[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUILDING BACK BETTER: INVESTING IN
IMPROVING SCHOOLS, CREATING JOBS, AND
STRENGTHENING FAMILIES AND OUR ECONOMY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 28, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-9
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: edlabor.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-333 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina,
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut Ranking Member
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, JOE WILSON, South Carolina
Northern Mariana Islands GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
MARK TAKANO, California ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
MARK De SAULNIER, California JIM BANKS, Indiana
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey JAMES COMER, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington RUSS FULCHER, Idaho
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York FRED KELLER, Pennsylvania
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania GREGORY F. MURPHY, North Carolina
LUCY Mc BATH, Georgia MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut BURGESS OWENS, Utah
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan BOB GOOD, Virginia
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota LISA C. Mc CLAIN, Michigan
HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee
TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
MONDAIRE JONES, New York VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana MADISON CAWTHORN, North Carolina
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York, Vice-Chair MICHELLE STEEL, California
MARK POCAN, Wisconsin JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas Vacancy
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
KWEISI MFUME, Maryland
Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director
Cyrus Artz, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 28, 2021................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Chairman, Committee on
Education and Labor........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Ranking Member, Committee on Education
and Labor.................................................. 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
Statement of Witnesses:
Filardo, Mary W., Founder and Executive Director, 21st
Century School Fund........................................ 61
Prepared statement of.................................... 64
Lanter, Bob, Executive Director, California Workforce
Association................................................ 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
McCluskey, Neal, Ph.D., Director, Center for Educational
Freedom, Cato Institute.................................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Malik, Rasheed, MPP, Senior Policy Analyst, Early Childhood
Policy Center for American Progress........................ 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Mitsui, Mark, President, Portland Community College.......... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Riedl, Brian, Senior Fellow in Budget, Tax, and Economics,
The
Manhattan Institute........................................ 50
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
Additional Submissions:
Chairman Scott:
Report, ``State of Our Schools 2016: America's K-12
Facilities''........................................... 130
BlueGreen Alliance letter dated April 28, 2021........... 176
Paper from Child Development, ``Impacts of a
Prekindergarten Program on Children's Mathematics,
Language, Literacy, Executive Function, and Emotional
Skill'', Nov-Dec 2013.................................. 178
Executive Summary, ``Investing in Our Future: The
Evidence Base on Preschool Education'', Society for
Research in Child Development.......................... 197
Report, ``A public investment agenda that delivers the
goods for American workers needs to be long-lived,
broad, and subject to democratic oversight'', Economic
Policy Institute....................................... 201
Report, ``Condition of America's Public School
Facilities: 2012-13'', National Center for Education
Statistics, March 2014................................. 219
Research Brief, ``Untangling the Evidence on Preschool
Effectiveness: Insights for Policymakers'', Learning
Policy Institute, January 2019......................... 259
Rebuild America's Schools letter dated April 28, 2021.... 271
American Federation of Teachers letter dated April 28,
2021................................................... 272
Link: GAO Report 20-494 dated June 4, 2020, ``K-12
EDUCATION--School Districts FrequentlyIdentified
Multiple Building Systems Needing Updates or
Replacement''.......................................... 273
Wilson, Hon. Frederica S., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida:
Article from Communities In Schools, ``3 Million Kids
Missing From School Because of COVID-19 Is a
Travesty'', March 5, 2021.............................. 274
Article from The 74, ``Report Estimates 1 to 3 Million
Students Missing From School Since March, But Data on
Disrupted Learning is `At Best a Moving Target'''
October 21, 2020....................................... 277
Article from The Washington Post, ``Unprecedented numbers
of students have disappeared during the pandemic.
Schools are working harder than ever to find them.''
February 25, 2021...................................... 280
Grothman, Hon. Glenn, a Representnative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin:
``The Drawbacks of Universal Pre-K: A Review of the
Evidence''............................................. 286
Wild, Hon. Susan, a Representative in Congress from the State
of
Pennsylvania:
Prepared statement from SMART and NEMIC.................. 300
Questions submitted for the record by:
Fulcher, Hon. Russ, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Idaho
Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
Mr. McClusky............................................. 304
Mr. Reidl................................................ 309
BUILDING BACK BETTER: INVESTING IN
IMPROVING SCHOOLS, CREATING JOBS, AND
STRENGTHENING FAMILIES AND OUR ECONOMY
----------
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and Labor,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:12 p.m., via
Zoom, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott (Chairman of the
Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Scott, Courtney, Sablan, Wilson of
Florida, Bonamici, Takano, Adams, DeSaulnier, Norcross,
Jayapal, Wild, McBath, Hayes, Levin, Stevens, Leger Fernandez,
Jones, Manning, Mrvan, Bowman, Pocan, Sherrill, Yarmuth,
Espaillat, Mfume, Foxx, Grothman, Allen, Fulcher, Miller-Meeks,
Owens, Good, Harshbarger, Miller, Spartz, Fitzgerald, Cawthorn,
Steel, and Letlow.
