    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

            INCLUSION IN TECH: HOW DIVERSITY BENEFITS ALL AMERICANS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION AND COMMERCE

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 6, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-13

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                       govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                            energycommerce.house.gov
                                 _________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    37-565 PDF               WASHINGTON : 2020

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                         FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                     Chairman
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
    MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
    G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
    KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
    JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
    YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
        Chair                            BILLY LONG, Missouri
    DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                BILL FLORES, Texas
    JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
        Massachusetts                    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    TONY CARDENAS, California            RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    RAUL RUIZ, California                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
    MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
    ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
    ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
    A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
    LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
    DARREN SOTO, Florida
    TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                     ------

                               Professional Staff

                       JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                    TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                    MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
                Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce

                            JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
                                    Chairwoman
    KATHY CASTOR, Florida                CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
    MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                  Ranking Member
    ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois             FRED UPTON, Michigan
    TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    TONY CARDENAS, California, Vice      BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
        Chair                            LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware       RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    DARREN SOTO, Florida                 EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California          GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
    JERRY McNERNEY, California
    DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
        officio)

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Jan Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Hon. Tony Cardenas, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, prepared statement..............................     3
    Hon. Robin L. Kelly, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, prepared statement................................     4
    Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Washington, opening statement.....................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, prepared statement................................    10
    Hon. Richard Hudson, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of North Carolina, opening statement...........................    10

                                   Witnesses

    Mark S. Luckie, Digital Media Strategist and Former Manager,
      Twitter and Facebook...........................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   150
    Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Ph.D., President, University of Maine........    23
        Prepared statement...........................................    25
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   152
    Jiny Kim, Vice President, Policy and Programs, Asian Americans
      Advancing Justice..............................................    34
        Prepared statement \1\.......................................    36
    Nicol Turner Lee, Ph.D., Fellow, Center for Technology
      Innovation, Governance Studies, Brookings Institution..........    43
        Prepared statement...........................................    45
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   154
    Natalie Oliverio, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Military
      Talent Partners................................................    63
        Prepared statement...........................................    64
        Answers to submitted questions \2\...........................   156
    Jill Houghton, President and Chief Executive Officer,
      Disability:IN..................................................    68
        Prepared statement \3\.......................................    70
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   159

    ----------

    \1\ A February 2017 report entitled ``Breaking the Mold:
      Investing in Racial Diversity in Tech'' has been retained in
      committee files and also is available as part of Ms. Kim's
      written testimony at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/
      20190306/108901/HHRG-116-IF17-Wstate-KimJ-20190306.pdf.
    \2\ Ms. Oliverio did not answer submitted questions for the
      record by the time of publication.
    \3\ A report entitled ``The 2018 Disability Equality Index: A
      Record Year for Corporate Disability Inclusion and Leadership''
      has been retained in committee files and also is available as
      part of Ms. Houghton's written testimony at https://
      docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20190306/108901/HHRG-116-IF17-
      Wstate-HoughtonJ-20190306.pdf.
    David Lopez, Co-Dean, Rutgers Law School-Newark..................    74
        Prepared statement...........................................    76
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   162

                               Submitted Material

    Article of July 26, 2018, ``Amazon's Facial Recognition Wrongly
      Identifies 28 Lawmakers, A.C.L.U. Says,'' by Natasha Singer,
      The New York Times, submitted by Mr. Rush......................   124
    Letter of March 6, 2019, from Marc H. Morial, President and Chief
      Executive Officer, National Urban League, to Ms. Schakowsky and
      Mrs. Rodgers, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky......................   128
    Letter of March 5, 2019, from Marc Rotenberg, President, and
      Caitriona Fitzgerald, Policy Director, Electronic Privacy
      Information Center, to Ms. Schakowsky and Mrs. Rodgers,
      submitted by Ms. Schakowsky....................................   130
    Letter of March 5, 2019, from Sean Perryman, Director of
      Diversity and Inclusion Policy & Counsel, Internet Association,
      to Ms. Schakowsky and Mrs. Rodgers, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky   134
    Statement of Jennifer Huddleston, Research Fellow, Mercatus
      Center at George Mason University, March 6, 2019, submitted by
      Ms. Schakowsky.................................................   136
    Letter of March 5, 2019, from Maxine Williams, Chief Diversity
      Officer, Facebook, Inc., to Mr. Pallone, et al., submitted by
      Ms. Schakowsky.................................................   140
    Letter, undated, from Hon. Maxine Waters, a Representative in
      Congress from the State of California, to Mr. Pallone,
      submitted by Ms. Schakowsky....................................   146
    Blog post of February 27, 2018, ``Expanding Apprenticeship
      Program Across the Country to Hire more Veterans,'' by Paul
      Marchand, Executive Vice President, Human Resources, Charter
      Communications, submitted by Ms. Schakowsky....................   148

            INCLUSION IN TECH: HOW DIVERSITY BENEFITS ALL AMERICANS

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2019

                      House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:33 a.m., in
    the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
    Hon. Jan Schakowsky (chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Schakowsky, Castor,
    Veasey, Kelly, O'Halleran, Lujan, Cardenas, Blunt Rochester,
    Soto, Rush, Matsui, McNerney, Dingell, Pallone (ex officio),
    Rodgers (subcommittee ranking member), Latta, Guthrie, Bucshon,
    Hudson, Carter, and Gianforte.
        Also present: Representatives Butterfield and Clarke.
        Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Evan
    Gilbert, Press Assistant; Lisa Goldman, Counsel; Waverly
    Gordon, Deputy Chief Counsel; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Chief Counsel,
    Communications and Technology; Meghan Mullon, Staff Assistant;
    Joe Orlando, Staff Assistant; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel;
    Chloe Rodriguez, Policy Analyst; Melissa Froelich, Minority
    Chief Counsel, Consumer Protection and Commerce; Peter Kielty,
    Minority General Counsel; Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Counsel,
    Consumer Protection and Commerce; Brannon Rains, Minority Staff
    Assistant; and Nate Wilkins, Minority Fellow.
        Ms. Schakowsky. The Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and
    Commerce will now come to order.
        I am going to say good morning, and thank you all for
    joining us today.
        And I will recognize myself first for 5 minutes with an
    opening statement.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAN SCHAKOWSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Once again, good morning to everybody. Thank you to our
    witnesses.
        Today, we are meeting to discuss an important issue, the
    lack of diversity in the tech workforce. As the presence of
    technology continues to play a larger and larger role in all of
    our lives, industry's workforce has remained largely
    homogeneous. People of color, women, and older Americans have
    all been notably absent from the tech workforce, and the
    corresponding problem that that creates has been that the
    technology itself reflects that lack of diversity. And I want
    to hear about that today.
        This has real impact on Americans. We have seen algorithms
    biased against sentencing guidelines, resulting in harsher
    sentences for minorities. We have seen that automatic soap
    dispensers sometimes fail to recognize the hands of African
    Americans and Latinos--imagine that--who are seeking to use the
    product to wash their hands. These may seem like two opposite
    sides of the spectrum as far as harm, but they both clearly
    demonstrate that something is amiss.
        Simply put, diverse voices are lacking in the tech
    workforce. Moreover, diverse startups are facing difficulty
    competing with the large multinational technology companies. It
    strikes me that unfair business practices and extreme market
    concentration in tech may, in fact, perpetuate the bias and the
    old boys' club, or actually the young boys' club, that we are
    examining today. This lack of diversity in the workforce has
    real-life impact on consumers, and I thank our panel for coming
    here to discuss this very important issue.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Schakowsky follows:]

                   Prepared statement of Hon. Jan Schakowsky

        Good morning and thank you all for joining us today. Today,
    we are meeting to discuss an important issue, diversity in the
    tech workforce. As the presence of technology continues to play
    a larger and larger role in Americans' lives, the industry's
    workforce has remained largely homogenous. People of color,
    women, and older Americans have all been notably absent from
    the tech workforce.
        This has real impacts on Americans--we have seen
    algorithmic bias impact sentencing guidelines, resulting in
    harsher sentences for minorities. We have seen soap dispensers
    fail to recognize the hands of African Americans and Latinos
    seeking to use the product to wash their hands. These may seem
    like two opposite sides of the spectrum, as far as harm, but
    they both clearly demonstrate that something is amiss.
        Simply put, diverse voices are lacking in the tech
    workforce. It strikes me that unfair business practices and
    extreme market concentration in tech may in fact perpetuate the
    boys club that we are examining today. As previously stated,
    this lack of diversity in the workforce has real life impacts
    on consumers. I thank our panel for coming here to discuss this
    important issue.
        With that, I yield to my vice chair from California, Mr.
    Cardenas, for 1 minute.

        Ms. Schakowsky. With that, I want to yield 1 minute to the
    vice chair of this subcommittee, from California, Mr. Cardenas,
    for 1 minute.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
        It is no secret that the tech industry has a diversity
    problem, and every day we are seeing more and more unintended
    consequences when companies lack a diverse body of employees.
    We are seeing fitness trackers, for example, that have problems
    with dark skin. They just don't operate properly. Virtual
    assistants like Alexa having a hard time recognizing accents.
        Something that is no secret is that we still have something
    that is news to some people: Diversity is actually good for
    business. The Hispanic community in America has a buying power
    annually of upwards of $1.5 trillion. Hispanics make the
    fastest-growing number over number of growing Americans in this
    country. Also, it is a younger population, and Hispanics happen
    to have a high brand loyalty. So, it is good for business to
    have diversity, especially when it comes to Hispanics.
        Reports show that companies with more diversity amongst
    senior executives were 33 percent more likely to see an
    increase in their bottom line. When you have diverse
    backgrounds and experiences among your employees, you spur
    innovation; you avoid creating bias into your products; you
    avoid turning your back on a whole group of Americans.
        So, how do we solve this problem? I will say this: for
    example, a sharp Princeton-educated computer engineer recently
    told me she heard her coworker say that women and people of
    color dilute the talent pool for tech companies. I take that
    very personal. I am an electrical engineer myself.
        We have a problem in our culture in the tech industry that
    diversity is not only not prioritized, it's seen as a
    hindrance, of which nothing could be further from the truth.
        I would like to say much more, but, again, thank you, Madam
    Chairwoman, and I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cardenas follows:]

                    Prepared statement of Hon. Tony Cardenas

        Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky. It's no secret that the
    tech industry has a diversity problem. Every day we're seeing
    more and more unintended consequences when companies lack a
    diverse body of employees. We're seeing fitness trackers for
    example that have problems with dark skin. Virtual assistants
    like Alex having a hard time recognizing accents.
        Something else that's no secret--but might still be news to
    some people--diversity is good for business.
        The Hispanic community in America has a buying power
    annually of upwards of $1.5 trillion. Hispanics have high brand
    loyalty. It's good for business to have diversity, especially
    when it comes to Hispanics.
        Reports show that companies with more diversity among
    senior executives were 33 percent more likely to see an
    increase in their bottom line.
        When you have diverse backgrounds and experiences among
    your employees, you spur innovation. You avoid accidentally
    embedding bias into your products. You avoid turning your back
    on a whole group of Americans.
        So how do we solve this problem?
        I'll say this--a sharp, Princeton-educated computer
    engineer recently told me she heard her coworker say that women
    and people of color dilute the talent pool for tech companies.
    Not only is that false--it's highly offensive. I myself am an
    engineer by training. We have a problematic culture in the tech
    industry when diversity is not only NOT prioritized--it's seen
    as a hinderance. And nothing can be further from the truth.
        Let's make technology work for all Americans and also help
    businesses succeed.
        I yield back my time to the chairwoman.

        Ms. Schakowsky. And I yield now the balance of my time to
    Congresswoman Kelly.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky and Ranking Member
    Rodgers, for holding this hearing today.
        As a founder of the Tech Accountability Caucus and founder
    of the Diversifying Tech Caucus with my colleague on the other
    side of the aisle, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, I am glad that this
    subcommittee is committed to addressing the issue of diversity
    in tech.
        Report after report from technology companies continue to
    show a lack of diversity in their workforces. According to the
    National Urban League, less than 5 percent of the digital
    workforce is African-American today. It is not just the large
    tech companies in Silicon Valley. Organizations like Mentoring
    Youth Through Technology, or MYTT, in my district help get
    minority students interested in STEM careers, but I continue to
    hear from startups in Chicago that they struggle to recruit
    diverse workforces. This is a fundamental problem, getting
    women and minorities into the technology jobs, and it must be
    corrected.
        A lack of diversity creates real-world problems of
    producing programs that can harm underserved communities.
    Poorly trained artificial intelligence tools can lead to
    implicit racial, gender, or ideological biases and can
    perpetuate existing biases. As AI use becomes more common and
    decisions are made by machines, we may not understand it is
    vital that these considerations are taken into account.
        I am hopeful that companies are going to see the benefits
    of having a diverse workforce that brings new ideas and
    perspectives. While there is no one solution to this problem, I
    hope that the witnesses today--and I am happy to see a former
    colleague, Dr. Turner Lee--will share their experiences and
    make recommendations, so we can continue to make tech a more
    diverse and inclusive community.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Kelly follows:]

                   Prepared statement of Hon. Robin L. Kelly

        Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky and Ranking Member Rodgers
    for holding this hearing today. As a founder of the Tech
    Accountability Caucus and founder of the Diversifying Tech
    Caucus with my friend on the other side of the aisle, Cathy
    McMorris Rodgers, I am glad that this subcommittee is committed
    to addressing the issue of diversity in tech.
        Report after report from technology companies continue to
    show a lack of diversity in their workforces. According to the
    National Urban League, less than 5 percent of the digital
    workforce is African-American today. It is not just the large
    tech companies in Silicon Valley. Organizations like Mentoring
    Youth Through Technology or MYTT in my District, help get
    minority students interested in STEM careers. But I continue to
    hear from start-ups in Chicago that they struggle to recruit
    diverse workforces. There is a fundamental problem getting
    women and minorities into the technology jobs and it must be
    corrected.
        A lack of diversity creates real world problems of
    producing programs that can harm underserved communities.
    Poorly trained artificial intelligence tools can lead to
    implicit racial, gender, or ideological biases and can
    perpetuate existing biases. As AI use becomes more common and
    decisions are made by machines we may not understand, it is
    vital that these considerations are taken into account.
        I am hopeful that companies are going to see the benefits
    of having a diverse workforce that brings new ideas and
    perspectives. While there is no one solution to this problem, I
    hope that the witnesses today will share their experiences and
    make recommendations so we can continue to make tech a more
    diverse and inclusive community.

