource Centers.
    Due to the isolation of the farming community, it is really the
    only point of contact for many families.
        Through the FRC, we do food drives. We do a variety of
    areas that connect with the State, local, and Federal
    Government. And the district also offers two social development
    programs and a 24-hour bully and safety hotline.
        In special education, the district offers special day
    class, resource specialist class, and speech and language. The
    other programs are all through our SELPA, our local area plan,
    and students are taking a bus to their classes.
        Currently, we now are $420,000 that encroached on the
    district budget for special education, and we have received
    $95,000 from the Impact Aid disability line item.
        In building and grounds, all four of our schools are of
    older nature. Two were built in the '50s and two in the '60s.
    And so, as you can imagine, they all have areas of installation
    and structure challenges. But through the Impact Aid
    construction funds, we have had minor repairs and maintenance.
        We also are now operating three solar plants on three of
    the different schools. Two of them are operational, and one
    will be operational in a couple of months.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, let me touch on a couple of concerns for
    you. California's education budget is in a downward spiral. We
    have lost 20.4 percent in funding, with 38 percent of the
    remaining funding deferred until the following school years.
        Additional midyear cuts are looming this year. And in
    addition, for the first time in 14 years, Impact Aid funds will
    be prorated down 90 and 85 percent, respectively, for a total
    loss to the district of $1,780,000. We also possibly face
    another 9 percent under sequestration.
        As you know, Mr. Chairman, the administration's fiscal year
    2013 budget proposes to eliminate dollars for Section 8002.
    When a school district loses taxable land to Federal
    acquisition, it loses part of its tax base.
        Section 8002 is intended partially to make up the lost tax
    revenue, and the elimination of this line item would force
    districts to use local taxpayers or result in cutting programs.
    On behalf of the 235 Federal properties districts, please
    maintain the 8002 funding.
        Numerous times service members and commanding officers have
    indicated that we are providing a great opportunity to their
    children, and they have selected NAS Lemoore as their site
    because of the schools. We also appreciate the fact that you
    have been a true supporter of Impact Aid, and the Impact Aid
    community appreciates this, and we stand ready to help you in
    any way.
        Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you. Dr. Freeman, I am letting you slop
    over a little bit, but I am pretty tight with time as well. So
    if you can watch the lights, it will be helpful to keep it
    rolling and allow us opportunity to ask a number of rounds of
    questions.
        Ms. Freeman. Good morning, Chairman Rehberg, Ranking Member
    DeLauro, and members of the committee.
        My name is Gwile Freeman, and I proudly serve as the
    superintendent of schools in Catahoula Parish School District
    in Louisiana.
        Our small, rural school district is located in East Central
    Louisiana, and as indicated, we are the largest employer in our
    school district. We are a school district of 1,563 students
    with 76 percent of those students receiving free or reduced
    lunch.
        I speak to you today from 24 1/2 years of experience as an
    educator and 15 years as a public school administrator. So
    thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning.
        Let me begin by sharing the voice of a student in my
    district, which exemplifies what she and many of her peers face
    each day.
        ``This is the story of me. I have been raised in a place
    where my grandma barely puts food on our table, and most of my
    clothes used to belong to somebody else. I walk to school every
    day, and I pass folks sitting on the porch and standing on the
    corner, waiting for something. I don't want to be like them,
    just waiting for life to show up.
        ``My grandma tells me to find a way out, but my teachers
    tell me to find a way up. The problem is I don't know how. I
    don't want pity. I don't want charity. I just want to know
    where to begin so that I can have a happy ending to my story.''
        Persistent poverty is an ongoing challenge faced by the
    students in Catahoula Parish School District, and although they
    were born in the land of plenty, they live in small towns in a
    rural area in the Delta and in the South, where disadvantages
    can overtake dreams and obstacles can hinder success unless we,
    as educators, help to intervene with those students to find a
    way up.
        Our school district is very dependent upon formula, Federal
    formula-based funds, with our Federal funding expenditures
    encompassing 17 percent of our total expenditures, and
    federally funded employees making up 8 percent of our total
    workforce.
        Throughout the course of my career, I have seen firsthand
    the wonderful benefits of the millions of dollars in Federal
    funding grants, such as Title I, Title II, REAP, and IDEA.
    These funds have supported and assisted our teachers in
    providing instruction and services that will ensure student
    success.
        Title I funds offer supplemental services to disadvantaged
    students, who would otherwise be underserved. Specifically, in
    Catahoula Parish, we utilize Title I funds to offer summer
    remediation for students seeking to pass high-stakes State-wide
    assessments.
        Additionally, we provide tutoring, grade recovery, and
    credit recovery programs. Without these Title I funds, we would
    be unable to offer these opportunities to our students.
        Having flexibility with the use of Federal funds is very
    important to those of us running small, rural school districts.
    As superintendent, I am keenly aware of the importance of
    braiding or cobbling together available funds to offer maximum
    benefit. Because Title I funding is so flexible, I am able to
    use these resources to fill the gaps in my budget as long as I
    do not supplant funding.
        Funds provided through the Rural Education Achievement
    Program, or REAP, are also critical and flexible. These funds
    have allowed us to support the infusion of instructional
    technology into our school districts' classrooms, culminating
    with high-quality professional development for our teachers in
    the use of this technology, which ultimately translates into
    better instruction for our students.
        Recently, I had the honor of serving on Louisiana's State
    literacy team to develop the Louisiana Comprehensive Literacy
    Plan, which aims at ensuring that Louisiana students meet the
    literacy expectations outlined in Louisiana's critical goals
    and also the Common Core State Standards.
        The Catahoula Parish School District recently applied for a
    competitive literacy subgrant through the Striving Readers
    Comprehensive Literacy Program. If we are awarded one of these
    grants, Catahoula students identifying as being the most in
    need of additional assistance and interventions will receive
    quality literacy instruction.
        In conclusion, while these funds are desperately needed in
    Catahoula Parish School District, they must also be flexible. I
    recognize that there is no single solution to transform public
    education and that money cannot solve all of our problems.
        At the same time, I also recognize that we must be held
    accountable with the Federal dollars entrusted to our care. As
    the Congress continues its work to support school districts
    such as Catahoula Parish, I encourage you to continue to
    provide funding that is flexible, such as funds provided by
    Title I and the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy
    Program.
        I also encourage you to target resources to the rural and
    small areas, small districts. Formula funding provides rural
    and small districts the opportunity to utilize resources in a
    way that many times competitive grants often do not simply
    because we lack the capacity to write competitive grant
    applications.
        That said, in order for formula funding to have an impact,
    enough funding must be provided for a formula grant program in
    order for school districts to receive a formula grant of
    sufficient size.
        The Catahoula Parish School District, although small in
    population, is large in the commitment to close the achievement
    gap for our students and ensure that all of our students leave
    as college and career ready.
        I am humbled at the opportunity to provide testimony to the
    distinguished members of this committee, and I will consider it
    a privilege to respond to your questions or comments.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you.
        Dr. Mitchell.
        Mr. Mitchell. Good morning, Chairman Rehberg, Ranking
    Member DeLauro, and members of the committee.
        My name is Dr. Timothy Mitchell. I am the superintendent of
    the Rapid City Area Schools in Rapid City, South Dakota.
        Rapid City Area Schools is located in the Black Hills,
    second-largest school district in South Dakota. Most known, the
    Black Hills, two national landmarks--Mount Rushmore and Crazy
    Horse Memorial.
        One of our schools, our middle schools, is an historical
    landmark, Calvin Coolidge's summer white house. He walked
    outside on the steps and announced that he would not seek
    reelection for President. So we are steeped in history in our
    school district with the Federal Government.
        Twenty-three schools comprise our school district. You can
    see the demographic information concerning our district in my
    written testimony. Today, I come before you to share some
    thoughts on a number of different issues.
        First of all, I, along with numerous school administrators
    throughout the Nation, have advocated with Congress to meet the
    longstanding commitment to fund additional costs that are
    associated with special education. Covering a Federal shortfall
    year in and year out with local dollars represents a
    significant funding pressure for public school districts across
    the Nation.
        To show the impact, you can see in my testimony I have
    attached two documents, showing that over the last 7 years the
    amount of State and local revenue utilized to meet expenditures
    has continued to increase, and the Federal portion, excluding
    the ARRA money, has remained consistent at approximately 21
    percent for year in our district.
        The State of South Dakota has recently held our State
    funding for special ed at status quo with no increase. This was
    brought forward with an 8.6 reduction in per-student allocation
    for our general operating budget.
        So we are finding that we are no longer able to retain
    quality programming to meet the individual needs of students
    with disabilities. As State and local economies struggle to
    regain fiscal stability and the ARRA emergency funding ends,
    Congress and the administration, we hope, need to recognize
    that there is a funding cliff.
        Full funding of IDEA would provide services for students
    with special education needs and allow local school districts
    to use local dollars to meet local districting budgeting needs.
        You have also seen with those charged that recently you see
    a reduction in the amount of State and local revenue, which is
    a concern as to maintenance of effort when it comes to IDEA
    statute.
        I would hate to come to Washington, D.C., and not make sure
    and remind you of the huge positive impact that Federal funding
    has on school districts across this Nation, and especially
    school districts in our rural area. Much of the success in
    Rapid City Area Schools in meeting the ever-growing needs of
    all of our students has been funded through a mixture of local,
    State, and Federal sources.
        To engineer a successful public school district, those
    school districts need to create a structure of supporting
    operating conditions. The Federal Government has to be flexible
    to allow our rural school leaders to make decisions regarding
    staff, schedule, budgets, and programs.
        External efforts to improve schools invariably focus on
    structural changes, but we know current research shows that
    structural changes do not bring about the meaningful change to
    student achievement. To identify what has helped Rapid City, it
    has been a relentless focus on instruction and professional
    development, the cultivation of teacher and principal support,
    the use of research-based instructional practices and
    strategies, and the conscious encouragement of collegiality and
    collaboration among our staff. This has created the cultural
    change that encourage professionals to take risks and to take
    responsibilities for themselves and for their students and for
    each other.
        That is the major theme of our story, capacity building.
    And capacity building, which is the essential component for our
    success, is resource-intensive, and adequate funding is
    critical. And that is where, in my district, the Federal
    resources have been utilized most effectively.
        I have also long advocated for continued and increased
    investment in Title I and IDEA and other Federal formula-based
    grant programs. I would urge Congress to maintain formula
    grants that provide that reliable stream of funding to local
    public school districts.
        I am concerned by the administration's preference for
    driving new education dollars to competitive programs like Race
    to the Top and Investing in Innovation. Most rural school
    districts, like Rapid City, even though we are large in
    comparison, have limited capacity to compete in this
    environment. And shifting to more competitive grants for new
    Federal dollars, I believe, would be inherently unfair to rural
    school districts. It would be very difficult for us to compete
    with school districts that have the greater capacity and
    expertise in this area.
        And to this point, we have been unsuccessful in retaining
    any Race to the Top or Investing in Innovation resources in our
    local school district and State.
        Lastly, my concern is that sequestration will impact all
    funding programs without considering the scope of effectiveness
    of those being cut. Congress should pick up the work of the
    super committee and work to identify the necessary cuts in a
    manner that impacts both mandatory and discretionary programs
    and considers the program effectiveness.
        We at the local level are committed to being fiscally
    responsible, along with being committed to our mission to
    create effective and productive citizens of the 21st century.
    We understand that we need to be effective, efficient,
    innovative, and creative to meet the needs of the students we
    serve.
        We hope to continue to partner with the President and
    Congress to provide a structure to distribute the Federal
    resources that are provided to us in a way that continues to
    improve this public school system that we have in this country.
        Thank you for your time today, and I would also be happy to
    stand by for any questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you.
        Dr. Starr.
        Mr. Starr. Good morning, Chairman Rehberg, Ranking Member
    DeLauro, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Josh
    Starr, and I am privileged to serve as the superintendent for
    Montgomery County Public Schools.
        With 146,500 students, MCPS is the largest school district
    in Maryland and the 17th largest district in the Nation. And I
    want to thank you for this opportunity to address you today.
        If you would like a preview of what the American public
    schools will look like in 20 years, please come and visit our
    school district. The demographic shifts that our Nation is
    experiencing as a whole have already taken root in Montgomery
    County.
        In 1991, just two decades ago, MCPS was a very different
    district than it is today. We have gone from a majority white
    district to a majority minority district, and the percentage of
    students receiving free and reduced price meals in that time
    has nearly doubled to 32 percent.
        Yet amid all this change, MCPS has maintained and even
    increased its reputation as one of the highest-achieving
    districts in the Nation. How have we done that? The main reason
    is that we have the most outstanding staff in public education.
    But there is no doubt that money, invested in the right
    strategies and the right people, has yielded a big return.
        We appreciate the funds that the Federal Government
    provides to our district. This year, we have received
    $72,500,000 in Federal funding, and every dollar is helping our
    students.
        For instance, $20,400,000 in Title I funding allows us to
    provide targeted instruction to our students who are most
    impacted by poverty. IDEA funding of $29,300,000 is an
    important part of providing a continuum of services to the 12
    percent of students in our district who have a disability.
        With $3,400,000 in Head Start funding, we are able to offer
    more than 600 low-income students access to pre-kindergarten,
    including full-day classes.
        I applaud the committee's proposal last year to add
    $1,000,000,000 each to Title I and IDEA. Our district is living
    proof that such funds would be well spent, and I would be
    remiss if I did not ask you to fully fund IDEA to help us
    provide much-needed services for students with special needs.
        Like all school districts, we are very concerned about the
    real possibility of deep cuts due to sequestration. The depth
    of cuts to education, as much as $4,000,000,000, would be
    devastating and could result in the loss of jobs and reduce
    services to students in need. I urge Congress to protect
    education funding at all costs.
        As the Congress contemplates reauthorizing ESEA, I urge
    them to spend money on what works and what our schools need,
    and it is not more annual standardized tests. Federal funds can
    be the catalyst that sparks innovation, fosters collaboration,
    and improves teaching and learning for all.
        Over the past 3 years, the U.S. Department of Education has
    used the comparatively small amount of money it provides to
    schools to spark innovation and change. MCPS was one of 45
    recipients of an Investing in Innovation, or I3, grant in 2010.
    The grant is allowing us to quickly develop and implement our
    new curriculum in the elementary grades, which integrates all
    subject areas and helps students develop the critical academic
    and thinking skills that are so important in the 21st century.
        It includes Web-based professional learning environments,
    and it is an example of how a relatively small investment in
    people and innovation can have a huge impact. So I want to be
    clear that competitive dollars, while they can be effective,
    should not take the place of much-needed formula funding.
        In his excellent book ``The Global Achievement Gap,''
    author Tony Wagner lists the skills that our students will need
    to be competitive in the 21st century global economy--critical
    thinking and problem solving, collaboration across networks and
    leading by influence, agility and adaptability, initiative and
    entrepreneurialism, effective oral and written communication,
    and accessing and analyzing information with curiosity and
    imagination.
        Developing these skills requires us to rethink the way we
    approach education. Our classrooms can't just be places where
    our kids learn facts and formulas. We must provide them with
    the complementary set of skills they need to be successful in
    the 21st century.
        So we have to have fewer walls in our schools and more
    spaces in technology to spur innovation and collaboration. We
    must foster in our students the drive to do good in society, to
    care for those who are less fortunate, and to strive for social
    justice.
        We also must use funds to foster collaboration among
    agencies and organizations. In Montgomery County, the school
    district works with our local Department of Health and Human
    Services, local nonprofits, and other community organizations
    to provide a continuum of support. I believe the Federal
    Government can play a role in incentivizing such collaboration
    that serves at-risk youth and families.
        And finally, we do not have a student learning problem in
    America today. We have an adult learning problem. When I hire a
    new teacher, I know that I will spend at least $10,000 training
    that first year, including orientation, onboarding, consulting
    teachers, mentors, and staff development.
        About half that money comes from various Federal grants. So
    I encourage you to maintain and even expand those dollars.
        Like many superintendents today, I am concerned about the
    tone of the education conversation. In the name of
    accountability, too many people are pointing fingers at our
    educators and telling them they are to blame for the woes of
    American public education.
        I am proud that in Montgomery County Public Schools, we
    have employee unions that are collaborative and innovative, and
    our unions are equal partners in our solution. We have a
    nationally recognized teacher professional growth system. A key
    component of that system partners new or underperforming
    teachers with master educators to work on classroom skills. And
    if they are not performing, we have a way of exiting them out.
        In conclusion, No Child Left Behind has narrowed our
    curricular focus, used shame as a motivator, and put too much
    emphasis on tests that, frankly, we now realize are not
    reliable indicators of student performance. It has created an
    environment where data, not students, are king.
        But now is our chance to make it right. Let us use ESEA and
    the money that is attached to spur innovation, give our
    students the 21st century skills they need, and create an
    environment where our educators are valued and continue to
    grow.
        Thank you for allowing me to testify today, and I am happy
    to answer any questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rehberg. Great. Thank you very much.
        Far be it from Congress to point fingers at teachers about
    inefficiency and ineffectiveness. You can be assured that we
    are smarter than that. But I know it does occur, it does exist.
        You know, one of the things that I attempted to do and
    provided the money available to increase the budgets in Title I
    and IDEA was that I had a problem with funding an unauthorized
    program, such as Race to the Top. I am not suggesting that it
    is not necessary or that for some reason we don't want to have
    money going into that kind of a program. It just seems like in
    a tough financial time like we are in today, the basics do
    matter.
        I came to the conclusion a while back that people support
    reform as long as it doesn't change anything. And so, that is
    what you get with healthcare reform. That is what you get with
    educational reform.
        And when Secretary Duncan was in here, he was defending
    Race to the Top and suggesting that the competitive grants are
    a way of spurring economic--not economic, but educational
    reform. I am not going to ask you to put words in his mouth or
    enter into his brain. Where do you think educational reform is
    right now, from your own perspective? Is there not educational
    reform occurring without the money being put into Race to the
    Top?
        Because if we were to take that money, and I zeroed it out
    in my budget, and use that money to redistribute to the areas
    that you were talking about, you wouldn't necessarily want to
    do that. When times were better, you may want to consider
    reauthorization of No Child Left Behind or Race to the Top.
    However, it seems like this would be kind of the time to go
    back to the basics.
        And so, you talked more about it than the other three.
    Could you maybe expand a little bit on your philosophy of
    educational reform life? Is it occurring out there? Is that
    program absolutely necessary or you are not going to see any
    kind of educational reform, or is it something that we ought to
    be paying attention to now and maybe with some money?
        Mr. Seaver. At Central Union School District, one of the
    key reforms is involving the teachers. And across the panel, I
    think you heard people indicate involve the teachers in the
    decision-making.
        With Impact Aid, it has also been a reform on our
    technology and how we integrate that into the curriculum, how
    we put the instruments in the hands of the students, on-task
    behavior increases. All of that is in reform that we would have
    never had before.
        Mr. Rehberg. And where do you find the money for that?
    Local? Or is it part of your formula?
        Mr. Seaver. No, all of our technology without the Impact
    Aid, the Federal Impact Aid, we would not have any of that.
        Mr. Rehberg. You have enough flexibility within the Impact
    Aid. You can use it for the technological breakthroughs?
        Mr. Seaver. Absolutely. Impact Aid goes into the general
    fund as part of our school district.
        Mr. Rehberg. Dr. Freeman.
        Ms. Freeman. Chairman, coming from a small, rural district,
    and I made this point in my written testimony, it is very
    difficult at times for us to have the human resources to write
    highly competitive grants that are major Federal dollars
    obviously offered by the Congress.
        The one example that I gave was the Striving Readers
    Literacy Program, which we have applied for that grant. But the
    nature of the grant and the composition of the grant enabled us
    to do from a small, rural perspective, to be able to do so.
        Mr. Rehberg. Your grant writer was on contract or internal?
        Ms. Freeman. No, sir. You are looking at one of them.
        Mr. Rehberg. You are it. That is it. [Laughter.]
        Ms. Freeman. Yes, sir. And I still handle secondary
    curriculum instruction and do human resources. So I am, you
    know, kind of the one in many aspects.
        But you mentioned, you were asking if reform was
    dependent--if your opinion was reform dependent? I mean,
    obviously, we are utilizing Federal dollars in a way Title I
    and Title II that I have referenced, and also REAP, without the
    receipt of Race to the Top dollars. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Rehberg. Under the formula. Okay.
        Dr. Mitchell.
        Mr. Mitchell. One of the things that I always envision is a
    system that embraces the current research. When we look at
    something that would incentivize an innovation like Race to the
    Top, Investing in Innovation dollars, incentivizing systems at
    the base is inadequate, doesn't work.
        And so, you have a real concern of whether or not you can
    support innovation through competitive dollars is if the basic
    educational programming is not in place because of funding cuts
    at the State, local, and Federal level.
        I would say that innovation is occurring each and every day
    with school districts across the country. We are utilizing in
    Rapid City a combination of State, local, and Federal funds to
    do it. Ours is all about embracing the current research about
    professional learning communities, making sure that we really
    focus on implementation of the guaranteed and viable
    curriculum.
        We really focus on formative assessment to know what kids
