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



                      THE FUTURE OF WORK: ENSURING
                      WORKERS ARE COMPETITIVE IN A
                        RAPIDLY CHANGING ECONOMY

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

       SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE INVESTMENT


                         COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
                               AND LABOR
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

           HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, DECEMBER 18, 2019

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-49

                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor


		
		[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    Available via the: https://edlabor.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov

				________


		     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

42-483 			     WASHINGTON : 2021




                    COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR

             ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman

Susan A. Davis, California           Virginia Foxx, North Carolina,
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            Ranking Member
Joe Courtney, Connecticut            David P. Roe, Tennessee
Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio                Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Tim Walberg, Michigan
  Northern Mariana Islands           Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Bradley Byrne, Alabama
Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon             Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Mark Takano, California              Elise M. Stefanik, New York
Alma S. Adams, North Carolina        Rick W. Allen, Georgia
Mark DeSaulnier, California          Lloyd Smucker, Pennsylvania
Donald Norcross, New Jersey          Jim Banks, Indiana
Pramila Jayapal, Washington          Mark Walker, North Carolina
Joseph D. Morelle, New York          James Comer, Kentucky
Susan Wild, Pennsylvania             Ben Cline, Virginia
Josh Harder, California              Russ Fulcher, Idaho
Lucy McBath, Georgia                 Van Taylor, Texas
Kim Schrier, Washington              Steve Watkins, Kansas
Lauren Underwood, Illinois           Ron Wright, Texas
Jahana Hayes, Connecticut            Daniel Meuser, Pennsylvania
Donna E. Shalala, Florida            Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Andy Levin, Michigan*                Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Ilhan Omar, Minnesota                Gregory F. Murphy, North Carolina
David J. Trone, Maryland
Haley M. Stevens, Michigan
Susie Lee, Nevada
Lori Trahan, Massachusetts
Joaquin Castro, Texas
* Vice-Chair

                   Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
                 Brandon Renz, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

       SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE INVESTMENT

                 SUSAN A. DAVIS, California, Chairwoman


Joe Courtney, Connecticut            Lloyd Smucker, Pennsylvania,
Mark Takano, California                Ranking Member
Pramila Jayapal, Washington          Brett Guthrie, Kentucky
Josh Harder, California              Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Andy Levin, Michigan                 Elise Stefanik, New York
Ilhan Omar, Minnesota                Jim Banks, Indiana
David Trone, Maryland                Mark Walker, North Carolina
Susie Lee, Nevada                    James Comer, Kentucky
Lori Trahan, Massachusetts           Ben Cline, Virginia
Joaquin Castro, Texas                Russ Fulcher, Idaho
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            Steve C. Watkins, Jr., Kansas
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Dan Meuser, Pennsylvania
  Northern Mariana Islands           Gregory F. Murphy, North Carolina
Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Alma S. Adams, North Carolina
Donald Norcross, New Jersey
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on December 18, 2019................................     1

Statement of Members:
    Davis, Hon. Susan A., Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Higher 
      Education and Workforce Investment.........................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     4
    Smucker, Hon. Lloyd, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Higher 
      Education and Workforce Investment.........................     5
        Prepared statement of....................................     6

Statement of Witnesses:
    Gattman, Ms. Nova, Deputy Director for External Affairs, 
      Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board, 
      Olympia, WA................................................    26
        Prepared statement of....................................    28
    Harris, Mr. Seth D., J.D., Visiting Professor, Cornell 
      Institute for Public Affairs, SE, Suite 310, Washington, 
      D.C........................................................     8
        Prepared statement of....................................    10
    Markell, Mr. Brad, Executive Director, AFL-CIO Working for 
      America Institute, Washington, D.C.........................    61
        Prepared statement of....................................    63
    Paretti, Mr. James A., Jr., Shareholder, Littler Mendelson 
      P.C., Treasurer, Emma Coalition Washington, D.C............    41
        Prepared statement of....................................    44

Additional Submissions:
    Jayapal, Hon. Pramila, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Washington:
        Report: Domestic Workers Bill: A Model for Tomorrow's 
          Workforce..............................................    82
        Link: Future of Work Task Force 2019 Policy Report.......    99
    Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Connecticut:
        Sec. 4013 Extending Federal Pell Grant Eligibility of 
          Certain Short-Term Programs............................   102

 
                      THE FUTURE OF WORK: ENSURING



                      WORKERS ARE COMPETITIVE IN A



                        RAPIDLY CHANGING ECONOMY

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, December 18, 2019

                       House of Representatives,

                    Subcommittee on Higher Education

                       and Workforce Investment,

                   Committee on Education and Labor,

                            Washington, D.C.

                              ----------                              

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:18 a.m. p.m., 
in Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Susan Davis 
[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Davis, Courtney, Takano, Jayapal, 
Harder, Levin, Omar, Trone, Lee, Bonamici, Adams, Norcross, 
Scott (ex officio), Smucker, Guthrie, Grothman, Stefanik, 
Banks, Walker, Comer, Watkins, Meuser, and Foxx (ex officio).
    Staff Present: Ilana Brunner, General Counsel, Health and 
Labor; Emma Eatman, Press Assistant; Eli Hovland, Staff 
Assistant; Jaria Martin, Clerk/Special Assistant to the Staff 
Director; Katie McClelland, Professional Staff; Richard Miller, 
Director of Labor Policy; Max Moore, Office Aide; Banyon 
Vassar, Deputy Director of Information Technology; Rachel West, 
Senior Economic Policy Advisor; Courtney Butcher, Minority 
Director of Member Services and Coalitions; Akash Chougule, 
Minority Professional Staff Member; Dean Johnson, Minority 
Staff Assistant; Amy Raaf Jones, Minority Director of Education 
and Human Resources Policy; Hannah Matesic, Minority Director 
of Operations; Audra McGeorge, Minority Communications 
Director; Jake Middlebrooks, Minority Professional Staff 
Member; Carlton Norwood, Minority Press Secretary; Chance 
Russell, Minority Legislative Assistant; and Mandy Schaumburg, 
Minority Chief Counsel and Deputy Director of Education Policy.
    Chairwoman Davis. The Committee on Education and Labor will 
come to order.
    We want to welcome everyone this morning. Thank you so much 
for being here.
    I note that a quorum is present.
    The committee is meeting today for the last hearing of the 
decade to receive testimony on The Future of Work: Ensuring 
Workers are Competitive in a Rapidly Changing Economy. Really 
important work that we are doing and, you know, it is telling 
that here we are trying to look into the future but dealing 
today with this issue.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(c), opening statements are 
limited to the chair and the Ranking Member. This allows us to 
hear from our witnesses sooner and provide all members with 
adequate time to ask questions.
    I want to recognize myself now for the purpose of making an 
opening statement.
    We are gathered today for the committee's second of three 
``future of work'' hearings. These hearings provide committee 
members the opportunity to hear from experts and stakeholders 
and discuss how to provide all workers access to the tools, 
support, and protections needed to thrive in today's rapidly 
changing economy.
    Today, we will discuss Congress' responsibility to address 
worker displacement by expanding access to lifelong learning 
and ensuring that American workers can remain competitive as 
the nature of work changes.
    There are a wide range of factors that cause workers to 
become displaced. Recessions, trade, climate change, automation 
are just some of the reasons why Americans become disconnected 
from their jobs, their industries, or their workforce. Whatever 
that cause may be, nearly all displaced workers and their 
families face a common set of challenges. Financial hardship, 
poor health, and reduced life expectancy are common 
consequences for all displaced workers.
    Workers who lose their jobs can also suffer lower and less 
stable long-term earnings and may become trapped in a cycle of 
low-wage, low-mobility jobs. Today, some 53 million workers age 
18 to 64, or 44 percent of the workforce, have median annual 
earnings of $17,950 per year. And research shows that over half 
of these workers will remain in this low-wage bracket even when 
they transition to another job.
    Given the severe consequences of worker displacement, you 
might assume that we have a robust, integrated, and well-funded 
system to help workers build their skills and get back into the 
workforce, but, unfortunately, you would be wrong.
    Although worker displacement is a familiar and ongoing 
challenge, our current policy response consists of a thin 
patchwork of programs and services that are poorly integrated 
and increasingly underfunded.
    Federal investments in workforce training and employment 
programs have fallen behind other countries, and they continue 
to decline. We spend only about 0.1 percent of our GDP on 
workforce development programs, compared to an average of 0.6 
percent in our peer industrialized nations. And while the U.S. 
labor force has grown by roughly half over the past four 
decades, Federal investment in workforce development has fallen 
by two-thirds.
    At the same time, employers' investment in workforce 
training has also decreased. From 1996 to 2008, the percentage 
of workers receiving employer-sponsored training fell by 42 
percent. Let me say that again. The percentage of workers 
receiving--this is from 1996 to 2008--the percentage of workers 
receiving employer-sponsored training fell by 42 percent. That 
is a staggering number to remember.
    Lower skilled workers who could benefit the most from 
training often receive the least, as employers direct most 
investment toward workers who already hold high-skilled and 
managerial positions.
    Adequate investment is not the only challenge. The existing 
patchwork of policies and programs makes it difficult for 
displaced workers to access the resources that they need.
    Under the current system, eligibility for benefits and 
services is geared toward workers who have suffered only 
specific causes of displacement. Workers affected by trade 
receive the most support than others, and they would probably 
tell you that is also not adequate. The burden generally falls 
on the worker to prove the cause of their displacement and then 
find which programs or services they are eligible to receive.
    As automation and other emerging trends continue to disrupt 
our economy in new ways, we must reshape workforce programs to 
help all workers at risk of displacement secure in-demand 
skills. Reskilling alone is insufficient to ensure workers can 
remain competitive. We must explore policies to proactively 
prevent displacement, enhance worker supports like career 
guidance, and promote lifelong learning.
    Today, our witnesses will also help us discuss policies 
Congress could pass to ensure workers threatened by 
displacement are not left to fend for themselves. We know, for 
example, that we must substantially increase Federal 
investments in workforce development. And, in fact, the Council 
of Economic Advisers reported that the U.S. would have to spend 
$80.4 billion more per year to match the average spending on 
workforce programs by our peer industrialized countries 
relative to GDP.
    We also must make it easier for workers to locate the 
resources to transition between jobs or build new skills. 
Improving data collection methods and increasing credential 
transparency in our workforce system would be one good example, 
I think, that would match job seekers with employers, inform 
career navigation services, and help workers find sustainable 
career pathways.
    We must build from what we know works, like Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training, or 
TAACCCT grants, and expand career navigation supports.
    And finally, Congress must ensure that resources for 
lifelong learning programs, which help workers access education 
and training opportunities, can be accessed by all workers and 
in all parts of the country.
    While there is a cost to these actions, inaction would come 
at a far greater cost to working families. Well-prepared 
workers are better equipped to grow our economy and contribute 
to their communities. The bottom line is clear. Congress must 
invest in a system that brings workforce systems, employers, 
labor, and educators together to ensure the success of workers 
in the future.
    I want to thank all of you again, thank our witnesses for 
being here.
    And I now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Smucker, for an 
opening statement.
    [The statement of Chairwoman Davis follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Susan A. Davis, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on 
               Higher Education and Workforce Investment