        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you. Thank you.
        And now, it is my pleasure to recognize for 5 minutes our
    ranking member, Ms. McMorris Rodgers.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
        REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I
    appreciate you organizing this panel today, and appreciate the
    additional voices at the table.
        As my colleague Congresswoman Kelly just said, we organized
    the Diversifying Tech Caucus in 2015. It was aimed at
    highlighting some of these issues that we are going to hear
    more about today, getting more women, people with disabilities,
    minorities, veterans, into the tech sector.
        At a time when we are celebrating a booming economy because
    of our work on tax reform and to lift the regulatory burden,
    our economy has more jobs today. We have record low
    unemployment, record participation with African Americans,
    Hispanics, people with disabilities, people coming off the
    sidelines. It means that there are more opportunities for
    people to find better-paying jobs and have an opportunity for a
    better life.
        Today's hearing focuses, I believe, on an important aspect
    of encouraging those opportunities for all. And it is the focus
    on recruitment. We need to be doing more to recruit into the
    tech field, but also, once we recruit, to retain and promote
    these individuals into positions of leadership.
        The creation of one high-tech job is projected to create
    4.3 other jobs in the local economy. I often say the job is the
    opportunity. It is vital that these opportunities are available
    to people from all walks of life. A vibrant and dynamic
    workplace with women, people of color, people with
    disabilities, reflects the promise of America, where, no matter
    who you are, you can achieve your version of the American
    dream.
        Oftentimes, it might look different than your own. I am
    excited personally for the opportunities for those with
    disabilities to work because more are offering the
    accommodations and the job coaches. Employing people with
    disabilities fosters innovation and it creates a stronger
    workplace culture.
        Many tech companies are leading in hiring those with
    autism. And because of their unique abilities for the attention
    to detail and the abilities to detect patterns, taking a
    software testing company like ULTRA Testing, the founder's wife
    one day told him, quote, ``We spend all this time focused on
    things these children may never be good at, but we spend no
    time nurturing the skills they already have a talent for. Isn't
    that a shame?'' And he agreed, and he got to work hiring people
    with autism to leverage their strengths. And now, ULTRA Testing
    is outperforming bigger companies in software quality
    assurance.
        This month, we are also celebrating Women's History Month,
    and it is a time to celebrate women who are leading across the
    board. Our goal today is to see more women in tech leading,
    being those disruptors, inspiring our next generation of
    transformational women leaders.
        Again, it may look different. Women have different
    leadership styles. And research is showing that we have greater
    understanding for teams and systems. We foster a healthy
    workplace culture. When women are not at the table, our
    perspectives and voices aren't represented. A study by McKinsey
    shows that companies with women in executive positions
    outperform the average profitability of their industries by 21
    percent. Tech companies that don't open the door for women to
    shine and be decisionmakers risk being left behind. So, yes, we
    need to do more to open the door to allow these women to shine
    and do more to retain and promote these women.
        America has led the world in innovation. We celebrate that
    every single day. Entrepreneurs from all walks of life are
    taking an idea, making it a reality, creating more
    opportunities for hardworking people across the country. Again,
    that is the promise of America. It is not the promise for just
    some people or the somebodies in Silicon Valley. It is a
    promise for everyone. When we celebrate every person's
    strengths and abilities and embrace what every person has to
    offer, we are living up to that promise.
        I recognize there has been tremendous efforts, like
    recruiting more girls into STEM, and hiring people with
    disabilities, like ULTRA Testing that I mentioned. We need to
    continue to do more to address the pipeline, whether it is
    young people of every background, in girls in elementary and
    middle school, and exceptional people with disabilities, but we
    also need to focus on how we retain those individuals once they
    are recruited, and do more to encourage their promotion to
    leadership positions. So, today I look forward to hearing how
    the tech industry is leading on this and where you can also do
    better.
        Thank you all for being here.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Rodgers follows:]

               Prepared statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

        Good morning.
        Today we are focused on an issue I have led on for quite
    some time: diversity in the tech industry.
        Today, we will have an opportunity to give credit where
    credit is due, while also exploring how we continue to do
    better.especially where we can continue to improve where we
    recruit, retain, and promote a more diverse workforce.
        I want to thank Chair Schakowsky for organizing this
    hearing today and for including all the voices at the table.
        I also would like to recognize my good friend from
    Illinois, Robin Kelly.
        In 2015, we launched the Diversifying Technology Caucus
    aimed at getting more women, people with disabilities,
    minorities, and veterans into the tech sector.
        I want to thank Ms. Kelly for working with me to promote
    more opportunities for all in the tech sector.
        This is an exciting time in America. Because of our work on
    tax reform and to lift the regulatory burden our economy is
    booming. After a decade of Americans asking, ``where are the
    jobs?'' wages are rising and there are more jobs available than
    people looking for work.
        As the Wall Street Journal just reported, women are driving
    the laborforce comeback.
        In addition, a record number of African Americans,
    Hispanics, and people with disabilities are coming off the
    sidelines and finding work.
        It means that more people are finding opportunities for a
    better life in healthcare, energy, construction, the service
    industry and more.
        Today's hearing is about ensuring more individuals have
    opportunities to pursue and advance careers in the tech
    industry too.
        The creation of one high tech job is projected to create
    4.3 other jobs in a local economy.
        Because a job is the opportunity it's vital that these
    opportunities are available to people of all walks of life.
        A vibrant and dynamic workplace with women, people of
    color, people with disabilities, and more reflects the promise
    of America where no matter who you are, you can achieve your
    version of the American dream.
        Oftentimes it may look different and I'm excited about more
    opportunities for those with disabilities to work because of
    more commitments to accommodations and job coaches.
        Employing people with disabilities fosters innovation and
    it creates a stronger workplace culture.
        Many tech companies are leading in hiring people on the
    autism spectrum because of their unique abilities for attention
    to detail, and abilities to detect patterns.
        Take a software testing company called, ULTRA Testing. The
    founder's wife one day told him:
        ``We spend all this time focused on things these children
    may never be good at but we spend no time nurturing the skills
    they already have a talent for--isn't that a shame?''
        He agreed, and got to work hiring people with autism to
    leverage their strengths. Now ULTRA Testing, a startup, is
    outperforming bigger companies in software quality assurance.
        This month we are also celebrating Women's History Month.
        It's a time to celebrate the women who are leading in tech
    being disruptors and inspiring our next generation of
    transformational women leaders.
        Again, it may look different. Women have different
    leadership styles.
        And research is showing that we have greater understanding
    for teams and systems and we foster a healthy workplace
    culture.
        When women are not leading at the table. our perspectives
    and our voices aren't represented.
        A study by McKinsey shows that companies with women in
    executive positions outperformed the average profitability of
    their industries by 21 percent.
        Tech companies that don't open the door for women to shine
    and be decision makers risk being left behind.
        Yes, that means hiring more women but it also means
    fostering an environment focused on retention and the promotion
    of women too.
        America is leading the world in innovation.
        Every single day, entrepreneurs from all walks of life are
    taking an idea making it a reality and creating more
    opportunities for hardworking people across the country.
        Again, that's the Promise of America. It's not the promise
    for just some people or the somebodies in Silicon Valley. It's
    a promise for everyone.
        When we celebrate every person's strengths and abilities
    and embrace what every person has to offer we are living up to
    that promise.
        I recognize there's been tremendous efforts like recruiting
    more girls into STEM and hiring people with disabilities, like
    at ULTRA Testing.
        We need to continue to do more to address the pipeline,
    whether it's young people of every background and girls in
    elementary and middle school. and exceptional people with
    disabilities.
        We also need to focus on how we retain those individuals
    once they are recruited and do more to encourage their
    promotion to leadership positions.
        So today, I look forward to hearing how the tech industry
    is leading on this and where you can also do better.
        Thank you to our witnesses.
        I yield back.

        Ms. Schakowsky. The gentlewoman yields back. And now, the
    Chair recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full committee,
    for 5 minutes for his opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        As this subcommittee knows well, the influence of the
    internet and technology in our lives has grown exponentially
    over the past two decades, and our daily lives as consumers and
    workers have become dependent on technology. But while the U.S.
    has become more and more diverse, the workforce of the
    technology sector has not kept up. And we are seeing the
    effects of that in the products and services we use, like the
    wearable fitness trackers that don't work for people with dark
    skin, online job advertisements targeted at men over women, and
    websites with buttons and links too small for people with motor
    impairments to use.
        Without inclusive workforces, too often product design
    leaves people out, and the result can be embarrassing for the
    company when discovered and harmful for society when a
    discriminatory result is not identified and fixed. These are
    complicated and often uncomfortable discussions, but they are
    necessary to start to make changes.
        The Congressional Black Caucus launched its Tech 2020
    Initiative in 2015 and has been working to hold companies
    accountable since. And several members of this committee have
    been working on these issues for years.
        I would like to yield time to some of them today. So, I
    will start beginning with Mr. Lujan. I would yield 1 minute to
    him.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        As this subcommittee knows well, the influence of the
    Internet and technology in our lives has grown exponentially
    over the past two decades. Our daily lives as consumers and
    workers have become dependent on technology.
        But while the United States has become more and more
    diverse, the workforce of the technology sector has not kept
    up. And we are seeing the effects of that in the products and
    services we use-like wearable fitness trackers that don't work
    for people with dark skin, online job advertisements targeted
    at men over women, and websites with buttons and links too
    small for people with motor impairments to use. Without
    inclusive workforces, too often product design leaves people
    out. The result can be embarrassing for the company when
    discovered and harmful for society when a discriminatory result
    is not identified and fixed.
        These are complicated and often uncomfortable discussions,
    but they are necessary to start to make changes. The
    Congressional Black Caucus launched its Tech 2020 initiative in
    2015 and has been working to hold companies accountable since.
    And several members of this committee have been working on
    these issues for years. I'd like to yield time to some of them
    today, beginning with Mr. Lujan for 1 minute.
        Thank you, I will also yield a minute to Mr. Butterfield
    for 1 minute.
        Thank you. And I will yield my final minute to Mr. Rush.

        Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank
    our Chair and our ranking member for this important hearing.
        When it comes to diversity in tech, let me be clear, more
    is needed. The tech industry is not where it needs to be on
    this issue. Representation of women and people of color in tech
    companies lags the rest of corporate America, and this matters.
        As Dr. Lee notes in her testimony, the absence of diversity
    among the people that make the decisions around products and
    services for the tech sector and the markets that these
    companies serve hurts us all. This lack of diversity informs
    the algorithms that determine whether people get a loan or a
    job, impacts how much people pay for everyday products and
    services. Investigations and studies have shown that these
    algorithms often have biased results and discriminatory
    outcomes.
        It is one reason why I am reintroducing the Accountable
    Capitalism Act with the inclusion of diversity language, to
    push corporations to make more socially responsible decisions.
    Action and accountability are a must.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Pallone. And, Madam Chair, I would now like to yield a
    minute to Mr. Butterfield.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you, Chairman Pallone. Thank you,
    Chairwoman Schakowsky.
        For too long, the promise of the internet age for
    communities of color has been left unfulfilled. Technology is a
    fast-growing and lucrative industry, employing thousands every
    year. However, the rate of racial minorities in tech industries
    has not increased at a sufficient rate. This is unacceptable,
    Madam Chair, considering the number of capable racial minority
    students and workers that are available.
        The problem is exacerbated by insufficient resources in K-
    12 schools to HBCUs and often low expectations for our minority
    students. Studies show that African-American children enter
    kindergarten at a competitive disadvantage. To close the gap in
    tech, we must give our students the resources they need to
    compete, not starting in college, but in the earliest stages of
    primary education. Public and private sectors have a
    responsibility to work together to create effective diversity
    and inclusion initiatives.
        The CBC Tech 2020 has been pounding tech companies now for
    years. We are beginning to see modest results.
        And so, I want to thank you for your effort in this space,
    and I yield back.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
        Before I yield to Mr. Rush for the last minute, I just want
    to say, as you could probably tell, Mr. Rush had a subcommittee
    hearing in the Energy Subcommittee on diversity in the
    workforce. And now, we are doing this in the Consumer
    Protection Subcommittee with Ms. Schakowsky. Because the Energy
    and Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over so many sort of
    jobs of the future and areas of the future, I think it is
    particularly important that we address this issue of diversity.
        Mr. Rush, I yield the balance of the time.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Chairman Pallone, for
    yielding. And I want to thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky, for
    holding this important hearing.
        In the 1990s, Chicago's O'Hare Airport, the world's busiest
    airport at the time, became the first to install touchless
    faucets. This innovation's promise of making things more
    sanitary and wasting less water were anticlimactic, however,
    when it was shown that these faucets had difficulties in
    recognizing the hands of black and brown Americans. While
    seemingly trivial, this is just one example of the real-world
    impediments that people of color across the Nation face because
    of their lack of representation in the technology industry.
        This same phenomenon has been repeated in facial
    recognition technology that mistakenly identified 28 Members of
    Congress, myself included, in search engines that provide ads
    related to criminal record history when associating, quote,
    ``black-sounding names,'' end of quote.
        Madam Chairman, it should be clear that, while the issue
    and emergency in tech may seem like a relatively
    straightforward problem, its ramifications are much bigger and
    go much deeper than it would appear. Madam Chairman, progress
    and innovation must go beyond being just skin deep.
        So, I thank you for holding this hearing and I look forward
    to hearing from the witnesses.
        And, Madam Chair, I would like unanimous consent to submit
    a New York Times article about mistakes in facial recognition
    for the record.
        And thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The article appears at the conclusion of the hearing. The
    prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]

                    Prepared statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush

        Thank you, Chairman Pallone, for yielding. And thank you,
    Chairwoman Schakowsky, for holding this important hearing.
        In the 1990s, Chicago's O'Hare Airport--the world's busiest
    airport, at the time--became the first to install touchless
    faucets. This innovation's promise of making things more
    sanitary and wasting less water were anticlimactic, however,
    when it was shown that these faucets had difficulty in
    recognizing Black and Brown Americans' hands.
        While seemingly trivial, this is just one example of the
    real-world impediments that people of color across the country
    face because of the lack of representation in the technology
    industry. This same phenomenon has been repeated in facial
    recognition technology that mistakenly identified 28 Members of
    Congress, myself included, and in search engines that provide
    ads related to criminal record history when searching ``Black
    sounding'' names.
        Madame Chairwoman, it should be clear that while the issue
    of diversity in tech may seem like a relatively straightforward
    problem, its ramifications are much bigger and go much deeper
    than it would appear.
        So, I thank you for holding this hearing and look forward
    to hearing from the witnesses.
        Madame Chairwoman, I ask unanimous consent to submit a New
    York Times article about mistakes in facial recognition for the
    record.
        Thank you, I yield back the balance of my time.