    know and what they don't know, to have data teams and have
    those teachers collaboratively working together. And those
    sorts of shifts are taking place each and every day across this
    country to provide high-quality school districts, and so we are
    innovating.
        Mr. Rehberg. Good. For the Members' benefit, I will watch
    the time very carefully so that we get as many rounds as we
    possibly can.
        Thank you, and I will get back to you.
        Ms. DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. Do you want to----
        Mr. Rehberg. No, that is fine.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank all of you, and I am glad to hear how there is a
    combination of local, State, and Federal funds in order to help
    you to do the job that you need to do.
        Dr. Freeman, in reading your testimony, I was struck by the
    fact that you rely on Federal education funds for fully 17
    percent of your district budget, 17 percent. In Washington, we
    often limit ourselves to thinking in terms of national
    averages, which for this figure is closer to 9 percent.
        In Catahoula Parish particularly, the dollars that we are
    discussing today are for Title I and Striving Readers. I will
    say a word about Striving Readers because in the 2011 budget,
    Striving Readers was eliminated. In the original 2012 budget,
    Striving Readers was eliminated.
        I am going to be self-serving in the effort on literacy
    because it is a mark of a civilized society to deal with
    literacy. In cooperation with Senator Harkin on the Senate, we
    were able to restore funding to that program. And it appears to
    be a vital one for you in terms of literacy.
        But also IDEA, 21st century, rural education, the dollars
    are critical. Can you tell us a bit about the kind of position
    your State and local governments are in right now to step in
    and fill the gap if the cuts in Federal funding that we are all
    concerned about should become a reality? Can you count on
    Louisiana to find room in the budget to make local districts
    whole under this scenario?
        Ms. Freeman. The question about--it goes back in my written
    testimony about the consolidated planning process, which goes
    back to my colleague. You have the local, the State, and the
    Federal dollars, and coming together at the table with all the
    stakeholders to make the most use of our funds.
        The Louisiana Minimum Foundation Program is the mechanism
    by which Louisiana funds States at the State level, and I
    mentioned in my written testimony that our local school
    district is actually going to have to cut at least $500,000,
    which has included a consolidation of schools and a reduction
    in force.
        So, Ms. DeLauro, to answer the question as to whether or
    not the State is prepared, I am hopeful that the State is
    prepared to do so. But I have to be prepared from local,
    Federal, State dollars, whichever mechanism that I might find
    to fill those gaps.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Dr. Mitchell, in your testimony, you
    mentioned Recovery Act funds which are referred to around here
    as ``stimulus.'' You expressed gratitude to the Congress for
    providing those funds. Let me say thank you to you, and you are
    welcome for the opportunity to be able to do that.
        I think those funds were important in terms of helping to
    promote higher levels of student achievement, and I believe
    that the Recovery Act saved or created over 275,000 education
    jobs in just the most recent quarter alone.
        Each of you probably can point to how the ARRA funds
    assisted you in terms of providing quality education to your
    students and maintaining existing programs and staff. We have
    some of my colleagues here, and I might just say, including our
    chairman, who referred to it repeatedly as a ``failed
    stimulus.'' I am proud to hear about the benefits that American
    students received from Federal emergency funds.
        Let me just ask you this. There is the expiration of those
    funds. It makes the current budget climate even tighter. Let me
    ask you about your districts. How have your districts had to
    cut the budget over the last few years due to those State
    budget cuts? Have you had to resort to layoffs?
        And if you would look at the choices you would have had to
    face over the past couple of years if the Congress had not
    passed the stimulus bill, and can you highlight some of the
    long-term benefits of a sustained and significant Federal
    investment in education for our students, schools, and
    communities?
        Go ahead. Go ahead, Dr. Starr? Dr. Mitchell, Dr. Freeman?
        Mr. Starr. In 25 words or less, right?
        Ms. DeLauro. Right.
        Mr. Starr. So the--so we are superintendents, and we are
    used to dealing with whatever we are faced with, whatever hand
    we are given. And kids will come to school every day. Teachers
    will be in classrooms every day. And learning will go on.
        And I think the key issue is, are we able to meet the
    changing demands of our economy, and are we able to meet the
    changing demands of our student population? And money makes a
    significant difference in our ability to do that.
        Ms. DeLauro. Were the ARRA funds helpful in that?
        Mr. Starr. The ARRA funds were extremely helpful in being
    able to save positions, critical positions, support positions,
    and we need to continue to invest in the kind of positions that
    will help our kids succeed.
        Ms. DeLauro. Dr. Mitchell, were the ARRA funds helpful to
    you?
        Mr. Mitchell. Yes, the ARRA funds were very helpful. But of
    course, we structured them knowing that they were going to go
    away.
        Ms. DeLauro. Dr. Freeman.
        Ms. Freeman. Yes. I agree with my colleague. We did
    structure--we did utilize them as intended, but we did know
    that they were not sustained.
        Ms. DeLauro. But they assisted you in what you needed to do
    in order to get you where you are now. And if there is no
    further--if there isn't any kind of continued Federal
    commitment in these areas, you will continue--you will
    struggle. Is that correct?
        Mr. Seaver.
        Mr. Seaver. Central Union School District, through
    attrition and the ARRA funds, managed not to lay off
    educational staff. We did get an Impact Aid ARRA maintenance
    grant.
        Ms. DeLauro. That is great stuff. Right.
        Mr. Seaver. And we did put in a fire protection system and
    a well at Central School, which services the Tachi Yokut
    Rancheria.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Alexander.
        Mr. Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You said something a little earlier that reminds everybody
    of an interesting situation that we find ourselves in. Chairman
    Rehberg said that we have constituents and colleagues that say
    I am for reform as long as it doesn't change anything. And then
    somebody else will say, well, I am for comprehensive reform,
    just not all at the same time. So it is an interesting place
    for us to be.
        Dr. Freeman, when you think about the problems that Rosa
    DeLauro mentioned, and we understand that you have to deal with
    more than just teachers. You have maintenance supervisors,
    lunchroom workers, school bus drivers. When you sit and think
    about all the problems that you have to deal with and then you
    think about the association of Washington, D.C., with those
    problems, what frustrates you the most?
        I hope it is not your Member of Congress or the chairman of
    the committee. [Laughter.]
        Ms. Freeman. No, sir. Those Members are excluded from that,
    definitely.
        Mr. Alexander. Oh, okay.
        Ms. Freeman. The Federal dollars, and I have stressed this,
    I hope, in my written testimony as well, the flexibility of
    Federal dollars. When I receive Federal dollars in Catahoula
    Parish School District and which I can look through that
    consolidated planning process, look at the needs assessment,
    which is comprehensive, and determine the best use of those
    funds, and have the flexibility to do so, that is when those
    funds are most useful to me.
        Mr. Alexander. Okay. Now what do we need to do to change
    that? Does that happen here, at the State level, or----
        Ms. Freeman. I would say if we can use some examples of the
    types of funds that I mentioned that have remained flexible and
    could continue to offer that flexibility to the school
    districts so that when we get to that decision-making process,
    we are able to fill the gaps without supplanting Federal funds.
        And I understand the supplanting issue, but to be able to
    continue to do so within our districts.
        Mr. Alexander. Okay. How much time do I have, sir?
        Mr. Rehberg. Three minutes.
        Mr. Alexander. Oh, wow. Dr. Starr, you mentioned a little
    earlier about you have more trouble with training adults than
    students. Elaborate on that a little bit.
        Mr. Starr. Well, in order for us to meet the new demands of
    the economy and of our society, our adults have to learn. And
    let me be clear. Our teachers are working incredibly hard. They
    are willing to learn. They are eager to learn. I have never met
    a teacher that doesn't want to get better.
        But school has changed. What the economy and the world that
    we are preparing our kids for, the kinds of skills that are
    needed, and the way that teachers need to learn together as was
    aptly described by Dr. Mitchell, the need for collaboration. It
    costs time. You know, we are bound to a 6.5-hour day.
        You have to figure out how to get people together to learn
    together. They don't just learn by sitting in a room in a
    lecture. You need to create the technologies to get people to
    collaborate.
        So we have to learn how to organize our systems to get a
    better result than we ever have before. There is a whole bunch
    of learning at all levels of the system that has to go on in
    order for us to meet the new opportunities we have in this
    country.
        Mr. Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rehberg. Ms. Lee.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
        Very happy to meet all of you and to listen to your
    testimony.
        I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. I don't believe
    any of you mentioned TRIO and GEAR UP and those two programs
    and what the impact of these programs are in your districts.
    Programs, you focused on Title I, IDEA, which are very, very
    important. But Members of the Congressional Black Caucus
    continue to try to make sure that TRIO and GEAR UP, for obvious
    reasons, are fully funded.
        And I would like to find out if any of you have those
    initiatives in your district and what the impact is on young
    people and their families because many of these programs help
    students who are low income, who are poor, who are minority
    students who come from households where there are very minimal
    resources.
        Their parents are unemployed. Class sizes are huge in the
    public school system. They don't have healthcare. They come
    from circumstances which warrant more attention, such as GEAR
    UP and TRIO.
        Mr. Mitchell. The Rapid City Area Schools does participate
    along with the State of South Dakota in the GEAR UP program,
    and we have had some tremendous benefits for our Native
    American students with helping them navigate through their high
    school career with good planning and then also giving them some
    good information, their parents some help as to navigating how
    to get into college and access higher education.
        So GEAR UP across South Dakota and our school district has
    been very positive and very successful for those Native
    American students.
        Ms. Freeman. Currently, in Catahoula Parish School
    District, we do not utilize GEAR UP funds. However,
    interestingly, I just had a conversation with an instructor
    from Louisiana Tech University about assisting us with that. So
    that is an avenue we are pursuing.
        Mr. Starr. I am not sure of the extent of the involvement
    we have with GEAR UP. I know there is some, and it is another
    example that we are looking at for really helping to create the
    sort of web of services that is required for families and
    students who may not have had someone go to college in their
    family and how you really help them understand, get on their
    radar screen when they are in sixth grade to really help
    develop some collaboration amongst various community agencies,
    to really get that on their radar screen and giving support.
        Critically important for the web of services we need.
        Mr. Seaver. Yes. Currently, Central Union does not
    participate in the GEAR UP as well.
        Ms. Lee. Would--have you looked at GEAR UP in Central
    Union, or is it something that you just don't basically need
    because of your student population?
        Mr. Seaver. No, I think it is twofold. It goes back to,
    again, having staff to be able to apply, to be able to monitor,
    and all of those restrictions. And then with our current
    population, I think we are okay. But it also is a matter of
    monitoring.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you very much for that because, once again,
    we have communicated to this committee, the subcommittee and
    the committee, that we want to make sure that these two
    programs are not being cut. Because many of our districts have
    students who probably would end up on the streets if it were
    not for GEAR UP and TRIO.
        On closing the achievement gap, Dr. Starr, you have
    mentioned that you really in the Montgomery County Public
    Schools have virtually closed the achievement gap or are close
    to closing it in kindergarten reading. What were the strategies
    there as it relates to African-American and Latino children,
    who seem to really struggle in most of our Nation's schools,
    unfortunately? How did you do that?
        Mr. Starr. So, under my predecessor, because I have only
    been there 10 months, a significant--there has been a
    significant narrowing of the gap, particularly the early
    childhood level. And it is pretty straightforward, quite
    frankly. Investment in Pre-K has been one of the significant
    anchors. Raising standards for children and making sure that
    teachers have a lot of professional development and that there
    is good, authentic literature for kids to be involved in and
    regular ongoing assessments of kids so you can adjust and
    readjust.
        But my predecessor, I think, did a remarkable job of
    developing a world-class Pre-K effort that has really helped
    our children and has certainly followed them throughout because
    we have some of the highest AP scores and SAT scores for
    African-American, Latino, and poor kids in the Nation. And the
    investment pays off.
        Ms. Lee. I have two more seconds. Well----
        Mr. Rehberg. Eight.
        Ms. Lee. Eight more seconds? I will come back.
        Mr. Rehberg. All right. Great.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you.
        While Ms. DeLauro's points to you were interesting, they
    are irrelevant. If you were to have an entire hour lecture on
    blue pills, and you ended up then giving your student a test
    and asking them what color the pills were, and they said red,
    you would fail them.
        So what was passed was not a stimulus bill, it was a
    spending bill, plain and simple. And you are now paying the
    price because it did not work. It was expenses, not an asset. A
    stimulus should build something that could be built upon to be
    built upon so the next round of tax dollars are available for
    you the way you need them to be made available.
        And this President, that Congress had the opportunity to
    either fix the economy or use the economy as a way to increase
    spending. So don't let anybody lead you to believe that
    expenses create an economy. In the short term, they do. It is
    consumption.
        But in this particular case, if you ever want to read
    something fascinating, it was given to me a number of years
    ago. It is a book called ``Nonsense,'' written by a fellow by
    the name of Dr. Gupta, a genius who is dead. He died at 47.
        It was all about logic and the logic of trying to divert an
    attention away from something by calling it something that it
    really isn't. That was not stimulative, handing money out for
    expenses if you can't build an asset on top of those expenses.
        I would like to ask you the question, grant writing. You
    are the 17th largest school district in the country. Do you
    have professional grant writers on staff?
        Mr. Starr. Yes, we do.
        Mr. Rehberg. How many?
        Mr. Starr. I don't know. But we have professional grant
    writers.
        Mr. Rehberg. It was not a trick question. I am curious
    because other schools don't have that opportunity, and so it
    really does, in my mind, point out the difference between an
    urban education and a rural education, where they are
    struggling to put part-timers on grant writing, where you have
    that ability.
        How would we overcome something like that? Or do you like
    it because it gives you a competitive advantage to be able to--
    --
        Mr. Starr. The district I was in previously was a 15,000
    school district, and I have worked in districts of 8,000 kids.
    So I very much understand the resource issue. I think that
    there is--one of the tactics that I employed when I was in
    previous districts was to hire out, use consultants to do it
    and do it on a project base.
        And that certainly minimized the cost, and I actually found
    it was a better way to go because people with targeted
    expertise in certain areas of funding would be able to identify
    and write certain grants.
        Mr. Rehberg. Could I ask you and then I real quickly will
    ask the rest, but would you rather have more money in IDEA or
    competitive grants?
        Let us say I had an additional $5,000,000,000 to give to
    IDEA. Would you rather have that?
        Mr. Starr. I would rather have it in IDEA than competitive,
    but certainly, I would like to have both. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Rehberg. Both. As part of a stimulus plan, yes.
        Dr. Mitchell.
        Mr. Mitchell. We do not have grant writers on our staff. We
    have a Federal----
        Mr. Rehberg. What would you rather have?
        Mr. Mitchell. I would rather have the IDEA funding.
        Mr. Rehberg. Okay.
        Ms. Freeman. Yes, sir, Chairman. I would rather have the
    IDEA funding as opposed to competitive for the reasons I
    mentioned.
        Mr. Rehberg. Yes?
        Mr. Seaver. No doubt about it, IDEA funds.
        Mr. Rehberg. Would it be the same for Title I?
        Ms. Freeman. Yes, sir. It would for me.
        Mr. Rehberg. Talk a little bit about the flexibility. One
    of the things that I go back and forth on No Child Left Behind.
    I can understand why it was passed in the first place.
        So you have three competing groups. You have the
    educational institutions. They are kind of a business,
    education. You know, more money, more money, more money all the
    time, and it is like a business.
        And then you have got the parents who are saying, well, my
    kids are having to go to college and taking remedial math and
    science, and I don't get it.
        Then you have got the taxpayer saying enough is enough. We
    can't give you anymore or we are not willing to give you
    anymore. You see that at the local level.
        And so, you could see where the testing occurred. The
    problem is there was no follow-through. Once the testing
    identified the kids that needed the help, the financial support
    coming back from the Federal Government wasn't there as
    promised.
        But one of the things I did find within the last
    administration was at least flexibility. When I would point out
    something that didn't work in Montana, they would fundamentally
    make a change. How are you doing with this administration on
    the flexibility under the new categories or standards? Do you
    find the same flexibility?
        Mr. Seaver. I will speak just to the Impact Aid and how
    flexible it is and how it allows us to make a quality education
    for our whole district, and that is really what you want. As
    the whole body goes up, all of them will go up.
        So if you had flexibility in IDEA, if you had flexibility
    in migrant and could work with all children on the same skill
    instead of just migrant children, you are going to get all of
    the children to rise to the top.
        Mr. Rehberg. Okay. I am going to run out of time. So I will
    move on to Ms. DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just a comment. Spending on education is a long-term human
    investment, and it is about opportunity for our students. And I
    am really so proud to hear you talk about the benefits that
    American students received from Federal emergency funds from
    ARRA.
        And my hope is that with the end of those funds that what
    we will see is the long-term commitment and resources so that
    we can provide benefits of a sustained and significant Federal
    investment in education for our students, our schools, and our
    communities. That long-term, sustained investment is what is
    critical to your success in providing opportunity for the
    youngsters who are in your charge.
        Superintendent Seaver, it is a privilege to have you here
    today and to hear about your perspective and what has happened
    in communities with a large military presence. My community
    gets Impact Aid because we have a lot of low-income housing. It
    is New Haven, Connecticut, but there is a difference.
        But the military presence, nationally, if you include
    children with parents of active duty, National Guard, and
    Reserve, there are 1.1 million school-age military-connected
    students in total. Eighty percent of these students are in U.S.
    public schools.
        With that in mind, I would like to hear more from you about
    what you see as the unique needs of military-connected
    students? For example, I understand on average these students
    move about three times more frequently than their civilian
    classmates. It seems that the transition alone would have an
    impact on their academic performance.
        What have you learned about dealing with the transitions?
    What you have you seen work over time at the local, Federal
    levels to respond to deployment and to the reintegration-
    related challenges? What do military-connected students teach
    us that we can carry over to other student populations?
        Is there need for better data on this student population?
    And given the current environment, what are your thoughts about
    potential future needs?
        Mr. Seaver. That is a whole speech. [Laughter.]
        Ms. DeLauro. Go for it.
        Mr. Seaver. The Naval Air Station Lemoore, we have our
    students there for about 3 years. Many, many times they have
    come from 6 to 10 different school sites before they get to
    eighth grade.
        For everybody, the flexibility those youngsters have is
    just incredible. They have learned to connect with other
    children really, really fast. They have learned to dive into
    their curriculum material very fast because of the parent
    support and the base supports.
        But one of the things that they struggle with is
    deployments. It doesn't matter how flexible they are when dad
    or mom is away 9 months on a deployment or, in some cases, they
    are living with a neighbor because mom and dad are both in the
    military, or a single family military parent.
        And so, it is those deployments that really catch the
    students. Unfortunately, we are----
        Ms. DeLauro. How does it manifest itself?
        Mr. Seaver. Well, isolation. It manifests itself in
    behavioral problems. We have had some unfortunate issues with
    children cutting themselves this last year. Those----
        Ms. DeLauro. Mental health problems?
        Mr. Seaver. Mental health problems. We have had the
    fortunate ability to have a DoDEA grant, and we have a
    transitionalist specialist who is a social worker, seems to be
    working very well. She catches all of the incoming military
    children and their parents and has discussions with them and
    then tracks those students for at least 6 months.
        Ms. DeLauro. Does your Family Resource Center help in that
    regard?
        Mr. Seaver. The Family Resource Center can help. That is
    about, oh, 15 miles away off base. But that is run by one of
    our counselors. So our counselor does help in the schools with
    that as well.
        Ms. DeLauro. How is that funded, the resource center?
        Mr. Seaver. The Family Resource Center is district funded.
        Ms. DeLauro. Great. Anything further. Should we take a look
    at this population with a more analytic or critical eye to see
    what kinds of services might be helpful to your efforts--or not
    to your effort, to these youngsters' efforts of being able to
    succeed?
        Mr. Seaver. Well, the data is, I think, available. Again,
    it is pulling that out of the different systems we have in
    place. The resilience of those kids and those families----
        Ms. DeLauro. Kids must be remarkable.
        Mr. Seaver [continuing]. Is incredible. And I think just
    providing them good schools is the most stable thing in their
    life while their parents are in the military.
        So if I were saying it, I would say you fund Impact Aid to
    the fullest and allow schools to offer great programs.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Kingston.
        Mr. Kingston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me just open this up to anybody who wants to answer it.
    But you have probably seen these surveys that shows among the
    developed countries, the Organization of Economic and
    Cooperative Development specifically, that America is something
    like 17th in reading and 27th in math? Have you seen that? I am
    not sure exactly what the ranking is.
        But it is pretty lackluster. And then when you look at
    spending per student, we are in the top end of it. And lots of
    countries that spend less per student than we do outrank us.
        I was wondering what your reactions are to that? Why are we
    falling behind?
        Mr. Starr. Because we are spending money on the wrong
    things. And there are many different issues with some of those
    rankings in terms of different populations, which I won't go
    into.
        But the American dream in many ways has become the global
    dream, and what we are realizing--and again, the book I am
    reading now is Tony Wagner's book on the global achievement
    gap. That what we are preparing kids for in this country and
    the overreliance on standardized tests and the rigidity of the
    curriculum, the idea that everything can be reduced to one
    single measure that some folks think is equivalent to a profit
    and loss statement is not actually what kids need.
        What kids need is to learn how to problem solve. What kids
    need to learn is how to collaborate with each other, learn
    various perspectives and multiple languages. I could go on and
    on, but I won't.
        So part of what we are facing in this country is a need to
    create or understand there are new basic skills, and our
    education system has to reflect that. A lot of what we get in
    some of the developing countries is a certain thirst, desire,
    and motivation. We also have longer school days, nationalized
    systems, and more stable funding.
        And the dynamics and the political dynamics are also quite
    different in ways that we can learn a lot from. And there is
    also a much different approach to accountability. Many other
    countries have a developmental approach to accountability. We