    We are gathered today for the Committee's second of three ``future 
of work'' hearings. These hearings provide Committee Members the 
opportunity to hear from experts and stakeholders and discuss how to 
provide all workers access to the tools, support, and protections 
needed to thrive in today's rapidly changing economy.
    Today, we will discuss Congress's responsibility to address worker 
displacement by expanding access to lifelong learning, and ensuring 
that American workers can remain competitive as the nature of work 
changes.
    There are a wide range of factors that cause workers to become 
displaced. Recessions, trade, climate change, and automation are just 
some of the reasons why Americans become disconnected from their jobs, 
their industries, or the workforce.
    Whatever the cause, nearly all displaced workers and their families 
face a common set of challenges. Financial hardship, poorer health, and 
reduced life expectancy are common consequences for all displaced 
workers.
    Workers who lose their jobs can also suffer lower and less stable 
long-term earnings, and may become trapped in a cycle of low-wage, low-
mobility jobs. Today, some 53 million workers age 18 to 64 - or 44 
percent of the workforce - have median annual earnings of $17,950 per 
year. And research shows that over half of these workers will remain in 
this low wage bracket even when they transition to another job.
    Given the severe consequences of worker displacement, you might 
assume we have a robust, integrated, and well- funded system to help 
workers build their skills and get back into the workforce. 
Unfortunately, you would be wrong.
    Although worker displacement is a familiar and ongoing challenge, 
our current policy response consists of a thin patchwork of programs 
and services that are poorly integrated and increasingly underfunded.
    Federal investments in workforce training and employment programs 
have fallen behind other countries and continue to decline. We spend 
only about 0.1 percent of our GDP on workforce development programs, 
compared to an average of 0.6 percent in our peer industrialized 
nations. And while the U.S. labor force has grown by roughly half over 
the past four decades, federal investment in workforce development has 
fallen by two-thirds.
    At the same time, employers' investment in workforce training has 
also decreased. From 1996 to 2008, the percentage of workers receiving 
employer-sponsored training fell by 42 percent. Lower-skill workers who 
could benefit the most from training often receive the least, as 
employers direct most investment toward workers who already hold high-
skilled and managerial positions.
    Adequate investment is not the only challenge. The existing 
patchwork of policies and programs makes it difficult for displaced 
workers to access the resources they need.
    Under the current system, eligibility for benefits and services is 
geared towards workers who've suffered only specific causes of 
displacement - workers affected by trade receive the most support that 
others. The burden generally falls on the worker to ``prove'' the cause 
of their displacement and then find which programs or services they're 
eligible to receive.
    As automation and other emerging trends continue to disrupt our 
economy in new ways, we must reshape workforce programs to help all 
workers at risk of displacement secure in-demand skills.
    Reskilling alone is insufficient to ensure workers can remain 
competitive. We must explore policies to proactively prevent 
displacement, enhance worker supports like career guidance, and promote 
lifelong learning.
    Today, our witnesses will also help us discuss policies Congress 
could pass to ensure workers threatened by displacement are not left to 
fend for themselves.
    We know, for example, that we must substantially increase federal 
investments in workforce development. In fact, the Council of Economic 
Advisers reported that the U.S. would have to spend $80.4 billion more 
per year to match the average spending on workforce programs by our 
peer industrialized countries relative to GDP.
    We also must make it easier for workers to locate the resources to 
transition between jobs or build new skills. Improving data collection 
methods and increasing credential transparency in our workforce system, 
for example, would better match job seekers with employers, inform 
career navigation services, and help workers find sustainable career 
pathways.
    We must build from what we know works, like Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Community College and Career Training, or TACT grants, and 
expanded career navigation supports.
    Finally, Congress must ensure that resources for lifelong learning 
programs, which help workers access education and training 
opportunities, can be accessed by all workers, and in all parts of the 
country.
    While there is a cost to these actions, inaction would come at far 
greater cost to working families. Well-prepared workers are better 
equipped to grow our economy and contribute to their communities. The 
bottom line is clear: Congress must invest in a system that brings 
workforce systems, employers, labor, and educators together to ensure 
the success of workers in the future.
    Thank you, again, to our witnesses for being with us today. I now 
yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Smucker, for an opening statement.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. Smucker. Thank you for yielding.
    Today, we are here to discuss the future of work and how 
Federal policies and Federal programs can help to ensure that 
workers can remain competitive in a rapidly changing economy.
    There is a lot of good news here. American workers are 
benefiting from a strong economy ushered in by Republican pro-
growth policies. Wages are on the rise. Jobs are being created, 
and unemployment is at a 50-year low.
    Thanks to this thriving economy, displacement rates are 
lower than they have been in years. Numbers from the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics illustrate that job separations today are 
largely voluntary. However, displacement continues to occur, 
and it will be unavoidable as technology evolves and the skills 
needed to compete in the labor market change.
    While we must acknowledge the problems associated with 
displacement and work to address them, our first step must be 
to help workers to acquire the skills and knowledge they need 
to get off the sidelines and into one of the millions of jobs 
that are open today across the Nation.
    According to a 2018 survey of U.S. employers, nearly half 
of all job creators struggled to hire employees with the right 
skills for the job, which has led to 7 million unfilled 
positions throughout the country and a substantial skills gap 
that plagues our workforce.
    Earlier this year, this committee heard from Daniel Pianko, 
co-founder and managing director of University Ventures, a 
company working to transform the pathway from higher education 
to employment. Pianko said in his testimony: ``The skills gap 
is exacting a heavy toll on American families and institutions. 
It is impeding economic growth, promoting generational 
inequity, jeopardizing the American Dream, and creating real 
anxiety about the future of work.''
    Fortunately, we know that skills-based education, like 
apprenticeships, are proven to help address the growing skills 
gap that we currently face. That is why my Republican 
colleagues and I have taken steps to advance work-based 
learning opportunities, including further integrating our 
education and workforce development systems, so that we can 
provide workers with the skills necessary to fill those 
millions of unfilled jobs. These efforts will aid all workers, 
including displaced workers.
    Thanks to the Trump administration, the Task Force on 
Apprenticeship Expansion is also working on solving the issues 
that put up barriers to entry and bureaucratic red tape for 
those who wish to develop apprenticeship programs. 
Specifically, the Task Force recommended giving businesses 
greater flexibility in their apprenticeship programs to meet 
the varying needs of different industries. After all, employers 
know what skills their employees need best to excel in the 
workplace.
    We should build on these successes by advancing policies 
that make it more attractive and easier to invest in workers. 
Rather than promoting policies that burden businesses and drive 
up costs, committee Republicans will continue to champion 
reforms that expand opportunities for flexibility, innovation, 
and entrepreneurship, to give workers and job seekers 
opportunities to compete successfully in the 21st century 
economy.
    I want to thank the witnesses for coming today, and I look 
forward to hearing from each of you.
    [The statement of Mr. Smucker follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Lloyd Smucker, Ranking Member, Subcommittee 
              on Higher Education and Workforce Investment

    Today, we are here to discuss the future of work and how we can 
ensure workers are competitive in a rapidly changing economy.
    Here's the good news. American workers are benefitting from a 
strong economy ushered in by Republican pro-growth policies. Wages are 
on the rise, jobs are being created, and unemployment is at a 50-year 
low.
    Thanks to this thriving economy, displacement rates are lower than 
they have been in years. Numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
illustrate that job separations today are largely voluntary.
    However, displacement continues to occur and it will be unavoidable 
as technology evolves and the skills needed to compete in the labor 
market change.
    While we must acknowledge the problems associated with displacement 
and work to address them, our first step must be to provide workers 
with the skills they need to get off the sidelines and into one of the 
millions of jobs open today across the nation.
    According to a 2018 survey of U.S. employers, nearly half of all 
job creators struggle to hire employees with the right skills for the 
job, which has led to seven million unfilled positions throughout the 
country and a substantial skills gap that plagues our workforce. 
Earlier this year this committee heard from Daniel Pianko, co-founder 
and managing director of University Ventures, a company working to 
transform the pathway from higher education to employment. Pianko said 
in his testimony, `The skills gap is exacting a heavy toll on American 
families and institutions. It is impeding economic growth, promoting 
generational inequity, jeopardizing the American Dream, and creating 
real anxiety about the future of work.'
    Fortunately, we know that skills-based education, like 
apprenticeships, are proven to help address the growing skills gap we 
currently face.
    That is why my Republican colleagues and I have taken steps to 
advance work-based learning opportunities, including further 
integrating our education and workforce development systems so we can 
provide workers with the skills necessary to fill the millions of 
unfilled jobs nationwide. These efforts will aid all workers, including 
displaced workers.
    Thanks to the Trump administration, the Task Force on 
Apprenticeship Expansion is also working on solving the issues that put 
up barriers and bureaucratic red tape for those who wish to develop 
apprenticeship programs. Specifically, the task force recommended 
giving businesses greater flexibility in their apprenticeship programs 
to meet the varying needs of different industries. After all, employers 
know what skills their employees need to excel in the workplace.
    We should build on these successes by advancing policies that make 
it more attractive and easier to invest in workers.
    Rather than promoting policies that burden businesses and drive up 
costs, Committee Republicans will continue to champion reforms that 
expand opportunities for flexibility, innovation, and entrepreneurship 
to give workers and job-seekers opportunities to compete successfully 
in the 21st century economy.
    I want to thank the witnesses for coming today and I look forward 
to hearing from them.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairwoman Davis. I want to thank the gentleman for his 
statement.
    Without objection, all other members who wish to insert 
written statements into the record may do so by submitting them 
to the Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format, 
usually within 14 days, but since we are meeting here and that 
falls on January 1, we will grant time up until January 6 at 5 
o'clock.
    I am pleased to recognize my colleague, Representative 
Jayapal, to briefly introduce her constituent who is appearing 
before us as a witness today.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And I am so proud to welcome Nova Gattman from Washington 
State. Ms. Gattman is the deputy director for external affairs 
on the State's Workforce Training and Education Coordinating 
Board. She played a key role in coordinating and contributing 
to the State's Future of Work Task Force, which brought 
together business leaders, unions, worker advocates, academic 
experts, and elected officials. The Task Force just issued a 
very comprehensive report that I will be submitting for the 
record on the future of work.
    Ms. Gattman was also the co-chair of Washington's National 
Governors Association Policy Academy on Work-Based Learning, 
which played a key role in launching Governor Inslee's Career 
Connect Washington Project.
    I had the opportunity to work with Ms. Gattman when I was 
in the State Senate, and delighted to have your testimony here 
today. Welcome.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you.
    And I will now introduce the remaining witnesses. Seth 
Harris is an attorney in Washington, D.C., and a visiting 
professor at Cornell University's Institute for Public Affairs. 
Previously, he served as the Acting U.S. Secretary of Labor and 
a member of President Obama's Cabinet, by the way, and Deputy 
U.S. Secretary of Labor from 2009 to 2014.
    James Paretti is a shareholder in the Washington, D.C., 
office of Littler Mendelson PC and a member of the firm's 
Workplace Policy Institute. He is also a member of the board of 
directors of the Emma Coalition and is testifying today on 
behalf of the Emma Coalition.
    Brad Markell is the executive director of the AFL-CIO 
Working for America Institute and the executive director of the 
Industrial Union Council at AFL-CIO.
    We appreciate all of you being here and look forward to 
your testimony. And I want to especially thank those of you who 
have traveled to be here with us today.
    I want to remind the witnesses that we have read your 
written statements and they will appear in full in the hearing 
record. Pursuant to Committee Rule 7(d) and committee practice, 
each of you is asked to limit your oral presentation to a 5-
minute summary of your written statement.
    I need to remind the witnesses that pursuant to Title 18 of 
the U.S. Code, section 1001, it is illegal to knowingly and 
willfully falsify any statement, representation, writing, 
document, or material fact presented to Congress or otherwise 
conceal or cover up a material fact.
    Before you begin your testimony, please remember to press 
the button on the microphone in front of you so that it will 
turn on and the members can hear you. As you begin to speak, 
the light in front of you will turn green, and after 4 minutes, 
the light will turn yellow to signal that you have 1 remaining 
minute. When the light turns red, your 5 minutes have expired 
and we ask that you please wrap up.
    We will let the entire panel make their presentation before 
we move to member questions. And when answering a question, 
please remember to once again turn your microphone on.
    I will first recognize Mr. Harris.
    I would like to inform you that Ms. Wild and Ms. Schrier 
will be joining us at this hearing, Members from other 
subcommittees.
    Mr. Harris.

 STATEMENT OF SETH D. HARRIS J.D., VISITING PROFESSOR, CORNELL 
 INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS, SE, SUITE 310, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Mr. Harris. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Smucker, 
and Members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity 
to testify today. I will share some lessons I learned while 
overseeing the Labor Department's workforce development 
programs and leading the Department's response to the Great 
Recession and its aftermath.
    Of course, economic catastrophes like the Great Recession 
are not the only causes of worker displacement. Trade and 
technology are also important. They have combined to shift 
employment growth from middle-skill occupations toward low-
skill and high-skill occupations, but worker dislocation has 
many causes.
    Workers face relentless change, which puts them at 
continual risk. Technologies, products, and services, markets, 
transportation systems, and capital investment all evolve, 
often unpredictably. But American workers' needs do not change. 
They always need sufficient income to support themselves and 
their families. They also need an opportunity to secure a place 
in the American middle class through hard work, if they are 
able.
    Greater opportunities to acquire skills and knowledge will 
enable working people to respond to dislocations and change. 
Without those opportunities, middle-skill workers risk slipping 
out of the middle class, and workers in low-wage, low-skill 
jobs, who are most likely to cycle into similar jobs rather 
than moving to higher skill jobs, risk being permanently locked 
out of the middle class.
    Unfortunately, the workforce development system struggles 
to help all who need it. It has a patchwork design. Programs 
serve only particular populations of workers: Dislocated, 
disadvantaged, ex-offenders, trade-affected workers, out-of-
school-youth and others. Too many cannot find a place in any of 
those programs.
    And even eligible workers are challenged, because the 
system is grossly underfunded. Since 2001, Congress has slashed 
funding for many programs. Hundreds of thousands more workers 
could have been trained if Congress appropriated at the 
authorized or fiscal 2001 levels for Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act programs.
    Inadequate funding also skews services away from job 
training. In the first quarter of 2019, only 12 percent of 
exiters and 19 percent of program participants in the WIOA 
Dislocated Workers Program received training services.
    Here are four additional and fundamental challenges. First, 
learning while working is both expensive and demanding. Most 
workers have neither the time nor the money to pursue the 
credentials they need; second, the landscape of education and 
training credentials is complex, too complex for ordinary 
workers to sort out on their own; third, career pathways are 
difficult to navigate, and most workers get little guidance; 
fourth, workers do not have a guarantee in most instances that 
more education or training will result in a better job.
    The failure to address these challenges has contributed to 
the disturbing fact that rates of upward income mobility in the 
United States, that is, doing better than our parents, have 
been cut almost in half over the course of two generations.
    Let me suggest seven solutions. Solution one: Unions make a 
huge difference in education and training. More unions and 
union members would mean more skilled and knowledgeable workers 
with career pathways. By contrast, unregulated industry 
recognized apprenticeship programs will undermine successful 
registered apprenticeships and not increase success.
    Solution number two: Let's stop pretending that workers can 
finance their own education and training. Congress must 
substantially increase appropriations for the WIOA programs and 
Pell Grants and open Pell Grants to those seeking nondegree 
credentials.
    Solution number three: We must have flexible delivery 
systems that fit with workers' lives, but only if we can 
provide a style of education that fits their learning styles. 
Let's start a national dialogue about what workers need to 
succeed.
    Solution number four: We need a radical transparency 
movement around credentials. Everyone must share their data 
about credentials and their outcomes. The U.S. Government 
should require public disclosure of these data.
    Solution number five: We must aggressively expand the 
public workforce system's existing cadre of career navigators 
to help workers find their career pathways. Simply, we have 
evidence that it works.
    Solution number six: We need labor market intermediaries 
that can help employers get organized to work with training 
providers. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College 
Career Training program was a success. You should re-create it.
    Solution number seven: Let's break down the distinction 
between pursuing a labor market credential and pursuing an 
educational degree. Prior learning assessment and articulation 
agreements should be the rule, not the rare exceptions.
    Those are my recommendations, Madam Chair. I look forward 
to your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Harris follows:]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
    And, Ms. Gattman.