        Ms. Schakowsky. And I want to thank the ranking member for
    her indulgence on going over some time.
        Next, I will yield 5 minutes to Mr. Hudson, who has been
    designated to take the place of our ranking member of the full
    committee, Mr. Walden.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD HUDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

        Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        This is my first opportunity publicly to say
    congratulations on your chairmanship. I look forward to working
    with you and finding common ground where we can work together.
    I know you are going to provide strong leadership.
        Thank you for recognizing me.
        I would say that today we have an exceptional panel of
    witnesses here to examine inclusion and diversity in tech. I am
    proud to represent a district that has many institutions of
    higher education that have recognized the value a diverse
    workforce brings to the table.
        As a member of the Historically Black Colleges and
    Universities Caucus, I have seen firsthand how these
    institutions greatly contribute and prepare our students for a
    21st century workforce. Fayetteville State University is a
    prime example of this leadership. Because of their great track
    record, they are a recent recipient of a $2 million grant from
    the project Strengthening Student Success in STEM. The project
    at Fayetteville State University seeks to build on previous
    successful efforts to increase the participation of African-
    American students in STEM disciplines through education and
    research.
        Additionally, we will examine ways to include other groups
    of individuals, including service-disabled veterans and
    military spouses. My district is home to the epicenter of the
    universe, Fort Bragg, home of the Airborne Special Operations
    Forces. Our community is no stranger to supporting these
    groups, and we understand the value that they bring to our
    community.
        Many businesses and entrepreneurs in the tech space have
    started in our community, including RLM Communications, a
    minority-owned and service-disabled, veteran-owned small
    business which has repeatedly been recognized for its
    outstanding work.
        The fact is that a variety of experiences and perspectives
    yield better results. That is exactly what diversity brings to
    the table. That is why I have been proud to work very closely
    with Chairman Rush the past two Congresses on the issue of
    diversity in our 21st century energy economy and preparing our
    students for those jobs, particularly minority students and
    disadvantaged groups. And I look forward to working with my
    colleagues on this important issue here in the tech industry as
    well.
        With that, Madam Chair, I would like to yield the balance
    of my time to my good friend from Montana, Mr. Gianforte.
        Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Mr. Hudson, for the recognition.
        Getting more Americans working in tech businesses increases
    opportunities for all of our communities, not just in Silicon
    Valley. In Montana, we continually face a workforce
    availability challenge across most businesses. It is
    particularly pronounced, however, in the high-tech sector. In
    the software business that I built in Montana, we were always
    competing to get the best and the brightest. Rather than go far
    and abroad, however, we worked to develop people from within.
        Recently, I had the pleasure of spending a day with fourth-
    graders at Bozeman's Emily Dickinson School during their hour
    of code. Allowing the kids time to engage in coding early
    increases awareness and drew new faces into the field. Using
    prewritten code, these students were able to blow up their
    screens and make farm animals talk. They were having fun and
    they were learning at the same time.
        Another successful program for the State has been Code
    Montana. This class brings high school students into the
    computer lab. Students experiment with JavaScript and other
    programs to create their own apps and earn college credit.
        Over 90 percent of Montana parents want their kids to study
    computer science. Unfortunately, only 40 percent of our public
    schools offer this curriculum.
        Our company understood that we needed to grow our workforce
    organically, and we recognized the challenges facing our local
    schools. We started working with the local university, Montana
    State, to develop cutting-edge computer science programs. Other
    entrepreneurs developed classes to develop their employees for
    the next generation. And through organizations like the Montana
    High Tech Business Alliance, we created space to share ideas
    and address challenges facing tech in Montana. We are making
    progress, but there is still a lot more to do. I look forward
    to the testimony and the discussion as we look for solutions.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Hudson, do you yield back?
        Mr. Hudson. I do.
        Ms. Schakowsky. OK. Thank you.
        So, the Chair wants to remind Members that, pursuant to
    committee rules, all Members' written opening statements shall
    be made part of the record.
        And now, I would like to introduce our illustrious panel
    and our witnesses.
        First, we have Mr. Mark Luckie, digital media strategist
    and former manager at Facebook and Twitter.
        Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy, president of the University of
    Maine, welcome.
        Ms. Jiny Kim, Vice President of Policy and Programs at
    Asian Americans Advancing Justice.
        Dr. Nicol Turner Lee, fellow at the Center for Technology
    Innovation, Governance Studies, at the Brookings Institution.
        Ms. Natalie Oliverio, CEO of Military Talent Partners.
        Ms. Jill Houghton, president and CEO of Disability:IN.
        And Mr. David Lopez, counsel at Outten & Golden, LLP, and
    co-dean of the Rutgers Law School.
        And we are missing somebody, right? Did I get everybody?
    OK, I guess it is Natalie Oliverio, who is not here yet.
        OK. So, let's begin, then, with Mr. Luckie, 5 minutes.

      STATEMENTS OF MARK S. LUCKIE, DIGITAL MEDIA STRATEGIST AND
       FORMER MANAGER, TWITTER AND FACEBOOK; JOAN FERRINI-MUNDY,
         PH.D., PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF MAINE; JINY KIM, VICE
       PRESIDENT, POLICY AND PROGRAMS, ASIAN AMERICANS ADVANCING
    JUSTICE; NICOL TURNER LEE, PH.D., FELLOW, CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY
    INNOVATION, GOVERNANCE STUDIES, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION; NATALIE
    OLIVERIO, FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MILITARY TALENT
    PARTNERS; JILL HOUGHTON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
      DISABILITY:IN, AND DAVID LOPEZ, CO-DEAN, RUTGERS LAW SCHOOL-
                                 NEWARK

                      STATEMENT OF MARK S. LUCKIE

        Mr. Luckie. Chairwoman Schakowsky and members of the
    committee, I thank you for the invitation to participate in
    today's hearing on inclusion in tech.
        From toddlers to seniors, technology has become a vital
    part of the lives of many Americans. However, the way we use
    these tech products is not singular. Gender, age, race,
    ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, religion, political
    beliefs, geographic location, and other factors can all
    dramatically change the way people interact with a product.
        And yet, the hundreds of thousands of people who are
    creating these technologies remain mostly homogeneous. The tech
    industry continues to be populated by mostly white and Asian
    men. Diversity is an integral part of the fabric of America,
    but that is not reflected in the companies that affect the
    lives of millions of this country's citizens.
        In my time as a manager at tech companies, including
    Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit, I have seen firsthand the issues
    around diversity that continue to plague the industry. The
    concerns surrounding the lack of diversity at U.S. technology
    companies is not just about the fair treatment of their
    employees.
        What is even more alarming is the discrimination built into
    the products emerging from Silicon Valley companies, from the
    use of artificial intelligence software, more likely to flag
    black defendants as future criminals; Asian-Americans being
    charged higher prices for online test prep; apps lightening the
    skin of users to make them more attractive; Amazon's recruiting
    tool penalizing resumes that included the word ``women's,'' to
    Facebook's real-name policy that discriminates against Native
    American names and transgender people.
        In many of these instances, the transgressions were
    unintentional and later corrected, but most of these oversights
    can be mitigated by employing and retaining staff from diverse
    backgrounds in an environment that welcomes all voices.
    Statistically, tech companies are not doing that. In 2017, at
    eight of the largest tech companies in the U.S., women, on
    average, made up a little over 30 percent of the staff; 4.2
    percent were black, and 6 percent were Latinx, according to the
    company's self-reported numbers. While there is a
    disproportionately high number of Asians who work in tech,
    industry data shows they are the least likely to attain a
    leadership role.
        One of the common explanations of why there is a lack of
    diversity in Silicon Valley is the pipeline. Tech companies
    argue that there are not enough women and people of color
    graduating with degrees in computer science. However, there are
    more women and people of color with tech-related degrees that
    are graduating than are actually being hired.
        The discussions around the pipeline also ignore an obvious,
    but overlooked fact. Most jobs at tech companies are not in
    engineering. At least one-third of the jobs listed in the
    career websites of many of the top tech companies are on
    nonengineering teams.
        There is a common refrain in Silicon Valley: ``We can't
    lower the bar.'' This term is widely understood to infer that
    black, Latinx, and women candidates are less qualified. Their
    hiring would be a token, putting them over more qualified white
    or Asian male candidates, who in some cases are actually
    equally or sometimes less qualified.
        When women and people of color are hired, they often face
    unwelcoming environments that upend the great work they came to
    do. Half of all diverse employees said they see bias as part of
    their day-to-day work experience, according to a recent study.
    Women in tech are leaving the industry at nearly double the
    rate as men. A person over 40 at a tech company is a rarity,
    and even more so if they are not in a managerial position.
        Despite all these challenges, we are thriving. We are
    leaders impacting our communities and executing the ideas that
    are transforming the landscape of technology and beyond. Tech
    companies need to recognize the greatness or risk losing some
    of the industry's most brilliant minds.
        A study by McKinsey found that ethnically diverse companies
    were more than 35 percent more likely to outperform their
    industry counterparts. And companies in the bottom quartile,
    both for gender and for ethnicity and race, are statistically
    less likely to achieve above-average financial returns.
        Superficial proclamations from corporate leaders are not
    enough. It is time to stop saying we can do better and to start
    being better.
        For Congress and this committee, more oversight of this
    Nation's tech companies is absolutely necessary. Continuing to
    learn about how the industry functions in hearings like this
    will lead to better economic solutions for all Americans.
        Tech companies must do their part, step up, and reflect the
    ideals of equality, democracy, and justice for all, on which
    this country was founded.
        Thank you for this opportunity to share, and I look forward
    to answering questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Luckie follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you very much.
        Next, I want to invite Dr. Joan Ferrini-Mundy for 5
    minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF JOAN FERRINI-MUNDY

        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman
    Schakowsky, Ranking Member Rodgers, and members of the
    subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here today.
        My name is Joan Ferrini-Mundy, and since July of 2018, I
    have been the president of the University of Maine and the
    University of Maine at Machias.
        I plan to comment on the roles of institutions of higher
    education in the preparation of a diverse STEM and technology
    workforce that is ready to solve problems and innovate through
    diversity, and to provide pathways, especially in STEM, for
    diversity.
        The mission of the University of Maine is to advance
    learning and discovery through excellence and innovation in
    undergraduate and graduate academic programs while addressing
    the complex challenges and opportunities of the 21st century
    through research-based knowledge.
        Our population on our campus of about 11,000 students in
    Orono, Maine, is 51 percent women. Our geographic diversity is
    above the national average, but we are below the national
    average in racial and ethnic diversity. White students comprise
    about 82 percent of our student body, and 12 percent of our
    students are black or African-American, Hispanic, or Latino,
    and other races and ethnicities.
        In addition to diversity of race, gender, and ethnicity, at
    U Maine we have diversity on the dimensions of age, sexual
    orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, disability,
    disciplinary background, veteran service, and experience. In
    Maine, 47 percent of precollege students are economically
    disadvantaged. Twenty-six percent of our entering students are
    first-generation college students.
        For some college students, the diverse environments of
    higher education are their first experience with people
    different from themselves and from their home communities. Our
    institutions need to be skilled and effective in supporting
    their success and opening up their pathways into the tech
    industries and into the STEM fields more generally. At the
    University of Maine, we have more than 40 different
    organizations and initiatives to support our diverse students.
        Scott Page has argued that people from different
    backgrounds have varying ways of looking at problems. There is
    certainly a lot of evidence that people's identity groups,
    ethnic, racial, sexual, age, matter when it comes to diversity
    in thinking. And as we have heard, their solutions to problems
    will be equitable and more effective.
        One function of the university is to prepare leaders and a
    workforce for tomorrow. And universities across the country are
    doing so with inclusive, cross-disciplinary STEM programs,
    research to better understand and ensure inclusion, support
    services to promote student success, curriculum and instruction
    designed to build from the diversity on our campuses and to
    engage diverse students, and through partnerships.
        Through the University of Maine, for example, students,
    faculty, and staff from around the world and from very diverse
    backgrounds come together in our Graduate School for the
    Biomedical Sciences and Engineering to participate in
    convergence research. They work in molecular and cellular
    biology, bioinformatics and genomics, toxicology, neuroscience,
    and biomedical engineering, to address some of tomorrow's
    biggest challenges. And the diversity that they bring to those
    challenges is absolutely essential.
        Our campus Center on Aging promotes and facilitates
    activities on aging and aging-related education and training
    programs. Our Center for Community Inclusion and Disability
    Studies partners with the community to enhance the lives of
    individuals with disabilities and their families.
        In Maine, within 1 year of high school graduation, 50
    percent of economically disadvantaged youth are enrolled in
    higher education compared to 75 percent of noneconomically
    disadvantaged youth. Enabling all students to be able to attain
    degrees is critical for the diversity that we discuss here
    today. The University of Maine is addressing this through a new
    First Year Student Initiative.
        Some of our focus is directly in the curriculum. With
    funding from the National Science Foundation INCLUDES Program,
    U Maine anthropologist Dr. Darren Ranco and colleagues are
    developing the Wabanaki Youth in Science Program to bridge
    inclusion in postsecondary education through the sciences. The
    team is developing a course that brings together traditional
    ecological knowledge and Western science for undergraduates.
    The success of this ongoing effort will depend upon diversity
    and student engagement with ideas that are unfamiliar and with
    experts who bring diverse experiences.
        I would like to also mention that the University of Maine
    system partners with Educate Maine in a project to match
    students with internships and full-time jobs in computing
    occupations. And we hope to bring underrepresented minorities,
    women, and rural students to pursue a variety of experiential
    learning opportunities.
        In closing, our Nation's diversity is a resource for
    learning and for solving the most complex problems of our
    times. As technologies and advances lead to changes in our
    workplace, new generations of STEM professionals will bring
    their collective diversity to bear on improvements and
    innovations. U.S. higher education has a key role to play in
    ensuring the pathways for inclusive learning environments, so
    that those professionals are ready to make a difference.
        Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Ferrini-Mundy follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Schakowsky. Right on the dot. Thank you.
        Ms. Jiny Kim, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                         STATEMENT OF JINY KIM

        Ms. Kim. Good morning, Chairwoman Schakowsky, Ranking
    Member Rodgers, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify on the importance of diversity in
    the technology sector.
        My name is Jiny Kim, and I am vice president for policy and
    programs at Asian Americans Advancing Justice, AAJC, a national
    civil rights organization dedicated to advancing the civil and
    human rights of Asian-Americans and building and promoting a
    fair and equitable society for all.
        The economic rationale for diversity has been well-
    documented in numerous studies. Companies in the top quartile
    in terms of racial diversity are 35 percent more likely to have
    financial returns higher than the national median in their
    industry. But, despite this economic reality, women and people
    of color have historically been excluded from both the rank and
    file and from positions of leadership within tech companies.
    According to the EEOC, African Americans and Latinos were
    underrepresented in the tech sector by 16 to 18 percentage
    points compared with their presence in the American labor force
    overall.
        While there is a higher representation of Asians in the
    tech workforce, they are still underrepresented in nontechnical
    roles compared to their presence in technical roles, and they
    are disproportionately left out of C-suite positions.
        While the effort companies are making to provide
    transparency in their diversity data should be appreciated,
    there remain issues in how that data is reported. Asian-
    Americans and Pacific Islanders include over 50 different
    ethnic groups and over 100 languages and dialects. Yet,
    companies fail to disaggregate the data, resulting in
    overlooking the most underrepresented and historically
    marginalized AAPI communities with lower levels of educational
    attainment, higher rates of poverty, and larger populations
    with limited English proficiency. When these groups are left
    out, those efforts by industry and other stakeholders to
    encourage recruitment and build pipelines from diverse
    communities remain incomplete.
        Not surprisingly, tech companies have developed digital
    tools to review the myriad applications for positions in their
    companies. The problem with this approach is that the ideal
    profile being used as a model reflects a majority white culture
    and the resulting unconscious bias.
        Issues are not limited to recruitment, and greater effort
    is also needed to retain employees of color and women. Some
    tech companies have taken the important step of reporting
    attrition rates of employees from diverse backgrounds, as well
    as supporting their employees through mentorship programs and
    employee resource groups. We applaud these efforts as positive
    steps toward understanding what is needed to retain diverse
    staff and eventually place them in the leadership pipeline.
        Now it is a common understanding among civil society
    organizations that the prejudice, ignorance, and the hate we
    combat in real life live in the digital space as well. Tech
    companies that foster a majority white male employee base feed
    their own biases into the machines they create.
        In the criminal justice system, we see disturbing examples
    of algorithmic bias. Courts have begun using predictive
    software to sentence convicted individuals. ProPublica
    published an account of two individuals who separately
    committed shoplifting. One was African-American, and the other
    was white. When a sentencing algorithm was used to predict the
    likelihood of each committing a future crime, the African-
    American individual was rated a higher risk, even though she
    had only committed misdemeanors as a juvenile, while the white
    individual had previously been convicted of attempted armed
    robbery. Two years later, the computer algorithm was proven
    wrong, with only the white individual having committed a
    felony.
        Further alarming is facial recognition technology. In 2015,
    this technology came under scrutiny when software incorrectly
    categorized photos of African Americans as primates. Despite
    this incident, companies have still failed to take adequate
    action. Studies published as recently as last year found that
    facial recognition algorithms had significantly higher error
    rates detecting the gender of darker-skinned individuals
    compared to lighter-skinned individuals.
        Given the magnitude of the impact of lack of diversity in
    tech, a serious culture shift must take place. And civil rights
    organizations like Advancing Justice, AAJC, have already begun
    to play their part. Last month, we joined more than 40 advocacy
    groups in sending a letter to congressional leaders urging them
    to put civil and human rights at the center of the digital
    privacy discourse. And tech companies have begun engaging our
    organizations on diversity and inclusion issues and taking part
    in civil rights audits.
        The tech sector has transformed the way we communicate and
    connect with one another. We must ensure that the development
    of technological products, services, and experiences leave no
    one behind and do not harm communities of color. In order to do
    so, employees who create these innovative tools must reflect
    the diversity of the communities that the companies seek to
    reach.
        Thank you for this opportunity.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Kim follows:]\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ A February 2017 report entitled ``Breaking the Mold: Investing
    in Racial Diversity in Tech'' submitted by Ms. Kim has been retained in
    committee files and also is available as part of her written testimony
    at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20190306/108901/HHRG-116-
    IF17-Wstate-KimJ-20190306.pdf.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        We do have that letter in the record from last year, from
    the last hearing rather. So, thank you for that.
        And next, I want to recognize Dr. Nicol Turner Lee for 5
    minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF NICOL TURNER LEE