    have a market-driven approach to accountability.
        And unless we start supporting our educators, supporting
    our teachers, rather than trying to shame them with an
    inadequate measure, I don't think we are going to be able to
    get to where we need to in terms of competing globally.
        Mr. Mitchell. I would echo many of his statements. One of
    the things that I think as we look at public schools, we are
    not afraid to be held accountable, but there could be an issue
    with the accountability system and its research base at this
    particular time with its overreliance on the standardized test.
        If we would become more to what research would tell us
    would be more of a formative type of assessment, variety of
    ways, so we bring things forward and we make the change to make
    sure that we invest our dollars in building capacity. That is
    where the research says we are going to get the best bang for
    the best buck.
        So let us invest our dollars for the things that will get
    us the farthest with the building of capacity, which many of
    those nations that rank above us do, and build the capacity of
    those teachers versus spending a little bit more money--or a
    little bit less money on standardized testing and that type of
    format.
        Mr. Kingston. Well, let me ask you this. In terms of Impact
    Aid, a lot of it has been for bricks and mortar versus
    teachers. I always wonder what the world would be like if we
    paid eighth grade math teachers $100,000 a year and had serious
    accountability in the system.
        But sometimes I think with Impact Aid, there seems to be a
    great, great State-wide lobby pressure to build fancy
    buildings. And is that a misplaced investment? I mean,
    everybody likes to work in a nice place or study in a nice
    place. But should that money have been directed toward teachers
    or toward learning systems or something that is less visible,
    but brings better results?
        Mr. Seaver. When you say Impact Aid, 30 percent of my
    school budget is Impact Aid. And that means that 30 teachers at
    least would not be there if it were not for Impact Aid. So, for
    my district alone, Impact Aid is all about providing programs
    to students. I have buildings in the '50 and '60s, and they are
    nice. They work. They are not brand new.
        I have colleagues all the way across the United States that
    get Impact Aid dollars that are providing wonderful programs
    and have lots and lots of teachers involved in their programs.
    So while there might be some new buildings, I don't think that
    is overall the intent or what is happening with Impact Aid.
        Mr. Kingston. Do you know that for a fact, though, or do
    you think that--does your association monitor how much of it?
        Mr. Seaver. No. My, well, the NAFIS, the association very
    well may monitor it, which I belong to. I am just giving you
    testimony from my side, at my district and peers that I have
    talked with.
        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you.
        Ms. Lee.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you.
        I want to ask two quick questions and then ask each of you
    to respond to the question together.
        First of all, do you see a reduction in your school
    district in the rise--reduction or rise in unwanted teen
    pregnancies? Do you see an increase or decrease in sexually
    transmitted infections, diseases, HIV, and AIDS? Secondly, and
    then secondly, how do you address comprehensive sex education
    in your districts, or if you do?
        And secondly, dropout rates, especially as it relates to
    minority boys, African-American males, for those of you who
    have student populations that include African-American young
    boys. Because there is a direct correlation we know between
    dropout rates and incarceration rates, and I want to know what
    is going on in your districts in that regard.
        Mr. Starr. I think we have seen a reduction in pregnancies.
    I am not sure about STDs. I don't have all the numbers on me. I
    am concerned these days that the numbers show that Latina
    teenagers are more at risk of some of that. It seems to be one
    of the populations that folks are pretty concerned about I know
    from some of the research. I don't have the numbers on me.
        We do have a comprehensive sex ed program. It is woven into
    our health classes, and we teach all different aspects of it.
        Our dropout rate--well, our graduation rate for African-
    American and Latino kids exceeds national and State averages.
    However, there is certainly a gap between our white and Asian
    and our African-American children. I think it is about 20
    points. Don't quote me on that. I can give you the exact
    number.
        So it is higher than the rest of the State and the country,
    higher graduation rate. But there is still certainly a gap that
    we are working hard on.
        Mr. Mitchell. I don't have the numbers with me either, but
    we have seen some survey data just recently that we have seen a
    reduction in teen pregnancy and sexual disease transmission. We
    also do our comprehensive sexual education program through our
    health curriculum, and we really struggle with Native American
    achievement in South Dakota, which is our largest minority.
        And we have about a 50 percent dropout rate and a lot of
    transient population of those students and trying to retain
    those students in a quality educational program for a long
    enough time so they get the basic skills so they can graduate
    from high school.
        Ms. Freeman. I don't have any numbers either about teen
    pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. However, off the
    top of my head, I would say that there hasn't been a
    significant reduction or really any significant change within
    our district.
        With regard to graduation rate, 80 percent is the goal for
    the State of Louisiana, and currently, our high schools are at
    that level. We will continue to achieve even greater gains, we
    hope, with regard to that. And dropout retrieval programs,
    other initiatives such as JAGS, Jobs for America's Graduates,
    which our school district does participate in, I think have
    proved helpful, particularly with the population of young men
    that you are referring.
        Ms. Lee. So what is the dropout rate among African-American
    males in your district?
        Ms. Freeman. I don't have that number. I will be glad to
    get that and send it in to you.
        Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you.
        Yes, I am curious. I know in my district, in an urban
    district, dropout rates are ranging from 50 to 70 percent of
    young African-American males. So in a district such as yours,
    you have a lot of rural communities in your district?
        Ms. Freeman. Yes, ma'am. We are.
        Ms. Lee. Yes, I would be very interested to know what the
    rates are there. Thank you.
        Ms. Freeman. I will be glad to get that.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Seaver. Central Union is a K-8 school district. So we
    touch on family life in the junior high, but we have no STDs or
    pregnancies at this time. Thanks.
        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Alexander.
        Mr. Alexander. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
        I would just like a response from all of you, if you will.
    We have talked about the importance of the stimulus funds or
    how the stimulus money helped. But has that created a special
    challenge for you as you look down the road a ways to the so-
    called funding cliff, if you will?
        Mr. Seaver. Well, Central Union was able to use the
    stimulus dollars in connection with attrition. So we are able
    to hold staff and keep staff on, keeping our class size at a
    25-to-1 ratio.
        As we go forward, the layoffs are imminent, and they will
    happen. As the State budget goes down, we will be forced to
    eliminate programs and staffing.
        Ms. Freeman. Representative Alexander, as well, we did go
    through an attrition process use of the stimulus funds. When we
    planned for the stimulus money, we knew that we were only
    looking at a short term. And so, with that investment in mind,
    I think our decision-making was led by that fact.
        Of course, I testified in my written testimony provided
    that our school district is currently engaging in a reduction
    in force with the consolidation of two schools currently for
    this upcoming school year.
        Mr. Mitchell. We utilized most of the stimulus dollars to
    build capacity of our people, believing that would be an
    investment in the future. So, as Dr. Starr testified, too,
    about the adult behavior and the adult learning that needs to
    take place, that is what we invested a lot of those dollars in.
        And I do have a concern as we continue to move forward that
    we can continue to leverage enough dollars to do the adult-type
    learning that we need in our system to remain that capacity for
    the future.
        Mr. Starr. The Federal dollars are a small part of
    Montgomery County. It is mainly local and State dollars. But
    certainly, the stimulus funds did help stabilize and decreased
    the impact of--or enabled us to not have to lay off more people
    than we already had to lay off given the local conditions.
        Mr. Alexander. Thank you.
        Mr. Rehberg. Ms. DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I just would make one point. There was an earlier
    discussion about TRIO and GEAR UP. I think it is important to
    note for people who do use the program that there is the
    potential for a $45,000,000 cut in this kind of funding, which
    would eliminate services for about 42,000 low-income students.
        In 2014, that would go up, and we would look at cutting off
    services to about 148,000 low-income students, which could
    portend a serious problem.
        Let me ask about something that is very near and dear to my
    heart, and that is early childhood education. This is a
    question for all, to hear your thoughts.
        I happen to think it is so consequential to our public
    school system, even though it may be something that is not
    under your direct control. I believe it is an experience that
    helps to shape schoolchildren before they walk through the door
    of your schools for the first day of kindergarten.
        Education officials nationwide increasingly recognize that
    children who have a high-quality early childhood education
    experience prior to coming to kindergarten are better prepared
    to learn, respond to teachers' directions, get along with
    peers, have confidence in their ability to learn, to do well in
    school. And that research shows that this translates into fewer
    students repeating grades or dropping out of school before
    graduation.
        What school-based or community-based early childhood
    education resources are available for disadvantaged children
    aged birth to 5 in your districts? How would greater access to
    high-quality early childhood education help teachers in your
    school district achieve your school's educational goals?
        That is a question for all. Mr. Seaver.
        Mr. Seaver. We have a State preschool funded by State. It
    is for 4-year-olds so they get an opportunity to do a half-day
    program prior to going into kindergarten. Starting next year,
    we will also have a transitional K program, which is--actually,
    the age limit for kindergarten in California is dropping 1
    month over the next 3 years. So the transitional K will pick up
    those drop-off years, and we will have a 2-year K program for
    students that have, for instance, a November birthday.
        Ms. DeLauro. Would greater access help you with early
    childhood?
        Mr. Seaver. Greater access would help. The State preschool
    program has an income limitation. So if we could take that cap
    off and have all students access that, that would be wonderful.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
        Dr. Freeman.
        Ms. Freeman. My testimony would be very similar. Ms.
    DeLauro, we do have State-funded early childhood programs. They
    do have funding limitations. So just not all students, of
    course, have access.
        With the Louisiana Comprehensive Literacy Plan, that is a
    birth through 12th grade initiative. So, obviously, the
    stakeholders, those caregivers in the homes because we don't
    have a lot of organized daycare centers within our area, this
    program would actually reach out to them and offer assistance
    to them as they actually care for those children, even at a
    very young age.
        So, obviously, more access would be of more benefit for our
    young students.
        Ms. DeLauro. More access. Okay.
        Dr. Mitchell.
        Mr. Mitchell. I probably bring you the greatest
    disappointing testimony of all of us. South Dakota lags behind.
    We have no State standards, and no State funding. There has
    been no real support at the State level for early childhood
    education. It is only found in schools that do utilize Federal
    resources.
        We do have a General Beadle community school in our lowest-
    income area that we use a lot of Federal resources that we do
    provide some preschool education. I am actively engaged in a
    group that is called Starting Strong. We are getting private
    donations and foundational money to provide more quality
    access.
        I am a huge advocate. We have gone to all-day, every day
    kindergarten as a response because we didn't even have that
    when I went to my current district. But we need greater access,
    and we need people in our State to understand the research and
    how important it can be.
        Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Thank you.
        And I just would say very quickly, Dr. Mitchell, I am very
    impressed with the whole notion of capacity building and as
    that ties into the adult learning piece of this.
        Yes, Dr. Starr.
        Mr. Starr. We use--at our most impoverished schools, we use
    a mix of Federal and local dollars to provide very high-quality
    pre-K services, Head Start as well as some special ed preschool
    services.
        One of the aspects about greater access is also working
    more closely with families. There is an enormous amount of
    family education outreach that needs to be done, particularly
    with our increasing Latino and immigrant population. It is
    critically important.
        And we also have to rethink what the pre-K structure should
    be, and it has to match what we know about kids. Social and
    emotional competency development, structured play, and oral
    language development rather than incessant focus on whether or
    not they will be ready for kindergarten as measured by a
    standardized test.
        Ms. DeLauro. I think it is interesting that about just one-
    fifth of children in poverty entering kindergarten are able to
    recognize the letters of the alphabet, and fewer than half can
    write their name, which is about the access issue.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you.
        Mr. Kingston.
        Mr. Kingston. Let me ask again to the panel, whoever wants
    to jump in. The number-one complaint that we hear from teachers
    is the amount of paperwork and that they don't have control
    over their time in the classroom sometimes because they are
    teaching to standardized tests or that they have to in that
    hour after school fill out paperwork rather than help some
    child with a quadratic formula.
        And what our local boards say is, well, it is Atlanta's
    fault, and then Atlanta says it is Washington's fault. And that
    might be the case in your areas. So I was wondering how you
    would react to that, if that is the case, and what are some of
    these paperwork burdens that we should look at that we could
    eliminate or at least eliminate the duplications?
        And I always explain that the origination of this is that
    there is no such thing as string-free money. And when you are
    getting Federal money, then you are going to have to have
    accountability, and that is what leads to this and so on down
    the food chain.
        Ms. Freeman. In our district, we do--hopefully, do the best
    job that we can in trying to enable teachers to actually get in
    the classroom and teach because that is where it happens. From
    the district-level administration, the school-level
    administration, where the rubber meets the road, so to speak,
    is in that classroom.
        However, at our level, we also need to know that these
    teachers are teaching to the standards that are expected. So
    there is a level of paperwork and a level of responsibility
    there, but we have tried to use technology to enable teachers
    that if they are comfortable with the use of technology, with
    planning, the use of data that we receive through all sorts of
    methods, whether it be State-wide assessments or local
    benchmark assessments.
        So I think at our level, we are doing the best we can to
    try to not encumber them such a load that they are not actually
    teaching.
        Mr. Kingston. How many hours a week do you think a teacher
    would have to devote to paperwork that would be compliance-type
    paperwork, as opposed to grading tests and normal?
        Ms. Freeman. Well, it would depend upon the grade level and
    subject area a teacher would teach. For instance, the English,
    secondary English teacher who is teaching English IV versus the
    kindergarten teacher, it might vary somewhat. Even though there
    is a lesson plan template and planning process that they go
    through.
        But we also have job-embedded professional development and
    collaborative planning. So they do share lesson planning. They
    also do cross-curricular assignments. So there might be, if I
    am a science teacher, and he is an English teacher, then we
    might share an assignment among our students, and I might do
    the grading for that particular one. We try to do as much of
    that as we can.
        Mr. Kingston. But you don't know how many hours for a
    secondary teacher?
        Mr. Starr. Too many.
        Mr. Kingston. Well, let me hear you.
        Mr. Starr. Well, I don't know the exact number of hours,
    but it is something that we have committed to working on with
    our teachers association because we recognize it is an issue. I
    think it is a function of technology and time.
        We have not built the data infrastructure within public
    education to make the sort of facile transfer of information
    that is available in a lot of other places. And a lot of other
    places are working on it as well.
        And then there is a time issue. We have a very rigid
    construction of the day that doesn't really match today's
    economy. It doesn't match Gen Y workers and the way they think
    about it. It doesn't match how families act either.
        So anything that goes beyond the 6.5-hour day, and our
    teachers work very, very hard, in the summer, on the weekends,
    and at night, on instructional issues. But if any of the
    managerial aspects or the administrative aspects creep into
    that time, it feels like undue burden.
        Mr. Kingston. Yes, because like sometimes you go to a
    doctor's office, and you fill out one form. And then you move
    to the next room, you fill out another form that 50 percent of
    the information is the same information, and you wonder. And
    particularly in education, it would appear that you could say
    here is some standard stuff that you won't have to fill out
    over and over again.
        Mr. Mitchell. We have been talking a lot in our district
    about doing differently. That is kind of our motto right now.
    We talk about efficient, effective, innovative, and creative--
    those four words that are in my testimony.
        And one of the things I think we forget about in education
    is a ``stop doing'' list. And so, we are really trying to take
    a look at what can we take off the teachers' plates? Because it
    is important, as one of my colleagues testified to, that the
    rubber hits the road is when they are in front of kids and what
    they do when it comes to implementing those instruction
    strategies.
        So, as I have told our teachers many times, there is only
    24 hours in a day, and as the superintendent, I don't have
    authority to give them a 25th hour. So we have to structure our
    time as a valuable resource, and we have to really prioritize
    what we are going to do and try to take those administrative
    burdens off the teachers and get them to do what they do best,
    which is teach kids.
        Mr. Kingston. We still have 30 seconds. Everybody wants to
    jump back in.
        Mr. Seaver. I would just indicate from our end that we have
    done a lot of data inputting, and so lots of our data is
    available through technology.
        Mr. Kingston. You know what? I really appreciate the fact
    that all four of you are very sensitive to it because it is the
    number-one thing that we get from teachers.
        So, thank you.
        Mr. Rehberg. Ms. DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me ask a question about the after school programs.
    There is a lot of research concluding that expanded learning
    opportunities provided by after school/summer learning programs
    like those funded by the 21st Century Community Learning
    Centers help students succeed by improving student behavior,
    school attendance, engaging young people, and contributing
    toward academics.
        How have these programs helped students and families in
    your districts? If you could move quickly, then I could get a
    couple more things in before my time runs out.
        Mr. Starr. Critically important. We need more wraparound
    services not only to meet the economic demands from our
    families, right, because most parents are working, but also to
    help with those critically important supports that our kids
    need. Vital. Absolutely vital.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
        Mr. Mitchell. Very important in our district with the use
    of the 21st Century Learning Communities grants. A tremendous
    need to provide more services because more kids are wanting to
    take part.
        Ms. Freeman. I specifically addressed Title I funds for
    summer remediation, credit recovery, grade recovery. Those
    continue to be vital for our students, and also response to
    intervention so that we intercede earlier with our students so
    that maybe they are not in a situation where they have to
    retrieve credit or improve a grade.
        Mr. Seaver. Both of our schools off base have after school
    programs. Both provide a lot of support for families working
    late. Educationally, it is their mainstay for homework or any
    projects that they are working on.
        Ms. DeLauro. Just if I can? Title II funds used in your
    districts. If there are further cuts to this funding stream,
    what about teacher and professional development, teacher
    quality, overall morale of the teachers and administrators who
    are on those front lines to help these kids with an achievement
    gap?
        Can you just briefly talk about the Title II funds?
        Mr. Starr. Our top priority next year is professional
    development, and any cuts to Title II will impact our ability
    to do that much-needed professional development with our
    students--with our teachers.
        Mr. Mitchell. It cuts right in to everything I believe with
    the building of capacity. Those funds are vital in that
    particular capacity, and also the instructional support that we
    provide is vital with those funds.
        Ms. Freeman. Title II funds used for professional
    development within my district.
        Ms. DeLauro. Right.
        Ms. Freeman. Of course, our focus this coming year will be
    on the Common Core State Standards, implementation of the
    Common Core State Standards with fidelity.
        Mr. Seaver. That is providing our professional development
    right now for Common Core Standards. So it is vital.
        Ms. DeLauro. Just two points. This goes back to the early
    childhood piece, which, again, as I say, it is near and dear to
    my heart. I think we need universal pre-K. That is what my view
    would be.
        But if you listen to a couple of the points. A child of
    parents with high socioeconomic status will hear up to 11
    million words a year, while a child with parents on welfare
    will hear only about 3 million, resulting in the differences in
    vocabulary that are apparent as early as 18 months of age.
        And though there are approximately 11.7 million low-income
    children under age 6, there are only about 960,000 federally
    funded Head Start slots and about 1.3 million children who are
    served by State-funded pre-K.
        Along with Title I, as you have talked about, along with
    special ed, you have talked about professional teacher
    development. I think one thing at the Federal level that we
    have to engage in along with the State level is to look at
    providing universal pre-K education to our children so they can
    be ready to learn as they move into your schools.
        I thank you for the good work that you are doing, and it is
    pleasure to have you come before us today.
        I am assuming this is the last one?
        Mr. Rehberg. Yes. Correct.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rehberg. Let me begin by saying thank you as well for
    those of you who traveled great distances.
        Thank you, minority Members, and the majority as well, for
    your good questions.
        The record will be kept open for a period of 14 days.
        One of the things that is the prerogative of the chairman
    is I get to help write the bill that is presented. And one of
    the things that if I hear you loud and clear--at least the
    three of you, not necessarily you--I don't ever want to do
    anything that affects your great ability to affect your school
    districts as they do.
        But as the President is starting to move toward district
    grant competition as opposed to State, as opposed to formula, I
    am going to look at maybe some language that I would rather the
    $850,000,000 he is requesting this year for Race to the Top be
    spent in K through 12 on IDEA or Title I or Impact Aid, not a
    new unauthorized project.
        However, if what I anticipate happens, which is the Senate
    does what the President asks, I am going to then look at
    language that suggests that if the rural school districts,
    which are equal in number to the number of urban students, if
    they cannot avail themselves of the money, then at least 45, 50
    percent of that money should be put into the Impact Aid or
    Title I or whatever in the rural school districts.
        So that facing facts that you can't compete at the district
    level with grant writing, perhaps there is some way we can
    write language to be more flexible in suggesting that you are
    not going to get screwed out of your money. You will still have
    the opportunity because you have got the grant writers. But you
    are not going to get hurt because you can't, and you are also
    being punished in the other formula programs.
        So I don't know how it is going to be done, but I am going
    to work with staff and see if we can come up with some kind of
    a way of a recognition that there is, in fact, a difference
    between urban and rural education in this country.
        And frankly, I just don't see that kind of flexibility
    coming out of the administration, and I don't want to suggest
    it is because the Secretary is from Chicago. That is not the
    point. But my mind is you kind of reflect where you grew up and
    what you know best, and the Black Hills are a long ways from
    Chicago.
        So, thank you. Appreciate you being here. And I am sure we
    will be in touch.
                                             Wednesday, March 28, 2012.