    STATEMENT OF NOVA GATTMAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR EXTERNAL 
 AFFAIRS, WORKFORCE TRAINING AND EDUCATION COORDINATING BOARD, 
                           OLYMPIA WA

    Ms. Gattman. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member 
Smucker, and Members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity 
to testify on behalf of Washington State's future of work 
efforts. My name is Nova Gattman. I am the deputy director for 
external affairs at Washington's Workforce Board.
    Washington is often associated with large IT companies, 
like Microsoft or Amazon. However, Washington is an incredibly 
diverse State. IT is only our tenth largest industry sector in 
the State. Agriculture is actually our second largest export 
sector after aerospace. And one challenge that we face is that 
economic prosperity is not equally distributed.
    Unfortunately, the jobs that are most likely to be 
automated are the same jobs that are most prominent in the 
rural areas in the State that are currently experiencing higher 
unemployment and lower wages. Washington is committed to 
addressing these disparities by increasing support for workers 
and building an economy that works for businesses, workers, and 
communities.
    Our Future of Work report highlights that 65 percent of the 
jobs today's kindergartners will hold when they become adults 
do not exist today. And one critical aspect of preparing for 
the future of work are opportunities for career-connected 
learning. Governor Inslee's Career Connect Washington 
initiative envisions every student in Washington participating 
in career-connected learning. This program includes local 
grants to develop and build capacity in every sector and 
increased enrollment funding. Since 2017, 78,000 career-
connected learning experiences have already been made possible 
through this work.
    Additionally, our State passed legislation this year that 
would allow over 110,000 students to participate in higher 
education over the next 4 years, and this includes the student 
cost of participating in registered apprenticeship programs. 
Also of note, uniquely, our State's program has no age limits, 
and so this benefits not only an 18-year-old traditional 
student seeking a 4-year degree, but also a 45-year-old mid-
career worker who is seeking retraining or up-skilling 
opportunities.
    In terms of Washington's public workforce development 
system, we are most successful when we can begin working with 
businesses and workers long before business shutters its doors 
or an individual seeks unemployment insurance. A significant 
challenge is that the current reactive system of Federal 
supports are primarily focused on identifying mass layoffs that 
qualify for funding.
    To be effective as we prepare for the future of work, our 
systems must look towards anticipating and addressing sector 
shifts and identifying groups of workers at risk.
    And now I would like to speak about Washington's Future of 
Work Task Force, which is staffed by our State's Workforce 
Board, and its policy recommendations. The Task Force included 
four members from the legislature, six from business, and six 
from labor. We were the first State in the Nation to convene a 
legislative task force focused on this topic.
    The Task Force came up with five broad policy areas and 17 
specific recommendations. These include: Enhanced worker 
training and lifelong learning opportunities; two, 
understanding and setting guidelines on deploying advanced 
technologies and starting with a State government workforce; 
three, examining how to modernize worker support systems to 
support the changing nature of work and increasing career 
mobility for many individuals; four, re-imagining career and 
credentialing pathways to allow for validation and comparison 
of the value of educational opportunities; and finally, 
deploying economic development resources to support small and 
midsize businesses, especially in our more rural regions.
    Some key recommendations that might be of interest from 
those topic areas. First, incumbent worker training. The best 
way to ensure that our workers aren't being left behind is to 
ensure that they have the skills to grow with their employers 
and in their careers. Our incumbent worker training programs 
are popular with businesses, but the limited funds run out 
quickly. The Task Force recommends that we fund the unmet 
employer applications this year and supports a likely request 
for $25 million for our State in 2021.
    Lifelong learning accounts, or LiLAs, is another key 
strategy. LiLAs are portable employee-owned accounts that help 
pay for education and related expenses, with employers and 
employees both contributing to the accounts. Washington was one 
of the first States in the country to initiate a LiLA program, 
with the support of then-State senator Derek Kilmer, who is, of 
course, now your colleague, Representative Kilmer. One rural 
healthcare employer estimated that LiLA saved him over $70,000 
in retention costs just in the first year of using the program.
    Another recommendation recognizes the role that libraries 
play in our communities as a hub for those with limited access 
to the internet or other resources, and calls for support to 
allow local libraries to provide access to training, education, 
and business development resources.
    The Task Force also supports expanding the use of 
collaborative applied research, which pairs a business and its 
workers with a college or university to work together to 
develop new products or solve a business problem.
    In conclusion, although our work was focused on developing 
the best future work policies to promote shared prosperity 
among the residents of Washington, I hope these recommendations 
can help serve as helpful blueprints for those of you here 
today.
    Thank you for the invitation to share Washington's story, 
and I am happy to answer any questions.
    [The statement of Ms. Gattman follows:]


	[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    



    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Paretti.

    STATEMENT OF JAMES A. PARETTI JR., SHAREHOLDER, LITTLER 
  MENDELSON P.C., TREASURER, EMMA COALITION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Mr. Paretti. Chair Davis, Ranking Member Smucker, Members 
of the subcommittee, good morning, and thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you. My name is Jim Paretti. I am 
a shareholder in the law firm of Littler Mendelson, and a 
member of the board of directors of the Emma Coalition. My 
testimony here this morning is solely on behalf of the Emma 
Coalition, not my firm or any of its clients.
    The Emma Coalition is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) corporation 
dedicated to the preparation of the American workforce for 
technology-induced displacement of employment, or what we call 
TIDE. We seek to bring together businesses, trade associations, 
labor, academic institutions, and policymakers to address the 
challenges and opportunities presented by TIDE that our 
workforce is already facing.
    We believe that with proper preparation, employers and 
workers can thrive in TIDE; but if they do nothing, TIDE will 
overwhelm them.
    Now, I am often asked, what does Emma stand for? In 
Washington, everything is an acronym. Well, Emma is not a what 
but a who, and she is the 8-year-old granddaughter of Michael 
Lotito, one of my partners and the president and co-founder of 
the Emma Coalition.
    More than that, Emma represents the next generation of our 
workforce. Each of us in this room today has an Emma, and we 
owe it to all of them to ensure a skilled and prepared 
workforce so that all Emmas will be able to succeed.
    The National Restaurant Association is also a co-founder of 
the Emma Coalition. The restaurant industry compromises over 1 
million restaurants and outlets nationally, employing 15.3 
million employees, roughly 10 percent of the U.S. workforce. 
Given that one in three Americans get their first job in the 
restaurant industry, it is at the epicenter of TIDE, and the 
NRA is helping its members meet its challenges. I discuss some 
of the ways in which it is doing so in my written testimony.
    Respectfully, the question of whether TIDE will 
fundamentally reshape our workforce is no longer before the 
subcommittee. That ship has sailed. The questions now before 
you are when, how, and to what extent these changes will come 
and, most important, what can we do to prepare for them?
    A few key points. First, the speed at which TIDE is 
changing the workplace is exponentially faster than any we have 
seen before. This is perhaps the most striking way in which 
this industrial revolution differs from the ones that have come 
before it and why we at Emma believe a response is urgent.
    Second, disruption caused by TIDE will affect everyone, 
regardless of class, race, geography, age, or industry, but its 
impact will be felt by some individuals and in certain sectors 
more than others.
    Third, while we might assume that only blue-collar or lower 
skilled occupations will be impacted by TIDE, it is clear that 
white-collar jobs in banking, accounting, healthcare, law, 
other industries will also face disruption.
    Finally, while the disruption caused by TIDE may be 
unsettling, TIDE need not be wholly negative, and in the long 
run, is likely to have an overall positive effect on the labor 
market. That is, if we take steps to ensure that our workforce 
is prepared.
    I am excited to be here this morning alongside the 
Washington State Task Force on the Future of Work. We welcomed 
the release of their report earlier this month, and we believe 
that Washington State's recognition that the time for action is 
now should serve as a model for other States and localities in 
facing the challenges of TIDE. We are doing everything we can 
to put that out there.
    Another group with whom we are working is America Succeeds. 
America Succeeds supports a national network of nonpartisan, 
business-led policy education toward improving--I am sorry, 
committed to improving public education and creating a culture 
of lifelong learning.
    In the 21st century workplace, it is no longer simply the 
three Rs that count. Our students must also master the four Cs 
of critical thinking, creativity, communication, and 
collaboration. We look forward to working with America Succeeds 
in their efforts.
    We are convinced that data analytics will be crucial in 
responding to TIDE. We need to determine how we can use data to 
identify, at a granular level, which jobs are most susceptible 
to displacement, what jobs are likely to replace them, what 
skills are necessary for success in these new jobs, what sort 
of up-skilling is necessary to close the gap, that delta, and 
how do we effectively deliver what will enable displaced 
workers to succeed. We are actively exploring ways with data 
vendors to do so.
    The need for workers throughout their careers to be dynamic 
will be paramount. We believe the concept of financial 
incentives for lifelong learning shows promise, as you have 
heard. Currently, we provide tax-favored ways to set aside 
money at the end of our careers through 401(k)s and IRAs, and 
at the start of our careers through tax-deferred savings for 
college. We at Emma believe we should explore the effectiveness 
of providing similar benefits for workers throughout their 
careers.
    Finally, we need a national strategy. The U.S. is woefully 
behind in responding to the complex and interrelated issues 
raised by TIDE, and many view our lack of engagement not only 
as a matter of economic security but is one of national 
security. Compared to other countries, our efforts have been 
lagging, at best, but we are pleased and hope that today's 
hearing is an important first step.
    At the end of the day, we know that TIDE will dramatically 
transform our workforce. The challenges ahead are great, but 
the Emma Coalition firmly believes that so are the 
opportunities. We stand ready to work with you, and I welcome 
any questions you may have.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Mr. Paretti follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    



    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you.
    Mr. Markell.

STATEMENT OF BRAD MARKELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AFL-CIO WORKING 
            FOR AMERICA INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Mr. Markell. Chair Davis, Ranking Member Smucker, and 
Members of the committee, thank you for inviting AFL-CIO to 
share its views on these important topics. I serve as the 
director of the AFL-CIO Working for America Institute, a 
national nonprofit intermediary that works to bring organized 
labor's resources, expertise, and worker engagement to bear on 
our Nation's workforce development programs and to help develop 
and support innovative programs for training and support 
services.
    In 2017, the AFL-CIO formed a Commission on the Future of 
Work and Unions, whose report you have as a part of my written 
statement. The report confirms that advances in technology have 
always redefined work. This is nothing new. Unions have been 
addressing job displacement and skill changes within 
occupations for decades. Today, we are bargaining over the fair 
implementation of technology in the workplace and making sure 
frontline workers have a say in the design of work as new 
technologies come to the workplace.
    The Commission's report makes clear that technology itself 
is not the issue. The real issue is the human arrangement to 
shape how technology is used. Who has a say in the development 
of technology? Who gets opportunities for training for the new 
tasks and the new jobs of tomorrow? Will society, through our 
government, provide the resources that workers, employers, and 
communities need to grow and prosper as the pace of technology 
change accelerates?
    The Commission engaged dozens of experts in a detailed 
examination of how technology is changing work. We found, while 
there is no question that technology will eliminate some jobs, 
the robot apocalypse of job loss is not upon us. Rather, the 
main trend over the next decade will be jobs changing with new 
technology, not jobs being eliminated. This leads to the 
inescapable conclusion that we must focus on understanding how 
tasks will change within occupations to make sure that 
incumbent workers get the skills they need to stay employed and 
to be clear about the new skills needed in occupations that can 
employ displaced workers, no matter why they are displaced.
    As documented in my written testimony, people of color in 
low-income communities are overrepresented in occupations 
vulnerable to disruption and have well-identified challenges 
when it comes to employment transition. In the work of WAI and 
its partners, we have found that these challenges can be 
overcome by providing services that address specific barriers, 
such as childcare, transportation, or access to basic skills 
refresher training.
    We urge the committee and the Congress to take special care 
in addressing and funding these programs so all Americans can 
have a chance to succeed as technology changes our workplaces 
and the way we work.
    Many Americans have missed out on the gains of a growing 
economy. Rapidly changing technology can make this worse or it 
can be an opportunity to solve the very real problems of 
inequality and inequity in our society.
    We believe that a successful path is an all-of-the-above 
approach that meets workers and employers where they are and 
helps them succeed. This includes increased funding for 
workforce development programs and support services, with 
special attention to underserved and vulnerable populations; 
promote and fund registered apprenticeships, including programs 
to align them with changing technology; reform and expand 
unemployment insurance and expand access to job search 
assistance; reform trade adjustment assistance to expand it to 
cover workers displaced by technology; expand the role of 
sector partnerships, labor workforce intermediaries, and joint 
labor management training programs in the workforce system.
    Pass the PRO Act. Good outcomes for workers depend on 
workers having an actual voice in the workplace. An open-door 
policy doesn't cut it. You need institutional power so that 
workers can have a voice that really puts their interests on an 
even setting with employers.
    Finally, we can make public investments that will create 
high-quality training and good jobs and increase opportunity 
for everyone. This Congress can and must lead the way.
    I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Markell follows:]