        Dr. Turner Lee. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman
    Schakowsky, Ranking Member Rodgers, and members of the
    subcommittee.
        I am encouraged by your interest in this topic,
    particularly as some of the members of the subcommittee have
    worked to diversity your own staff.
        Let me start just by stating again what Congressman Lujan
    summarized from my written testimony. The absence of diversity
    among the people who make decisions around products and
    services, along with the markets that these companies and the
    tech serve, will ultimately lead the U.S. to abysmal failure.
        With the U.S. population predicted to become minority white
    in 2045, tech companies that do not fully embrace diversity
    will ultimately compromise the quality of future technologies
    and make it difficult for all people to gain the benefits of
    the digital revolution.
        Today, existing and emerging technologies are helping to
    solve complex social problems through automation, advanced
    scientific research, and artificial intelligence, while
    disrupting legacy industries and widely accepted norms. Yet,
    despite this growth, African Americans and Hispanics remain
    vastly underrepresented in the computer and mathematical
    fields, 7.9 percent and 6.8 percent, respectively, compared to
    whites, which are over at least 12 to 14 percent.
        In fact, African Americans and Hispanics are the most
    underrepresented in certain tech jobs by nearly 50 percent.
    Less than 5 percent of the tech workforce in social media
    companies is African-American, with similar findings for
    Hispanics and certain Asian-American populations.
        The irony here is that 35 percent of Hispanics and 24
    percent of African Americans have no other online connection,
    except through their smartphones and mobile devices, compared
    to 14 percent whites, but they are connected to the
    applications and the platforms that actually run off these
    devices. Without them, they have no other way to live, learn,
    earn, vote, and network. These mismatched realities also make
    these populations most susceptible to digital disruption when
    the jobs that they once held are automated and eliminated or
    predatory products and services are marketed to them online on
    an ongoing basis.
        So, this is why diversity matters. In certain sectors of
    tech, there is a talent pipeline problem, leaving empty pockets
    of workforce diversity in board, C-suite, and other leadership
    positions. And this human resource problem ultimately impacts
    the design, implementation, and evaluation of products and
    services, some of which are collectively profiling,
    surveilling, and even discriminating against protected classes.
    That is why we are here today.
        I am going to just summarize in my closing remarks three
    things that I have actually put forth that I think Congress and
    the tech sector should do.
        First, tech companies must be more deliberate and
    systematic in the recruitment, hiring, and retention of diverse
    talent and change the sources for where they find talent of
    color. Historically Black Colleges and Universities and
    Hispanic-serving institutions are often discounted in remedying
    pipeline concerns. Yet, 22 percent of African-American college
    students graduate from one of the 101 HBCUs and offer some of
    the Nation's most gifted talent which are prepared to work in
    Silicon Valley. Yet, those colleges are not the source for
    where we actually look for talent.
        In addition to that, they may be challenged by the
    resources that HBCUs and HSIs find. The appropriations that go
    to those universities and colleges are often comparable to
    others; therefore, reducing their ability to entice a tech
    center to actually hire them. Congress, we must do better than
    that.
        Second, tech companies must explore ethical and
    collaborative frameworks that explore the intended and
    unintended biases of algorithms and deploy solutions that quell
    these biases. With big data being collected in real time from
    users at all times, people are now being denied credit based on
    their web-browsing history or aggregated predictive analytics
    are wrongly determining a person's suitability for employment
    or applying a longer prison sentence. These are deplorable, and
    we need to work together, as my colleagues have said, to
    increase the pipeline, so we can make less of these mistakes.
    Even among members of the Congressional Black Caucus, facial
    recognition technology wrongly associated them with arrest
    records 90 percent of the time, and I know my distinguished
    members of the CBC aren't those people.
        And finally, I would say this inattentional blindness is a
    problem in the tech sector that should no longer be tolerable.
    The strength of the online economy proves that it is no longer
    insulated from the guardrails designed for other regulated
    industries, especially those that establish baseline
    protections against discrimination.
        Congress should consider review and the potential
    modernization of civil rights law and apply them to certain
    online cases. We did it in the case of housing. We did it in
    the case of civil rights. We have done it in the case of equal
    opportunity, and we should do it in the online space.
        Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Turner Lee follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you very much.
        Next, we will recognize Ms. Natalie Oliverio. You are
    recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome.

                     STATEMENT OF NATALIE OLIVERIO

        Ms. Oliverio. Thank you so much for allowing me to testify
    before you this morning.
        My name is Natalie Oliverio, and I am a post-9/11 Navy
    veteran, the founder and CEO of Military Talent Partners.
        And too frequently, too often, veterans and military
    spouses are left out of the diversity conversation. It doesn't
    naturally occur to you to think of them as diverse individuals,
    but less than 1 percent of our country today serves. So, when
    you serve in the military or you are a spouse supporting your
    significant other as they serve, time doesn't stand still. The
    world keeps moving without you while you are serving your
    country. The military is its own business and it has ever job
    type, skill, and capability to run on its own, and those skills
    really prepare veterans to do anything.
        But I talk with companies every single day who feel that
    they don't have jobs suitable for veterans. They don't have
    security-type or protective work, which is what they believe
    that veterans are qualified and capable of doing. There have
    been massive steps forward in the programs offered, the
    trainings available, and the abilities that veterans can then
    leverage to their second careers. But not everyone knows about
    them because they are just left out of the conversation, even
    more so for military spouses.
        For veterans, unemployment isn't really the issue anymore.
    It is more of underemployment. Meaningful careers make all the
    difference. From an extreme case of contributing to 22 suicides
    a day in the veteran communities, meaningful careers can put a
    stop to that. Meaningful careers for military spouses help them
    provide for their families when today's economy really needs a
    two-income household. Putting your life on hold to support your
    spouse as they are service member is a major sacrifice, but in
    today's job market they are seen as risky hires or job-hoppers,
    but that is not the case at all. So, we have a lot of
    stereotypes to overcome, but those challenges can be overcome
    by adding veterans and military spouses to the conversations
    around diversity and inclusion.
        I, myself, had a very difficult transition from active duty
    post-9/11, and I thought I had it all figured out, but I didn't
    know what kind of resources were available to me and what kind
    of possibilities existed. So, I struggled for years to find my
    niche, and that has been my motivation to lead the way in
    mentorship and coaching for all active-duty transitioning
    service members, military spouses, and Gold Star families, to
    help them find and obtain the meaningful careers for them.
        But that is just one small step. There is a lot of work to
    be done. It is really up to Congress to lead the way for more
    veteran initiatives, and not just the initiatives and programs
    that are benefitting us today, but to make it known,
    widespread, so there is no question about the capabilities that
    a military spouse or a veteran brings to the corporate world
    today.
        Thank you so much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Oliverio follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        And now, Ms. Jill Houghton is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Thank you.

                       STATEMENT OF JILL HOUGHTON

        Ms. Houghton. Chairman Schakowsky, Ranking Member McMorris
    Rodgers, members of the committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today.
        My name is Jill Houghton. I am the president and chief
    executive officer of a nonprofit called Disability:IN, and we
    exist to help business achieve disability inclusion and
    equality. We have over 50 affiliates across the country. We
    represent more than 170 major Fortune 1000 corporations, and
    almost one-quarter of those corporations operate within the
    technology industry.
        My testimony is rooted in my personal experience. I am a
    female leader and I have a nonapparent disability. And I really
    want to focus on three issues today. I think it is really
    important that you remember that disability is an important
    component of diversity. No. 2, disability drives business
    performance. And No. 3, disability inclusion drives innovation.
        Disability knows no stranger. Race, gender, ethnicity,
    sexual orientation, gender identity, it can happen to any one
    of us at anytime in our life. According to the Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention, 1 in 4 Americans live with a
    disability, and disability is often forgotten. We are said to
    be the silent ``D'' in diversity. And yet, there are 61 million
    Americans living with disabilities. So, we are an integral part
    of diversity.
        When the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in
    1990, that was opportunity, economic opportunity, for people
    with disabilities, but the one thing that it couldn't do was
    legislate attitudes. And so, we know that, when we look at the
    Bureau of Labor Statistics in January of 2019, that the labor
    force participation rate for people with disabilities was 20.5
    percent versus people without disabilities of 68.3 percent.
        At Disability:IN, we have committed our self to helping
    corporate America with data and insight. In that spirit, we
    have joined forces with the American Association of People with
    Disabilities to create something called the Disability Equality
    Index. This is the Nation's trusted disability inclusion
    benchmark, because business wants to do better. and it looks at
    things like leadership and culture, employment practices,
    community engagement, enterprisewide access, and supplier
    diversity. The technology industry actively participates in the
    DEI, and we are growing by 30 percent every year.
        The companies that score an 80 or above are publicly
    acknowledged on our website at disabilityequalityindex.org and
    ranked as the best place to work for people with disabilities.
    But I will tell you, even the companies that are scoring a
    hundred would be the first to tell you that they don't have it
    all figured out, that they want to do better, but there is a
    lot more work to do.
        Using the Disability Equality Index, we teamed with
    Accenture, because what we know, if we are going to take
    disability inclusion and diversity to the board room, to the C-
    suite, we need the business case. So, we teamed with Accenture.
    They studied the first 4 years of data. They worked with
    Vanguard and algorithms. What they found in getting to equal
    the disability inclusion advantage is that, on average,
    companies, leading companies, that are driving disability
    inclusion rated 28 percent in higher revenue, double the net
    income, and 30 percent higher economic profit margins than
    their peers. Disability inclusion impacts business performance.
        With that concrete evidence, we confirmed that disability
    inclusion is good for business and investors are viewing it as
    the next frontier in environment, social, and governance
    investing. We rolled out that report on the floor of the Stock
    Exchange and Wall Street. And the Comptroller DiNapoli from New
    York State has issued a letter--he runs the third largest
    pension fund in the Nation--to the top Nasdaq companies calling
    on them to ask what they are doing around disability inclusion.
        And last, disability inclusion drives innovation. We like
    to say that inclusion and disability, at the nexus is
    accessibility, and without accessibility, we have got nothing.
    And so, that is very important, that the tech sector continue
    to focus on building accessibility and driving disability
    inclusion.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Houghton follows:]\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ A report entitled ``The 2018 Disability Equality Index: A
    Record Year for Corporate Disability Inclusion and Leadership''
    submitted by Ms. Houghton has been retained in committee files and also
    is available as part of her written testimony at https://
    docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20190306/108901/HHRG-116-IF17-Wstate-
    HoughtonJ-20190306.pdf.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Schakowsky. And next, Dean David Lopez, you are
    recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF DAVID LOPEZ