                              DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                                    WITNESS

    HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, SECRETARY OF LABOR

                   DEPARTMENT OF LABOR FY2013 BUDGET HEARING

        Mr. Rehberg. Good morning, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Solis. Good morning.
        Mr. Rehberg. Welcome back to the subcommittee. This morning
    the subcommittee will hear testimony regarding the Department
    of Labor budget request for fiscal year 2013. Secretary Solis,
    while you might be the last, you are certainly not the least of
    our Cabinet officials, enjoy having you here and thank you.
        The programs under your jurisdiction are crucial to what is
    on the minds of millions of Americans today, and that is jobs.
    The Department of Labor is uniquely positioned to help the
    economy continue its slow rebound, but given the fiscal
    realities we are now facing we are going to have to find ways
    to do more with less. What a world we live in where the
    national debt and annual budget deficits have become matters of
    national security.
        The unemployment rate has held at a stubbornly high 8.3
    percent with 12.8 million Americans still out of work. The
    reality is that we could very well eclipse 9 percent again as
    the long-term unemployed, encouraged by the prospects of
    finding work, reenter the job market. So we are far from
    calling this a true recovery. We will find a way to make the
    Federal job training programs more productive.
        The Bureau of Labor Statistics has said that the job
    openings rates that trended upwards since the end of the
    recession in June 2009, this is a 3-year upward trend and we
    still can't break 8 percent. With 3.5 million job openings
    currently available, we must find a better way to connect job
    seekers with those job openings.
        Seems to me though that in recent years the Department has
    been operating in a vacuum as it seeks to revamp these training
    programs. Many stakeholders, myself included, opposed the
    Workforce Innovation Fund, WIF, when it was first proposed.
    Many State agencies have voiced their opposition to reducing
    the Governors reserve as an offset to this new fund, and yet
    this budget proposes $100 million more for the WIF, the newly
    announced American job center, we have done this before in the
    late 90s and it was abandoned after just 2 years. There must be
    some level of outreach and consultation with those who actually
    implement those programs. Without their support and buy-in on
    these costly proposals, the workforce delivery system will
    continue to produce marginal success rates.
        I further believe it is the Department's role to create an
    environment that fosters job creation and economic growth. We
    need to help these businesses hire, not regulate them into
    submission with an agenda of some 60-plus proposed regulations.
    We must hold bad actors accountable. There is no question about
    that. But with this election year budget, again doubling down
    on an overly aggressive enforcement activities, it does little
    more than promote an adversarial relationship between employers
    and the Federal Government. We can't and we must not over
    regulate.
        I will ask questions along these lines in a moment, but at
    this time I would like to yield to my ranking member, Ms.
    DeLauro, for an opening statement.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam
    Secretary, for joining us today. The work that you are doing to
    create not just jobs, but good jobs as we have gone through
    this historic recession is to be commended and I look forward
    to your testimony.
        The work that the Department of Labor does, from job
    training to protecting workers, is critical for America's
    middle class, so it is unfortunate that we have seen the
    Department's budget cut by almost $1 billion over the past 2
    years, a cut of more than 7 percent. Now we have a budget being
    put forth by the House majority that is almost certain to force
    still further cuts, and I hope today's hearing will demonstrate
    the damage that would cause.
        The largest share of the Labor Department's budget is spent
    on job training. No investment is more critical than our
    investment in our human capital, and job training programs are
    the essence of good government. They work to make opportunity
    real.
        The national network of employment and training programs
    organized and funded by the Department of Labor has a proven
    record. One particular strength of the current system is that
    it is customized for each local community under the guidance of
    private-sector-led workforce boards.
        In 2010, nearly 70 percent of adults and dislocated workers
    receiving services through this workforce system were employed
    by the end of the first quarter after completion. And of those,
    85 percent were still employed 6 months later.
        I find this degree of success to be especially meaningful
    considering that there are more than four job seekers for every
    available job in today's labor market. Still we need to look
    for ways to make the system work even better. The
    administration has some ideas in that regard and I am sure that
    others do as well. Unfortunately, we may be going backward,
    rather than forward.
        As a result of the majority's policy Labor Department
    employment and training programs have already been cut $664
    million since fiscal year 2010. For those who imagine that
    Federal programs just grow every year these critical job
    training programs may provide a useful dose of reality since
    the trend has generally been downward over the past decade.
    Appropriations for Department of Labor job training and
    employment are now about $779 million less than 11 years ago,
    in fiscal year 2001. That is in actual dollar terms before
    adjustment for inflation, numbers of unemployed or anything
    else. Yet apparently that is still not enough for some. The
    majority is now walking away from the agreement on
    appropriation levels negotiated last year and are trying to
    impose new rounds of cuts on the relatively narrow slice of the
    Federal budget that is nondefense appropriations. If they
    succeed, it seems inevitable that job training and employment
    services will shrink some more. That would be bad for workers
    seeking employment and bad for businesses who are seeking
    qualified workers.
        Though employment and training is the largest part of its
    budget, the Labor Department has a number of other important
    responsibilities as well. Especially as we see women struggling
    to recover from the Great Recession at similar rates to men,
    the work that the Women's Bureau does in coordination with the
    Department's worker protection agencies is essential to working
    women who still face unequal wages, workplace discrimination
    and unique challenges surrounding workplace flexibility and
    integration into 21st century jobs.
        I know that the Secretary shares my commitment and my
    colleagues' commitments to these issues in supporting America's
    working women. I look forward to continue the work we have done
    over the years to ensure women's access to and success within
    today's labor market.

                   MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR AMERICAN WORKPLACES

        One of the most important of the roles of the Department
    for men and women workers is enforcing the laws and the rules
    that set minimum standards for American workplaces: the minimum
    wage, the obligation to pay overtime, rules against child
    labor, requirements for employers to contribute to unemployment
    insurance and workers' compensation, and safety and health
    standards designed to minimize deaths, injuries and illnesses
    from hazards in the workplace.
        Again I want to thank the Secretary for the great work she
    is leading in these areas during very challenging times. Having
    strong, sensible and workable rules in place and enforcing them
    is vitally important to the workers these laws protect,
    especially workers with the least bargaining power or economic
    clout. Good enforcement is also important to employers who want
    to obey the law and do the right thing by their workers so that
    they do not find themselves undercut and outcompeted by those
    who would do otherwise. Some say that there is too much
    emphasis on enforcing workplace standards and health and safety
    laws and that instead we should be relying more on voluntary
    compliance. I disagree as protecting workers and ensuring that
    they safely get back home to their families at the end of each
    working day must be a priority.
        If anyone needs further evidence of this, they should look
    at the reports that have come out over the past several months
    from investigations into the tragic explosion 2 years ago at
    Massey Coal's Upper Big Branch Mine. Those investigations
    concluded that the explosion was caused by serious violations
    of safety rules and procedures. As a result 29 coal miners are
    dead. Or in my district where the Occupational Safety and
    Health Administration found workplace safety violations that
    led to a terrible explosion at the Kleen Energy Systems power
    plant construction site in Middletown 2 years ago, killing 6
    and injuring 50 other workers. The State has since moved to put
    stronger safety standards in place. In recent years there that
    has been a rebuilding of the Labor Department's capacity to
    enforce the law. Let us not go backward. The work that the
    Secretary and her Department does is so vital to protecting the
    health and the safety of our Nation's workers. They are matters
    of life and death, protecting our most vulnerable population,
    providing economic security and living standards for our
    working families, and providing opportunities for those looking
    for the skills to succeed in today's economy.
        Madam Secretary, welcome once again to the subcommittee. I
    look forward to your testimony.
        Secretary Solis. Thank you.
        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Ms. DeLauro. As is the custom in
    the committee, once the gavel is hit at the beginning of the
    meeting I call on the members as they are in their seat. So it
    will be a little bit out of order and I do strictly enforce the
    5-minute rule so we have as much opportunity to ask many rounds
    of questions as we possibly can and as also is customary the
    record will be left open for a period of 14 days, so any member
    that does not get to ask their full questions can in fact send
    them to you and we will just ask that you answer them in a
    timely fashion.
        At this time welcome, and I open it up to you for your
    statement.

                       Secretary Solis Opening Statement

        Secretary Solis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want
    to apologize if my voice is cracking a bit because I feel like
    I am going through some cold weather issues coming back and
    forth here, but I want to thank you for the opportunity to come
    before you as well as Representative DeLauro and the committee.
    It is great to be back here, and I want to thank you for that
    invitation.
        As you know, I have provided you written testimony for the
    record, but I wanted to highlight a few areas for you. The
    Department of Labor's request reflects the approach that the
    President has taken to make priority investments in areas
    essential to helping America get back to work. Some of the most
    significant parts of these proposals are not before this
    committee, but are essential to securing our position as one of
    the most competitive economies in the world, such as proposals
    to improve access to education and job training.
        I am going to concentrate on those items before the
    committee which address the needs to invest in our workforce,
    protect workers on the job and secure Americans' incomes and
    benefits. In some cases we have made some very tough decisions
    on funding reductions in order to put America on a more
    sustainable fiscal course. This is part of the administration-
    wide effort to improve efficiency and find savings.
        My testimony lists these items, and we can provide
    additional justification as needed. But I want to concentrate
    on two particular areas this morning, first the need to invest
    in a competitive workforce.
        For an economy built to last we must get our dislocated and
    low-income workers back to work. The budget request continues
    the Department's commitment to those who are most vulnerable in
    this economic distress by maintaining funding for our
    employment and training programs. To support innovation in the
    workforce investment system we are asking for an increase in
    the Workforce Investment Fund that will allow us to test new
    ideas and replicate proven strategies for delivering better
    results.
        For me innovation equals reform, and I am committed to the
    employment and training reform process. That includes returning
    dislocated workers, youth and especially veterans. We know
    returning veterans can contribute greatly to this economy, and
    this is why the unemployment rate for recent veterans is so
    troubling to me. We will bolster our support for newly
    separated veterans by expanding the Transition Assistance
    Program, known as TAP, employment workshops, increased support
    for State grants for veterans employment services, and by other
    investments necessary to implement the recently enacted Vow to
    Hire Heroes Act.
        Mr. Chairman, I applaud you in your efforts for holding a
    hearing on this subject last week and pledge to work with you
    to help prepare for this bill. To help those receiving UI get
    the assistance they need top find work, the budget proposes an
    additional $30 million for the employment service grants to
    States to fund reemployment services for UI claimants, as well
    as an increase of $15 million for reemployment and eligibility
    reassessment. Eligibility assessments and reemployment services
    have been to be highly effective and are helping those on the
    UI system to find higher paying jobs much sooner while at the
    same time saving the system overall monies.
        Lastly, the system of One-Stop Career Centers is a core
    delivery system for employment and training services, as you
    know. To strengthen the community based system, the budget
    includes a $50 million proposal to create a uniform and
    recognizable brand for the system to help improve access to the
    workforce system and create new online tools to reach out to
    individuals much sooner and much more frequently. We also need
    to support workers protection programs that not only protect
    American workers but are crucial to ensuring that all
    businesses are playing by the same set of rules to keep workers
    safe and to protect their wages and benefits.
        As we continue to recover from one of the worst economic
    crisis in three generations, it is especially important that we
    invest in the enforcement of key laws that protect our workers,
    wages and benefits. Thus, the budget requests additional
    funding for the Wage and Hour Division, including additional
    funds for the enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
    Family Medical Leave Act.
        The budget also includes funding to allow Mine Safety
    Health Administration, MSHA, to meet its statutorily mandated
    inspections while maintaining the progress that we have already
    made reducing the backlog of contested citations. I
    particularly want to thank the support of this committee in
    this particular area.
        The request for OSHA includes an additional $5 million to
    support OSHA's enforcement of 21 whistleblower protection
    programs. It administers and protects workers and others who
    have been retaliated against reporting unsafe and unscrupulous
    practices while maintaining the increase provided for the small
    business consultation program.
        In conclusion, to summarize, the Department's fiscal year
    2013 budget request provides investment to prepare Americans
    with the skills that they need and that businesses are looking
    for and to help workers and employers find each other more
    efficiently through a more effective workforce system. It also
    ensures we have fair and safe workplaces for all workers. We
    have to continue to respect workers rights, provide a level
    playing field for businesses, and help American workers provide
    for their families. While we focus on long-term shared goal of
    reducing Federal deficit, I still believe it is possible to do
    so in a way that is meeting these goals, and we stand ready to
    work with you in this committee. Thank you.
        [The statement of Secretary Solis follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you very much. On a bright note, last
    September I met with the roofing contractors in Montana and
    visited a work site where they explained how changes in OSHA's
    enforcement policy on fall protection regulations are certainly
    problematic. Given this change in policy, the regulations now
    effectively mandate fall protection options that are often
    infeasible and actually create greater hazards for workers. As
    a result I contacted Assistant Secretary Michaels about the
    problems to convey the concerns of the Montana roofing
    contractors, and I understand and am pleased to hear that he
    has been meeting with them. They have opened up a dialogue and
    there may be some opportunity for some flexibility. So I thank
    you for that.
        Secretary Solis. That is great, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

                  PROPOSED RULE ON CHILD LABOR IN AGRICULTURE

        Mr. Rehberg. Madam Secretary, you have no doubt also been
    aware that on February 2nd in the Small Business Committee Ms.
    Nancy Leppink appeared before the committee. And during that
    hearing she and I had an exchange about the child labor
    hazardous occupation rulemaking and she was not able to answer
    my question.
        So I would like to pose the same question to you. I asked
    her whether or not I would be able to hire my neighbor's 10-
    year-old son to herd goats on my ranch on a youth motorcycle if
    this rulemaking were to be made final. She couldn't answer that
    question, so I ask the question of you. Could I hire my
    neighbor's 10-year-old son to herd my goats on a youth
    motorcycle?
        Secretary Solis. We are currently going through the review
    process for rulemaking. So I am not going to get into all
    finite detail. But I want to make it clear right now what this
    proposal is attempting to do. First of all, we are talking
    about a rule that hasn't been looked at for 40 years, and given
    the evidence and information that I have reviewed as well as my
    staff, we know that in 2009 there were 15,012 children who were
    injured on farms. This was noted in the Journal of the American
    Academy of Pediatrics. As well as the cost that is incurred by
    many farmers, $1.4 billion because of these hazards. What we
    are attempting to do in the rule is to try and mitigate that
    problem.
        Mr. Rehberg. Madam Secretary, I am well aware of the
    problem.
        Secretary Solis. If I may.
        Mr. Rehberg. Madam Secretary, I am well aware of the
    problem. That is not my question. My question was specifically
    would I be able to hire my neighbor's 10-year-old son?
        Secretary Solis. If there is an employment relationship and
    it is not family, say a parent that is allowing their child to
    work or people that are doing chores, that will not be impeded.
    But if it is someone who is in an employment situation and they
    are over the age of 16 years, and they are working on say
    mechanizations or whatever, equipment that could be hazardous,
    then we would strongly discourage that. But again we are
    looking at how----
        Mr. Rehberg. Would the regulation not allow.
        Secretary Solis. That is something that still we will be
    receiving comment. We received as you know 10,000 comments and
    we are very open. We are not here about trying to preclude
    people from working on family farms or neighbors coming and
    helping out say your family in doing chores and doing those
    kinds of things. It is when it comes to hazardous equipment
    where we see injuries that we want to provide better
    regulations and rules. Protection. I mean we have heard some
    really incredible----
        Mr. Rehberg. Children under 16 would be allowed on my ranch
    and I could put them on one of my horses, it is not a
    mechanized vehicle.
        Secretary Solis. A horse?
        Mr. Rehberg. Uh-huh.