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
    Under Committee Rule 8(a), we will now question witnesses 
under the 5-minute rule. And as chair, I will ask the first 
question and then be followed by the Ranking Member, and then 
we will alternate between the parties.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Now, you have all laid out a few recommendations that I 
think are very helpful to us. And we know that we are in a new 
situation, in many cases, due to technology and a host of other 
issues. We can't just reinvest perhaps in existing programs. 
Some of them we may have to decide have not been so helpful, 
but others we can go and approach in a different way.
    And I will start with Mr. Harris. If you could just, of 
those recommendations that you listed--and I understand that in 
many cases it is--you mentioned that we can't assume that 
workers know where to go, how to help themselves, in many 
cases. But what is it that you feel is, you know, really a key 
barrier, maybe something that we talk about less in terms of 
these issues? And I think I would like the rest of you, if you 
would, please, to, you know, of those concerns that you have, 
what do we usually miss in thinking about these issues?
    Professor Harris.
    Mr. Harris. So I want to highlight the rather egregious 
market failures that exist in the market for skills, knowledge, 
and credentials. So, essentially, the way our system works is 
we say to workers, figure out what degree or credential or 
training you should get that is going to get you a job. We are 
not going to tell you which one. And then either find your own 
funding or we will provide you with funding, although you 
provide very few of them with funding, let me be honest with 
you.
    The problem with that kind of an approach is that the 
people who are making the choices, both workers and employers, 
don't have the requisite information. Market systems depend 
upon widely available free-flowing, readily accessible 
information. Workers don't know which credentials will end up 
in their getting jobs or even what skills and knowledge those 
credentials certify.
    Employers also often don't know that. They sometimes don't 
know what credentials they want people to acquire, because they 
don't know what competencies they want people to be trained in. 
But they don't understand it any better than anybody else.
    In the United States right now--and I mentioned this in my 
testimony--there are more than 730,000 credentials that are 
offered to workers and employers. No one can sort that out and 
no one does. There is no Yelp for credentials in our country. 
So I think that fundamental market failure is a very serious 
problem that we need to solve.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you.
    And Ms. Gattman as well. How do we get there?
    Ms. Gattman. Sure.
    Chairwoman Davis. What gets in the way?
    Ms. Gattman. One of the things that we have been really 
working on in Washington is this idea of integrated service 
delivery. And WIOA, the way it was set up was, you know, it did 
break down a lot of the barriers where, you know, we are able 
to serve the whole worker. One of the things that has been a 
concern for us is the way it is set up, though, there are 
disincentives for folks to work together between different 
agencies, different programs. It is a question of who gets the 
credit or how does that--how is the funding distributed. And so 
that is something that, you know, we would be certainly 
interested in talking more about and what we could do to help 
influence that conversation.
    Chairwoman Davis. I know one of the things just to bring up 
quickly is that many of our families actually would struggle to 
pay a $400 unexpected expense. So how does that relate to what 
you are saying? What do we need there to have some assistance, 
cheer people on?
    Ms. Gattman. Sure. So one of the aspects of our report that 
we highlighted is the Lifelong Learning Accounts program. So 
when we are talking about that unexpected expense, particularly 
regarding to education programs, when you have--a lot of the 
times that is the main reason people are dropping out of higher 
education. And so having access to an account that can bridge 
some of those smaller amounts but they are still very 
significant to the families makes a huge difference.
    Chairwoman Davis. Could be helpful. Thank you.
    Mr. Paretti, and then, Mr. Markell, I haven't left you too 
much time, but we will try and get to you really quickly.
    Mr. Paretti. I was labor counsel for 8 years to the 
committee but on the workforce side, so I never sat in a 
hearing where the witnesses actually generally agreed with one 
another or thought we were all fighting the same battles. It is 
a pleasure.
    I will endorse what Ms. Gattman said with regard to 
Lifelong Learning Accounts. I think resources obviously are a 
barrier. Two other points quickly. I think with respect to 
data, I agree with Professor Harris that we really need to take 
a close look. And I believe that we can.
    The numbers are out there, whether they are publicly 
available, some are privately available, industry-based, to say 
how do we figure out what jobs are going, what are leaving, 
where are they going, and what are the skills and core 
competencies needed.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you. I am going to switch to Mr. 
Markell. We will be back and talk to everybody some more.
    Mr. Markell, quickly, just that one kind of glaring thing 
that we have to have.
    Mr. Markell. Organized labor is really, really concerned 
that workers are being steered down bad paths that don't lead 
to good jobs and stable occupations. So we need to learn a lot 
more about the quality of jobs and the outcomes for training 
providers that are trying to pull people into training that 
doesn't lead them anywhere.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
    I now turn to the Ranking Member, and would you like us 
to--I will let you--and we are going to go to Mr. Guthrie. 
Thank you very much.
    Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much. Thank you all for being 
here. It is great to have you.
    Mr. Paretti, I am chair of the E-Commerce Caucus, along 
with Peter Aguilar of California. One of our main focuses is 
how the e-commerce industry will support American 
competitiveness and economic growth.
    As our country develops new innovative technologies, such 
as improving the artificial intelligence, we have to ensure 
that we are helping people learn the skills to work with new 
technology. And I am particularly interested in your example of 
the healthcare industry adapting AI. Can you expand on the 
benefits and challenges of an industry that embraces technology 
such as AI versus one that is not adaptive and keeps the status 
quo?
    Mr. Paretti. Sure. Thank you, Congressman. I think the 
healthcare industry is a great example of the role of AI in 
improving outcomes across the board. Through the use of 
artificial intelligence, robotics, you now have surgeons and 
others who are able to perform much more complex surgeries than 
they have ever done in less time with better patient outcomes 
and better results.
    The automated ability to track a patient's condition, 
monitoring in the hospital, those are all things that would 
just require a human body to do. At the same time, what it has 
allowed for is the development of skills in other areas. 
Whereas, you no longer need a nurse necessarily walking the 
halls to hand out pills, that can be taken care of.
    What you do need is someone to more fully engage with the 
patient on a holistic basis and work with them towards managing 
whatever has gotten them there towards their treatment. So I 
think the healthcare industry is a striking example of where AI 
presents challenges but also some great opportunities.
    Mr. Guthrie. You mentioned in your testimony that some 
studies say that 85 percent of the jobs--85 percent of the jobs 
that will exist in 2040 have not been--don't exist today. And I 
am trying to think of that--that is only 20 years away--and 
think of 85 percent of the disruption in the workforce. It is 
something you want to talk about as well. I know that is in 
your testimony.
    And I was just thinking, you know, 20 years ago, we really 
didn't have--you had phones, but not to the level that we have. 
So all the work that has come--Amazon, I mean those, they 
existed, but not to the point that they are.
    So of the studies you have seen, what are you thinking and 
how can Congress--maybe if you want to address that too, how 
can Congress--what do we need to do to get out of the way or to 
help in order to make sure we have people qualified for these 
80 percent of new jobs in 20 years? That is not that long away.
    Mr. Paretti. No, no. And I mean, I do say I think we do 
need to acknowledge the studies vary widely. You will see 
everything from 45 to 85 percent, and on its face, it is a 
somewhat startling figure.
    Mr. Guthrie. Substantial.
    Mr. Paretti. Oh, it is absolutely substantial. But you 
think, oh, my goodness, these jobs haven't been created yet. 
Well, as you rightly pointed out, could you imagine 20 years 
ago the folks who were making and servicing all the platform 
vehicles that we use now, the phones, the other technology, you 
know, that were available too. social media, web design, so 
much of what we have seen become automated.
    Mr. Guthrie. You know, one of the limits of 5G development 
and employment are people capable of installing the 5G 
equipment.
    Mr. Paretti. I am sorry, I didn't hear.
    Mr. Guthrie. One of the biggest impediments to 5G is not 
just all the technology and stuff, it is having people with the 
ability to--enough people with the ability to be able to 
install the towers, not really towers but what you use for 5G.
    Mr. Paretti. Sure. No, that is exactly right. And I think 
that is among those 7 million jobs that Mr. Smucker referred 
to, in terms of a skills gap.
    In connection with this hearing this morning, I had a 
number of folks reach out to me and say, boy, make the point, 
Jim, that we are trying to hire folks and we just can't find--
these are manufacturers, these are auto manufacturers. We have 
talented--we have jobs that provide good long-term wages, a 
road to success, and we simply can't find the folks to get them 
in there.
    Sometimes that is a failing of the educational system. 
Sometimes that is a failing of the job training system. But I 
think, you know, a focus from top to bottom, and particularly 
with respect in K-12, in sort of changing the paradigm. Workers 
need to understand it is no longer--you are going to get there. 
You are going to get your terminal degree, whether it is a 
bachelor's or an associate's or a certificate, and that is 
going to be enough to carry you.
    Mr. Guthrie. We also have the issue we are at record 
unemployment and trying to get more people into the workforce. 
But I have learned--and I was in manufacturing, as Professor 
Harris talked about--the best people to train are the people 
already working that need to go up the ladder so they can earn 
more money. They have got the work ethic. They are showing up 
for work to train.
    But you get to the flexibility. It is really hard to work 
in a factory 40 hours a week, hoping for overtime and having a 
family and trying to--so we have to be flexible with this. And 
any kind of thoughts of you guys on how you--and as we have 
talked about here, apprenticeships particularly, how do we get 
people trained as they are working?
    You know, just to take 4 years off and go back to college 
and have summers off and spring break and fall break, that is 
just not what these people are looking for. They are looking 
for a pathway to be able to earn a living. And that is perfect 
for people 18 to--whenever you can go back for.
    But how do we grab somebody that is 30 that is like, wow, 
it is kind of a dead-end job, but I can really see, instead of 
loading this robot, if I can fix it, then I am going to make a 
lot more money. And how do we make those contacts? Those are 
the things we are trying to think through. If anybody wants to 
comment.
    Mr. Paretti. I don't want to monopolize time, if anyone--
    Mr. Guthrie. I know Professor Harris talked about 
flexibility, we needed flexibility in delivery.
    Mr. Harris. Right. So my main point about flexibility is 
that asynchronous distance learning is not a panacea. It is a 
very good delivery system, but not everybody is appropriate to 
distance learning. For the workers that you are talking about--
and I share that concern about incumbent workers who are not 
finding a pathway up a career ladder--they really need help 
understanding career pathways from their employers.
    And also let me say, where you have a union, you almost 
always have a very well-defined career pathway. So they need 
understanding about how do I get from here to there and who's 
going to provide me with that training? Is the employer going 
to do it? Is some public enterprise going to do it? Is a 
partnership with a community college going to do it?
    And if I get the credential, is it a credential that is not 
only going to help me in my current workplace, but will it help 
me in the labor market as a whole with other employers. That 
is--
    Mr. Guthrie. As the new jobs come--I know she is gaveling, 
so we better--thank you so much, and I appreciate your time and 
effort. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much. And I tried to give 
the Ranking Member back some time.
    Okay. The gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Jayapal.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to our 
witnesses for being here on such an important subject.
    I think as we think about the future of work, it is 
particularly important that we think about every job being a 
good job.
    I am very proud of our home State. I think we have some of 
the best worker protections and wages across the country.
    And so, Ms. Gattman, let me start with you. The report, the 
Future of Work report shows that the median wage has increased 
across the State, with most of the wage growth going to the 
highest and lowest earning workers. And the report attributes 
that wage growth in the lower paying entry-level jobs, in 
particular, primarily to recent increases in the State minimum 
wage. So it is clear that a good job is a job that pays a 
livable wage.
    What other factors did the Task Force identify that 
contribute to job quality?
    Ms. Gattman. Thank you, Representative. The Task Force 
spent a lot of time on this topic. It is a broad category, job 
quality, that encompasses a wide range of characteristics: pay, 
hours worked, job safety. There is a range of different areas 
there.
    We identified the following six topics that really we felt 
encompassed whether a job was a quality job to a worker, and 
each section goes into greater detail in our report. I 
encourage you to take a look if you haven't had a chance yet. 
But those areas: Wage growth and wage disparity first; second, 
worker voice, self-determination, and job autonomy; third, 
employment structure, relationships, and benefits; fourth, job 
deskilling; fifth, an accessible career pipeline. Five areas, 
actually.
    So some of these do have specific policy recommendations in 
the report, and then others we did flag as needing further 
study. The Task Force was a 15-month task force so far, and we 
are looking to extend that, but we do need to do further study 
on some of those items.
    Ms. Jayapal. And this was the agreement--one of the things 
I liked about the Task Force is that you had businesses, you 
had worker representation, worker organizations and unions, all 
at the table coming up with this unanimous set of 
recommendations around the important areas for a good job.
    You also found in your report that while median wages grew 
in Washington State, there were some workers who were left 
behind. What interventions specifically related to wage 
disparities did the Task Force suggest to address those 
disparities?
    Ms. Gattman. Sure. Thank you. So incumbent worker training 
is certainly a factor for us in helping workers grow with their 
companies and earning those higher wages.
    The Task Force also had a recommendation on joint worker 
management committees as part of any State incumbent worker 
training funding. We think that will help ensure the workers' 
needs and interests are reflected when those public funds are 
invested to support business growth and development.
    The report also talks about better labor market data and 
credential transparency. We want people to be able to better 
prepare for their career futures and to make wise decisions on 
how to invest their time and money to achieve those career 
goals. So to do that, they need information about program 
outcomes and the actual skills and competencies that would 
result from a course or credential.
    Ms. Jayapal. One of the things that is growing in our State 
is the number of contingent workers. And, you know, contingent 
workers have far fewer legal protections, less safety benefits, 
less retirement security.
    What do you recommend that we look at to keep those workers 
safe and secure?
    Ms. Gattman. Sure. So the information we have on this, it 
is largely anecdotal. We went through a lot of research on the 
contingent workforce, and we found that contingent work is on 
the rise, particularly in terms of part-time supplemental 
income.
    But our report covers quite a bit, and it comes down to 
choice. So are the workers taking contingent jobs because they 
like the flexibility, they earn enough to support their 
families, or are they taking that because they have no other 
options? And so we posed the question: Can we create the public 
worker support network and infrastructure that enables those 
workers to earn a family-sustaining income while working in a 
career that is meaningful to them?
    And so one of the things that we recommend is we want to 
look at the public worker benefit system and see if there are 
things that we need to do to help improve that system to be 
more responsive to contingent workers.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you.
    A report that was released yesterday by The Century 
Foundation calls my Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, which is 
cosponsored by many on this subcommittee, a model of innovation 
for other sectors as policymakers consider what laws are needed 
to ensure an inclusive and equitable future for work.
    Madam Chair, I would like to ask unanimous consent to 
introduce both the Future of Work Task Force report and the 
2019 Century Foundation report entitled ``Domestic Workers 
Bill: A Model for Tomorrow's Workforce'' into the record.
    Chairwoman Davis. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

    Future of Work Task Force 2019 Policy Report: https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-116HPRT43987/pdf/CPRT-
116HPRT43987.pdf