        Mr. Lopez. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Schakowsky,
    Ranking Member Rodgers, members of the subcommittee, for
    inviting me to this very important hearing.
        My name is David Lopez, and I am currently the co-dean of
    Rutgers Law School in Newark. Over the last 100 years, Rutgers
    Law School has stood as an exemplary model of a public
    institution that both welcomes and promotes diversity,
    meaningful sociability, and leverages the law to achieve
    equality of opportunity in the public, private, and nonprofit
    sectors. We believe we have normalized the idea of opportunity.
        From 2010 to 2016, I was the longest-serving general
    counsel of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
    twice nominated by President Barack Obama and twice confirmed
    by the U.S. Senate. I was the first Latino selected to this
    position, and in the capacity as general counsel, I led the
    litigation program charged with enforcing Federal
    antidiscrimination statutes nationwide. So, I come here both as
    an educator and as a lifelong civil rights practitioner.
        During the last 30 years, technology has transformed our
    economy and changed our daily lives--how we work, how we learn,
    how we make decisions, how we play. The tech industry has
    produced remarkable tools and resources, providing us with
    social media and new ways to connect with others, as well as
    instant access to huge amounts of information.
        But, as we have heard, it is no secret that the tech
    industry has suffered with the persistent problem of the
    absence of diversity. We have heard many of the Members here
    today, from many of you, from many of the panelists. And this
    all comes at a time when tech jobs are growing rapidly in our
    economy.
        To use the words of a very common phrase today, ``The tech
    industry operates in a bubble.'' It operates in a bubble. It
    operates without the cross-currents of thinking, from
    reflecting the beauty of this country.
        Of course, ideals of living in a discrimination-free
    society with equal opportunity, these are bedrock principles
    central to social mobility and the American dream. The
    elimination of arbitrary barriers ensures that hard work
    matters, that investing in your dreams matters.
        It is well established that racial, gender, and other types
    of diversity in the workplace has a positive influence on
    teams, and we have heard many of those studies. Diverse teams
    are more productive. Teams that are made up of individuals of
    diverse backgrounds are more innovative, generally make more
    error-free decisions. Further, there is convincing evidence
    that increased diversity in the workplace leads to higher
    revenues and increases innovation.
        One of the problems I believe that the tech industry faces
    is the problem of implicit bias. The science of implicit bias
    is recognized as the automatic associations of stereotypes or
    attitudes about a particular group. One study demonstrated
    implicit bias by showing that resumes with more white-sounding
    names received requests for interviews 50 percent more
    frequently than the same resume with more African-American-
    sounding names, but with equal or better qualifications.
        A number of recent studies also suggest that isolation and
    bias influenced women leaving STEM careers. Often, it is not
    simply the choices that employees make that influence the
    careers, but the workplace environment that drives denial of
    opportunity.
        Now let's talk a little bit about the products. And we have
    heard many of the stories here today about the end results of
    perhaps the absence of diversity. Big data analytics allows
    your employer to know whether you are pregnant even before you
    disclose it. That is against the law. In one high-profile
    incident, one retailer, drawing on consumer data, knew a young
    woman was pregnant before her parents did. Software used by
    many police departments across the country that determines the
    likelihood of recidivism has been shown, as discussed today, to
    have a bias against African Americans. Companies are using
    algorithms to determine who is likely to default on a loan or
    recommit crimes, despite the algorithm's tendency to reflect
    society's bias towards racial minorities.
        So, all of this demonstrates that this is a very important
    discussion. Diversity is important not only because it is the
    right thing to do and it is a reflection of the American dream;
    diversity also has consequences on these tools and these
    products of predictive analytics and artificial intelligence
    rapidly changing our environment, and the way that we live and
    that we play in our society.
        The public university has a very special role in addressing
    these issues because a public university provides an
    opportunity for interdisciplinary learning, for computer
    science, that enshrines values of equal opportunity, fairness,
    competition, and justice.
        And I welcome your questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lopez follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much. This has been really a
    wonderful panel that I think underscores how diversity is not
    just a side issue.
        And now, we will move to a number of questions. Each Member
    will have 5 minutes to ask questions of our witnesses, and I am
    going to start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
        I just want the panel to know that there are a lot of
    things going on today. The fact that there are a number of
    empty chairs is not indicative of lack of interest in what you
    are saying. All of your statements will be in the record, and I
    expect people will be coming in and out.
        So, I am going to focus on women. Just 31 percent of the
    employees at Facebook are women, and that's also true at Apple.
    The number of women who work in technical roles at these
    companies is even lower. We also see that the female share of
    computer science degrees has actually dropped from 28 percent
    to 18 percent between 1993 and 2016, while at the same time the
    tech industry is booming and continuing to grow at an
    unprecedented rate.
        This isn't a problem that will be solved overnight. But,
    starting at the top, getting more women into visible technical
    positions, providing role models for young women, college
    students deciding on choosing a technical path of study, seems
    to be a very good strategy.
        So, Dean Lopez, intentional efforts to reduce the bias that
    is not necessarily deliberate in recruiting have dramatically
    increased opportunities for women in other fields. For example,
    orchestra auditions where the musician's gender was hidden has
    increased the hiring of women by over 25 percent. What are some
    ways that tech companies can change their recruitment
    techniques in order to adapt to the need of diversity in the
    workforce?
        Mr. Lopez. I thin the most important thing a tech company
    can do really is provide meaningful leadership at the top. If
    tech companies want to be diverse, they need to have the
    leadership making very clear pronouncements that they will
    examine every aspect of the work culture, the evaluation
    system, the recruitment system, the promotion system, to make
    sure that it is free from gender bias. And that means looking
    at issues of implicit bias.
        You see this particularly in pay disparities based on
    gender, where you often have systems that are almost
    systematically stacked against women. So, it really takes a
    clear statement from leadership that diversity is important,
    that inclusiveness is important.
        The other thing that is really important is to really
    examine how you conduct recruitment. Recruitment is often based
    on sort of the tap on the shoulder, the old boys' club. It is
    really important, I think, for high-tech companies to examine
    their networks. As the co-dean at a public university, as a
    graduate of Arizona State University, I certainly understand
    the grit and the talent that you get out of those universities,
    but often the Silicon Valley recruits in a very, very narrow
    way, right?
        And then, the last thing I want to mention is that, as
    diversity relates to the end product, we have seen Amazon, for
    instance, they had to stop a hiring tool because they found out
    that the hiring tool itself was biased against women. The
    algorithms they used were biased against women.
        We have seen lawsuits recently involving Facebook's
    dropdown box where women were excluded from certain job
    advertisements in traditionally male industries. So, there is a
    connection between the two.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        Funding for female entrepreneurs is minuscule compared to
    men. Women receive just 2.2 percent of the venture capital
    investment. This is despite the fact that women-founded
    businesses generate more than two times the revenue per
    investment dollar than businesses founded by men.
        Ms. Kim, what do you think is happening here? What is going
    on?
        Ms. Kim. Much like the other economic reasons for having
    diversity, you are seeing something that doesn't make sense. It
    is the system that exists that needs a complete culture shift
    in how to--I mean, whether it is employee recruitment or
    whether it is investing in programs to recruit from diverse
    populations, as well as investing in building those
    opportunities for entrepreneurs as well. It doesn't make sense,
    what is going on, because there is a clear economic rationale
    to hire and promote from communities of color, hire and promote
    women, and invest in businesses led by people of color and
    women.
        And so, we call on the tech sector to examine what within
    the culture is going on, and, also, to engage with civil
    society organizations, and civil rights organizations, in
    particular, to talk to us about what is going on in the hiring
    and investment practices that results in these very harmful
    impacts.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Yes, I wish I could get to--5 minutes goes
    really fast. Maybe at the end I can open it up to others on the
    panel. But, in the meantime, I want to yield for questions to
    our ranking member, Ms. McMorris Rodgers.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And thank you, everyone, for being here. Excellent
    testimony today.
        I wanted to start with Ms. Houghton. I wanted to ask you to
    speak some more to how companies can build an inclusive
    workforce for people with disabilities, and address both the
    physical and intellectual disabilities, and what the benefits
    are that you see as a result.
        I also wanted to ask you to speak and share some of the
    examples of the impact of having people with disabilities in
    the workforce and how that ensures products and services are
    accessible to everyone.
        Ms. Houghton. Thank you, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers.
        I think that what we are seeing is really driven in tech.
    It is companies like Microsoft and SAP and DXC Technology that
    have created these inclusive hiring programs that are based on
    the premise that there is bias in their hiring process, and
    they want to tear down those walls. And so, they have created
    these hiring programs where they are sourcing talent with
    disabilities, with all different kinds of disabilities, and
    bringing them in, perhaps rather than in a typical interview,
    coming in and maybe doing a two-week program. And maybe the
    interview is with LEGOs and like a different kind of a process.
        Because what they recognize is that the traditional models
    are screening the talent out. And so, they have grown these
    inclusive programs, these Autism at Work programs, and they are
    putting everything out in the public domain to try to help
    their peers.
        I think what they are experiencing, as a result of this, is
    that this talent is coming in and helping them develop new
    products and tools and make things more accessible. Filing for
    patents, things that wouldn't have happened if they hadn't torn
    down those walls.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Would you speak briefly as to the impact of
    job coaches or accommodations, the internships, just very
    briefly?
        Ms. Houghton. Yes, people with disabilities, we come in
    different shapes and sizes. The on-the-job supports when
    individuals have the opportunity to perform with the right
    support, they far exceed their peers. Their productivity, their
    decrease in absenteeism, they stay.
        Mrs. Rodgers. That is great. Thank you. Thank you for being
    here.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy, I wanted just to ask you to speak a
    little bit more about how you see the commitment to science,
    technology, engineering, and math helping create the pipeline,
    and are you seeing that translate into the opportunities with
    the tech companies, in particular?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Thank you.
        Absolutely. The STEM field, science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics, writ large, are often a key
    foundation for people who will pursue careers in the technology
    areas. And so, making certain that that basic preparation--and
    I will speak specifically about mathematics; it is my own
    field. And also, it is an underpinning for so much of what goes
    on in the tech industry.
        Making certain that our approach to engaging people in
    mathematics, to instruction, is inclusive, that it attends to
    differences and draws on those, and supports students to be
    successful, to draw on their grit, because mathematics is not
    necessarily seen as an easy kind of pursuit.
        To continue, I wanted to just tack on a little bit on these
    questions about internships and how companies can be more fully
    engaged with diversity. Universities can be wonderful partners
    and are across our Nation, our public universities, in
    particular, with the private sector. And we have found that U
    Maine, for example, in our engineering college, that a large
    percentage, maybe 75 percent of our students have actual
    internships in a variety of high-tech sectors, and those
    internships turn into positions. And so, getting to know
    students and making opportunities for diverse students early on
    is really crucial to this whole business.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
        And finally, Ms. Oliverio, would you speak, just in the 20
    seconds I have left, just what do you see veterans--what are
    the unique qualities that veterans can add to this
    conversation?
        Ms. Oliverio. Veterans are so unique. They are natural
    leaders and that leadership is cultivated in an authentic way
    throughout their military service. They are resilient. They can
    adapt and overcome to any situation and any challenge. If tech
    can just meet them where they are, they will be able to
    diversify on their own.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Great. Thank you all.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I recognize Representative Castor for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you, Chairwoman Schakowsky.
        Sharing diversity and inclusion in the technology sector
    workforce and products is critical to a thriving industry.
    Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress and the industry itself have
    overlooked this topic for too long. So, I am glad we are
    holding this hearing today.
        Thank you very much, and I want to thank the witnesses for
    your expert advice on what Congress can do to make the workers
    in the tech sector more representative of America. Because I
    believe, when that happens, business will thrive and consumers
    will benefit.
        In addition to your testimony, I have seen report after
    report that has been rather troubling about technology
    adversely affecting communities of color. Companies have given
    different prices and credit card deals to consumers based upon
    location, which can mean white neighborhoods are offered better
    deals and prices than minority neighborhoods. Supposedly
    unbiased algorithms that companies use for a variety of
    different processes have been shown to produce discriminatory
    results. Facial recognition software often cannot accurately
    recognize people of color.
        Ms. Turner Lee, these are just a few examples, but they
    illustrate a larger pattern in tech of discriminatory products
    and processes. What are some of the specific policies the tech
    industry could adopt right now to fix this, and what should
    Congress be doing?
        Dr. Turner Lee. Yes, thank you for just acknowledging all
    those examples. Because as we go deeper and deeper into the
    tech space, I think we are going to see more of these.
        I think it is important, as I recommended and, again, put
    into my written testimony, that we think about a guardrail that
    we have now, which are the antidiscrimination laws. I think as
    we see more of these offers become discriminatory or produce a
    discriminatory output, people being denied credit because of
    the fact that their web-browsing history suggests that they are
    not creditworthy, higher education using algorithmic
    decisionmaking on whether or not kids should be accepted into
    college, those types of things have, I think, implications that
    we have not really looked at in connecting the physical and the
    digital spaces.
        So, I would implore Congress to just have a review and
    analysis of what those nondiscrimination laws are and see if
    there is any connection to what we actually see in the digital
    space that can generate these unintended consequences. I think
    that is the first.
        I would also just add real quickly, I think there will be
    innocuous cases, as it was suggested, where the training data
    may not be correct and companies themselves will self-regulate.
    I think those conversations still need to be had.
        Google voluntarily removed payday ads from their search
    query, just to make sure that low-income people were not being
    dragged into this pathway of inequality. I think we need to see
    more of that, and I think Congress can actually use the bully
    pulpit in some ways to suggest that those conversations should
    happen, as well as collaborations with civil society, who
    actually see the outputs of this.
        It is the technologist that oftentimes sits within the
    vacuum, and civil society groups like AAJC, then, sort of have
    to clean it up. And then, Congress has to somehow get in the
    middle of these conversations.
        I think more collaborative dialog to best understand how
    these ecosystems work and the application of guardrails that we
    have in our favor can actually help quell some of these biases.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Luckie, isn't there also a role for people of diverse
    backgrounds in decisionmaking positions in these tech
    companies? And how do we encourage that and what are the
    barriers that prevent that from happening now?
        Mr. Luckie. I think there is a lot of focus on the
    managerial positions and having someone at the top that will
    filter down and make a workplace more diverse. I think it is
    more important on the employee level to have multiple people in
    the room who can say, hey, are we testing on this particular
    audience; have we thought about this particular impact on this
    community?
        As I said in my opening statement, making sure that those
    voices are being heard, that there is an equal opportunity for
    people to share those concepts, and it is important for tech
    companies to do an audit of these individual teams and
    understand where are the gaps in diversity, not just in the
    company overall, but on the individual teams that are all
    impacting the company's overall goals.
        Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
        I have a few other questions. I had a group of neighbors
    from Florida come and visit me who happened to be blind, and
    they had a number of suggestions. My time is running out. So, I
    am going to submit those to you for the record and ask you to
    please send in your specific answer to those.
        Thank you.
        And I yield back.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        And now, 5 minutes to Mr. Guthrie.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it very
    much. Thanks for this hearing. This is a very important
    hearing.
        A couple of things. One, and this is for Dr. Ferrini-Mundy,
    or anybody that would like to answer the questions, but I will
    focus on you. I understand that Facebook, Google, and all the
    tech companies have people in marketing in all different
    degrees, but I am going to focus on the STEM side of their
    businesses.
        I think the Chair just said in her questions that, as we
    need more computer science people, as that seems to be the
    initial higher, where big money is, people in tech fields, if I
    heard you correctly--I know you said it correctly--but if I
    heard you correctly, 28 percent of the computer science used to
    be women and now it is down to 18 percent. So, I guess my
    question is, does the tech workforce in Silicon Valley or in