                       PRIORITIZING SAFETY AND PROTECTION

        Secretary Solis. Obviously without a doubt that to me
    sounds very reasonable, that there are children that will be
    able to continue to do some of the work that they are currently
    doing now. Detassel corn, mend and paint fences, muck stalls
    and pens. That is exactly what we would want them to continue
    to do if that is what their chores and what their
    responsibilities are. What we don't want to see is when
    children are involved in grain elevators, grain bins, silos,
    stockyards, livestock exchanges where there could be harm and
    they are not protected and they could be stampeded. The last
    thing I want to see is young people that are maimed and then
    they are not able to fully enjoy their full life because of
    injuries that they sustain.
        So I want to be very practical. We heard outlandish things
    in other committees, that we would somehow regulate automated
    or battery powered screwdrivers. Nothing could be farther from
    the truth of what we want to do here. We are very reasonable in
    terms of the kind of information that we want to get and we
    want to be able to work with you, and we also want to work with
    the 4-H program. We are not going to try to move them out. That
    is not what this is about. This is about prioritizing safety
    and protection, making sure that there is more rigorous
    curriculum, and we are working with the Department of
    Agriculture and the Department of Education to set that
    curriculum because some people maybe don't always play by the
    rules, Mr. Chairman. They take advantage of young people in an
    employment opportunity. I am saying just let's put protections
    there.
        Mr. Rehberg. Ms. DeLauro.
        Secretary Solis. Thank you.

                      WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT EVALUATIONS

        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. I read
    with interest the annual performance results for Workforce
    Investment Act programs this past year and am pleased to see
    that nearly 8.7 million workers received assistance and over
    half of the folk who got help gained employment despite the
    fact that there are nationally over four job seekers for every
    available job. On top of that, job seekers who gain employment
    through WIA were retained in their employment, according to the
    Department's data. Also, for job seekers, 8 out of 10 who
    utilized the system were satisfied by the assistance they
    received from the workforce system.
        What does this data reveal to you about the WIA program's
    response to this extended period of high unemployment?
        Secretary Solis. I would say to you, Congresswoman DeLauro,
    that we have attempted very seriously to hunker down and really
    do as much as we can to evaluate our programs, and because we
    are in tough times we realize that we don't have a minute to
    waste. And we are finding that more intensive services is what
    is required and that is what employers want. And I am very
    happy to tell you that our percentages in terms of people
    finding employment and people also being retained in jobs
    because they are able to get better training is actually very,
    very high. And you just alluded to some of those percentages.
        I would just say to you in some places we have seen major
    improvements where a system that has been overloaded because of
    recession we have seen more than 300 to 400,000 new individuals
    coming into the workforce system in the dislocated worker
    programs. We are now serving 8.4 million people and nearly 6.2
    million exiters of these programs.
        Many of them are finding at a 90 percent rate they are
    actually finding employment, they are finding that they are
    getting the advanced training and the certificates that they
    need, and we are also seeing more people that are going through
    our on-the-job training program. Businesses are saying that
    this is what they want because it gives them an opportunity to
    bring someone on board, test them out and, after their 6-month
    period or whatever it might be, they hire that individual
    because now there is loyalty, and now there is training and
    there is expertise and there is a credential that is gained by
    that individual.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. I am also told that in the 12-month
    period ending September 30th, 2011, the ETA program served
    roughly 9 million people, an astonishing number and again
    particularly vital to the unemployed we are trying to move into
    high quality, well paying jobs.
        In the current dialogue over unemployment specifically we
    learned that training the workforce is essential to filling the
    skill gaps that businesses are finding as they look to hire.
    Two-thirds of all job openings from 2008 to 2018 are projected
    to require at least some post-secondary education or training,
    but as many as 90 million Americans lack the skills or
    credentials needed in today's labor market.
        How are existing ETA programs working to fill those gaps,
    train workers for available jobs? What are the results you are
    seeing with the assistance you are providing about putting
    people back to work?

                         TAA COMMUNITY COLLEGE PROGRAM

        Secretary Solis. This could be one of the, I think, very
    highest priorities that we have, using the tools that we have
    by also focusing in on some of the things that we have already
    put out like the TA community college program, where we are
    working with employers and saying to employers and community
    colleges, you won't be able to receive funding for these
    efforts unless we can guarantee that the curriculum and the
    skill sets are going to be warranted by those employers. And I
    think most of you have participated or your State has
    participated in the programs one way or another and have
    benefited from some of these efforts. I can go down the line in
    terms of big employers that are satisfied with what they are
    seeing on the ground. For now we are seeing community----
        Ms. DeLauro. Who are some of those employers and are they
    offering jobs?
        Secretary Solis. Yes. I am talking about a recent visit I
    had on a bus tour out in Kentucky--I am sorry, Wytheville,
    Virginia where we interacted with folks from Gatorade that came
    in and met with the community college and the chamber and said,
    look, these are the skill sets we need, we are willing to hire
    people, and also provide a subset of skills for other
    industries that can also come on board in that location. It is
    a rural county. They came away from that feeling that there is
    a good investment. And the employers said I am coming here and
    I am going to make sure that other members of the Chamber of
    Commerce come here because we know that there is a good
    product. And these people are skills tested, they have
    credentials and you see a career growth and ladder in an area
    where it is very hard to find a job in rural America.
        Ms. DeLauro. I did a forum with the community colleges and
    businesses in my district, and that includes manufacturing,
    Yale-New Haven Hospital, et cetera, and that model that you are
    talking about that you have----
        Secretary Solis. The partnership?
        Ms. DeLauro. The partnership between the community colleges
    and the businesses where the businesses help design that
    curriculum.
        Secretary Solis. Right.
        Ms. DeLauro. And then they make a commitment to hiring,
    even in instances hiring a certain number of people at the end
    of that process. I think that is the direction we are going in
    and I thank you for that effort. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Alexander.
        Mr. Alexander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,
    good morning.
        Secretary Solis. Good morning.

                                  H2A PROGRAM

        Mr. Alexander. The National Council of Agricultural
    Employers recently published a report about the H2A program. On
    the front page of the report it says the H2A program is an
    example of the governmental regulatory abuse of small business
    causing economic harm to employers seeking an illegal
    workforce, threatening the jobs of the local year-round U.S.
    workers and rural and urban economies.
        The report also says that 47 percent of the employers were
    unsatisfied with the H2A program, 42 percent said they would
    not use it again because of its overregulation. The employers
    reported that $320 million in economic loss was because of the
    failed H2A program; $170 million was lost because workers were
    not able to be made available in a timely manner.
        As the director of this program, how do you react to this
    report?
        Secretary Solis. Thank you for your question, Congressman
    Alexander. One of the things that the Department looks at in
    terms of this program is that there have been abuses in the
    past and what we are trying to do is correct that. What our
    attempt here is to make sure that everyone is playing by the
    same set of rules, because we have had some people in the
    industry, not all of them, but enough bad actors where they
    have actually driven down costs, didn't want to pay for
    sufficient travel, advertising and things of that nature, and
    have abused these individuals. I have seen some of those
    programs where they have been abused in Florida and our parts
    of our country. It is an embarrassment when you see how
    individuals from other countries are being brought in with the
    promise that they are going to be given fair wages and salary,
    housing, transportation and then at the end of the day they are
    turned into indentured slaves. I have seen this happening in
    Florida. We are trying to root out that, make sure that we
    level the playing field, but also help businesses.
        We have had more Webinars with them, we have done a lot of
    outreach, and as we continue to move through this I want to
    refine the program. I am very open to hearing what suggestions
    you might have, because I am not in a position to say we want
    to shut down the program. But I also want to make sure that
    American workers that will get salaries that are just as good
    would be open to perhaps filling these positions, and I realize
    that there are some concerns on the part of our growers and
    would like to continue that dialogue with you.
        Mr. Alexander. You say that you want to protect the
    American workers to make sure that those jobs----
        Secretary Solis. That they have a chance, yes.
        Mr. Alexander. The same report says that the State
    workforce agencies referred only 36,000 domestic workers to the
    H2A employers. Only 5 percent of those actually began work. Of
    the domestic workers who began work but did not work through
    the duration of their contract, 59 percent quit, 15 percent
    were terminated for just cause, 7 percent failed to produce
    acceptable work authorization documents, and 16 percent left
    for a variety of other reasons.
        So it is obvious that according to their own data that
    domestic workers are not wont to do some of the jobs that H2A
    workers are filling.
        Secretary Solis. They are hard jobs and I would say that
    our attempt here is to make sure that we set a level playing
    field in terms of what the salaries are. So whatever you are
    offering on one farm in a county is similar to what is offered
    in a neighboring area, and I think that has been contentious
    with some of the employers and also just trying to make sure
    that when people do come in that they have adequate housing,
    that they are not just thrown into areas that are infested with
    insects, rats, that there is no drinking water. I mean we have
    heard some tremendous stories. We are trying to regulate that
    and make sure that if we do bring in people they understand the
    rules and that they also get notice before they even come to
    this country what to expect.

                                  H2B PROGRAM

        Mr. Alexander. Let's move on to the H2B program, in January
    you finalized a rule that would increase the wages employers
    were required to pay to the H2B workers. You were sent a letter
    on September 7th that was signed by 50 Members of Congress,
    Republicans, Democrats, House and Senate, asking you to do away
    with that rule. You didn't do so, so Congress delayed the rule
    by the appropriations process. So at the end of this
    appropriations process are you going to come back with a rule
    placing these high salaries on H2B workers?
        Secretary Solis. As a result of the appropriation rider the
    effective date of the wage rule has been changed, as you said,
    and it is due out October the 1st. The rule does change the
    methodology of how the H2B wages are calculated. And the
    comprehensive rule obviously will look at the prevailing wages
    of the other industries in the neighboring area. So we are
    still getting information and look forward to continuing to
    have a dialogue with you as necessary.
        Mr. Rehberg. Ms. Roybal-Allard.

                  PROPOSED RULE ON CHILD LABOR IN AGRICULTURE

        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Welcome, Madam Secretary. Let me
    compliment you on the efforts you have made to protect children
    in agriculture. Having our laws equally protect children in
    agriculture has also been a goal of mine because, as you know,
    agriculture has the second highest fatality rate among child
    workers. This fatality rate is four times greater than youth
    employed in nonagricultural workplaces. As you mentioned,
    according to the Journal of American Academic of Pediatrics,
    these injuries cost our country an estimated $1.4 billion per
    year, injuries such as those that took place last summer when
    two 17-year-olds in Oklahoma lost their legs in a grain auger
    accident and unfortunate deaths such as those that took place
    in July of 2010 of a 14-year-old and 19-year-old who suffocated
    in a grain bin in Mount Carroll, Illinois. Their deaths
    occurred in a matter of seconds as they were engulfed in
    grains.
        I do understand due to the ongoing rulemaking process that
    you are somewhat limited by the Administrative Procedures Act
    and cannot discuss matters that go beyond the notice of
    proposed rulemaking or the process that you intend to follow.
    As was mentioned earlier, however, there is a lot of
    misinformation circulating about the Department of Labor's what
    I consider modest and common sense proposed regulations for
    children employed in agriculture.
        So my questions are more for purposes of clarification,
    because as I understand it, these proposed rules and
    regulations apply only to paid youth employees. My question is
    do the proposed regulations prohibit children from working on
    their parents' farm, helping out on their neighbor's farm or
    participating in valuable agriculture education programs like
    4-H and the FAA programs?
        And finally, I believe you did answer this question, would
    the proposed regulation prohibit children from using equipment
    like power screwdrivers?
        Secretary Solis. The answer is no. We are attempting, as I
    said earlier, to really bring this regulation up to date. It
    was last viewed or actually brought into play in 1970. So a lot
    has happened on farms, there is a lot of industrialization that
    has occurred and a lot of mechanization. And of course with
    that comes injuries as a result of lack of training and safety.
        So no, we are not trying to preclude a family relationship.
    If there is a child or a grandchild that wants to work on
    auntie's or grandma's farm or grandfather's farm, that is fine.
    But if there is a paid relationship and they are over a certain
    age, yes, we want to take a look at it. We are not talking
    about battery powered screwdrivers, but we are talking about
    tractors, and we are talking about bins and we are talking
    about grain operation where children have been killed or have
    been maimed.
        We are not also talking about precluding educational
    programs. We encourage that. We are not in any way trying to
    take away from that particular part of our culture. I
    understand that, my father was a farm worker. I know that. But
    I also know that there are some needs to bring down the cost of
    injuries because in the long run the economy suffers, and
    trying to do that I think through this regulation and hearing
    from the public we are very open. As I said earlier, we have
    received over 10,000 comments. We take this very seriously. We
    know that there is a lot at stake, but there are a lot of
    people on the other side that may not quite understand what we
    are doing and will talk and stretch I think some type of
    hysteria so to speak that really isn't reality. We are not
    talking about precluding people who have children who want to
    continue to have that experience on the family farm. If it is
    not going to be injurious to them, where they are not going to
    be--say it is not clearly an employment relationship, then they
    have the ability to work on a farm, gain that experience, ride
    horses, corral, do the things that kids would do normally. But
    when we talk about tractors and we are talking about other
    things where there are serious injuries and it is an employment
    relationship, then we should be able to regulate that.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. For the record I would like to submit
    two letters, one that is signed by 65 Members of Congress and
    the other by 105 organizations represented by the Child Labor
    Coalition in support of the Department of Labor's proposed
    regulation.
        Secretary Solis. Thank you.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Do I have time for one more question?
        [The letters follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rehberg. No. Mrs. Lummis.
        Mrs. Lummis. Welcome, Secretary Solis. Where did you
    develop your self-esteem?
        Secretary Solis. My?
        Mrs. Lummis. Yeah, you are in a very important position.
    Where did that come from?
        Secretary Solis. That is a hard question. I think my drive
    to want to serve the public and provide whatever leadership and
    advocacy I can to help people that don't ordinarily have a
    voice at the table, much like what you do I think in your jobs.
        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you. Let me tell you where I developed
    mine. I grew up on a ranch. I was driving tractors when I was
    8, 9, 10 years old. And the larger the piece of equipment, the
    more functions that piece of equipment performed, the better I
    felt about myself because I knew I was doing something
    important and capable, whether it was running a backhoe or a
    combine or a windrower or a baler. I just felt so good about
    myself. And when I could move on and I was branding, I was
    castrating, I was dehorning, I was giving injections to cattle
    as a little kid, not only on our ranch, but on the neighbor's
    ranch, all of us who were growing up together as little kids
    were doing exactly what you are trying to prevent kids from
    doing in an employment situation, in an employment situation.
        Let me give you some examples. Herding animals on
    horseback, breeding, dehorning, castrating or treating sick
    animals while in confined spaces. Good heavens, I wouldn't do
    any of those things outside of a confined space. Husbandry
    practices that inflict pain or cause unpredictable animal
    behavior. All animal behavior is unpredictable. Driving
    tractors or operating power driven equipment, that has always
    been a source of self-esteem for me. If I could hook up a power
    takeoff piece of equipment, and go out and grease it myself,
    put the wire in the baler myself, thread the baler. I don't
    know how to thread a sewing machine, but I know how to thread a
    baler, and that gives me a great deal of self-esteem as a young
    paid farm worker.
        What I am trying to say, Madam Secretary, is especially for
    young girls who grow up on farms and ranches and work for pay,
    for their neighbors and for themselves, that is how you learn,
    that is how you develop your self-esteem. And the rules that
    you are undertaking that have no new congressional
    authorization, you have said yourself that the source of your
    authorization came from legislation that passed in the 1970s.
    When we have unemployment that is so incredibly high and these
    massive problems with job training, to utilize the time and
    energy and resources of the Department of Labor to get into an
    area like this I find absolutely astonishing and completely
    inappropriate given where we should be focusing our time, our
    attention and the precious resources of the American people.
        Mr. Chairman, the only question I had in this series is
    where your self-esteem was derived. And I can tell you my self-
    esteem was derived from learning to be a capable, responsible
    person who could do a job well and have a work ethic that I
    would be proud of and could take with me wherever I went in
    life. And I got it from being a little kid operating farm
    equipment on my land and the neighbor's land for pay.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you. Ms. Lee.

                   UNEMPLOYMENT RATES IN MINORITY COMMUNITIES

        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
    Secretary, it is great to see you again. And thank you for your
    service and all of the work that you are doing at the
    Department of Labor, especially during these very challenging
    times.
        I know that you understand the great obstacles of poverty,
    disparities of unemployment, and the crisis of the long-term
    unemployed. And too many people are confronting this crisis
    today. So I look forward to continuing to work with you and
    your administration to address some of these critical issues.
        Couple of questions. I was pleased first of all to see the
    reduction in the Nation's unemployment rate in January and
    February, but the fact remains that it is still too high and
    minorities continue to bear the brunt of the recession.
        Unemployment rates for minority communities continue to be
    high at 14.1 percent for African Americans and 10.7 percent for
    Latinos, and of course this is unacceptable. We know that
    unemployment is directly related to poverty with over half of
    the 46.2 million people living in poverty being people of
    color. In the wealthiest Nation in the world this really is
    very shameful. And so I am very pleased to see your report
    reducing racial and ethnic disparities and unemployment. This
    is a very good first step. It was a very good report. And I
    hope committee members read this report and what DOL is doing
    to try to address this problem.
        But we need to do more. We need a plan, we need a plan to
    address these massive unemployment disparities head on, and we
    need actions targeted to these communities. So I want to know
    if you have a plan; if so, what does that plan include to
    aggressively target these disparities in unemployment?
        Secondly, the long-term unemployed, 450,000 from California
    and 2.7 nationally will exhaust their unemployment benefits at
    the end of the year. And unfortunately the bill which was
    passed, which I could not support, reduced the time that
    unemployment benefits would be allowed. And now we will have
    more long-term unemployed. And of course Congressman Bobby
    Scott and I are trying to get our bill passed, which is not
    making much progress at this point. For those who have hit 99
    weeks, now it is reduced of course to 70 some weeks as a result
    of that bill. And so we have got now more people who have been
    unemployed for a year or more. And I want to know what exactly
    are you doing to help the long-term unemployed who will
    continue to remain out of work. Now there will be more because
    we have shortened the length of time and not the number of jobs
    we should create for the long-term unemployed.