    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.
    Mr. Watkins is next then, the gentleman from Kansas.
    Mr. Watkins. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
    In Kansas, we talk with a lot of chief executives who 
certainly have the work, and they would do more if they had the 
people. And so, Mr. Paretti, I hear this from employers all the 
time, you know.
    And so my question is, they can't find enough skilled 
workers for their positions, and so how will this problem be 
exacerbated with the coming TIDE, with the technology-induced 
displacement of employment?
    Mr. Paretti. Thank you, Congressman. We have already seen 
it, I mean, and the speed at which it is happening is 
accelerating. More and more as lower skilled jobs are displaced 
by automation, by artificial intelligence, they do create other 
opportunities, but those opportunities are a higher skill 
level.
    If we are currently in a situation where we can't fill 7 
million jobs now because of the lack of skilled workers, as the 
jobs that are out there require a greater skill set and greater 
set of competencies to master, that number is going to only get 
bigger.
    What we can do about it, I think, is talk about, as we 
mentioned, lifelong learning. I think instilling a sort of a 
dynamic concept into this. Understand you are going to 
constantly throughout your career having to be up-skilling 
yourself, constantly learning and looking toward the next 
position.
    I was heartened by the chair's comment that we spend a ton 
of money right now on workforce training programs, but, as I 
think it was Professor Harris' testimony, it is scattered among 
so many different programs that serve different constituencies. 
Is there a way to look at and spend--you know, if we are 
spending this much money, can we spend it more wisely and more 
effectively? That is one thing I would certainly endorse taking 
a close look at.
    Mr. Watkins. Thanks. And, like you mentioned, it is not 
just low wage or minimal skill/no skill labor. We are starting 
to see this expand to banking and accounting and other fields.
    I am particularly interested in the example that you 
brought up in the healthcare industry with regards to AI. And 
AI has the ability to provide workers with the opportunity to 
focus more on face-to-face--
    Mr. Paretti. Yes.
    Mr. Watkins.--and less repetitive work. So what sectors 
embrace the mindset versus sectors that one will attempt to 
cling to the status quo?
    Mr. Paretti. Well, I mean, I think those sectors that don't 
embrace the mindset are going to find that it is going to smack 
them in the face one way or the other. To some extent, the 
automation in TIDE is going to be somewhat inevitable. What we 
can do is prepare ourselves for it.
    You mentioned healthcare--I think Mr. Guthrie talked about 
that as well--as a great opportunity for particularly 
traditionally undervalued skills, and this is interesting. We 
talk about the disparate impacts of TIDE. One positive is that 
it is largely expected that TIDE will favor women workers and 
female workers as opposed to male, because so many of the 
skills that were traditionally undervalued--social skills, 
empathy, interaction, the things that lead to face-to-face 
time--those are going to be more and more in demand as routine, 
rote, sort of easy-to-do and noncomplex tasks are replaced by 
automation. So I think those are opportunities there.
    I see it in my law firm. I mean, I was an associate 20 
years ago, and one of your first things you did for the first 
year of your career was sit in a room with boxes of documents 
and look for anything that looked different. So much of that 
can be done automated now that we no longer need to have folks 
doing that. So it frees up associates to be working at a higher 
level and ultimately moving.
    But, yeah, I think the thought that this is simply going to 
be, oh, it is the folks at the drugstore or in the fast food 
restaurants who are going to be displaced, it is much larger 
than that.
    Mr. Watkins. Thank you.
    I yield the balance of my time, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you. Did you want to yield to 
anyone in particular?
    No. Okay.
    Mr. Watkins. No, ma'am.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
    Okay. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this 
hearing and to the witnesses for being here this morning.
    Professor Harris, I just want to go back to one of your 
comments about the fact that a creative way to address this 
problem is to use the Pell Grant program to be available for 
nondegree credential programs. The good news is we just voted 
out of committee the reauthorization of the Higher Education 
Act a few weeks ago, and section 4013 actually embraced that 
concept for the first time. Again, we are opening up Pell 
Grants to nondegree programs.
    And, again, just for the record, Madam Chairwoman, I just 
want to enter into the record section 4013 from the CAA so that 
we can again--
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you. Without objection.
    Mr. Courtney.--make it a part of the record.
    [The information follows:]
    