    tech, the tech people, does it reflect the people in the tech
    programs, the demographics? So, is it kind of they are hiring
    who we are training or educating as a nation? And if so, how do
    we get more people into it? How do we get a more diverse STEM
    populace, so that there will be a more diverse technical?
    Because the other side is, if it doesn't reflect that, that
    means they are just really being biased in who they hire. Of
    course, I am talking on the STEM side of their business, their
    employees.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Right.
        Mr. Guthrie. OK.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Thanks. And so, there are several
    questions in there. I think in terms of the tech workforce,
    others in this panel are more expert in the dispersed expertise
    across that tech force, because I suspect it comes from a
    variety of areas. That all said, we must do better in higher
    education to attract people to these STEM fields, to computer
    science, and to make their time in higher education much more
    inclusive, so that they are a part of the groups that are,
    then, going to be taking on these product questions when they
    get into the tech workforce.
        Mr. Guthrie. How do we get more people, a diverse group,
    into the----
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Right.
        Mr. Guthrie [continuing]. Because what happens in tech
    school, not just computer, if you are talking about a
    manufacturing company in Kentucky needs a computer science, I
    mean a numerical control person, whether it is male, female, or
    whatever, they can't find them, and we have all these people
    not going to secondary schools. So, there seems to be a
    breakdown in the market----
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Right.
        Mr. Guthrie [continuing]. For getting people into the
    right--no matter who they are.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. At U Maine, I just learned that about 47
    percent of our students are in STEM fields, which is high. What
    that means is that we are creating pathways from our secondary
    schools that are welcoming. We do an early college program that
    gives students the opportunity to study with our faculty before
    they get out of high school.
        I think a lot of it is about pathways and helping students
    be able to see themselves in these careers, see them as
    meaningful career options. And a lot of that has to do, then,
    with real-world kinds of problem-solving as undergraduates, so
    that it is real-world learning outside the classroom in
    internships, in clinical experiences, that put them together
    with people in these fields. A lot of collaboration with K-12
    is crucial for this, too. It begins very early. So, all of the
    work in coding, for example, that we heard about is one piece
    of, I think, an important systemic effort to get people
    interested, to get diverse people interested in STEM.
        Mr. Guthrie. I have got a few seconds. I want to ask
    another question. Anybody want to comment on how we get more
    people into, a more diverse, educated group to come out, so a
    pool?
        Dr. Turner Lee. Yes. No, Congressman, I think it is a great
    question. I mean, overall, we have a national shortage of tech
    workers. So, let's just start there. I mean, in programming, we
    have seen that in government where years ago there were 10 to
    15 thousand people we couldn't employ in cybersecurity tech
    jobs. So, if we look at the national shortage of where we are
    as a country, and then, you trickle that down to diversity, it
    becomes even more problematic, right?
        But I think what we are seeing is this movement in colleges
    and universities to sort of focus on computer science, which I
    think may become a better shift. I mean, I have seen Members of
    Congress, your colleagues, sort of introduce computer science
    as a national initiative. It has not been a national priority.
        People, you know, they change where they are in terms of
    their leaning towards STEM. There are studies that say, with
    African-American children, if a young African-American boy is
    not actually focused on math by sixth grade, it is less likely
    that he will pursue a STEM career when he goes to college.
        That is why I say I think it is important for us to look at
    the sources of where we are recruiting students and build up
    where there is a possibility of more appropriations in these
    programs, opportunities. It is also important----
        Mr. Guthrie. I do have one more quick question I want to
    get to.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. OK.
        Mr. Guthrie. I apologize for that.
        Ms. Oliverio, I wanted to ask you a question about
    veterans. I served in the military myself. But I think you said
    to maybe Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, you said, ``Tech will
    meet veterans where they are and they will diversify
    themselves.'' I mean, what does that mean, tech needs to meet
    veterans where they are?
        Ms. Oliverio. By more fellowships, apprenticeships, and
    opportunities for veterans to bridge their skills gap in a
    field such as coding. Coding is wildly popular, and there is a
    lot of professional opportunity across corporate America to get
    a job in coding. But that is one major skill that is not
    utilized in any branch of service.
        Mr. Guthrie. And 5 minutes does pass too fast.
        [Laughter.]
        So, thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you for your answers.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Now I recognize Congresswoman Kelly for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Algorithms are the undercurrent of the internet. So much of
    what we do online is run by automated machine-learning
    algorithms. But it has become clear, as we have talked about,
    that bias of all kinds permeates many of these algorithms.
        In his written testimony, Mr. Luckie pointed to several
    examples of bias output of algorithms. What makes this even
    more concerning is that, apparently, no one, often not even in
    the engineers and computer scientists creating the algorithms,
    really know how these machine-learning algorithms work. All
    they really know is what datasets are used to train the
    algorithms and what results come out of the other end. As we
    often hear, garbage in, garbage out.
        Ms. Kim, can you expand on how the decisions made by
    algorithms can hurt vulnerable communities?
        Ms. Kim. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Kelly. You're welcome.
        Ms. Kim. In terms of, again, the specifics of the technical
    aspects of why things happen, it is upon industry to let us
    know, have more transparency, and work and engage with us in
    terms of civil rights organizations and communities of color to
    let us know why these things are happening.
        But, in terms of the examples that have happened, we have
    seen, for instance, in Oakland, California, the police
    department using predictive software to send police to
    neighbors that are more often than not communities of color,
    regardless of the actual crime rate of those neighborhoods. You
    see examples again and again like this. And it is upon us, it
    is our job as civil society organizations to raise these issues
    to tech companies, but the tech companies must engage, and many
    have. And we appreciate companies that have engaged in civil
    rights audits and other opportunities to raise these concerns,
    and often to raise concerns before they become actual problems.
    And so, we look forward to additional engagement.
        Ms. Kelly. So you feel the companies need to be more
    proactive?
        Ms. Kim. Absolutely.
        Ms. Kelly. Mr. Luckie, you said that some of the more major
    incidents that you listed can result in bad publicity, which
    can alienate customers, leading to profit loss. Is it fair to
    say that there are biased outcomes that have not been
    identified?
        Mr. Luckie. Absolutely. One of the things about working at
    Facebook, in particular, is that you don't see the fires that
    the company has put out before it gets to the public. And there
    are whole teams that are just working on getting those out of
    the public eye.
        What I will say is that companies like Facebook think about
    the best possible uses of their platform and not the worst.
    That is where you see issues like Russia and hackings and
    privacy, and then, they become issues that they have to fix
    later down the road.
        Ms. Kelly. So, are you saying that companies, again, need
    to be more proactive and not just reactive--
        Mr. Luckie. Absolutely. Absolutely.
        Ms. Kelly [continuing]. When something happens or when the
    press is looking?
        Mr. Luckie. And having more people in the room from
    different backgrounds will aid in that.
        Ms. Kelly. OK. Targeted online advertising has become so
    sophisticated that advertisers can skirt Federal law by using
    interests as a proxy for disability, race, or other protected
    traits. Mr. Luckie, what do platforms need to do to address
    these loopholes and fight less blatant forms of discrimination?
        Mr. Luckie. It is really about the education and making
    sure that that is being disseminated from the top. Too often
    what is happening is this is happening on a ground level, where
    employees are fighting the good fight and educating up, rather
    than that happening top-down. And so, it has to be a priority
    for leadership and them to be vocal and, also, to hold people
    accountable in order to make sure that these things aren't
    happening.
        Ms. Kelly. Dr. Turner Lee, do you have anything more to
    add?
        Dr. Turner Lee. Yes, I would add, the interesting area that
    we are in, Congresswoman, right now is the fact that we do not
    have demographic data collected about us by technology
    companies. And so, what you are suggesting is that use proxies,
    your zip code, maybe your profile picture, things that actually
    are subjective measures to sort of come at your identity.
    Because a lot of what we see in algorithms are inferential
    circumstances, right, it is inferring from my purchasing
    behavior where I visit, who I speak to and connect to, the type
    of person that I am; therefore, determine the type of product
    that I might be interested in. Thus, leading to targeted
    advertising.
        I think there is an opportunity here for Congress as well
    as the tech sector to think about ways to look at how to
    correct bias. Are there secondary datasets that they can use to
    sort of ensure, as Mr. Luckie has said, that this algorithm is
    not going to generate an unintended consequence? Are there
    cases where they want demographic data and want permission from
    consumers to collect that, to ensure that the algorithm will
    not be biased? I think as we go forward those conversations
    will need to be had.
        I think it is also important for customers and consumers to
    have a feedback loop.
        Ms. Kelly. Let me just get my last question in----
        Dr. Turner Lee. Yes.
        Ms. Kelly [continuing]. Which you can answer and anybody
    else. What is the role of the Federal Government? Do Federal
    laws and guidelines need to be updated to reflect changes in
    advertising technologies? So, I just wanted to quickly get
    that.
        Dr. Turner Lee. Yes, and I will be quick. I have said it,
    and I will keep saying it. I think we need to revisit those
    nondiscrimination laws and, where they are applicable, apply
    them to digital space, and maybe not do it in a way that is
    punitive, but just extend those protections to consumers.
        Everything that you have heard around algorithm bias is
    mitigated through existing guardrails, but I also think that it
    is important that we have self-regulatory measures where the
    tech sector sits down with civil society, it has been
    mentioned, to think through these cases. There are going to be
    use cases where data will be weaponized against communities of
    color, against women, against people with disabilities, and we
    need to find ways to stop that.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Now I recognize Congressman Gianforte for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And thank you for the panel today, for your testimony. This
    is a very important topic.
        In our technology business, we found that internship
    programs and coding classes were effective ways to train and
    recruit good hires. And I would love to hear from Dr. Ferrini-
    Mundy. With that in mind, can you please discuss some of the
    steps your university is taking to engage with the local
    business community to match up the educational pursuits with
    the needs in the marketplace?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Thank you for the question.
        We, of course, are situated in Maine, in a rural State like
    yours. So, we are very, very eager to be certain that we are
    serving the economic development of the State of Maine with
    very well-prepared students who will engage that business and
    industry. And there are a few key fields where this is
    especially opportune for us in Maine, in the forest resources
    industry and agriculture fields, in the marine science areas,
    for a few. Those fields are all becoming increasingly
    technological. So, they are not high-tech in the sense that we
    are discussing here exactly, but they really do depend upon
    people who will bring the kind of knowledge that we are
    discussing.
        So, we are very eager. We have a number of important
    internship opportunities. We have an incubator that allows
    students to work together with companies that are looking to
    expand and new companies coming into the State. We try to make
    those real-world problems that these companies are facing a
    part of the education of our students.
        Mr. Gianforte. OK. Thank you.
        We have been talking a lot today about the shortage of
    workforce. One of the things we have experimented with--not
    experiment, we have done it in Montana--was we, particularly in
    the computer science curriculum, we have introduced a bachelor
    of arts in computer science versus a bachelor of science----
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Right.
        Mr. Gianforte [continuing]. To attract more people.
        Mr. Guthrie was asking about how do we broaden the net to
    attract more people into these STEM programs at a college
    level. Could you just talk to that a little bit, about other
    things we might try?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Sure. And I should say that, prior to
    coming to the University of Maine, I worked at the National
    Science Foundation for a number of years, and was a part of a
    variety of conversations there. In part, the NSF has identified
    something called The Future of Work at the Human-Technology
    Frontier, as one of its initiatives that is described on their
    website. And that is a program that is calling for research
    that will help us to better understand these technological
    changes that our society is addressing and how we can really
    better understand what it takes to prepare people to work in
    these spaces.
        So, within computer science, for example, there is a
    national conversation about what you described, creating the BA
    in computer science, but also the notion of computer science
    plus some other field as a kind of major. So, computer science
    plus biomedical engineering, computer science plus sociology.
    The idea that we want to advertise to students, the computer
    sciences is meant to help us solve a very wide range of
    problems, not only problems that are specifically in some
    vision of technology that may be an old-fashioned one.
        Just one quick last point that I wanted to make relative to
    the discussion of the algorithms and the algorithmic bias. I do
    think that a piece of addressing this should be sitting within
    universities as well, so that researchers are working within
    machine learning, within AI, to understand and help to shape
    these algorithms in ways that are consistent with the kind of
    diversity we are talking about.
        Mr. Gianforte. Well, I certainly agree with you. It is a
    truism that computers are here to stay, and I can't imagine any
    degree that wouldn't benefit----
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Right.
        Mr. Gianforte [continuing]. Without some minor in computer
    science----
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Right.
        Mr. Gianforte [continuing]. Making a better candidate for
    any job in the marketplace.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Absolutely.
        Mr. Gianforte. Yes. Ms. Oliverio, I understand your
    organization works with veterans. We have the second-highest
    per capita number of veterans of any State in the country in
    Montana. Some people might have a difficult time understanding
    how a ranch hand or a combat veteran might end up in the tech
    industry, but I believe the key to a good employee is always
    work ethic and selflessness. I am interested in having you just
    summarize for me briefly the work that you do to help veterans
    make that transition into the tech industry.
        Ms. Oliverio. For us at Military Talent Partners, we
    believe that everything begins with mentorship, understanding
    the goals and the purpose and helping veterans and spouses
    really find their ``why'' and understand what they want to
    accomplish in their career. It may have absolutely nothing to
    do with their job in their service, but by aligning their goals
    and their purpose, they become empowered to find a meaningful
    career that is meant for them.
        Mr. Gianforte. OK. Great.
        And just, Ms. Houghton, if I could, I understand some
    companies exclude people with disabilities. One of the reasons
    they give is the cost. Can you just comment briefly on how can
    companies accommodate costs associated with hiring people with
    disabilities and what impact that really has?
        Ms. Houghton. So, I think that that is a myth, and that
    what we have found and what we have shown with the Accenture
    data is that it is quite the contrary. For companies that are
    committed to disability inclusion, they actually four times
    greater total shareholder returns.
        Mr. Gianforte. Thank you for your enthusiasm.
        With that, I yield back.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. O'Halleran, I recognize you for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And, Panel, I have really appreciated this discussion
    today.
        Mr. Luckie had identified within his written testimony at
    least that there were 22 percent of rural residents that did
    not have the high-speed broadband ability to be able to even
    get prepared for the industry. Whether it is gender bias or
    racial bias or disability bias or geographic bias, and it
    really bothers a lot of us on all those fronts, along with our
    veterans, the bottom line is that it is still human input into
    this process and somewhere along the line these organizations
    need to identify that peer review, and input from the community
    is critically important to be able to get some fairness into
    the process. I would rather see that done through the companies
    themselves, and I think that that is the direction we need to
    go.
        I am going to kind of go to the geographical issue right
    now. Dr. Ferrini-Mundy, you have mentioned a ton of programs at
    the university, but it gets down to how do we get students from
    those geographic areas. My district in Arizona has 12 Native
    American tribes that make up 24 percent of the district's
    population. Twenty-some percent of the district population is
    Hispanic. A tremendous amount of poverty. Arizona is a big
    State. Sixty percent of the land mass of that State is in my
    district.
        And so, the problem becomes that, when it gets down to just
    the sheer technology needs, and now that we are going from
    where we are at now to 5G, I think personally that that is
    going to put rural America and those areas back further, even
    though they will get better than what they have, they will lose
    ground from where people are going to be in urban areas. What
    is your experience in getting students from those areas, first,
    into the university, keeping them in the university, and
    getting them into these programs? Also, we have, obviously,
    many of those families that the first time they hit the
    university is the first person from that family ever to get
    there.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Right, right. So, I can speak to that in
    a couple of ways. In the University of Maine, we are actually a
    part of a university system with several regional campuses
    across the State, many of them located in extremely rural
    areas. In fact, one of them, the University of Maine at
    Machias, is a regional campus of the University of Maine. And
    so, we are very dependent upon making certain that those
    campuses, and particularly Machias, are responding to the
    challenges and issues of that particular geography. It is a
    coastal area. It is a very economically disadvantaged area. So,
    we are seeing that campus really thrive as a center for the
    community, as a way to address issues that are of interest