                           PATHWAYS BACK TO WORK FUND

        Secretary Solis. Thank you for acknowledging that the track
    record of the administration in the last 24 months has actually
    added 3.9 million private sector jobs and across the board we
    know it is stinging when it comes to minority groups. You and I
    know that, we have had many discussions. I will say the
    unemployment rate for particular groups, African American and
    Latino, has done gone down a couple percentage points. But we
    do need to do more particularly around our youth and young
    people. We continue to work with this administration in an
    effort to try to help all workers. So those that are long term,
    that have been out of work more than 6 months, those that have
    a need for more skill development because their literacy rates
    are very low, it hits very hardest for our communities. We know
    one of the efforts the President has proposed is talking about
    Pathways Back to Work Fund. And that hopefully will begin to
    address the long-term unemployed, the ones that you care about
    and that this committee cares about, and making investments
    also with providing those essential training, needed skills and
    also making sure that people have on-the-job training that we
    really utilize the programs that we have. For example, even
    kind of rebranding our One-Stop Centers, making sure that
    people understand where to go easily to get information. You
    don't just have to go to a One-Stop Center, but you can go to a
    community college working with us through the system in the
    workforce investment system to help more people understand
    there is a broader safety net out there to collectively use all
    the information together.
        One of the things that we have done to continue the
    programs to help even those communities that are really going
    through a hard time, we are talking about ex-offenders. We have
    actually had several grants that are coming out to continue to
    serve targeted populations. Those that have a record find it
    very difficult to find employment, especially young people. We
    have now proposed, and this is already out, a grant to help
    female ex-offenders, something that is very big in the State of
    California you and I worked on when we were members of the
    state legislature.
        I know how hard these programs are. But we also need to
    take a look at what kind of support we can also get from the
    Congress because each time we made these proposals they are not
    always funded like summer youth employment programs.
        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Flake.
        Mr. Flake. Thank you, Madam Secretary. It is great to have
    you back here.
        Secretary Solis. How are you? Thank you.
        Mr. Flake. I just want to follow on some of the questions
    that Cynthia brought up. I grew up on a farm, I am missing the
    right end of my finger, this is a windrower accident at age 5.
    I was just with my father. My father's missing these three.
    That happened just a few years after that. But you can't
    prevent all these. When you read through what is here, 6-month-
    old bulls, 14- and 15-year-olds shouldn't be able to work with
    6-month-old bulls or herding animals on horseback, breeding,
    dehorning, castrating, treating sick animals in confined
    spaces. As mentioned, where else do you do it? Do you just go
    on the open range for this? You have to be in a corral.
        Unpredictable animal behavior, it comes with the territory.
    I fear sometimes in an effort to make sure that nothing
    untoward ever happens that we are preventing experiences and
    everything else. Growing up for myself, most of my growing up
    was in a paid relationship. We got a steer at the beginning of
    the year, we took that steer to the fair, whatever we got out
    of that steer was our pay for the year. If you had a bum steer
    you had a bad year, but that is just how it was. But later on
    it was for wages as well.
        But when you read through this it just strikes I think all
    of us who have grown up with those experiences as being written
    by some bureaucrat behind a desk who has never sat foot on a
    farm or on a ranch, that doesn't know that animals are
    unpredictable, that things do happen.
        Other injuries happen on a football field. My wife tore her
    anterior cruciate ligament playing basketball in high school
    that plagued her for 20 years until she got the surgery. That
    was far more debilitating than this. I wouldn't suggest that we
    come in and try to keep girls from playing basketball. Things
    happen. We know that, you try to minimize it, but you don't
    over reach like this where you tell somebody that they can't go
    work on the friend's farm or a relative's farm or whatever else
    for pay because you might get injured somehow.
        I don't know, can you shed any more light on that? I know
    you have spoken some about it, but please enlighten me.

                               FAMILY-OWNED FARMS

        Secretary Solis. Thank you, Congressman. Well, first of
    all, I want to clarify also with Congressman Lummis's statement
    as well, she was talking about a family relationship, her
    parents working on a farm, that was owned by her parents. We
    are not talking about that. We are talking about a paid
    relationship employment. We are talking about children who are
    not related to you that are working on a farm say at a certain
    age, if they are over 15, that is what we are looking at. We
    are looking at kids. You heard stories presented by
    Congresswoman Roybal-Allard, I don't want to say children but
    younger than we are, obviously were killed because there wasn't
    enough protective gear, information, training on how they could
    utilize graining equipment in silos where people were injured
    seriously. That is what we are talking about. I am not talking
    about doing chores, I am not talking about that. And I can't
    get into great detail because I am also restricted right now.
        As I said earlier, we are taking a lot of comments, we got
    10,000 comments. We are going through all of those and we are
    listening. We know that this has to be reasonable, not talking
    about battery powered screwdrivers. I am talking about big
    equipment that causes harm. We are talking about trying to
    bring down the costs for farms. And we are talking about
    preserving a relationship with families. So if you have
    youngsters, if have you aunts, uncles that you want to work on
    their farm, that is not going to be prohibited in this bill.
        Mr. Flake. One when we would brand calves, we have got big
    pastures, you run one head per 200 acres in Arizona, you have a
    lot of riding that needs to be done. We would bring out kids,
    neighbor kids, friends and others that weren't blood relatives
    or worked with us that would have been prohibited at this point
    from herding animals on horseback. That just seems like
    somebody behind a desk writing a rule, not understanding how
    roundups happen and how branding goes. And I just--I don't
    know. I hope that the comments you received are reflective of
    the reality out there and I hope they are taken into account.
        Secretary Solis. I understand. As a child my motivation was
    riding my bike, but now youngsters are told wear a helmet. We
    didn't have to wear a helmet then. But now we know because
    injuries and the prevalence, brain injuries that can have on
    children, we are all told now that we have to wear helmets. So
    there are certain things that we learn over time. This rule is
    40 years old. We are looking at it and all we want to do is
    make it more coherent so we are not endangering more children.
        Mr. Rehberg. Ms. Lowey.
        Mrs. Lowey. I just want to welcome you. And Madam
    Secretary, I want to tell you how proud I am of the important
    work that you have done. And I look forward to continue to
    support your efforts.
        I must admit, I did not grow up on a farm and I know that
    you are looking at the various issues that have been brought up
    today. But for the record I would like to submit this article
    that was reported in the New York Times on January 12th, 2012.
    And it says, report blames safety lapses for an epidemic of
    deaths at Wyoming job sites. The report also noted that Wyoming
    had the highest workplace fatality rate in the country for all
    but 1 year from 2003 to 2008. In 2010, the last year that data
    was provided, Wyoming estimated occupational death rate was
    three and a half times the national average, the report said.
        So thank you for your important work.

                           COOPERATIVE RELATIONSHIPS

        Secondly, I would like to associate myself with the remarks
    of my colleague Ranking Member DeLauro and yourself about the
    important work you are doing with community colleges and I want
    to expand that effort. We can also agree that the workforce
    system must do more to address the mismatch between the skills
    needed by employers and the skills of job seekers. That is one
    of the reasons that I am such a strong supporter of the Trade
    Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training
    Grant Fund. It provides funding for community colleges to help
    more Americans prepare to succeed in growing high skilled
    occupations.
        So I am not going to ask a question, but I hope you will
    keep us up to date on the cooperative relationships between the
    colleges and the businesses and provide as many incentives as
    we can, because it is absolutely essential.
        I just met with a group of business people, about 25, a few
    weeks ago. They can't find Americans that they can hire for
    their jobs. And if we want to make it in America and we want to
    strengthen our economy, we have to be sure we are training our
    youngsters for the jobs that are there and for the jobs for the
    future. So thank you for your very important work.
        Another area throughout your career, because I know we have
    worked together, you have been a champion for women's issues,
    and I know that you are willing to do everything you can to
    ensure that women have necessary workplace protections.
    However, I am concerned that the President's budget request
    proposes to reduce the Women's Bureau budget primarily
    affecting its regional offices. Given this proposed reduction,
    could you explain to us how the budget request addresses
    women's workplace protections? I think it is very important and
    I appreciate your efforts.
        Secretary Solis. Thank you, Congresswoman Lowey. And I also
    just want to commend your State because they actually applied
    for the TA community college grant and got one of the largest,
    I think it was $19 million, but it actually draws on expertise
    to focus on health care careers and those vulnerable sectors
    that really need to improve their outcome. So we are looking
    forward to the partnerships that will come with that grant.
        To your point with the Women's Bureau, yes, we are looking
    at unfortunately a reduction in this particular area. But I do
    want to clarify that what we are doing here is something I have
    been trying to do since I got there, was integrate all of our
    divisions to focus in on women's issues overall. So when we are
    looking at vulnerable women and workers who are not getting
    paid their wages and overtime, we are structuring our programs
    in the Wage and Hour Division to do just that. We are going
    after employers that discriminate. OFCCP has a handle in this.
    So across the board all of our divisions are taking part in
    that.
        We also have the authority to implement the Family Medical
    Leave Act. We know how important that is to continue to fight
    to see that women also have the availability of that. So we are
    working with employers to do that.
        We have a great, I think, track record in terms of getting
    back wages for women that are in these low sector jobs. In this
    last year we collected nearly $169 million in back wages for
    over 270,000 workers in industries where women predominantly
    are focused. We also recovered $11 million in back wages for
    11,000 victims of sex discrimination.
        So we continue to push out our efforts. We know that we are
    consolidating some of our offices, but that doesn't mean we
    take away the role of what the Women's Bureau was intended to
    do, which is to do research, and also to do collaborative
    effort, and to work with us on evaluations. They will continue
    to do that.
        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
        [The newspaper article follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you, Ms. Lowey. I will let Ms. Lummis
    correct for the record her statement because I heard her talk
    about working off the farm or ranch for other people. I heard
    her say that.
        I do want to clear up for the record something you just
    said about riding a bicycle, you are required to wear a helmet.
    I assume there is no requirement to wear a helmet. It is a
    suggestion. My children wear helmets when they ski, when then
    ride horseback, when they ride a bike, but there is no penalty
    under law for not wearing a helmet, is there?
        Secretary Solis. Well, I know in different States they have
    different local authorities. And I am merely saying that over
    the course of time because we know of injuries that can be very
    serious, head injuries, that people have changed their conduct.
    They are taking more precautions. That is merely what I was
    trying to state, because things do evolve, they change.
        Mr. Rehberg. Well, they certainly do, but usually the
    Federal Government doesn't step in and come up with a one-size-
    fits-all regulation like you are talking about. I can assure
    the committee that this will be addressed in the budget. I
    appeared before the Small Business Committee suggesting the
    same thing. And as I understand it, the schedule suggests that
    the final rule will be coming out in August and we will address
    this issue in the appropriations bill. I hope to see that no
    money is spent on the enforcement or implementation of the rule
    as it is presented. And it does talk about batteries, and a
    battery is a battery.
        I fought the same fight with the Consumer Product Safety
    Commission when they made the determination in their rule that
    youth motorcycles, snowmobiles and ATVs were toys because
    children might chew on battery cables and valve stems. It
    continually points out Mr. Flake's point about bureaucrats
    sitting behind a desk in Washington, D.C. crafting these
    regulations.
        I would like to ask you a few specific questions about an
    appropriation request. I see there is a proposal for a new $50
    million American jobs center.

                              REBRANDING ONE-STOPS

        Mr. Rehberg. And I assume you are familiar with the fact
    that the same thing was done under the Clinton administration.
    And I wonder how we expect a different solution or a different
    conclusion to a failed project that was actually canceled after
    a couple of years within the Clinton administration. And so, I
    guess, what lessons were learned that are going to make this
    any different.
        Secretary Solis. The President is asking us to have a more
    coordinated and more efficient system in place. If you go to
    any city across the country, you see many one-stop centers that
    are listed with different titles. There is a lot of confusion
    out there about what these centers--where they are located and
    what their names are. I remember as a former Member of the
    House, I had several that were run by the county, by the city.
    That doesn't make a difference in terms of the service
    delivery, but the names are different.
        And it is really just trying to brand them with this term,
    incentivizing all of the one-stops to come together so we can
    also put more information online, to make tools better
    available, and bring some conformity. So really what we are
    attempting to do is make it easier for the public and
    businesses to know where to go, so there is a one-stop place to
    get all that information.
        Mr. Rehberg. I have spent a lot of time studying branding
    and rebranding, Jack Reese, and positioning. They are kind of
    the foremost in marketing and branding and rebranding.
        So I guess question is--you know, with Ms. DeLauro's
    individual that came, I commented how impressed I was with
    his--I think it was called The WorkPlace, Incorporated, which
    was a nonprofit. Do you intend to make them, what, change their
    name? Fall under an umbrella? Put a sticker in their window?
        I guess I don't understand what the $50 million is going to
    be and what the rebranding does. It sounds like kind of the
    same old same old.
        Secretary Solis. Actually, we are trying to fix a system
    that hasn't been working well, because there is a lot of
    confusion. And we hear this often from employers, that they
    don't even know what the Workforce Investment System is about.
    And when you tell them about one-stops, they are not clear
    about what that means.
        And they should be taking advantage of what the services
    are that are provided there. Because, in many cases, as you
    have heard, businesses are trying to find employees. They can
    go to a one-stop, they can get this information. We want to
    make sure that there is conformity in how we brand the message.
        Mr. Rehberg. So how is this different than what the Clinton
    administration attempted to do?
        Secretary Solis. I wasn't here when the Clinton
    administration was here.
        Mr. Rehberg. Okay, so how is it going to be different from
    what is in place today? How are you going to spend the $50
    million?
        Secretary Solis. Well, right now we are going to try to
    bring conformity. So we have a lot, for example, of community
    colleges that also provide this assistance. We want to bring
    everyone under the umbrella to show that we are all
    coordinated, providing information to people who are looking
    for jobs and also training.
        Mr. Rehberg. I am just not following the $50 million
    umbrella. What does the $50 million do? What is your plan?
    What----
        Secretary Solis. It is a branding plan. So we would also--
    we wouldn't wholly change their titles. We would say that if
    you are looking for an American job center, this is what it
    looks like, this is where it is at. And there would be a
    uniform system to do that, so you could push a button, so to
    speak, go to the same place, know in your area's ZIP Code where
    the nearest location is. And it isn't just for people, the
    public; it is also for businesses.
        Mr. Rehberg. Okay, then, as part of the subcommittee, as it
    considers the $50 million expenditure, I would like to see the
    branding plan.
        Thank you very much.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. DeLauro.
        Secretary Solis. Absolutely.

                              1966 CHILD LABOR LAW

        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
        Before I get to a question on the misclassification of
    independent contractors, let me just see if I can set the
    record straight a little bit here.
        I think, in terms of the issue of the child farm workers,
    let's understand one thing, to be clear. It was in 1966, as I
    understand it--and this is what the Congress did. It is a law
    that has been in place since 1966. It exempts only farms owned
    or operated by a parent from the restriction on hazardous farm
    employment for kids under 16. It is not a new idea thought up
    by the Department of Labor. Farms owned by a grandparent or an
    uncle or a cousin have never qualified for the exemption. The
    Department has, and the Secretary has, no power to change that
    rulemaking.
        The issue in the proposed rule is exactly what is meant by
    ``owned or operated,'' and that is what the rule is about. So,
    in fact, Congress extended the child labor law to agriculture.
    It is not in the Secretary's power to change this.
        Also, let me just tell you what we are talking about here.
    We are talking about youngsters who are 15 and younger. There
    are no limitations, current or proposed, on agricultural
    employment for anyone who has reached their 16th birthday, even
    for the most dangerous work, whatever it is.
        Now, the other piece that is important to note is, this is
    different than the rules outside of agriculture, where workers,
    by law, younger than 18, and not 16, are prohibited from
    working in jobs considered particularly hazardous for youth.
        And let us also be clear that we are talking about
    employment for pay. And unless wages are being paid, the rules
    have absolutely no application to children or teenagers that
    are doing chores around the family farm, helping out a
    neighbor, or participating in 4-H or FFA.
        So, you know, there is a good reason to be concerned about
    the safety of young people who are working in agriculture. It
    is forty years since these rules have been updated. Agriculture
    has the second-highest fatality rate among young workers, more
    than five times the average of all the industries.
        And as the Secretary has pointed out, we are discussing a
    proposal, not a final rule. It has been put out for review, for
    comment. The Department is considering all of this information,
    and that is what the process is about.
        And I would just add that, on the issue of children working
    on their parents' farms, the Department has withdrawn the part
    of their proposed rule clarifying that exemption. They are
    going to study it further. So they are working through this.
        But let us not forget what the law of the land is and look
    at this as willy-nilly somebody in the closet came up with this
    idea one day and thought it was a good idea to do it. The
    Congress in 1966 extended these laws to agriculture.

                            WORKER MISCLASSIFICATION

        I am going to see if I can get to worker misclassification,
    Madam Secretary. You asked for $10 million for the Wage and
    Hour Division, of which $3.8 million is for increased
    enforcement related to worker misclassification.
        Tell us what you mean by ``worker misclassification'' and
    why the Department considers this a high-priority concern.
        Secretary Solis. Yes, Congresswoman DeLauro, what we are
    looking to do here is to support the use of legitimate
    independent contractors. We are finding that there have been a
    lot of folks out there that have not been appropriately abiding
    by that.
        And we find that when workers are cheated of their
    appropriate wages, that they are not paid workers' compensation
    or other taxes because they are labeled as independent
    contractors, that is money that is not given to that worker,
    but it also robs the States and local government. And we are
    trying to correct that. There are a lot of injuries that occur.
    Workers' compensation--who ends up paying for that if somebody
    is classified inappropriately as an independent contractor?
        We are trying to get to the core of these industries where
    these abuses have happened. We are not going after legitimate
    independent contractors. What we want to do is make sure that
    people are not misclassified. So our efforts will work with the
    Wage and Hour Division. We will work also with different
    States. Minnesota, Missouri, Illinois, Connecticut, New York,
    Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington, Utah, Hawaii, Montana have
    already entered into an MOU with us to work with the IRS,
    because we know that there are a bunch of folks out there that
    want to cheat, that don't want to pay their taxes and don't
    want to pay the employee, and misclassify people. And places
    like Maryland, Washington, Hawaii, and Montana feel that they
    need to be a part of this effort with us. So we are doing it
    collectively.
        The amount that we are asking for, yes, in total is about
    $28 million. But I think collectively it will have a tremendous
    impact, because it will bring revenue back into our States and
    provide some semblance of safety for those workers that get
    injured out there.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
        Mr. Rehberg. Mrs. Lummis.
        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I first want to thank my colleague for pointing out how
    Wyoming took the step of identifying a problem with worker
    safety in the oil and gas industry, studying it, making
    recommendations to the State, and how the State is responding
    to this unique Wyoming problem of worker safety in the oil and
    gas industry.
        I think that States are uniquely qualified and positioned
    to identify problems that are unique to the job and employment
    sectors in their State and resolve serious problems. And,
    certainly, it is a serious problem in my State. And I commend
    my State and my Governor, Matt Mead, for addressing this
    tremendously important worker-safety issue.