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Mr. Courtney. However, one point which there was a little 
bit of a dustup during the markup was on the question of, you 
know, which programs should actually be allowed to use public 
dollars. Again, the section which I just referenced was careful 
to make sure that it was WIOA-certified programs, again, 
programs which have kind of--you know, we have run the traps on 
to make sure they are not junk certificates.
    And I was wondering, again, if you could just sort of, you 
know, just comment on whether or not that is the right 
approach, to just make sure we are not indiscriminately opening 
up, you know, public dollars to programs which may not provide 
anything of value.
    Mr. Harris. Yes. I think that is--I think the committee got 
it exactly right. We need to ensure that the programs that are 
funded with Pell Grant money--and I would say not just Pell 
Grant money, but all public money--are actually delivering 
training and credentials that have value in the labor market 
for workers, preferably paired with career pathways, advice, 
and guidance that allows those credentials to actually turn 
directly into a job. So I think that is exactly right.
    The only point that I would add about Pell Grants is that I 
think it is exactly right to open it up to nondegree 
credentials, but that means we need more money, because, 
otherwise, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. And what I would 
rather do is let's help Peter and Paul get the training and 
education that they need. So let's expand the funding, the 
appropriations for Pell Grants as much as we possibly can to 
accommodate the additional influx of people using it for 
nondegree credentials.
    Mr. Courtney. Well, yesterday's minibus that actually did 
plus up to some degree Pell for the first time in years, I 
realize, but, you know, at least we are moving into positive 
territory.
    Mr. Markell, again, you talked about the registered 
apprenticeship program, which, again, I think there is very 
strong bipartisanship support for plussing or sizing it up to 
deal with the, you know, skills gap, job openings, and the 
economy there.
    However, again, to go back to the discussion we just had on 
credentialed certificate nondegree programs, it is key, isn't 
it, to make sure that apprenticeship certificates that have 
been around since the Fitzgerald Act passed in 1937 continues 
to maintain some standards to make sure that workers have 
something that is portable, and also employers know that they 
are getting something of quality? I just wonder if you could 
comment on that.
    Mr. Markell. We are really keen to see registered 
apprenticeship move into different occupations across different 
sectors. We think it is a great model. There are a lot of 
protections for employees and employers, frankly, in the 
registered apprenticeship model.
    We know things like EEOC plans are required inside of 
registered apprenticeships. We know that there are plans in 
contracts that are signed. We are seeing some--for instance, in 
the tech industry, the tech industry has decided that there are 
sort of two paths now. You can come from a fancy college or you 
can go to a registered apprenticeship, and they will put you 
into a pretty good job and give you a good career pathway.
    In healthcare, registered apprenticeships are expanding. In 
our own work, we are pushing registered apprenticeships into 
the production workforce in manufacturing, because we think 
that as technology changes and skills are pushed onto the 
production floor, you are going to see the average worker, the 
production worker, who used to just show up and hit their 
machine and do their work, starting to have tasks that are 
associated with technology.
    Registered apprenticeship is a way to codify that, to 
spread it across employers, and to make sure that everybody 
gets a fair shot at a credential that is going to be 
recognized, gives them a chance to change jobs if they want to, 
gives them a chance to move, lets employers know that they are 
getting the right skills when they get the person with that 
apprenticeship.
    Mr. Courtney. Great. Well, I know the chairwoman is very 
focused on moving this issue forward next year and, again, we 
will take your comments I am sure into consideration as we 
start that markup process.
    With that, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
    And Mr. Walker, the gentleman from North Carolina.
    Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    It is no secret that American businesses across all 
industries are making automation advancements in their day-to-
day activities. I think we would all agree with that. This is a 
reality that North Carolinians in my district face every day.
    In fact, Mr. Paretti, you previously mentioned Greensboro, 
a city in my district, as being one of the cities that has high 
automation potential.
    But the solution to ensuring that workers are prepared for 
new automation-driven jobs is not found in, in my opinion, 
additional mandates imposed on local businesses by the Federal 
Government. Our evidence shows that it is found in private-
public partnerships that facilitate collaboration between 
employers and employees to engage in ongoing training.
    So, Mr. Paretti, we have repeatedly heard today that 
increased automation is the main cause for job displacement. 
However, the growing trends toward automation can actually have 
a positive impact on our economy. Would you agree with that or 
disagree with that?
    Mr. Paretti. Oh, I would absolutely agree. I mean, I think 
in the long run the effect on our labor market and our economy 
is going to be very positive. Productivity is increased--you 
know, all of those things--costs are lower, passed on to 
consumers--
    Mr. Walker. So this is not just abstract; you have data 
that proves this assertion. Is that fair to say?
    Mr. Paretti. Yeah. Yes, I could get that to the committee.
    Mr. Walker. You mentioned in your testimony the importance 
of offering tax incentives to encourage saving for new training 
and development, similar to a 529 savings account or 401(k).
    Can you explain what would be the benefit to displaced 
workers if they had access to these kinds of savings accounts?
    Mr. Paretti. Certainly. Two areas come to mind.
    One is just the fact of having the money set aside in a 
tax-favored way. That means, when it is time to re-skill and 
perhaps before it is time--we don't endorse the concept of you 
should wait for your job to be gone to start thinking about the 
next one. You should constantly be building your skills. And if 
you have those resources to draw on, like a lifelong learning 
account or something of that sort, that provides that for you.
    Also, done correctly, they provide a portability of 
benefits. I think one of the Members earlier mentioned the 
contingent workforce. That number is not--BLS data suggests 
that number is not growing, sort of, as quickly as the trope 
would suggest, that, oh, we are all becoming contingent 
workers. The number has actually stayed fairly static. But one 
thing that certainly contingent workers face is a problem that 
so many of our benefit systems, starting with, you know, the 
ERISA-governed plans that are within the committee's 
jurisdiction, are tied to an employer and tied to your 
employment. If you can carry some of these benefits from 
employer to employer to different jobs when you are working on 
a contingent basis, when you are working full-time, when you 
are working part-time, I think that goes a long way, too, 
towards providing, you know, a cushion there for folks.
    Mr. Walker. Where do you feel like the opposition from that 
particular perspective or approach that you just mentioned, 
where do you feel that there is opposition preventing that from 
happening?
    Mr. Paretti. Well, I mean, certainly insofar as we are 
willing to provide a tax-favored treatment of a set-aside, that 
does take resources, that is a cost. So we need to have the 
wherewithal to say, okay, are we willing to spend that money? 
Or, alternately, if we are not willing to spend new money, 
where can we find money that we are now spending in a not-so-
productive way that might allow us to do that?
    Mr. Walker. Yeah, we might have a few of those in this 
House.
    As I stated earlier, public-private partnerships have been 
proven to address the issues related to our skills gap much 
better than the Federal Government can.
    What are some of the challenges, if you would, that you all 
face at the Emma Coalition when partnering with other 
organizations to bridge the gap between employers and 
education? Let me put it this way. What can we do in Congress 
to ease some of these burdens and further your goal?
    Mr. Paretti. Sure. Well, I think, to be frank, this hearing 
this morning is a great start towards that, because one of the 
challenges we face--2 years ago, if I had started to have this 
conversation with someone about AI and training and what the 
impact on the workforce is going to be, I might get a polite 
nod and, ``Oh, that is interesting'' and, you know, find 
someone else to talk to, but I think now we have realized that 
this is a thing. And the national dialogue that Emma was formed 
to start and to foster has already begun, as evidenced by the 
fact that we are sitting in this room.
    So one of the challenges we face is just getting employers, 
employees, and others to understand this is something that is 
going to happen and we need to be taking responsibility for it 
now. We can't try to do this from the rearview mirror. It won't 
work.
    Mr. Walker. Thank you for your expertise.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
    The gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you to all the witnesses.
    We know that entire sectors of the economy are 
transforming. I serve on the Select Committee on the Climate 
Crisis and recognize that climate change affects our economy, 
but it is also linked with the need to create good-paying jobs, 
as we see workers in the fossil-fuel industries are seeing a 
transition as we move to more clean energy resources. We need 
to make sure that those workers have the support and resources 
they need.
    But we can also look at this as a tremendous opportunity to 
create good jobs for working families through the energy and 
energy efficiency sectors, especially for those who could 
otherwise lose their positions.
    But we know that we have significant work to do. We know 
our workforce policies are currently fragmented and put the 
burden on the worker to prove the cause of their displacement 
and then navigate the resources on their own.
    So, Professor Harris, in your testimony, you talked about 
the Department of Labor's Trade Adjustment Assistance Community 
College Career Training Program, which is a really long title, 
and that provided grants mostly to community colleges but to 
some universities to support workers after the displacement and 
unemployment from the Great Recession. Of course, that program 
ended in 2018.
    So, based on your experience and third-party evaluation of 
that program, what are the most effective practices that are 
worthy of replication? And how could intermediaries help us 
accelerate training workers across multiple sectors of our 
economy?
    Mr. Harris. Well, you are right, Congresswoman, that we 
require that all of the TAACCCT grants have third-party 
evaluations. There has been a meta-analysis of the third-party 
evaluations put forward by the New America Foundation, and it 
found that the TAACCCT grants increased program completion, 
they increased credential acquisition, they increased 
employment opportunities. So they were very successful in that 
regard.
    The most important thing that they did was that they 
brought, exactly in the way that the Congressman was talking 
about, they brought together employers and community colleges 
and universities to develop programs for local and regional 
economies that would result in workers getting trained in the 
skills that would lead to in-demand jobs--
    Ms. Bonamici. In their--
    Mr. Harris.--in their economies. That is right.
    Ms. Bonamici. Right.
    Mr. Harris. So the problem was that the program was limited 
to programs for grants for workers who were trade-affected. So 
workers who were affected by climate change, we couldn't build 
a program specifically for that.
    So I think in the future what we need to think is much, 
much more broadly about dislocation from a number of sources, 
particularly and including climate change.
    Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely. Thank you.
    Mr. Markell, you noted in your testimony that the AFL-CIO's 
Commission on the Future of Work and Unions recently released a 
report about, sort of, transition assistance programs and 
avoiding displacement before it occurs. We need to make sure 
that our communities have that economic development support.
    So, based on the findings, what effective strategies can 
Congress support to help workers prepare for future 
transformation and avoid displacement? And what role will 
unions play in helping to support workers? How can we make sure 
more people have access as our economy adapts?
    Mr. Markell. What we have discovered is that the concept of 
just transition that emerged around the energy discussion is 
really applicable to all the technology transformations that we 
are having. And in order to get that right, one key factor is 
that there has to be a voice for workers and communities that 
are affected.
    We can't sit here and tell everybody what is justice for 
people that are being affected. You have to hear it from them. 
And what you will find is that people want investment driven to 
their communities; then they want the job-training 
opportunities that follow that investment.
    It is really important for workers to understand that they 
may never have a job in that same sector again, but we need to 
make all the jobs in those sectors good. That is where unions 
come in. That is where the PRO Act comes in. And it is super-
important from labor's point of view that workers and 
communities are at the table--
    Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely.
    Mr. Markell.--as we discuss these programs, because that is 
how we are going to get the success that they desire, that they 
define for themselves.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much.
    And because votes are called, I am going to yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
    The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.
    Mr. Grothman. Sure. This topic kind of surprises me a 
little bit, because when I get around my district, the major 
fear is that we won't have enough people, you know, not the 
problem that we have a bunch of people who don't know what to 
do.
    But there is concern, and I think I will focus that concern 
particularly on three areas: on construction, on manufacturing, 
and the medical field. And I think, in all three areas, the 
problem we have is we have a shortage of people, quite frankly, 
in this country who want to work with their hands.
    You know, I think we could build more houses in my district 
if only we had more people in construction. Can't find them. I 
am told if you go into that field, within 3 or 4 years, you are 
going to be making six figures. In the medical field, again, as 
the population gets older, shortage of people.
    I am going to ask you, Mr. Paretti--or, I think there are 
two problems that are causing the shortage, or at least people 
think there are. And I am going to ask you to comment on these.
    First of all, we have too many people getting degrees. And 
Professor Harris mentioned the fact that some people are 
overpromising. I want you to address that, Mr. Paretti. Are 
universities sometimes overpromising a high wage when, in fact, 
if people got skills-based education, which frequently does not 
necessarily mean a college degree, they would be making more 
money and having more job security? Could you comment on that?
    Mr. Paretti. Sure.
    Mr. Grothman. Are universities overpromising?
    Mr. Paretti. I don't know that I would say that 
universities are overpromising as much as, generally, I think, 
the mindset has always been, if you go get a degree, if you get 
a 4-year degree, you will always do better. And there has been 
an aversion to saying that the path for everyone is not a 4-
year degree.
    I think our community colleges, in that regard, are a 
tremendously undervalued resource in terms of developing 
skills-based learning and the sorts of things that lead to 
prosperity.
    You mentioned manufacturing. We do a lot of work with the 
National Association of Manufacturers and with their members. 
And one of the problems they face is they say, you know, when 
you say--parents don't tell their kids, ``Go get a job in the 
factory or go into manufacturing,'' because it is a mindset of 
40 years ago, where it might have been dangerous--
    Mr. Grothman. Well, I think the problem is--
    Mr. Paretti. Go ahead.
    Mr. Grothman.--we have people on this committee who talk 
about it like somehow it is a superior type of thing, to go to 
college.
    And I want you to elaborate that, as far as the job 
opportunities. Do you see people going back and getting jobs in 
what in Wisconsin we call technical colleges, I guess you call 
community colleges, that maybe got a degree in the first place 
in which they were maybe overpromised a given salary and they 
didn't get it?
    Mr. Paretti. I am sure there are some. I wouldn't want to 
rattle off or pretend to rattle off with my fingers, you know, 
what those numbers are.
    But I certainly do endorse the concept that in, whether it 
is technical or community colleges, providing those sorts of 
skills--which are necessary. You know, even what we 
traditionally call blue-collar jobs, manufacturing, it is no 
longer simply enough to be able to use your hands; you need to 
use your head as well.
    I was on the floor of a plant just outside of St. Louis 
that manufactures fuse boxes, big things you see on traffic 
lights and such, manufactures most of them in the country, in 
fact. And if I tell you, to a person, male, female, everybody 
was in front of a screen and they were working with a computer, 
not against the computer, not displaced by. But the skills were 
necessary there--
    Mr. Grothman. When you tour manufacturers, do you find 
that, even among the skilled workers they have, that too many 
of them are probably going to be retired in the next 10 years 
and, in fact, we are going to have a worker shortage?
    Mr. Paretti. Yes.
    Mr. Grothman. Okay.
    Mr. Paretti. Unequivocally.
    Mr. Grothman. And I will give you one more question. There 
is a lot of talk around here about credentialism. I think 
sometimes credentialism kind of mucks up the economy, because 
you have people who are capable of doing a job but they don't 
have the credential.
    Could you comment on this drive towards more credentialing? 
Is it a good thing or a bad thing?
    Mr. Paretti. I think knowing what is a valuable credential 
and what leads to something can be a good thing. I think to be, 
sort of, mindlessly stuck on the idea that I can't fill someone 
in this job if they don't check, you know, the following three 
boxes--you know, how many applications for employment ask do 
you have a bachelor's degree where, frankly, whether you have 
one or don't have one is not going to be relevant to the job 
that you are doing?
    So I think, sort of, a foolish reliance on simply check the 
box or, you know--
    Mr. Grothman. Do you think there is too much credentialism 
in the United States?
    Mr. Paretti. I don't. I don't think that there is too much 
credentialism. I think there may be insufficient information 
about where credentials are valuable and helpful and where it 
is simply, you know, get the next thing because it is the next 
thing.
    Mr. Grothman. I will yield my remaining 10 seconds.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
    We will have one more Member, the gentleman from Michigan, 
Mr. Levin, and then we will recess until after this vote and 
whatever may come next.
    Mr. Levin. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am delighted to 
get to ask my questions before we adjourn for votes.
    You know, friends, I am a little unusual around here. I 
spent a lot of time working with one of you in the movement to 
raise up workers in this country. I am the only Member of 
Congress who used to run a State workforce system. I worked 
with another one of you in an earlier version of that. And then 
I also have worked a lot in the clean energy sector.
    And so I want to put those three things together and ask 
you about what I believe must be the greatest technological 
disruption ahead, and that is to deal with climate change. We 
have to move very, very fast and very, very comprehensively to 
transform everything about the way we build things, manufacture 
things, move around, live, work, all of our buildings, all of 
our transportation.
    I see tremendous opportunities here for the United States, 
for great jobs, for the economy. But let's be honest; we have a 
horrible track record of dealing with workers who are displaced 
by technological change or affected by it. And here, the energy 
sector is an area where we have great jobs, in a lot of cases, 
people who have been through registered apprenticeships, who 
have amazing skills and pride in their work.
    So talk to me about how this body, the Congress of the 
United States, should deal with what we need to do to make sure 
the workers most affected by any changes involved here are 
right at the center of the table in discussing, you know, 
displacement due to climate change and how we can best train 
people for new jobs and honor the work they have been doing.
    Do you want to start, Professor Harris?
    Mr. Harris. So I share your optimism about what a move to 
respond to climate change and to green jobs can mean for job 
creation. I think it will be a net job creator, very 
significantly so. And they will be good-quality, middle-skill 
jobs.
    And I share your view that workers are deeply, deeply 
concerned about the transition. To the extent that they are 
looking at all, they look at the jobs they have, which are, for 
many of them, very good, middle-skill, unionized jobs, and they 