    there, to try to build a workforce that can thrive in such
    areas as healthcare and community services. So, some of this is
    about customizing what the institutions offer to the regions
    that are there.
        The broadband issue is a serious challenge in Maine. And
    so, we face that in a variety of ways, working together with
    the State, with the legislature, to see what kind of progress
    we can make on that front. Because online opportunities will
    continue to abound, and we want to be certain that those are
    accessible to all students.
        Mr. O'Halleran. How much of a disadvantage is this to those
    residents and their children from those areas versus urban
    areas?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. It certainly is a major challenge. That
    is why at this point we want to be certain that our regional
    campuses are providing very good opportunities and services,
    ranging from programs for first-generation college-going
    students to other kinds of support. But it is a serious problem
    for us in our State.
        Mr. O'Halleran. And just a comment towards the end here on
    our veterans. First of all, it is Women's Month and we need to
    make sure that--we can't just take 50-some percent of our
    population and not them have an active high-level role in our
    society and leaders of our society. But our veterans, again,
    when you take a look at the training that our service personnel
    go through, that is a key indicator of leadership in the
    future, the ability. All they need is that little bit extra to
    be able to adapt. It is not changing; it is adapting to a new
    role. We all go through that in life, and we just need to make
    sure our veterans have that opportunity.
        So, thank you for what you are doing.
        I yield.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Carter, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And thank all of you for being here. We appreciate this.
    This is certainly a very important subject.
        I want to start with you, Ms. Ferrini-Mundy. Is that right?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Yes.
        Mr. Carter. I'm sorry. Thank you.
        Obviously, you have got an extensive background in
    developing policies that would help young people enter into the
    job market and into new opportunities, particularly as it
    relates to STEM and particularly as it relates to getting a
    number of minorities involved, a number of those who don't have
    the opportunities perhaps that some others do.
        Would you agree that there is a major problem in the number
    of minority communities that have access to these STEM fields
    and tech-related jobs?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Certainly if we look at the numbers of
    minorities well represented in the STEM fields, there is a
    problem.
        Mr. Carter. Right.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. I mean, those numbers should be tracking
    at least with representation across the society.
        Mr. Carter. So, let's talk about that for just a second.
    When you say ``STEM,'' I think we all think of just STEM and
    more engineering.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Right.
        Mr. Carter. But there is more to it than that.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Certainly, certainly.
        Mr. Carter. In the State of Georgia, we have been very
    successful in building up our film industry through tax credits
    and different incentives, and through the work of the Georgia
    State legislature, and particularly the economic development
    committee in the House and our chairman. Chairman Ron Stephens
    has done an outstanding job. It has resulted in a lot of
    opportunities for these type of jobs. It has created a number
    of jobs.
        One of the things that we are very proud of is the Georgia
    Film Academy. That was established through the State, and it
    runs through 12 different institutions, through the university
    system and the technical college system. They offer degrees and
    certificates, and that is the type of thing.
        Can you think of any other examples like this where it
    necessarily might not be engineering jobs per se, which is I
    think what we think of when talk about STEM? But it is
    opportunities, nonetheless, and good opportunities and good-
    paying jobs.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. I would mention a few areas at least
    that are relevant for us along these lines in Maine and that do
    require some combination of background in science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics. I will keep putting in plugs for
    mathematics and statistics as central features for these areas.
        But industries such as the forestry industry in the State
    of Maine or aquaculture, a growing industry in our State, these
    are industries that do depend on technological solutions to
    some of the challenges that they face. Agriculture, more
    generally, is, of course, also facing opportunities with new
    technologies. So, people with a range of backgrounds really can
    come together to solve the sorts of problems that these
    industries face in States that are particularly suited to
    particular industries.
        Mr. Carter. Great. And thank you for mentioning timber
    because Georgia is the No. 1 forestry State in the Nation. That
    is something that is very important to us as well.
        Real quickly, I am going to switch over to you, Ms.
    Oliverio. I'm sorry. I hope that is OK. But I am very blessed;
    in the First Congressional District of Georgia we have four
    military installations. We have a number of veterans. We are
    home to over 75,000 veterans. Our quality of life and all the
    things that we enjoy, our environment, lead to a lot of people
    retiring in our area, particularly after we have four military
    installations, a lot of them just stay there and retire.
        The hiring of veterans, this is something that is very
    important. A lot of companies in the First District have really
    capitalized on this and found the veterans to be excellent
    employees. What are some of the challenges that we face, that
    veterans have faced, to being hired?
        Ms. Oliverio. Specifically, to the major Atlanta area,
    there are a number, a massive number of veterans that want to
    relocate to that area and to work, and have struggled to find
    meaningful job opportunities to get in front of the interviews.
    So, while there is a huge footprint for veterans in that area
    in the beautiful State of Georgia, we can do better on the
    messaging on what is available for veterans and how we can
    better acclimate them into the businesses in that State, and
    then, therefore, retain them and mitigate turnover issues
    across the landscape of the corporate build in Georgia, and in
    specifically Atlanta. But if we can make it more well known as
    to what is available and welcome them in, we would have a much
    higher success rate.
        Mr. Carter. Is there anything we can do from a State
    perspective or from a government perspective as far as
    certificates, as far as our technical schools are concerned?
        Ms. Oliverio. Absolutely. I think encouraging mentorships
    or fellowships or apprenticeships of technical schools is an
    excellent idea. It is making it known. We create a lot of great
    programs and ideas, but the word doesn't get out, and it
    becomes too difficult for people to understand how they can
    apply to it or how they qualify or how their business will fit
    into that model. So, by making it more accessible, they can
    take more advantage.
        Mr. Carter. Great. Well, thank you all very much. This is
    extremely important.
        And thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
        And now, I am calling on Congresswoman Blunt Rochester for
    5 minutes.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank
    you for having this very important panel.
        Diversifying and including folks in the tech industry is
    one that I think all of us on the committee can agree with. I
    really wanted to use this time to talk about the fact that,
    whether it is diversifying the workforce or whether it is the
    products that are being created, if you don't have
    representation, we don't get a good product. We have already
    heard the stories of facial recognition that might not
    recognize darker-skinned people or voice-enabled devices that
    have a hard time with accents. And at its worst, we have seen
    algorithmic bias result in criminal risk assessment software
    predicting that black offenders were almost twice as likely to
    reoffend than white offenders, even though their history showed
    otherwise.
        So, it is really vitally important to have this panel. I am
    grateful to the diversity even of the panel that is represented
    here and for the work that you do.
        My first question is for Dr. Turner Lee. In your written
    testimony, you mention COMPAS, the AI software used across the
    country by judges to determine how likely a convicted criminal
    is to commit more crimes. Can you speak more about the real-
    world consequences of the bias found in the program?
        Dr. Turner Lee. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        Yes. I think as a researcher--and I have a degree in
    sociology--I think that is a really important use case that
    deserves some more discussion. What we are talking about in the
    COMPAS algorithm is the ability of judges to rely upon
    automated decisionmaking to assess whether or not people should
    have longer sentences, be released on bail, et cetera. But the
    challenge with that comes--and I think we have heard it a few
    times--in the training data. We all know in the criminal
    justice system that African Americans are more likely to be
    arrested. They, therefore, are more likely to be populated
    within this training set. As a result of that, when it comes to
    sentencing, they are more likely to be penalized or assessed
    larger penalties because of their overrepresentation there.
        That is problematic because what that is suggesting is that
    we are not taking technology and assessing against settled
    research, settled stereotypes, or information that we know are
    assumptions about stereotypes, which brings in, I think, what
    was discussed around implicit and conscious bias, and it also
    brings in structural race and the discrimination. Unless we fix
    those, we, then, develop products that will continue to pick up
    on those errors.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Right.
        Dr. Turner Lee. And so, again, Congressman, you picked up
    on something that is quite problematic because there are
    irreparable consequences to being incarcerated longer that we
    cannot solve.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
        And it leads me to Mr. Lopez. I know you were the longest-
    serving general counsel at the U.S. EEOC. What role should the
    EEOC play in all of this? And do you have the tools?
        Mr. Lopez. Yes. No, I think the EEOC has been very active
    in terms of collecting the data on the absence of diversity in
    the high-tech field. It has also held, I believe, three
    commission meetings which focused on developing information on
    the use of big datasets as employment screens, which is, I
    think, one of the more controversial and one of the most
    important areas in terms of how predictive analytics are now
    being used as a way to recruit and to select applicants.
        And I think what happens is that many of the companies
    involved in these efforts market them as a way to actually
    eliminate bias, and that is a possibility. I mean, really big
    data, data analytics, if used correctly, is not necessarily a
    bad thing. I don't think any of us are coming here as Neo-
    Luddites against the technology. But I think the EEOC has been
    very active in terms of talking about the problem of bad data
    in, bad data out, some of the inherent biases in these tools in
    terms of addressing discrimination.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
        And, Ms. Houghton, I want to briefly say that I was pleased
    to see the work that you are doing, and I also wanted to
    reinforce what you said about the statistics for people with
    disabilities. When you intersect that with being a woman or
    being a person of color, it is even double. In the last 20
    seconds, could you talk about some of the myths that people,
    particularly employers, have for hiring individuals with
    disabilities?
        Ms. Houghton. I think that that is a great question,
    Congresswoman. And there are a lot of myths. There are myths
    that the talent doesn't exist. There are myths that, if I hire
    these people, that they are going to cost me money, that they
    are going to sue me, and on and on and on.
        Ms. Blunt Rochester. Great. And I yield the balance of my
    time.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Bucshon, you are recognized for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Bucshon. Thank you very much.
        My daughter is currently majoring in computer science at
    Cornell University. She is a junior, and she is primarily in
    STEM because, when I first came to Congress, I heard all these
    stories about how we needed more diversity in STEM, which is
    very true, and we all agree on that, I think. I told her, look,
    if you want a job, you should probably look at computer
    science, and she did. So, it is the only kid that has listened
    to me so far. The rest of them, you know, they won't listen.
        [Laughter.]
        And she will be interning in a large bank in New York City
    this summer.
        And so, in this discussion I think--and I apologize, I had
    another hearing--but we a lot of times focus on edge providers
    like Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other tech companies like
    that. But, really, these opportunities are growing across all
    sectors of our economy.
        And so, Dr. Ferrini-Mundy, can you explain how universities
    are working to promote these types of tech opportunities to
    their students, including, for example, the big banks which are
    hiring more tech people than they are bankers?
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. So, again, I think there are many things
    universities are doing and can do. One is to make sure that the
    education that we provide our students both deep and broad
    enough to enable them to seek those kinds of opportunities.
        The second is to continue to work to have internships,
    apprenticeships, opportunities for students along the way as
    undergraduates to get access to chances to work in some of
    these different sectors, and to both show what they bring
    because of their diversity and their knowledge, and also get a
    chance to imagine whether they could work there. Those
    frequently turn into offers at those kinds of companies.
        Mr. Bucshon. Based on American Community Survey-PUMS data,
    1.1 percent of people from Indiana have a degree in computer
    science. Again to you, diversity is important in all
    industries, including diversity of ideas and background. Can
    you provide examples of what efforts universities might be
    taking to promote STEM degrees like computer science in rural
    communities? And honestly, I think this may be as applicable to
    urban settings also, but particularly rural communities that
    may not have the knowledge of these job opportunities offered
    in the tech sphere.
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. A lot of the examples that I am aware of
    have to do with working at the K-12 level, to actually go into
    schools, to create after-school learning opportunities, coding
    kinds of programs. So that students can get a picture of what
    it might be like, rural students particularly who may not have
    a good opportunity to see these options, and then, imagine what
    they could be in those careers. So that they can follow a
    pathway that will take them toward an undergraduate major.
        Mr. Bucshon. Dr. Turner Lee, why do you think we are having
    a discussion about the lack of diversity in tech? I mean, what
    is your fundamental view about--I mean, why? I think we have
    answered some of that today and we have given some opinions
    today. But that is fundamentally why we are here, right? We all
    believe that diversity is very important, diversity based on
    like my daughter; she is a woman. And then, what is your view?
    I mean, fundamentally, when you get really cut to the chase?
    And what can we do about it?
        Dr. Turner Lee. Yes, I think, fundamentally, we are having
    this conversation because we are in this fourth Industrial
    Revolution, right? And this Industrial Revolution has people
    tethered to technology, and we are seeing the consumption
    trends sort of amplify itself to the extent to which people who
    are now consuming these products are not part of the
    decisionmaking of these products.
        And just like we saw in other industries, let's just go
    back, we saw in the '60s and '70s the same type of diversity
    programs initiated to bring in more representation, and they
    made companies better. And so, I think, going forward, we are--
    --
        Mr. Bucshon. Yes, for medicine, for example.
        Dr. Turner Lee. Yes, medicine.
        Mr. Bucshon. I am a doctor. My wife is a doctor.
        Dr. Turner Lee. That is right. Automobiles----
        Mr. Bucshon. Right. If you look back at the '60s, the
    makeup of people who are physicians was not very diverse,
    right?
        Dr. Turner Lee. Yes. I just think we are at a turning
    point, Congressman. I think it is one of those conversations
    that for years people have been discussing, but, as technology
    becomes more entrenched and the boundaries between the physical
    space and the digital space become much more connected, that we
    are just trying to figure out as a country, for us to be
    internationally competitive, how do we bring in more diverse
    perspectives and minds. That is why the diversity of this panel
    reflects this conversation.
        By the same token, we don't want these products that people
    are depending upon--we are no longer an in-line economy; we are
    in an online economy--to hurt them or harm them. And that is
    why we are having a discussion around consumer protection. So,
    I think that is at the crux of why we are here today.
        Mr. Bucshon. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Beautiful.
        I am calling on Mr. McNerney right now for 5 minutes.
        And I just want to say, you are seeing that people are
    coming back. They really feel that this panel and this
    discussion is very important.
        Mr. McNerney?
        Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. I thank the Chair.
        And I thank the witnesses. I apologize for missing most of
    your testimony.
        But, first of all, I want to say I am a mathematician by
    education. I cochair the Congressional AI Caucus. And I
    represent a district that is very, very diverse. So, while I am
    excited about many of the technology innovations that we are
    witnessing today, I am also concerned that many people will be
    left behind, and what that means for my district and my
    constituents.
        Specifically, I am worried about how automated
    decisionmaking can impact my constituents' ability to obtain a
    loan, to receive social services, to see housing ads, to be
    promoted in jobs, or even to get consideration for a job in the
    first place. So, it is clearly critical that the teams
    designing these products are representative of who the products
    are going to serve.
        Now there is a real need for greater transparency in how
    these algorithms are produced and the decisionmaking is made.
    Mr. Lopez, in your written testimony you noted that algorithms
    are often predicated on data that amplifies, rather than
    reduces, the already present biases in society, racial, ethnic,
    and socioeconomic. Can you elaborate on that a little bit,
    please, and maybe provide an example?
        Mr. Lopez. I mean, I think a good example would be using
    social media to advertise for housing opportunities and to
    limit the advertisement to certain zip codes. Zip codes have
    traditionally, due to the history of housing segregation in
    this country, have often been used as a proxy for minority----
        Mr. McNerney. So, is that being done by algorithms or by
    human beings, those decisions, or both?
        Mr. Lopez. Everything that we are talking about is being
    done by human beings at the end of the day. I think what
    happens is that the algorithms--and let me use a different
    example from the employment context. Let's say there is a
    correlation between having an interest in manga comic books and
    being somebody who might be a good computer engineer. This is a
    real example. But, again, the individuals--it is correlation,
    not causation--and the individuals that tend to have an
    interest in manga comic books tend to be men, right? And so, if
    you start to use that algorithm to select computer engineers,
    what you do is you sort of reinforce and you replicate, I
    think, the general systemic exclusion of women.
        Mr. McNerney. So, that is an example of why machine
    learning makes bias more difficult, right?
        Mr. Lopez. Yes, yes.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        Ms. Turner Lee, in your testimony you mentioned that you