                           WORKFORCE INNOVATION FUND

        I want to turn to the Workforce Innovation Fund and ask
    some questions about it. Because, as you know, Secretary Solis,
    every single dime that we are talking about spending today is
    borrowed from China, Japan, the American people, Saudis, and
    others--every dime. Because all of the revenue in this country,
    all of it, is consumed by entitlement programs. So the only
    part of the budget this committee has any control over, which
    is discretionary spending, it is all borrowed money.
        So what we need to do when we are making decisions about
    how to spend that money is to say, is this something that is so
    important for the Federal Government to do that it is worth
    borrowing money from China to do it?
        So, in that context, I have a question about the Workforce
    Innovation Fund. It was created in fiscal year 2011 to the tune
    of $125 million. Also received funds in fiscal year 2012 to the
    tune of $50 million. And now we are being asked to top it off
    to a $300 million commitment to innovation when we don't even
    have the first round of grantees yet because the first initial
    fiscal year 2011 funds won't go out until June. So we don't
    know yet whether the program is working.
        So my question is this. I know you have high hopes for the
    potential of the Workforce Innovation Fund to improve our
    workforce programs. But when can we expect to see the results
    of the initial investments that were made in 2011 and 2012? And
    how many more millions do we have to spend before we know
    whether it works or not?
        Secretary Solis. Well, that is a good question, and I would
    tell you that the Workforce Innovation Fund is a part of
    funding that comes from the workforce investment programs
    collectively.
        What we are attempting to do here is really look at good
    models. We talked a lot about, for example, the TAA community
    college experience, where we are getting employers to work
    closely with our community colleges so that we are actually
    matching the skills to what the employer wants. We want to
    incentivize that. And we are having to use these kinds of tools
    because we haven't reauthorized WIA. It is already--it is a
    stale piece of legislation that needs to be more flexible and
    adaptable. So I am using that prerogative, along with the
    support of the administration and with your support, to make
    these programs work better.
        So we are listening to the States, we are listening to
    locals, we are listening to the local workforce, and we are
    listening to employers. And this model has been proven to be
    ineffective. We are already giving out another series of grants
    that are going out.
        And we are finding that the return on it can help us better
    serve the needs of the local areas. So regions, for example,
    sectors that want to build out, pharmaceuticals, biofuels,
    things of that nature, we are testing the water to see exactly
    what that assessment market base is, but also making sure that
    we connect with the right employers that are going to be able
    to hire up the people in those jobs.
        Mrs. Lummis. Okay. So my question is, is it worth borrowing
    money from China to augment a program whose initial grants
    haven't even gone out?
        Secretary Solis. I would reframe the question and say that
    the money that is given to us by this committee are U.S.
    taxpaying dollars, they are U.S. dollars. And the
    relationship----
        Mrs. Lummis. But where--so you are saying that the
    mandatory programs are the borrowed money----
        Secretary Solis. No.
        Mrs. Lummis [continuing]. And that discretionary programs--
    --
        Secretary Solis. No. What I am saying--you know, maybe I am
    not understanding your questioning, but my understanding is
    that the funding that we request from the Congress comes from
    our taxpayers, it comes from our consumers. And----
        Mrs. Lummis. Well, it really doesn't, though. It comes from
    China and the American people who are lending us money and the
    Japanese and the Saudis and whoever else is buying our----
        Secretary Solis. Well, there has been a lot of money that
    has been borrowed already to fight for some wars, and who is
    paying that?
        Mr. Rehberg. Ms. Roybal-Allard.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Secretary Solis, there are some that
    believe OSHA regulations impose unfair burdens on businesses.
    And there are also studies that have shown OSHA enforcement has
    little negative economic impact on business and that
    production, revenue, and profits have increased in regulated
    industries and that small businesses continue to compete
    successfully.
        I know that businesses in my district tell me that they
    welcome strong enforcement because it helps to level the
    playing field for them and the majority of businesses that care
    about worker safety and follow the rules.
        Have you found evidence that regulation and enforcement
    cause detrimental effects on small businesses? And in keeping
    with your mission, what steps has the Department of Labor taken
    to work with small businesses to minimize regulatory burdens
    that may exist?
        Secretary Solis. The President has talked about looking
    at--having, actually, a look-back at our regulations. We have
    taken it upon ourselves to go back and look at old regulations
    and onerous ones that perhaps we can scale back.
        We do take it very seriously with respect to hearing from
    the business community. Whenever there is a regulation that is
    put forward, it has to go through that regulatory process where
    the Small Business Administration, the advisory groups there,
    do take a look at what economic impact there has been.
        Through OSHA we continue to have more consultations, more
    than any other time, because we know how important it is to
    make sure that small businesses understand exactly what they
    need to be following. So we provide consultations. In fact,
    what we are looking at is more consultations, because we know
    that last year we conducted about 30,000 small-business visits,
    consultations that we provided. We know next year we are going
    to see more.
        Our job and availability is to go out and do as much as we
    can, especially for those new arising industries where you have
    a lot of immigrant communities that aren't fully aware of what
    protections and rights are already on the books, familiarizing
    them as well as their workers as to what their role and
    responsibility--and to help prevent any injuries. Because, at
    the end of the day, if there is no appropriate coverage for
    those injuries, the businesses fail, they go bankrupt, and the
    taxpayer has to pick up the bill once that injury is then taken
    to, say, an emergency room unit. And you know that very well,
    serving in your capacity as a member of this committee. And we
    are trying to mitigate that.
        So we are doing our best. We know we can do more, but we
    also want to hear and invite the public and small businesses,
    because they are the engine of growth and we have a
    responsibility and obligation to do that.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. I was glad to see that your budget
    invests in the Chief Evaluation Office, which reflects your
    continued commitment to program evaluation.
        Tell the committee how the Department is using the results
    of this research to shape priorities and to ensure our
    investments have a positive impact and are also cost-effective.
        Secretary Solis. The Department is very mindful that the
    taxpaying dollars that are given to us are a privilege. And we
    want to make sure that we are making the right investments and
    that we are getting the right return on those dollars. So, it
    is very important for us to prioritize our evaluation across
    the board.
        That is why I have made it a personal priority, because I
    come from that background. As a former Member of the House, we
    would scrutinize everybody's budget, including our own. I do
    take it very seriously and know that it is a part of what our
    mission should be.
        If people understand when they are reviewed in evaluation
    and given feedback and assessment on a more regular basis, they
    are apt to be able to change and make those adaptations that
    are going to save the taxpayer money. So that is what we are
    attempting to do through this whole evaluation--Chief
    Evaluation Officer.
        And I think that all government, rightfully so, should be
    doing the same thing. I know that the President strongly
    believes in that. That is why we are supporting this budget
    request.
        Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Rehberg. Ms. Lee.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.

                            SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

        First, let me just say, our best economic policy to reduce
    the deficit, we all know, is to invest in job creation. Also,
    if we didn't have these huge tax cuts for the very wealthy, we
    would have the resources that we need to fund education and
    training and infrastructure and what the American people need
    and deserve. And, you know, so I just think we need to really--
    this committee should really begin to look at really what our
    priorities should be, in terms of, you know, our investments on
    behalf of the American people.
        You know, let me just give you an example. With the teen
    unemployment rate--and we should have addressed this many,
    many, many years ago. It is an unbelievable high rate of 23
    percent. And African American teens are unemployed at the rate
    of 34.7 percent.
        Summer jobs and employment opportunities for our youth
    really help them become taxpayers and help them become good
    citizens who want to help in terms of their community and help
    reignite, really, the American dream for everyone.
        In Oakland, in my district, we are trying to use summer
    jobs and other initiatives not only to employ our youth but
    also to keep them out of trouble. I mean, young people need
    some alternatives. Again, that is, I think, a very prudent and
    wise investment on behalf of our Federal Government.
        Prior to the Recovery Act, there was not a dedicated
    funding stream for summer jobs. But through the very
    successful--and it was very successful--$1.2 billion youth
    activity stimulus, 300,000 summer jobs were created in 2009.
    This allowed our young people to develop job skills, become
    job-ready, and they paid taxes. And so, again, we invested in
    that effort, and our young people, those 300,000 young people,
    paid taxes.
        So with teen unemployment rates what they are now, it is
    clear that we need again to target funds for youth summer jobs
    and also year-round jobs for our young people. So let me just
    ask you how your budget addresses this issue. Because, once
    again, going to our economic policies, we know that job
    creation really helps reduce the deficit and helps young people
    become productive taxpayers.
        Secretary Solis. Well, as you know, Congresswoman, there
    wasn't a particular language that existed for many years that
    was dedicated solely for summer youth employment. Those days
    have since gone. And the President, with your help and others
    in the Congress, were able to dedicate funding in the Recovery
    Act, $1.2 billion, to help put over 300,000 young people to
    work.
        We know that through our own programs we do have the
    availability to help provide assistance year-round, and we
    attempt to do that through different programs. And one that I
    think you should be aware of is the Summer Jobs Plus program.
    It is a voluntary program because we don't have dedicated
    funding.
        You have fought time and time again to get a stream of
    funding for youth employment, and I know how valuable that is.
    Unfortunately, we didn't get the support of the Congress. So we
    decided on our own, through our own initiative, to help solicit
    support from private agencies and corporations. We were able
    last year to set aside about 80,000 job slots.
        This year, the President is behind the initiative. There is
    no Federal money because Congress hasn't acted yet. We hope
    that they will. Our goal is to create about 250,000, roughly,
    slots available. That is not nearly enough where we need to go.
        But there is participation. People like Jamba Juice, out
    your way, are hiring up--are looking to hire up people in San
    Francisco. But, also, because they have taken a liking to what
    we are doing and the results because they are finding trained
    staff and individuals from our Job Corps program, now they want
    to partner with us and spread this program throughout the
    country.
        So we have different corporations who are coming out, who
    are stepping up to the plate. But we know that isn't good
    enough; we need to do more. And that is why the President is
    also asking in his initiative for Pathways Back to Work, which
    would address summer youth and year-long unemployment for young
    people. It would actually put about $2 billion in for year-
    round funding for youth.

                               JOB CORPS CLOSURES

        Ms. Lee. And, Madam Secretary, on Job Corps closures, can
    you just explain the process you all are going through? Because
    some are being closed, which I am quite disturbed about. And I
    want to make sure these young people do not lose an opportunity
    through the Job Corps centers, which do wonderful work.
        Secretary Solis. There will be a rigorous evaluation.
    Nothing has been set in writing. We will use the same criteria
    that they are supposed to be adhering to now. We know that
    there are some low-performing centers.
        But if there are any centers that are closed, those
    remaining students then will be sent to other operating Job
    Corps programs. And that is really what our agenda is, to try
    to get these programs up to speed, make sure they are complying
    with their contractual agreements.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you.
        Mr. Rehberg. Ms. Lowey.
        Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I want to thank you again, Madam Secretary, for your
    extraordinary work. We are very proud of you.
        I would like to emphasize again the Bureau of International
    Labor Affairs and highlight your request for an increase of
    $2.6 million for the Bureau of International Labor Affairs'
    efforts on behalf of worker rights. We must ensure that our
    trading partners enforce the labor-rights provisions of their
    own laws, as well as our trade agreements, to protect our
    workforce. We cannot allow our trade partners to undercut
    American workers by exploiting their workers overseas,
    including exploiting child labor, to undercut wages.
        I want to make one other comment, because, having been on
    the Appropriations Committee for many years with my colleagues,
    the purpose of the Appropriations Committee and these hearings
    is to go through the whole budget and try to make it as
    efficient as we can and cut out waste, cut out fraud, cut out
    programs that don't make any sense today. And we understand
    that.
        I am just as concerned--it is a concern on both sides of
    the aisle--with our current deficit and our long-range debt.
    And we have to deal with it seriously. And my friends on both
    sides of the aisle may have different views as to the best way
    to get to that goal.
        But I would also like to put in the record that Wyoming
    received $669 million in subsidies from 1995 to 2009. That is
    also money borrowed from China. For example: disaster payments,
    $167,047,586; Conservation Reserve Program, $125,690,122; wheat
    subsidies, $86,900,699; livestock subsidies, $78,050,344; corn
    subsidies, $65,437,054; barley subsidies, $38,749,605; wool
    subsidies, $20,644,909; sugar beet subsidies, $7,099,085; et
    cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
        And I just want to make it clear that my friend and I come
    from different parts of the country, so some States may put
    more focus on certain needs, and I am very happy to support
    them if they are necessary. But I know a lot of kids who can't
    go to college because when there was a proposal of cutting $845
    million from Pell Grants--and fortunately they were not cut,
    they are working two, three jobs. And I visit these community
    colleges; these kids wouldn't be going to college without it.
    Worker training programs--I can go on and on.
        And the investments that we make in these programs with
    this committee, and why I am so proud to serve on this
    committee, are essential. Yes, we have to go through every line
    in the budget. But I think we have to respect the needs--corn
    subsidies, other subsidies, as well as many of us care
    passionately about investing in our young people, making sure
    they are getting the education, making sure they get the
    training that is necessary to prepare for the future, and make
    sure that every child has the opportunity to fulfill their
    dreams and meet their goals.
        And I just wanted to close with that and thank you again
    for your important work. And hopefully on both sides of the
    aisle we can respect the needs of the populations that may be
    different, but we want to make sure all our children have that
    opportunity to succeed.
        And thank you very much.
        Secretary Solis. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        I just want to say, with the ILAB funding, we are focusing
    in now on our trade agreements. As you know, three were passed;
    we had bipartisan support.
        We have a lot of work to do on the ground. And so our
    emphasis and focus is to look at how we can help impart our
    knowledge, our expertise, our technical assistance. We even
    have people right now on the ground in Colombia to help them
    restructure their labor agreements and also help them
    understand what judicial protocols need to be put in place. So
    we are doing a lot of technical, you know, advances in that
    way.
        Overall, it helps us because then we can kind of level the
    playing field in terms of trade and also allow for good
    businesses that want to export their items, that we know--or
    import them, when we are importing them--that we know we are
    not getting them because of slave labor or abuses that are
    happening in other countries.
        Mr. Rehberg. Mr. Alexander.
        Oh, okay. I just want to point out in the summer employment
    and when we talk about borrowing money from China, I don't know
    if you remember the hearing from last year but we talked about
    specifically the information that we received from Wisconsin
    about their summer employment. And of those youth that gained
    employment, it cost $90,000 per position, per employee. And so
    that is probably one of the reasons that we are as hard on the
    appropriations and borrowed money.
        The last----
        Secretary Solis. Mr. Chairman, that was corrected for the
    record, is my understanding. That is not a correct document,
    and that was corrected for the record.
        Mr. Rehberg. I will take a look, and I apologize if I am
    wrong. I was not made aware that that was corrected for the
    record. I am using my memory, which can be wrong sometimes.

                                I2P2 REGULATIONS

        However, last year, as you know, the bill I introduced in
    the House prohibited any further development of the I2P2
    regulation. And in discussing small businesses' position on
    regulation and over-regulation, I guess I am a little shocked,
    because every small-business organization that I talk to, in
    fact I belong to the NFIB and the Chamber of Commerce and such,
    suggest that there is a problem with many of the regulations,
    especially as they are coming out of the Department of Labor.
        And so I guess I am thinking back to 1998 and the panel
    that was created; SBREFA I think was the name of the panel. And
    they came up with the conclusion that many of the regulations
    that were coming out were onerous and cost-prohibitive. And I
    understand that under the new regulation that is being crafted
    that I tried to keep from happening in the last go-around,
    another recommendation of creating a panel similar to or called
    SBREFA is going to be reestablished, or established again.
        And I guess my question is, what did OSHA--how are they
    going to do something different? Are they going to find a
    different conclusion? Did they consider the recommendations of
    small business or the panel from the last time? Again, what is
    going to be different----
        Secretary Solis. Mr. Chairman, we haven't proposed any
    regulation. And, at this time, we are not putting anything
    forward.
        Mr. Rehberg. So there will be no SBREFA panel, nothing in
    that----
        Secretary Solis. Well, we are not moving in any direction
    right now. So we are in a hold pattern right now.
        Mr. Rehberg. Okay.
        I would also like to ask you about the Governors' Reserve.
    And in the last budget, I believe it started out at a 15
    percent reserve. And I had suggested at the time and in our
    bill that we lower that to 10, just because of the balance that
    was being carried forward, the billion dollars. And I had
    thought and assumed that that would be a one-time thing. The
    Senate cut it down even further to 5 percent, and I see now
    your recommendation is at 5 percent.
        My question is, have you gone out and asked the users? Have
    you talked to the States? What kind of reaction----
        Secretary Solis. We have. Yes, we have, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rehberg. And the National Governors Association is
    supportive of changing this down to 5 percent?
        Secretary Solis. Well, they obviously are not in full
    agreement. But we do know that, when we look back at the usage
    of that set-aside, there were many Governors in the past that
    were just sitting on that amount of money instead of utilizing
    it when they could have been doing other things with it.
        Mr. Rehberg. I realize that. And that was part of why we
    suggested at the time a reduction from the 15 to 10. But,
    again, as I stated, that was to clear up that balance, telling
    the States--and not suggesting or recommending or making the
    States, mandating that they spend the money, but it was made
    available to them. You now have moved it to a different
    element, and you have made permanent what we suggested as a
    temporary cleaning up of the account.
        Secretary Solis. And I guess it is good, because we are
    utilizing that additional money and plowing it back into the
    programs that we know it is really needed in.
        So I think that is what the tradeoff is here. And I think
    it is a good one. Because we are hearing so much right now in
    this economic crisis that there has to be more training made
    available, and employers need to find individuals that are
    skilled up. The only way we can do that is if we can operate
    and function and provide the training that is necessary.
        Mr. Rehberg. I found your initial answer to my question
    particularly interesting, because I asked you the question--
    maybe I phrased it wrong--did you go out and talk to the
    Governors and you said yes.
        Secretary Solis. We did.
        Mr. Rehberg. The second part of it was, do they agree, and
    you said no. So thank you for at least----
        Secretary Solis. Not all of them. Not all of them.
        Mr. Rehberg [continuing]. Asking them the question. I am
    sorry you didn't accept their recommendation. And, once again,
    I think it is a mistake to make it a permanent reduction. But
    we will deal with that in the executive session of the
    subcommittee, as well.
        I probably need to go to Ms. DeLauro.