look at the sectors into which they think these jobs are going 
to flow. They see very few unions. They see wages that are not 
as good. They don't see benefits, necessarily. And they wonder, 
is my future going to be a low-wage, low-skill future?
    And what you can do--and I want to do this at a very high 
level so others can comment. But what Congress can do is to not 
just acknowledge that is true but to respond by ensuring that 
workers can transition into good-quality jobs as seamlessly and 
at low cost as possible to them.
    And that means providing them with training, providing them 
with benefits, providing them with income support, providing 
them with career pathways, pointing to the jobs, helping the 
industries that are creating the jobs to hire those workers, 
and passing the PRO Act so those workers can organize.
    Mr. Levin. Mr. Markell, do you want to jump in? What are 
your thoughts here?
    Mr. Markell. Well, there is so much to be said here. I 
think one of the defining features of a clean-energy economy is 
that spending that used to be on fuels is spending on 
manufactured items. So we need to make sure we are attracting 
the clean-energy manufacturing sector to the United States so 
that we can get the full benefits of the clean-energy economy.
    I spend a lot of time thinking about and working on just 
transition issues. For workers and communities that are losing 
jobs, at this point primarily coal communities where coal is 
mined or where coal was burned to make power, the key factor is 
driving investment to those communities to create new jobs.
    Training, sorry to say to Members of this committee, 
training does not create jobs. Jobs create the need for 
training. And to the extent that we are going to provide a just 
transition for coal communities, we need to drive investment to 
those communities, and we need to make sure that those workers 
understand that, whatever sector they worked in, they are going 
to have a good job.
    Mr. Levin. Ms. Gattman, you have a lot of experience in 
this. What are your thoughts?
    Ms. Gattman. Sure, Congressman.
    So one of the things that we looked at, we did a report on 
outdoor jobs and the outdoor-job sector in Washington State. 
And one of the things that we recognized from that particular 
report is we were missing some of the signaling mechanisms to 
show that some of those green jobs, those outdoor-recreation-
type jobs, were in demand.
    And one of the areas that was really lacking was having 
occupational data available about the jobs that different 
employees were using. So, in that particular sector, the 
employers were saying, ``Hey, we really need folks,'' but the 
administrative data was not showing the need for that 
particular sector, so we weren't signaling the need for 
training and education for that.
    Mr. Levin. All right. Thanks. My time has expired. I 
appreciate you all.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
    And we will be back after votes. Thank you again.
    Is that going to be all right for everybody, to stay with 
us?
    Great. Thank you.
    [Recess.]
    [12:06 p.m.]
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you all for your patience. We 
appreciate it.
    I want to turn now to Dr. Foxx, the Ranking Member of the 
Education and Labor Committee.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
    Mr. Paretti, although displacement rates have gone down in 
recent years, it is inevitable we will need to prepare for 
workforce displacement as our society continues to experience 
technological changes and shifts in employer priorities. While 
it is important for us to attempt to minimize the challenges 
associated with employer innovation, we cannot shackle 
continued economic growth that provides more jobs and better 
wages in the long run.
    Can you please discuss some of the benefits we might see as 
our Nation increases the use of automation? Given these 
dynamics, why is it important to be proactive in seeking out 
solutions?
    Mr. Paretti. Sure. I think in the long term we will see 
quite a few--you know, a significant amount of benefit from 
automation, artificial intelligence. And that starts with 
increased productivity, which can lead to increased wages, 
increased spending.
    So the quality of jobs should go up as more routine jobs 
are perhaps displaced. I am not suggesting we should encourage 
that very quickly, but I think, if it is going to happen, we 
need to be prepared for it and to do it.
    I, too, would be concerned with, sort of, shackling 
ourselves to an older, outdated model. I mean, the face of work 
has changed so dramatically and is changing so dramatically 
that, you know, the words I hear most when I talk to folks in 
this space are things like ``agile,'' ``nimble,'' ``dynamic,'' 
being able to respond and provide. And I think that is what--
you know, employers have every incentive to do that too. The 
last thing you want, you know, is to lose valued employees and 
valued knowledge.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much.
    I was thinking, as you were talking, about the turn of the 
century, when cars were created, and thinking, probably a lot 
of people thought it was the end of the world, we were going to 
stop making wagons, stop making buggy whips, and things like 
that. But look at the magnificent numbers of jobs that came 
around as a result of cars being created in our culture.
    Mr. Paretti, you described in your testimony the example of 
Cargill, a company who focuses on upskilling their employees 
and was then able to provide higher skilled positions to 90 
percent of those same employees.
    This seems outside the norm of the typical zero-sum 
narrative surrounding displacement. What value is there for 
companies who focus on these types of workforce development 
efforts in the face of potential disruption? Is this something 
more companies can do? And can most companies do this?
    Mr. Paretti. Well, obviously, each company's response is 
going to be individualized to itself, but Cargill, which I 
discuss in my testimony, does offer a great example. They were 
going through a plant closure. They recognized that--and for a 
period of time, it was then going to upskill and automate the 
plant.
    They realized that it would be difficult for them to 
attract jobs, you know, people to fill these new jobs that were 
going to be created, and they had a valuable workforce, many of 
whom had invested time, energy, and resources in the company.
    They made the decision that, during that closure, they 
provided access to training programs, they partnered with a 
local community college in doing so, and, at the end of the 
day, yes, were able to bring back something like 90 percent of 
the workforce, most of them in better-paying and higher-paying 
positions, more skilled positions.
    Is that the norm? I would hesitate to say it is typical. Is 
it something that we might aspire to and encourage and foster 
companies to make those sorts of investments? To the extent 
that is within your power, our power, I would certainly hope 
so.
    Ms. Foxx. Well, I think, again, over the years, as you say, 
it really is in the interest of the employer to do whatever 
possible to keep their business going. They face the same kinds 
of challenges if they are not able to help the employees 
upskill.
    I think too often in this setting here we hear such 
negative things about employers and how they are taking 
advantage of employees and don't care about them, so I think 
having good examples like that is really important.
    And my experience is that is what is happening all over the 
country. Employers understand, if they want to stay in 
business, number one, they have to treat their employees well, 
and they have to plan for the future. And I am not sure that 
there is a great understanding on some of our colleagues of the 
very positive way that employers face these challenges.
    So thank you very much.
    And thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Mr. Paretti. Thank you, Doctor.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you.
    Dr. Adams, the gentlelady from North Carolina.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis, Ranking Member 
Smucker, for convening the hearing today.
    And thank you all for your testimony.
    U.S. investment in the public workforce system is sorely 
inadequate and has declined sharply in recent decades. For 
example, the National Skills Coalition finds that, since 2001, 
WIOA funding has been cut by 40 percent, career and technical 
education funding by 29 percent, and adult basic education by 
almost 15 percent.
    The United States spends about 0.1 percent of gross 
domestic product, or GDP, on workforce development, compared to 
about six times as much in other developed nations.
    Mr. Harris, I will start with you. Why has public 
investment in workforce development declined so sharply in 
recent decades? And what are the consequences of this reduced 
investment?
    Mr. Harris. Congresswoman, it is certainly not because we 
don't have a need. We absolutely have demand among workers for 
these services. I think, frankly, that it is a failure of 
political will. It is really incumbent upon Congress to provide 
those resources.
    Let me add one additional statistic to the ones that you 
cited, all of which are exactly on point. Among the countries 
that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation 
and Development, 28 of them, we are second-to-last in public 
investment per GDP. Mexico is the only country that does worse. 
We are behind Latvia, Estonia, and Poland in our investment in 
workforce development.
    So I agree with the import of your question. We need to do 
dramatically more to invest in these things in order for 
workers to get the training they need. They can't finance it 
themselves.
    Ms. Adams. Right. Thank you very much.
    One of the things that I have heard from our county 
workforce boards in North Carolina is that there isn't enough 
of a focus by state and local policymakers on finding work for 
displaced workers and that the framework which gives youth 
apprenticeships, needed skills, and training is not well-
aligned for that purpose, particularly since WIOA is 
underfunded and not fully implemented.
    Ms. Gattman, your State's Future of Work Task Force report 
recommends supporting the workforce board's request for 
additional funding for incumbent worker training. So can you 
explain the focus on incumbent worker training? For example, 
did the task force identify the lack of private-sector 
investment in incumbent training? And what are the barriers to 
that investment that make public investment necessary?
    Ms. Gattman. Sure. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    So one of the things--it wasn't necessarily a lack of 
private-sector investment in incumbent worker training, but the 
task force did recognize that many States put money into--put a 
lot of State money into this game and in a lot of flexible 
ways, which allowed for some innovative approaches. Incumbent 
worker training is a co-invested model. It is flexible to 
employer needs. And then it ideally allows them to upskill 
existing talent to sustain and scale growth.
    This is then complemented--one of the things we have been 
trying to do a lot more in our State--complementing this by a 
backfill component, where our public systems can then help 
those employers who are upskilling their employees find the 
right talent to fill those often entry-level positions.
    Some of the new technologies that can eliminate or greatly 
reduce the need for skilled workers can also be of great 
interest to businesses who struggle to fill positions. We did 
find that in rural communities without adequate education and 
training resources, technology can be a really enticing way to 
address some of their workforce concerns.
    So, you know, we want to create the right conditions for 
businesses to upskill their workers, rather than choose to 
automate those jobs, to address recruitment or retention 
issues. So we believe public funding can definitely make a 
difference there, but it certainly should have a co-investment 
model of some sort so there is employer participation.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you very much.
    Let me move quickly. Mr. Markell, why has employers' 
investment in worker training and skill development decreased? 
What can be done to change employers' incentives to invest in 
their workers?
    Mr. Markell. Boy, that is the gazillion-dollar question in 
a lot of respects, because unions really go hard at employers, 
trying to bargain money for training programs. They understand 
why training is important to their career. And the 
understanding that people cannot pay for their own training, 
that they don't have the information they need to decide where 
they should be trained to work, they should try to be trained, 
really points to the idea that we need public investment in 
this area. If we are going to put everybody on a level playing 
field, we have got to meet people where they are, and that is 
going to take cash.
    Ms. Adams. Great. Thank you very much.
    And, Madam Chairman, I am out of time, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Takano.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member 
Smucker, for this important hearing on the future of work.
    This is not a question of, will displacement happen? The 
question is, when will it happen? And when it does happen, we 
need to be prepared to provide the American workers with 
resources to help them during what will inevitably be a hard 
time for workers and their families.
    In 2007, we experienced the worst economic recession since 
the Great Depression. And in Riverside, California, my 
district, the unemployment rate reached a peak of 14.4 percent 
in 2010. This was common throughout the country. In some 
months, there were as many as 800,000 jobs lost. I am sure we 
all remember that time.
    Mr. Harris, when you assumed your role as Deputy Secretary 
at the Labor Department in 2009, you had inherited the worst 
economic crisis since the Great Depression. I don't need to 
tell you what a heavy toll displacement during a recession can 
exact on workers, their families, communities, and the economy.
    Your job was to get millions of people back to work. You 
had certain tools to work with back then, including existing 
workforce development laws, unemployment insurance, and, of 
course, the Recovery Act. The efforts of the Obama 
administration over its 8 years put us on an upward trajectory 
of job growth which continues to this day.
    But the next recession, while unpredictable, we can 
reasonably assume it is going to happen. So, Mr. Harris, what 
changes should policymakers be making to our workforce system 
today to prepare for the next recession in order to both avert 
displacement to the greatest possible extent and to adequately 
address displacement when it does occur?
    Mr. Harris. Well, Congressman, you are exactly right, 
recessions don't just temporarily throw people out of jobs; 
they permanently destroy a large number of jobs, and workers 
are dislocated and don't have any place to go back to. They 
need time and they need income so that they can acquire the 
skills and knowledge that they need and that they can do the 
job search that they need to be able to do.
    They need programs that will quickly and efficiently and 
effectively move them into new demand jobs in their economy. 
And they also need help understanding which jobs they should 
get into and what training and credentials they need in order 
to get into those jobs.
    And let me just say, your reference to the Recovery Act, I 
think, is very important. President Obama's Recovery Act did 
exactly what was needed. It doubled the money that the Labor 
Department had for WIOA programs and the Wagner-Peyser 
Employment Service. It provided extended unemployment 
compensation. It created the TAACCCT grants that I was talking 
about before. We need all of those things in place for the next 
recession.
    Let me also say, we don't have to say that there is a 
skills gap to say that we need job training. There is no skills 
gap. That is a false argument. And people are pointing to the 
JOLTS study to show that there is a skills gap. That is not 
what that study shows.
    If there was a skills gap, we would see dramatically 
increasing real wages, including in the industries that 
complain the most that they can't find workers. We are not 
seeing that. We would see employers dramatically increasing 
training and investment in job training. We are not seeing 
that. We would see them buying labor-saving devices. Business 
investment is down in the United States.
    We would see them demanding that their current workers 
increase their number of hours worked. That is not happening. 
We are not seeing median or average hours worked increasing. 
And there are 4 million involuntary part-time workers in the 
United States right now. They want to work full-time. Their 
employers are not employing them full-time. That is not what 
happens when you have a skills shortage.
    So I really dislike this argument that there is a skills 
gap, because it suggests that it is workers' fault. If only 
they would get the training, everything would be just fine. It 
is not workers' fault. It is the kind of displacement that you 
were talking about, the dislocation that doesn't just happen 
from recessions, it happens from multiple causes. And that is 
what we need to be prepared for now and in preparation for the 
next recession.
    Mr. Takano. Given that answer, what tools can Congress 
provide to state and local lawmakers that will--or what tools 
can we generally, I mean, not just with the State and local 
lawmakers, but what tools can we avail policymakers out there 
to avert the brunt of a recession?
    Mr. Harris. They need a lot more money. They need the 
availability of Pell grants, but they need more money in that 
system. They need a lot more money in the WIOA system.
    They need help from us to mandate credential transparency. 
We need a radical transparency movement in credentials so that 
the bad credentials, the useless credentials that workers are 
buying that aren't leading anywhere can drop out of the system.
    And we need a program like the TAACCCT program, not just 
organized around climate change, but organized much more 
broadly than that so that we can bring employers and training 
providers together to build the programs that we need for 
workers to get the skills for in-demand jobs in their 
communities.
    Mr. Takano. Madam Chair, might I ask one more question, or 
should I yield back?
    Chairwoman Davis. I think we are just going to go on to the 
next--
    Mr. Takano. Okay. I will yield back, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Davis. Yeah. Thank you very much.
    We now turn to the ranking chair of the subcommittee, Mr. 
Smucker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Professor Harris, in your written testimony--I would like 
to, sort of, understand your view on the labor outlook, because 
it is different than Mr. Paretti's view. I am going to come to 
Mr. Paretti as well. But you say that you see no evidence of 
loss of employment triggered by new technologies like 
artificial intelligence. You do not believe that there will be 
a massive displacement. Am I correct on that?
    Mr. Harris. No. My argument is that the jobs apocalypse 
that people talk about coming from AI, where we will see a 
decline in total employment in the United States, I don't 
believe we are going to see a decline in total employment.
    I think there is no question that AI and other 
technologies, along with a long list of other causes, cause 
displacement to workers, so I think Mr. Paretti and I largely 
agree. I may not put as much emphasis on--
    Mr. Smucker. So you don't see a decline in employment; you 
just see a change in the type of employment.
    Mr. Harris. Right. Well, I see workers being thrown out of 
jobs, but I don't see total employment in the economy declining 
because of AI. Some people are arguing that. I am not saying 
Mr. Paretti is arguing that, but there are a lot of people 
arguing that. I don't think it is true.
    Mr. Smucker. Yeah.
    Mr. Paretti, you mentioned in your testimony several times 
that 85 percent of all jobs that will exist in 2040 have not 
yet been created.
    Mr. Paretti. Certainly a substantial number, yes.
    Mr. Smucker. And so I think maybe you are saying the same 
thing in a different way. But you also say that the situation 
is not necessarily as dire--
    Mr. Paretti. Right.
    Mr. Smucker.--as the statistics may lead us to believe. So 
I just wonder if you could expand on that a little bit.
    Mr. Paretti. Sure. Happy to.
    And I will note, you know, damn it, Seth, I was looking to 
have a fight with you. It is not an Ed and Labor Committee 
hearing without a donnybrook, but we keep agreeing.
    I don't think--I wholeheartedly--we are not looking at the 
jobs apocalypse, where, oh, my goodness, overnight we are going 
to have all of these folks who have nothing. I do think, if we 
don't prepare for it, we risk that possibility. You know, the 
number is great, but, at the same time, you will be seeing 
increased opportunities. Total employment will increase. The 
type of work will be different, in some instances.
    You know, easy examples: In hotels now, you might no longer 
have someone who--more and more, particularly in big hotels, 
you have check-in kiosks where you can--beep, beep, beep, beep. 
You don't have to stand in the line. They give you your room 
key, and you are all set. So you maybe need fewer folks working 
the check-in desk.
    What you need more of, particularly if you are now able to 
service more guests at your hotel, are folks in the concierge 
office or folks in the guest services offices--higher-skilled 
positions, more human-focused, more human-facing, skills that 
can be readily attained. You may not have them if currently 
your job is checking in folks and only using that system, but 
you certainly can attain those skills.
    And if your employer is good, they are going to want to 
work with you to attain those skills. I would rather--
    Mr. Smucker. Sure.
    Mr. Paretti.--take an employee who I know has done good 
work in this position and train them in--
    Mr. Smucker. That leads me--and I am sorry, I only have 2 