    will be issuing a paper next month addressing a course of
    developing quality instruments and questions to measure
    algorithmic bias. Do some of these instruments already exist?
        Dr. Turner Lee. There are some instruments, and I think it
    has been mentioned that we have seen companies more on the tail
    end that do audits. The paper that we will be releasing at
    Brookings is more of a forward-thinking paper, to your point,
    and it is coming up with questions. Do we need an algorithm for
    this actual use case? If we do, is there diversity in design? A
    lot of the questions that you are asking. Are the right people
    at the table? Is civil society part of the conversation and
    debate? Is there a feedback loop? I think that is part of the
    pathway toward more responsible governance over the way that we
    are constructing algorithms, evaluating, et cetera.
        But I do want to suggest to you, Congressman, something in
    your previous question. I don't want us to put in a bucket that
    all technologies are acting discriminatory or racist.
        Mr. McNerney. Right.
        Dr. Turner Lee. I think the way the technology has been
    structured and how opaque the internet has become, these
    algorithms are adapting to our human behavior. So, there are
    cases where a developer, a technologist, may not say, ``I want
    to flag women for this particular job.'' But how the internet
    has actually become layered, it will see the name Mary and
    assume that Mary is a woman, and populate itself and operate
    and function pretty much adapting to the historical biases that
    we have as a society.
        Mr. McNerney. Again, that is machine learning, a machine-
    learning tool.
        Dr. Turner Lee. That is machine learning, yes. And I think
    the paper that we are going to be putting out is really trying
    to help companies have a more proactive stance to actually how
    you look at these conditions and how you look at these teams,
    and how you look at these outputs, and come up with solutions
    to do something about it.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, you also mention that businesses have
    taken action to correct bias, such as Facebook and Google, but
    that was only after a lot of public pressure. Are there
    examples of companies that have proactively acted or do you
    think that is a trend that we could expect to see without
    significant motivation from Congress?
        Dr. Turner Lee. I actually want to say that there are
    companies that are taking advantage of this. Microsoft is
    another case where they are actually very proactive in how they
    design algorithms. They had a case where they put out a voice-
    activated computation or application that was picking up--it
    was taking in people's voices and, basically, putting out very
    antisemitic and racist stuff. They took it off market, right,
    because the developer did not anticipate those consequences.
        So, I think we are seeing a blend, which is why I said
    previously and put it in my testimony, self-regulation is not a
    bad idea. It is just a combination of how do we combine that
    framework with what we already have existing in our resource
    kit.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I yield back.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Mr. Soto, for 5 minutes. Welcome back.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        It was briefly mentioned before, a report came out from the
    ACLU about new facial recognition technology where they
    downloaded 25,000 arrest records, used them against pictures of
    every current Member of Congress in the last term. There are 28
    false matches. People of color made up 20 percent of Congress
    at that time, more now, by the way. And 40 percent of the false
    matches were people of color, including legendary civil rights
    hero John Lewis. Obviously, the software as it stood there
    would disproportionately target minorities. This is a
    technology that is being used in my hometown of Orlando, only
    voluntarily, to track officers to test the technology, but
    certainly it is something that is concerning for us.
        Recently, I got to join Representatives Brenda Lawrence, Ro
    Khanna, and others, on ethical guidelines for AI development,
    including transparency and process, empowering women and
    underrepresented populations, and accountability. So, it really
    brings up sort of a broader topic of what Congress' role is in
    being able to address these things.
        I will start with Dr. Turner. Some of the algorithmic bias
    mentioned today is the result of bias datasets, are there
    practices and procedures that can be implemented to reduce the
    bias in training data that could be helpful?
        Dr. Turner Lee. Yes, I would say start with
    overrepresentation, right, of what those faces look like. So,
    an MIT researcher--and I don't want to butcher her last name,
    maybe Mr. Luckie can help me--Joy Buolamwini has actually done
    a lot of studies where she has actually said a lot of facial
    recognition technologies do not work because they are
    underrepresented in terms of African Americans or darker skin
    hues. So, we have to actually populate the training data where
    it reflects the entire population.
        I think part of the problem we have, Congressman, why
    people don't do that, as a researcher, I am subjected to
    guidelines when it comes to IRB requirements and human
    conditions. We are rushed to market when we come to proprietary
    algorithms, right? It is who gets there first.
        And so, I think having some attention to overrepresentation
    is really important. Also, feedback loops also help with the
    training data. The paper that we will be releasing will talk a
    little bit about the technical side. Again, I'm not a computer
    scientist. I am interested in the civil rights outputs that
    actually come as a result of that and what legislators should
    actually be looking for. But I think combining those
    conversations and having multi-stakeholder conversations is
    also helpful because the left hand often doesn't know what the
    right hand is doing.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you.
        And for Ms. Kim, what is the role for increased
    transparency and explainability in reducing algorithmic bias?
        Ms. Kim. Thank you, Congressman.
        In looking at the decisionmakers within the tech sector,
    the employees, the professionals, the technicians, as well as
    the executives that make much of the decisions, we need to have
    more diversity. And the transparency that we need is more data.
    We applaud the efforts of companies that voluntarily release
    diversity data for recruitment, retention, and attrition data.
        But, for the AAPI community, that data is incomplete
    because it is not disaggregated. Our communities are so
    diverse, and we have to look beyond the glare of the model
    minority and say, what is actually going on behind the
    aggregated number? Yes, there are more Asian tech workers than
    other minority groups, but, in fact, if you look deeper--and we
    don't have these numbers, but based on other industries and
    other Census data and other information, we know that there are
    communities that have incredibly high poverty rates, low
    educational attainment levels, and high limited English
    proficiency levels that don't get represented at educational
    levels in schools, in other sectors. And so, we need more data
    and more information and transparency from tech companies, so
    that we can see what is actually going on underneath that model
    minority myth of Asian-Americans are doing OK.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Ms. Kim.
        And I just want to end with sort of a personalized story
    from my own family. My little cousins, I can't get them off of
    video games. They are of Puerto Rican descent, like I am. And
    it turned out that when one of my cousins went into the Air
    Force, that skill set ended up serving him well to be one of
    only two people out of two dozen to actually pass the drone
    aviation course.
        And it occurs to me how critical having access to
    technology at an early age is. When you look at Bill Gates or
    Bill Joy, or others, the stories go about how they had access
    to computers early on, and that proved critical in them getting
    their 10,000 hours ahead of everybody and being able to really
    change the world. So, those are things that we also will be
    taking very seriously to get into, access at an early age for
    young people of all communities.
        Thank you, and I yield back.
        Ms. Schakowsky. So, I want to thank our panel, but I also
    want to see--I spoke to our ranking member. I would like 5 more
    minutes, and I would welcome her taking 5 more minutes.
        Mr. Luckie, we have talked a lot about the pipeline and
    making sure of the educational system and educational
    opportunities. But you said something that really struck me. It
    is that, even where women and minorities, and others that
    aren't represented in the tech industry, are available, that
    they still are not hired for those jobs and advancing in the
    positions. We also see women leaving those jobs earlier than
    men.
        So, rather than blame the victims, you know, you have got
    to go to school and you have got to take these courses, what
    are we going to do about--there is obviously some
    discrimination. I really want to stop here, but ask the rest of
    the panel, what should we be doing? You have mentioned, Dr.
    Turner Lee, that there are discrimination laws that are in
    place. You have talked about the EEOC, Dean Lopez. I mean, what
    should we be doing, both about the algorithmic bias that is
    there, but also just about hiring people, investing in people
    right now?
        Mr. Luckie. Well, it is like you said, a lot of the onus
    has been put on the people who are graduating from STEM or who
    have not heard about STEM to break into these tech companies.
    But what we are finding is that the stopgap is actually
    happening within the interview process, where employees are not
    seeing people who look like them. And so, they are choosing the
    people who look like them, come from the same backgrounds, come
    from the same schools, which puts others at a disadvantage. We
    are seeing it in the discrimination that people face once they
    are inside of the companies. What is happening is that people
    are graduating from STEM, but end up choosing other industries
    because they see the discrimination.
        I think the most important point that we should take away
    from this is that the people who come from diverse backgrounds
    are the representatives of these companies who go back out into
    the communities and say, yes, you should be STEM, be in the
    STEM areas. And so, we have to call on those people to say,
    hey, we need you to go back to the communities; the people who
    are coming from Maine and from Texas, and from these locations,
    to go back and say, you can do this because I am inside of the
    company now and I am making it work.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I wonder, Dr. Turner Lee, how can we use
    the current laws to help here?
        Dr. Turner Lee. Yes, I think we have some tools in our
    toolkit. A lot of the stories that we have heard today, it is
    not just the one-time action where it happen, but it is this
    latter consequence.
        The former Obama administration was real key about putting
    out reports on algorithmic bias. It is not a new topic to us.
    The difference is, as we go over time and we let this evolve,
    that we are going to find people being denied loans. And I
    don't think we want to see structural discrimination actually
    find its place into the internet, which has always been the
    low-hanging fruit for opportunity.
        So, I think what Congress does have at its disposal are
    tools to have a conversation around nondiscrimination and to
    see which ways do we extend that. And companies, I think, in
    the tech sector are starting to realize that. Facebook, in
    particular, last year pulled down a process that was
    discriminating in the case of housing, where advertisers were
    able to click off who they did not want to serve, and they
    immediately stopped that process. But they didn't realize that
    the Fair Housing Act was one of the levers for why you
    shouldn't do that in the first place.
        So, I think Congress has an opportunity to have
    conversations about that, as we have had in the past, as we see
    these transitions happen. And I also think it is important,
    just to complement your previous question, Congresswoman, STEM
    has to be a national priority. This is no longer a conversation
    of investing in programs. We have to invest in people. And if
    we invest in people, we will have an international competitive
    edge on any of these careers, particularly as digital access
    becomes much more permeated and much more embedded in our
    society.
        Ms. Schakowsky. There is almost a minute left. Anybody else
    want to comment on that? Dr. Lopez? Go ahead.
        Mr. Lopez. Congresswoman, as part of Congress' oversight
    responsibilities over the agencies, I think there is a real
    opportunity to ask the relevant agencies, EEOC, HUD, Department
    of Justice, FTC, anybody operating in this space, what they are
    doing in this area. And it doesn't, obviously, have to be
    hostile. I came out of the EEOC. I happen to think that they
    have been very forward-thinking in this area. They continue to
    be forward-thinking. But I think that the oversight
    responsibility and the power of the purse is very important.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Go ahead. And did you say something?
    Anybody else? OK.
        Mr. Luckie. I would just like to say, in terms of the
    larger conversation, that we have to stop treating AI and
    algorithms as omnipotent, as if they know everything. They are
    still being programmed by humans, and we need to recognize that
    in order to curb this bias.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you very much.
        Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Madam Chair, I wanted just to follow up
    on your line of questioning right there.
        As I said in my opening statement and opening remarks, part
    of the challenge here is that it does demand change. It is
    going to demand change in our culture. A lot of the focus today
    was on recruitment, and I think that is an important piece of
    this. We have to focus on the pipeline. That is very
    foundational. Education is important, skills training, access,
    and exposure to what is possible. Helping people imagine is
    important.
        We have talked a lot about the value of teams and having
    teams--Mr. Lopez, in your testimony it says, you highlighted
    that teams that are made up of individuals of diverse
    backgrounds are more innovative and generally make more error-
    free decisions.
        I, too, just wanted to take this at the close here to kind
    of those next steps. So, even after we get some of these
    individuals hired, what is working as far as the retention and
    the promotion? Because there are these next steps. We have to
    do better at retaining these employees, and then, promoting
    them to leadership positions.
        I know I have seen some of the work on women where women
    respond to the coaching and to giving that feedback. But,
    often, when they are given a chance for leadership, they shine.
        So, I, too, just wanted to open this up at the end and ask,
    what do you see working when it comes to the retention, and
    then, the promotion to leadership? And how do we better invest
    in these people after they are hired?
        Do you want to start it, Mr. Luckie?
        Mr. Luckie. Sure. So, I will say the best thing that is
    driving retention is the employee resource groups that are in
    major tech companies and businesses everywhere, where women are
    helping women, black people are helping black people. Part of
    the reason why I stayed at Facebook as long as I did is because
    of the black ad group, which was the employees that were coming
    together, mentoring each other, exploring other opportunities
    inside the company. The more you empower those employee
    resource groups, give them the budget, give them the space in
    which to operate, the more you are going to see that retention
    increase within these companies.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you. OK.
        And so, do you want to----
        Dr. Ferrini-Mundy. Yes, I will just add to that. What Mr.
    Luckie is explaining has to do with cultures within these
    environments, and those cultures get built by the people who
    are there. And so, I would still make my argument that
    education and the pathways that get provided through education,
    which include early opportunities to work together in groups,
    to learn how to be resourceful within particular subgroups, all
    of that is critical to building that kind of culture.
        Mrs. Rodgers. All right. Thank you.
        Ms. Kim or whoever is next? Yes?
        Dr. Turner Lee. If I can, in a previous life I worked with
    the cable industry doing some work. What I found there is that,
    internally, companies have to have metrics, they have to have
    accountability, and they also have to have some type of
    executive support. Without it, it doesn't work.
        Where we know diversity and inclusion works is when there
    are bonuses tied to leadership. We know that it works when the
    executive claims that this is the only way we are going to
    actually conduct business, training, et cetera. And those
    invested resources happen at an internal level.
        Obviously, we can't manage what companies do inside, but
    what we can do--and this is something I think in terms of what
    is next--is we can place a level of stewardship and
    responsibility on companies through their reporting, whether it
    is mandatory or voluntary. There are tons of regulated
    industries that provide voluntary information and scorecards on
    how they are doing with diversity. And that is something I
    think is going to be an acceptable practice going forward,
    because we, as consumers, want to know that people are doing
    the right thing. And so, I think, going forward, it is going to
    take a mix of the internal pressure and the external pressure
    to actually move to a place of, I want to say peace, where
    everybody can just get along, but where we actually indulge
    ourselves in diversity in ways that make us more profitability
    and much more successful as a country.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
        Do you have any thoughts?
        Ms. Oliverio. Yes, thank you.
        I spent more than 10 years in recruiting all across
    technical fields, across the U.S. And in any company, in any
    demographic, in any background, the key to retention is making
    employees feel like they belong. Much like Mr. Luckie was
    stating, employee resource groups are amazing, but the core
    value there is making employees feel valued, making them feel
    like they belong. That is where veterans and military spouses
    struggle most to feel like they are a part of a unit again, to
    feel like they are welcomed in their work environment, that
    they have reasonable accommodation, and that they belong there.
    There, they are more likely to stay and to be happy and to do
    well.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
        Ms. Houghton. In addition to seeing yourself and feeling a
    sense of belonging, I think one key thing that I want to make
    sure gets on the record is that, internally, within these
    companies we need accessible technology. If people are going to
    grow, technology accessibility has to be built in from the
    beginning, not as an afterthought.
        Mrs. Rodgers. OK. Thank you, everyone.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you so much.
        I think this has been a terrific panel and something that
    we, as a Congress, need to follow up on now. Thank you.
        I request unanimous consent to enter the following
    documents into the record. Where are they? OK. The National
    Urban League letter on diversity in tech; a letter from the
    Electronic Privacy Information Center; the Internet
    Association's letter for the record; testimony from Jennifer
    Huddleston, research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George
    Mason University; a letter from Maxine Williams, Facebook's
    chief diversity officer; statement from Representative Maxine
    Waters; a blog post and case study from Charter Communications.
    Is that it?
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Ms. Schakowsky. Oh, I have one more page? This? OK.
        I would like to thank the witnesses for their participation
    in today's hearing.
        I remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they
    have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the
    record, to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared. I
    ask each witness to respond promptly to any such question that
    you may receive, and you may receive them because a number of
    people were traveling from different hearings.
        So, at this time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:46 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]