                                  RYAN BUDGET

        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Just a couple of points and then a couple of questions.
        I guess we really don't care if we borrow from China if we
    are going to provide, as the Ryan budget does, $150,000 in a
    tax cut to the richest 1 percent or so of folks in the United
    States. So there we don't worry about China.
        Also, I think it is interesting to note that we are looking
    at a Ryan budget that is $19 billion below an agreement that we
    really all signed on to, and now the majority has reneged on
    that agreement. And then, interestingly enough, there is an
    $897 billion pot of cuts to nondefense discretionary programs
    which the other side will not fess up to. They won't point out
    what it is, what it is about.
        More interesting than that is, none of that money is going
    to deficit reduction so that we would have the opportunity to
    not have to borrow from China. But it is going to the tax cuts
    for the richest 1 percent of the people in this Nation. So the
    record should remain, you know, clear as to what we are talking
    about here.
        Madam Secretary, let me ask you, given that unemployment
    levels are nearly 13 percent for workers who are over the age
    of 25, with less than a high school degree, one out of every
    seven workers does not have the basic literacy skills necessary
    to succeed in the industries of tomorrow, what is the
    Department doing to identify and replicate successful
    community-based adult literacy programs and partner them with
    complementary training programs in local workforce investment
    areas to ensure that our lowest-level adults do not continue to
    fall behind on the economic ladder? Keeping in mind, as well,
    that in the 2011 budget every literacy program was eliminated.
        So what are we dealing with in terms of low-skilled
    workers?
        Secretary Solis. Well, we continue to address these issues
    through several of our programs, and you are familiar with
    them. One is the Job Corps program. You know, those are for
    students that are at risk, that perhaps failed in getting a GED
    or a high school education.
        Ms. DeLauro. I applaud you for looking at those and
    reviewing them.
        Secretary Solis. And reviewing them and tightening them up.
        Also, with the YouthBuild program, expanding what they can
    do, not just in construction, but now IT, getting credentials
    there, apprenticeship, pre-apprenticeship programs, and also
    looking at continuing and renewable energy. So those are things
    we are looking at to address that.
        We also know that we are working a lot closer with the
    Department of Education and their vocational and adult
    education programs. Because many employers are asking us, we
    have a workforce that has maybe less than an 8th-grade
    education. So we have to be able to address our programs so
    that we can readily work with people on the assembly line, so
    we can apply that skill, that education as immediately as
    needed.
        And the President is also talking about rebranding or
    reshaping how we do services for TAA and dislocated workers. So
    we are coupling those two programs, what we know works best,
    and putting that out. And we think that that is going to help
    to provide more of a seamless and more wraparound services for
    these hard-to-place individuals.
        So that is exactly what the Congress has been telling us,
    and now we are proposing to put that forward. So those are
    proposals that may not directly come before this committee, but
    I know that they are being talked about right now.
        Ms. DeLauro. Just a quick point on that forum that I had
    with community colleges and business and industry. One of the
    points that was made by both groups was this whole issue of
    literacy and coming prepared. And the community colleges were
    aware that that is what they have to try to do, as well. And
    the industry folks are saying, if we have those skills, then we
    don't have to reinvent that wheel and we can move forward.
        Secretary Solis. Right. Right.
        Ms. DeLauro. Backlog of mine safety citation appeals--I
    know the Department is working to reduce the backlog.
        Secretary Solis. Uh-huh.
        Ms. DeLauro. I also understand that coal mine operators
    have been appealing a larger percentage of the citations they
    receive.
        Well, I want to ask a question, and I am hopeful that we--I
    don't know what the chairman's plan is, but if we could go
    back, I want to ask a question on that.
        Mr. Rehberg. If we have time. We will end the meeting at 12
    o'clock. So we will do everything we possibly can. If people
    will shorten their questions.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
        Mr. Rehberg. You betcha.
        Ms. DeLauro. I will get back to that.
        Mr. Rehberg. Okay.
        Mr. Alexander.
        Mr. Alexander. Did Ms. Lummis ask her question a while ago?
        He called on you a little earlier. Did you ask your
    question?
        Mr. Rehberg. She hasn't had the opportunity. But if you
    want to go ahead, then--go ahead.
        Mr. Alexander. Madam Secretary, a little earlier you said
    that there was something like 12,000 young people, I believe
    was the number you used, somewhere around----
        Secretary Solis. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Alexander [continuing]. That were hurt on farming
    operations. Do we have any idea how many children are injured
    in that same age range outside farming territory?
        Secretary Solis. I don't have that information, but I am
    sure we can provide it to you. I was actually citing a study by
    the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics that put that
    out.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Alexander. Well, I was just wondering how far we were
    going to go, to restricting bicycle riders on sidewalks, et
    cetera.
        Secretary Solis. I don't have any intention of going in
    that direction.
        Mr. Alexander. Okay.

                       DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVES

        In December of last year, your office issued a rule that
    would require Federal Government contractors to employ at least
    7 percent of their workforce with people with disabilities. Is
    that 7 percent--where did that number come from?
        It is interesting, I find that the same rules apply to your
    office of 2 percent, but yet the report showed that only 1.8
    percent of the Department of Labor employees are with
    disabilities.
        Secretary Solis. We are actually looking at a proposed
    rule, if that is what you are talking about. And we are looking
    at trying to enhance the employability of people with
    disabilities.
        So we know that there are several ongoing initiatives that
    the administration is taking on. One is to get Federal
    Government to do that, but also employers. And so our attempt
    here is to make available information, get information also
    from employers to see what the impediments are, why we can't
    hire up more disabled individuals.
        This is really important, especially as we see returning
    veterans coming home that are injured, that are being
    discriminated against because of these injuries. And we want to
    try to make that available, so we are trying to educate. And
    that is what our proposed rule would do, to help provide
    importance access for these communities that are affected.
        Mr. Alexander. Well, in some way we are going to have to
    tweak the law, because it is against the law now for an
    employer to ask an individual or potential employee if they are
    disabled. Isn't that correct?
        Secretary Solis. Well, we know that there is a higher rate
    of unemployment in this community. So the evidence shows that
    we have a long way to go. There is discrimination that is going
    on.
        Mr. Alexander. Okay.
        Mr. Rehberg. Ms. Roybal-Allard.
        Okay. Mrs. Lummis.
        Mrs. Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As an aside, I find it kind of interesting about this
    apparent battle of the States. This isn't about what States
    get. This is about what the Federal taxpayers are getting for
    their money. You know, New Yorkers get $9,000 per participant
    on Medicaid. Wyoming people get $6,300 per participant on
    Medicaid. So, you know, if that makes folks feel better, you
    know, I am happy about it. Besides, I think we should cut farm
    subsidy programs, too, you know.
        So this isn't about--and, really, farmers in Wyoming say,
    ``We accept that. We know we are in a financial crisis. We are
    willing to phase those out because this is a financial
    crisis.'' So I am asking questions in the context of a
    financial crisis that we are in. This country is in a financial
    crisis.
        So, Secretary Solis, this isn't personal. You know, I am
    not trying to attack you. I am trying to attack a financial
    crisis that our country is in. And I am attacking it in every
    committee for every group that gets money that we borrow from
    other countries. That is just my philosophy.
        And I do intend to share some questions with you for the
    record on the H-2A program. You have been issuing some guidance
    letters, which you have the authority to do and that
    constituents find helpful. Sometimes I hear reports of
    inconsistent enforcement, and I will just make you aware of
    those in a letter. And we can address those separate and apart
    from this.
        Secretary Solis. Okay. Thank you.
        Mrs. Lummis. The other thing I have is kind of an aside to
    you, as well, because the President's budget includes a new $8
    billion in mandatory spending over a period of years for
    community colleges and business partnerships. And they have
    worked wonderfully in Wyoming. I do welcome the
    administration's renewed focus on community college
    partnerships. Gosh, we have some fabulous partnerships in
    Wyoming. I don't think we can afford a new $8 billion in
    mandatory spending, just as an aside.
        Question: Did you at any point consider pursuing this
    initiative within the $16 billion we already spend every year
    on workforce training?
        Secretary Solis. The President has made this proposal
    because we know already from our experience with the TAA
    community college program that there are some good things
    working there. And this is a way to help expand that so that we
    could have a more robust--how could I say--stimulus for our
    community colleges, working in partnership with businesses.
        Because the difficulty here is that we are finding from
    employers is that we don't have a skills match here, that we
    have to do a better job about that. And right now, as you know,
    many of our States don't have sufficient funding. They are
    cutting back in my State, in California, right now with
    community colleges. They are turning away people at the State
    system, as well. So, there is a ripple effect going on.
        And we are trying to leverage the money the best way we
    can. We think community colleges do a good job. In fact, your
    Senator there has been terrific. He has been outstanding in
    helping us work with your State to make sure that we make those
    good connections and that we are hitting those areas that are
    harder to serve, especially rural America and inner-city
    places, where we know that the incidence of high unemployment
    remains. And it is getting that skill set and availability,
    making sure that investments are also happening.
        So if there is an industry that wants to come into your
    area but they don't have the workforce, we can want to couple,
    we want to partner with them, we want to make sure the
    community college is on the ground doing that. Right now they
    don't have the flexibility to do that because they don't have
    the availability of funding to do that. So we are targeting
    what little we can make available.
        Mrs. Lummis. Okay.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rehberg. Thank you.
        I am always trying to catch staff in either a mistake or
    something. And staff does not recollect any change in the
    record of the numbers that I was referring to before. And so,
    if it is available, I would like that----
        Secretary Solis. Certainly.
        Mr. Rehberg  [continuing]. Perhaps by close of business
    today.
        Secretary Solis. Certainly.
        Mr. Rehberg. It was a Wisconsin study. It was their
    numbers. And that would be a substantive change in the
    transcript of the subcommittee's work if that, in fact, was
    incorrect. And I would like that right away, if I could,
    please.
        [The information follows:]

        DOL CLARIFICATION: The Department provided the information
    to the subcommittee March 28, 2012, the same day as requested.
    This submission included information provided in the FY 2012
    hearing transcript. In part, the FY 2012 information included
    this paragraph:
        In addition, specific to Wisconsin which was discussed in
    the hearing, the WIA Youth Recovery Act allotment for Wisconsin
    was $13,808,812 and their number of youth that participated in
    summer employment under the Recovery Act was 4,386, for a cost
    per summer employment participant of $3,148 or slightly below
    the national average.

                      THIRD PARTY EVALUATION OF JOB CORPS

        I can be as supportive and, at the same time, critical of
    Job Corps as anyone out there. And so I guess I am a little
    concerned, as I see the budget request that substantively
    changes from residential to nonresidential, it changes the
    aegis.
        And in fiscal 2011 we asked for a third-party evaluation.
    And I guess the question becomes, where are we in that 30-month
    evaluation? Was this recommendation of closing these
    underperforming Job Corps centers based upon the criteria
    within that third-party study?
        Secretary Solis. Well, we are right now looking at
    contractors to fulfill that. So that is ongoing right now.
        Mr. Rehberg. So the study is not done? So the
    recommendations are being made before the third-party 30-month
    evaluation is complete?
        Secretary Solis. No, we are--we are looking at all our
    information and our data. Preliminary findings are what is
    driving our decision.
        Mr. Rehberg. Are these federally owned or contracted
    private facilities? And I guess then, as part of that
    evaluation, is there a consideration----
        Secretary Solis. We are looking at every sector and their
    performance overall. So we are looking at that.
        And I know that, you know, there is a great concern, as was
    reiterated here on this committee, about the use of taxpayer
    dollars. So we want to make sure that we are actually doing the
    right thing and that we are actually not allowing for people
    who have been in this particular industry to somehow feel that
    we are not going to be hunkering down and looking to evaluate
    their usefulness and utility of the funding that they have.
        We found that there have been in issues in the past. We are
    trying to correct those. We are trying to get the bad actors
    out. At the same time, we are trying to make sure that we have
    opportunities for small businesses to enter into these
    agreements, too.
        That is something that is provocative, that we are actually
    saying, let's cut up those contracts, make it more efficient,
    so we can have more accessible information from those
    contractors as opposed to just the large ones that have been
    doing this for many, many years.
        Mr. Rehberg. And I applaud you. I agree, I think you ought
    to look for every opportunity for cost savings. It is just, my
    concern is--and I hate to phrase, things like ``win-win'' or
    ``cart before the horse'' or ``lipstick on a pig''--but it just
    seems like the cart is before the horse here if the evaluation
    has not been done and these recommendations were made without
    showing criteria as to which centers are going to be closed and
    why----
        Secretary Solis. We will be happy to work with you. As I
    said, we don't have any proposed number that we are already
    going to be, you know, terminating. That is not what this is
    about. We will be looking at criteria that has been in place
    already. And we are going to look at low-performing criteria.
    We are going to look to see where people have made an
    improvement, and hopefully work to give them the information
    that they need.
        This has been an ongoing process. They get information and
    feedback on a regular basis anyhow. And I don't understand--you
    know, our attempt here is really to make these programs more
    effective. And some we know have done better jobs than others.
    In your State, perhaps you have some really good ones; in other
    States, that might not be the case.
        Mr. Rehberg. Can you tell me the thought process of going
    from the--prioritizing the 20- to 24-year-olds rather than kind
    of changing directions from the high-priority 16-, 17----
        Secretary Solis. The evidence shows that we have better
    results with an older population. But that doesn't mean that
    everything is in stone. We are talking about evolving and doing
    this. So we would be happy to work with you and also the
    stakeholders, who I know are very concerned about this.
        Mr. Rehberg. Do you know when the third-party evaluation is
    going to be done?
        Secretary Solis. Probably in early 2014, in fiscal year
    2014. And I would be happy to have my Assistant Secretary, who
    is here with me today, talk with you at more length and detail
    after this hearing, at another time.
        Mr. Rehberg. Okay. Great. Thank you.
        Ms. DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Before I get to that question, just a couple of points. I
    am sorry Mr. Alexander is not here, but just for the record,
    agriculture has the second-highest fatality rate among young
    workers, more than five times the average for all industries.
    And the citation is the Journal of the American Medical
    Association. I think that is important, and I will find Mr.
    Alexander to let him know that.
        I think that colleagues who are concerned about the
    financial situation that we have should take a very hard look
    at this Ryan budget and make a determination as to whether or
    not they can, in fact, support what would be a gift of $150,000
    in tax cuts to the richest 1 percent of the people in this
    country.
        And I want to just applaud the chairman. I am delighted to
    see, you know, your interest in the Job Corps and success of
    the Job Corps. I have been a long-time supporter of Job Corps.
    New Haven has one that is really absolutely superior. But I
    know you had some questions last year about Job Corps, Mr.
    Chairman, but pleased to see that you are thinking that they
    play a useful--a very useful role.

                          MINE SAFETY CITATION APPEALS

        Let me get to the backlog of mine safety citation appeals.
    As I said, the Department is working to reduce the huge backlog
    of the citations that are pending at the Federal Mine Safety
    and Health Review Commission. As I understand it, coal mine
    operators have been appealing a larger percentage of citations
    they receive, and the backlog of cases pending before the
    review commission has increased from 3,000 in 2006 to 18,000 at
    the end of the 2010.
        This is a serious problem. As long as the appeal remains
    pending, the violation does not count for triggering various
    enhanced enforcement powers intended for repeat or serious
    violations of mine safety laws.
        Congress provided supplemental appropriations in 2010 to
    bring more judges and law clerks to the review commission and
    more staff at the Labor Department to handle the cases. What is
    the progress being made to draw down on the backlog?
        Secretary Solis. First of all, I want to thank the
    committee and the Congress for making significant investments
    in this area to reduce the backlog. That is something that has
    been long overdue, and we are attempting to do that. The
    supplemental funding that you provided would allow us to scale
    back, you know--actually, to hopefully address that backlog.
        And what we are doing now is trying to really target and
    home in on what we call the backlog behind the backlog. So we
    are using new techniques, because we are finding that there are
    so many coming about now because of our recent inspections,
    that we are even doing a better job there. And we are going to
    attempt to do that with the funding that we have available.
        But let me just tell you, with the supplemental funding
    that you gave us, we closed nearly two-thirds of the targeted
    backlog already. This amounts to closing 7,000 open dockets and
    includes more than 39,000 violations. And as of the end of
    2011, we closed more than 80 percent of our open dockets in the
    targeted backlog, and we have begun to make significant
    progress.
        But I would say the bottom line for us, Congresswoman and
    members of the committee, is that we really do need to have
    better enforcement tools. And I know that there has been much
    debate and there has been support for legislation to help us
    have better tools that are more sophisticated and more up to
    date.
        So I would continue to urge the Congress, yourself and
    others that care about this issue, to put forward again that
    legislation that was introduced by Members of the House that
    could help provide the tools that we need. We know that we have
    a long way to go, but this area has been neglected for many,
    many years. And just by putting money in right now, you are not
    going to see the kind of immediate results that we all want,
    but it will happen over time.
        But we have to have better tools, and we have to have more
    enforcement, and we have to have higher penalties. If not, you
    are going to continue to see groups like Massey get away with
    the killing of 29 miners. And it could have been prevented, but
    you had malicious individuals that really misconstrued and used
    the laws to their advantage and kept our system--how could I
    say--hung up in this backlog, purposely, by contesting these
    appeals. And that is what happens when you don't have clarity
    of legislation.
        Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Chairman, let me ask you, I am assuming
    that this is--it is almost 5 of. I just have one other point
    that I wanted to make, and I don't know if Ms. Roybal-Allard
    has any further questions.
        Mr. Rehberg. Go ahead.

                                   SKILLS GAP

        Ms. DeLauro. So, if I can, because I am very, very excited
    about what is being done with regard to the community college
    efforts and your relationship with them. I wanted to just say
    that I was fascinated when I did this community forum, because
    the whole issue of skills gap came up, which is why I applaud
    the additional funding in this instance to foster this model
    for training and for employment.
        These are not my words. A 2011 poll of owners of fast-
    growing, privately held U.S. companies undertaken by the
    nonprofit Kauffman Foundation said that the inability to find
    qualified workers was cited as the biggest obstacle to growth.
    Some 40 percent of respondents said that they were being held
    back by the skills gap, compared with 13 percent by lack of
    demand.
        We have, October 2011, DeLoitte and the National
    Association of Manufacturers: U.S. manufacturers have 600,000
    unfilled positions because of a lack of qualified skilled
    workers.
        Eric Spiegel, American CEO of Siemens Corporation, has been
    on news programs where he said there are at least 3,200 jobs
    that his company has been unable to fill because suitable
    workers can't be found despite a vigorous recruitment program.
    He said, this is not so in Germany, where students right out of
    high school are trained as apprentices, even as they attend
    regular classes, to prepare for the global economy.
        We are going to have 2 million job openings in
    manufacturing nationally through 2018, mostly due to baby-
    boomer retirement. And that is according to the Center on
    Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University.
        What are you proposing and what has the President outlined
    as a direction to move on this partnership----
        Secretary Solis. To train 2 million people.
        Ms. DeLauro. Two million people for jobs in this country,
    at a time when we have 12.8 million people unemployed.
        And this is not a 4-year program, an 8-year program. This
    is saying to the industry, like what Joe Carbone has done in
    New Haven--and the chairman heard from Joe--is that an 8-week
    training course with the industry participation is what it
    looks like. They committed to hire 100 people at the end of
    that process, that is the direction.
        I applaud you for what you doing. Thank you for being here
    this morning and for your public service.
        Secretary Solis. Thank you.
        Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Rehberg. Again, thank you for appearing before the
    committee. We will give your budget all due consideration. And,
    as always, the record is open for 14 days for any of the
    Members, and I hope that you and your staff will answer in a
    timely fashion.
        Mr. Rehberg. Again, thanks for being here today.
        Secretary Solis. Absolutely. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman and the ranking member and the committee members
    overall.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]