more minutes. So it does lead me to my next question. Maybe it 
is more of a comment.
    You know, I have a little trouble with the narrative in the 
hearing today that the Federal Government is really the entity 
that is meant to solve this problem. Like, we should certainly 
be part of that solution; we should be looking ahead to try and 
understand what is going to happen and make sure that we have 
policies in place that provide the best pathway for employers 
to change jobs or to enter the workforce for the first time.
    But I believe in free enterprise. I believe that our 
capitalist system has a way of addressing needs and has done so 
for many, many decades.
    So I guess my question to you, Mr. Paretti--and if we have 
time, we will allow others to answer it as well, but--what is 
the role of the private sector?
    I know that a lot of businesses are investing in their 
employees. So, for instance, Chairwoman Foxx mentioned earlier 
a company. I know that Uber recently--I just learned they 
provide access to fully funded education to more than 250,000 
drivers. Starbucks does--
    Mr. Paretti. Sure.
    Mr. Smucker.--a similar kind of thing. There are businesses 
all over.
    What is the role of the private sector, the business world, 
in ensuring that employees or that workers are ready to meet 
the jobs that will be coming down the pike?
    Mr. Paretti. Sure. A couple of thoughts there.
    First, insofar as, you know, employers are job creators and 
you need a workforce to do them, it is in your economic self-
interest and best interest to attract and retain a talented 
workforce.
    You mentioned Uber, and they allow drivers a certain 
credit. I understand that is actually even transferable. If I 
want to work part-time and be driving for Uber so that I can 
give these credits to my child or to my spouse or something, 
that is something they also do.
    I wholeheartedly agree--and I think Ms. Gattman here--and 
her work is great testimony--this is not a top-down solution. I 
don't think that the Federal Government should be the ones to 
say, ``Here is how we are going to fix this, and we are going 
to push this down onto you.'' I think they can foster 
innovation. I think they can remove, you know, roadblocks along 
the way and foster a climate.
    I recommend in my testimony, I discuss something called the 
AI Jobs Act, which has broad, bipartisan support and really, I 
think, an appropriate role for the Federal Government, which is 
to say: Okay, what can we learn--we have the resources to learn 
here and to, you know, give folks information that they can 
then take on the local level, on the State level.
    The Congresswoman who left recently said, you know, too 
often the States aren't doing it. I think the States are doing 
better than the feds. And I think, in some instances, locals 
are doing better than the States. Not in Washington.
    But I think that all of those are things that we should be 
fostering. And that is where you all and where the Federal 
Government and where Congress, I think, can help us most.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
    I now turn to Chairman Scott, the gentleman from Virginia.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you very much.
    And I want to thank our witnesses. This has been very 
helpful.
    And I will start with questions to Ms. Gattman.
    The WIOA boards should be in the middle of this. Can you 
tell us what the WIOA boards are doing in terms of forecasting 
future job needs?
    And particularly they are relevant because that forecast 
would focus on the local job needs, where the jobs will 
actually be needed. Could you talk about that a little bit?
    Ms. Gattman. Sure. Thank you, Chairman.
    So one of the things that we work really closely with our 
partner agency, the Employment Security Department, we don't 
always know what credentials are in demand, so that is one 
factor. But we are using States' unemployment insurance data to 
determine which occupations are in demand.
    And so, with this information, the State provides what is 
called our Demand/Decline List. And that is set up by region, 
and it shows not only which occupations are in demand but also 
how much they pay in particular areas of the State. 
Understanding which occupations are in demand, of course, 
allows our State residents to use a program that we have that 
the workforce board--it is our website Career Bridge, which 
allows them to find the education and training that they need 
to find that particular job.
    Career Bridge is a public-facing website. We had over 7 
million page views last year. So, you know, that is something--
we really promote that as an option for anyone looking for 
particular education and training opportunities to find which 
occupations are in demand and then find those local training 
opportunities.
    Mr. Scott. Yeah. Are most WIOA boards doing this?
    Ms. Gattman. No. Our Career Bridge website is actually 
pretty unique in the Nation for the amount of detail it has, 
because it also provides that performance-results aspect, 
where, for over half the programs, we can give you performance 
results of how the participants fared in the various programs.
    Mr. Scott. Now, one of the concerns we have is we may be 
training--the number of people who are being trained for the 
jobs of the future may be totally insufficient to address the 
need. I mean, are we training thousands, where the need is in 
the millions? Are we anywhere close to addressing the need?
    Ms. Gattman. You know, I will say that is one of those 
issues where, you know, we just don't know. The future of work 
is evolving so quickly that, you know, we are all doing our 
best to forecast what we are going to see and what jobs we need 
training for.
    And, you know, some of that is hampered by the lack of data 
that we have available. And I spoke about occupational data as 
one area where we do have a gap. And knowing that information 
would allow us to better forecast what is available.
    Mr. Scott. Several of you have mentioned the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Community College Career Training, and we 
have also talked about the fact that students aren't able to 
fully fund their transition.
    Can somebody talk about the cost of the program, how it is 
funded, and who pays the tuition, and how successful they are?
    Mr. Harris. The TAACCCT program was $2 billion over 4 
years, spent out over a total--until 2018. It is all spent down 
now. It was capacity-building money. It was not supposed to pay 
for intuition.
    So it created programs at community colleges and 
universities in partnership with employers. It built curricula, 
hired instructors, learned about how to work with employers, 
included employers in the development of those programs. And as 
I said earlier in the hearing, extremely successful. But now 
there is no more money.
    Mr. Scott. Well, how do you measure success?
    Mr. Harris. Measured success based on credential 
attainment, employment outcomes, program completion. All of 
those went up with the program.
    And, also, there was a qualitative study done that showed 
that employers who were involved in the TAACCCT program had 
much, much, much higher-quality engagement with their community 
colleges than they would have otherwise.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Markell, you mentioned the PRO Act. How 
would passage of the PRO Act help job policy?
    Mr. Markell. I am sorry. Would you--
    Mr. Scott. You mentioned the Protecting the Right to 
Organize Act. How would passage of that help developing job 
policy?
    Mr. Markell. So, when workers have a voice and when they 
have institutional power, they are able to achieve better 
adjustments and better outcomes, whether it is through 
upskilling of current jobs or trying to move on to new jobs and 
find retraining money and programs that will allow them to be 
more valued in the marketplace.
    Without an institutional voice, workers are out there on 
their own with not enough information, with not enough 
organized power to effect their situation. So the passage of 
the PRO Act opens up all kinds of possibilities. The passage of 
the PRO Act will make more space on climate than anything we 
could do, because it will assure workers that the next job they 
have is going to be a good job.
    It is an extremely important piece of legislation that will 
rebalance the labor market and give workers a chance to improve 
their situation.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
    The gentlelady from Nevada, Mrs. Lee.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thank you all for being here.
    This is a particularly important issue for me, as I 
represent Las Vegas and Henderson area, and Las Vegas happens 
to be the U.S. city most at risk of losing jobs to automation. 
And, in fact, according to a University of Redlands study, in 
the next 20 years, 65 percent of the city's jobs could be 
automated.
    Mr. Markell, in a recent report of the AFL-CIO's Commission 
on the Future of Work and Unions, it recognizes just how 
central workers of color and women are to the future of the 
Nation's workforce and labor movement. People of color will 
constitute the majority of the U.S. population by 2045, and, in 
just 5 years, women are predicted to make up more than half of 
all union members.
    A number of organizations have conducted research that 
demonstrates that workers of color are more vulnerable to 
displacement, particularly from automation. Similarly, research 
shows that women workers are more concentrated in those jobs 
that are exposed to technological changes than men, such as 
cashiers, secretaries, and bookkeepers.
    The pain of displacement for these workers will be 
compounded by the preexisting racial and gender wage gaps they 
already face.
    In my home State, unions have negotiated with casinos, 
taking into account the potential effects of automation on 
workers.
    And I would like to ask you a two-part question, Mr. 
Markell. First, what particular protections against 
displacement and its harms can the labor movement offer to 
workers of color and women? And, secondly, what strategies have 
the AFL-CIO and other labor groups adopted to better address 
the causes of displacement that affect these groups of workers?
    Mr. Markell. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    As you know, Las Vegas is home to one of the premier labor 
management training organizations in the country, the Culinary 
Academy of Las Vegas. They are a partner of the Working for 
America Institute.
    And UNITE HERE!, the union--it is Local 226 there--has done 
exemplary bargaining, both with the casinos and with Marriott, 
around advance notice and upstream involvement of the workers 
in deciding how technology change is going to be implemented in 
the workplace.
    And with those workforces being, in both cases, majority-
women and majority-people-of-color, it is that worker voice 
that gives them a fair shake. It is really important to avoid 
displacement by making sure that we are understanding how the 
tasks at these workplaces are changing as technology comes in.
    With the organized voice that UNITE HERE! provides, with 
the contract provisions that are available to make sure that 
the workforce is informed and has a chance at training, we do 
the best to avoid displacement.
    Union contracts are the best protection against disparities 
in the workplace. For example, the wage gap that women suffer. 
There is no wage gap in a union contract. It says, you do job 
X, you get pay Y. It doesn't matter, race, creed, or color, who 
you are.
    And so, for workers to be able to understand that, when 
they have a collective voice, they are on a level playing field 
with the entire workforce, that is the--it just means so much 
to people in their jobs.
    Secondly, the building trades are a great example. They are 
continually scanning the environment for new technologies. They 
are almost paranoid about understanding that they need to be on 
the cutting edge of whatever new technologies are coming in.
    I always give the example of the IBEW. Solar power is 
gaining in the United States. In Las Vegas, across the 
Southeast, solar is become increasingly competitive. For years, 
the IBEW has incorporated solar technician training into its 
electrician's apprenticeship so that, as you are becoming a 
journeyperson electrician, you become skilled and valuable in 
all assets of solar installation.
    That is the kind of incumbent worker protection that can 
prevent job loss, that is on the cutting edge of technology, 
and that we are making investments in, over $1.5 billion a year 
in private investments, in the building trades system.
    Mrs. Lee. Thank you.
    Thank you, and I yield.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
    And we will now go to Mr. Trone, the gentleman from 
Maryland.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you, Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member 
Smucker, for holding this hearing today.
    I want to talk about an issue that is very important to my 
constituents: mass layoffs and plant closures.
    Luke Paper Mill was the center of life in Luke, Maryland, 
for the last 131 years. When the mill closed in June, it left 
675 hardworking men and women of the United Steelworkers 
without a job and affected nearly 2,000 others employed by that 
business in the community.
    This summer, I learned firsthand the shortcomings of the 
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act, or the WARN Act, with the 
closing of Luke. This is why I joined Congressman Tim Ryan in 
introducing legislation that would strengthen the WARN Act to 
give workers and communities the notice they need to best 
prepare for when the unimaginable happens.
    The Fair Warning Act would increase the number of companies 
required to give employers impending notice and also require 
employers an additional 30 days' notice prior to mass layoffs 
and direct the State to establish a rapid response committee so 
employees can quickly get training, support services they need 
to prepare for the job loss.
    Mr. Markell, how can we better advance notice site closings 
and mass layoffs--how can that better notice serve impacted 
workers?
    And, also, what are some of the typical benefits and 
services available for those impacted by site closings and mass 
layoffs? And talk about why they are so important.
    Mr. Markell. Thank you, Congressman.
    That paper mill closure is a tragedy. I met the president 
of that Steelworkers local at the Maryland State AFL-CIO 
convention.
    Rapid response is--of course we need better notice and we 
need plans for workplaces that we think are at risk. That paper 
mill was threatened by foreign competition, unfair competition, 
in many respects. And so fixing our trade laws is a big part of 
what we need to do.
    We also need to identify facilities that are at risk way 
ahead of when we think that they might be actually faced with a 
business decision. So, in the paper industry in the United 
States, there have been closures all over the United States for 
many, many years. And so it was predictable that when a new 
owner came in there was going to be a cost squeeze and that 
investment could be lacking.
    If we go upstream way before we think that there might be a 
business decision, we can address the competitive position of 
that facility. We can help them afford new capital investments, 
if that is what is needed. And I think that, had we taken a 
look at that mill a year, a year and a half ago, we could have 
made moves that would put it in a position to stay open.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you.
    Dr. Harris, many former Luke Mill employees are still 
unemployed and trying to get back up on their feet. I was glad 
to see in your testimony discussion today around intensive 
services, or what WOIA refers to as individual career services, 
which include comprehensive assessments, job search activities, 
development of career service plans, one-on-one career 
counseling, case management, et cetera.
    Can you speak to why these services are so important and 
what evidence we have to show that they are a good return on 
investment?
    Mr. Harris. Yes. Thank you, Congressman.
    Let me say, there is a lot of evidence that they work. 
There was a gold standard study done for the Labor Department. 
We hired Mathematica and some of its partners to do a study. It 
showed that intensive services increased median annual earnings 
between $3,700 and $7,100 for workers, mostly because it gets 
them into jobs much more quickly.
    And, also, there is a lot of evidence from the Reemployment 
Eligibility Assessments, which is in the UI system, which are 
now called RESEAs, we did a series of studies, three studies, 
that showed that they also work. It reduces the length of time 
of unemployment. It reduces the amount of unemployment benefits 
that are collected. Workers get into jobs much, much more 
quickly.
    So I think that intensive services should be available to 
absolutely everyone, not limited to people who are unemployed, 
not limited to people who are on the verge of being thrown out 
of jobs. It should be available to incumbent workers. It should 
be available to people who are entering into the labor market. 
It is for people who are out of the labor market, to help them 
get back into the labor market. It really helps to give them a 
map through a very complicated field of jobs and credentials 
and skills so that they can figure out what is going to work 
for me.
    Mr. Trone. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you very much.
    I wanted to just remind all the Members that we have until 
January 6 to submit materials for the record.
    Chairwoman Davis. And I certainly want to thank all of our 
witnesses today.
    What we have heard is very valuable. I think there is, you 
know, a lot of good work that has been done, tremendously so. 
And on the other hand, as I said earlier, sometimes we have to 
kind of rethink, because we are in a new time that really 
requires a different perspective.
    And, at this point, I wanted to recognize the distinguished 
Ranking Member for his closing statement.
    Mr. Smucker. Thank you. And I would like to thank each of 
the witnesses as well for being here today to talk about this 
important topic.
    I think it is clear. And in answer to my question, you 
clarified that we all know that the economy and the needs of 
the labor market are changing, and so the future of work will 
require different skills than are required today.
    So it is a reality that I think workers, employers, 
families face every day. And we certainly don't want to slow 
down innovation. We want to continue to allow those jobs to be 
created. We want the economy or technology to bring those 
changes, but we also must work to ensure that pathways and 
opportunities for those facing displacement, they exist, that 
they will have the ability to acquire skills that will allow 
them to continue to be competitive.
    And with the skills gap growing by the day, 7 million 
unfilled jobs across the Nation, what better time now than to 
be thinking of--I know you disagree with that one--but what 
better time than now to be thinking about how we can help 
workers who will be faced with those conditions.
    I mentioned earlier, and if I had more time in my 
questioning, I would have said it as well. I really believe 
that much of the change that occurs happens organically and 
naturally, with the investment of labor, with the investment of 
businesses who benefit from their employees gaining those new 
skills. But I also think there is a role for the Federal 
Government at a time that a plant closes, at a time when there 
is a particular need.
    And so I think this is the beginning of really a 
conversation that we could have about what the Federal 
Government's role is and then how we can be most effective in 
that.
    So I would love to have more time, and I am sure we will 
continue this discussion in the future, but thank you to each 
of you for being here to discuss this important topic, and 
thank you for scheduling this.
    Chairwoman Davis. Thank you.
    Again, thank you for your contributions here today. We 
appreciate it. And I think I particularly acknowledge that in 
many cases we have far more agreement than disagreement on 
this. And sometimes it is a matter of approach and 
acknowledging that, clearly, government can't do it all, but 
government does have the power and the resources to be able to 
look ahead, hopefully, and be able to adjust and be flexible in 
that regard, in terms of the needs of the workforce, and 
acknowledging that, regardless of the cause of the 
displacement, there is still a need out there.
    And I think it is particularly important when we know that 
the lack of action hampers American workers' and businesses' 
ability to really remain competitive. You all talked about the 
fact that, you know, we are not just competing against 
ourselves, one State against another, but it is against the 
world in many cases. And if we don't act, if we don't 
acknowledge that need, then we really are not being true, I 
think, to the very workers who make our country run, who help 
our country to be as worthy in many ways as it can be, 
especially for our families, for our workers throughout the 
country. So we know that is critical.
    You all mention the investments in workforce development 
that match our dire need are important, that we can reshape 
workforce programs, and that we also want to make sure that 
people have the ability to retain the skills that are in 
demand.
    One of the things that we did not mention is the fact that 
many women, particularly, who were assistants, executive 
assistants throughout our country, administrative assistants, 
are seen to be--will be one of the largest groups that is in 
need of education, training, and I think creativity, 
imagination, in trying to understand how we can be certain that 
they don't lose the ability to contribute to our economy in the 
future. And that is important as well.
    So thank you for coming together to talk about 
strengthening the future, not only of our workplaces, but our 
communities, our economy, and certainly our country. I 
appreciate it.
    We are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]