Staff present: Melissa Bellin, Professional Staff; Katie
Berger, Professional Staff; Jessica Bowen, Professional Staff;
Ilana Brunner, General Counsel; David Dailey, Counsel to the
Chairman; Paula Daneri, Professional Staff; Rashage Green,
Director of Education Policy; Christian Haines, General
Counsel; Joe Herrbach, Professional Staff; Eli Hovland, Policy
Associate; Ariel Jones, Policy Associate; Andre Lindsay, Policy
Associate; Katie McClelland, Professional Staff; Richard
Miller, Director of Labor Policy; Kota Mizutani, Staff Writer;
Max Moore, Staff Assistant; Kayla Pennebecker, Staff Assistant;
Veronique Pluviose, Staff Director; Lakeisha Steele, Senior
Education Policy Advisor; Banyon Vassar, Deputy Director of
Information Technology; Claire Viall, Professional Staff;
Joshua Weisz, Communications Director; Cyrus Artz, Minority
Staff Director; Kelsey Avino, Minority Professional Staff
Member; Courtney Butcher, Minority Director of Member Services
and Coalitions; Rob Green, Minority Director of Workforce
Policy; Amy Raaf Jones, Minority Director of Education and
Human Resources Policy; Hannah Matesic, Minority Director of
Operations; Audra McGeorge, Minority Communications Director;
Carlton Norwood, Minority Press Secretary; Chance Russell,
Minority Legislative Assistant; Mandy Schaumburg, Minority
Chief Counsel and Deputy Director of Education Policy; Brad
Thomas, Minority Senior Education Policy Advisor.
Chairman Scott. The Committee on Education and Labor will
come to order and welcome everyone. I apologize for the delay,
but the Committee is hearing testimony today on Building Back
Better: Investing in Improving Schools, Creating Jobs and
Strengthening Families and our Economy.
This is an entirely remote hearing. All microphones should
be kept muted as a general rule to avoid unnecessary background
noise. Members and witnesses will be responsible for unmuting
themselves when they are recognized to speak, or when they seek
recognition.
I will also ask Members to be please identify themselves
before they speak. Members should keep their cameras on while
in the proceeding. Members shall be considered present in the
proceeding when they are visible on camera, and they shall be
considered not present when they are not visible on camera.
The only exception to this is if they are experiencing
technical difficulties and they should inform the Committee
staff of such difficulties. If any Member experiences technical
difficulties during the hearing he should stay connected on the
platform, be sure you are muted, and use your phone immediately
to call the Committee's IT director whose number was provided
in advance.
Should the chair experience any technical difficulty, or
need to step away from the floor, another majority Member will
be hereby will be authorized to assume the gavel in the Chair's
absence.
This is an entirely remote meeting. And as such the
Committee's hearing room is officially closed. Members who
choose to sit with their individual devices in the hearing room
must wear headphones to avoid feedback, echoes and distortion
resulting from more than one person on the software platform
sitting in the same room.
Members are also expected to adhere to social distancing,
and safe healthcare guidelines including the use of masks, hand
sanitizer and wiping down their areas, both before and after
their presence in the hearing room. In order to ensure that the
Committee's five-minute rule is adhered to, staff will be
keeping track of time using the Committee's field timer.
The field timer will appear in its own thumbnail picture on
screen and will be named 001_timer. There will be no one minute
remaining warning. The field timer will sound its audio alarm
when the time is up. Members and witnesses are asked to wrap up
promptly when their time has expired.
While a roll call is not necessary to establish a quorum in
official proceedings conducted remotely or with remote
participation,--I've been advised that the livestream is
experiencing another problem and I've been asked to pause very
briefly.
We about to restart, five, four, three, two, one. In order
to ensure the Committee's five-minute rule is adhered to staff
will be keeping track of time using the Committee's field
timer. The field timer will appear in its own thumbnail picture
and be named 001_timer. There will be no one minute remaining
warning. The field timer will sound its alarm when the time is
up. Members and witnesses are asked to wrap up promptly when
their time has expired.
While a roll call is not necessary, in light of the delay
we'll skip the roll call and get to opening statements.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(c), opening statements are
limited to the Chair and the Ranking Members. This allows us to
hear from our witnesses sooner and provides all Members with
adequate time to ask questions.
I recognize myself now for the purpose of making an opening
statement.
Today we are gathered to discuss how substantial
investments in the infrastructure of our schools, workforce and
communities will overcome the COVID-19 pandemic and build back
a better economy for all Americans.
We're finally starting to defeat this deadly pandemic.
Roughly 3 million people are getting vaccinated every day, and
most people can now get a vaccine in less than 24 hours. The
economy created more than 900,000 jobs in March. 95 percent of
schools are open either full-time for either full-time, in-
person instruction or a hybrid of in-person and remote
schooling.
And despite the many reasons for optimism about America's
future, we cannot ignore the ongoing risks that this pandemic
is posing for students and workers. Millions of displaced
workers remain unemployed without skills needed to find good
paying jobs. Schools are unable to ensure the safety of
students and staff due to hazardous, outdated facilities.
Families are finding it even more difficult to find safe
and affordable childcare, and the rising costs of higher
education continues to restrict opportunities for competent
students. These challenges have hit some communities harder
than others. This is particularly true for low-income
individuals and people of color who entered the pandemic with
inadequate access to quality childcare, education, healthcare,
and workplace protections.
Over the last year the Committee has worked to protect the
lives and livelihood of our constituents, but we cannot be
satisfied with the return to pre-pandemic status quo. We have
the responsibility to build back an even better economy.
Last month President Biden unveiled the American Jobs Plan
which proposes a range of investments to improve the
infrastructure of our Nation's childcare centers, schools, and
workforce. This plan invests in our chronically underfunded
public workforce systems by providing 100 billion dollars for
apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships, sector-based training and
programs to help displaced workers build the skills for new
careers.
And it ensures a more equitable recovery for workers with
barriers to employment by expanding re-entry programs and
subsidizing employment especially for disconnected youth. This
proposal reflects key elements of the Relaunching America's
Workforce Act which would invest 15 billion dollars to help
workers quickly re-enter the workforce, as well as the National
Apprenticeship Act of 2021 which the House passed earlier this
year.
The President's proposals ensures that school facilities
are safe for students and staff, and investing 100 billion
dollars to repair outdated and hazardous infrastructure at
high-need schools. This reflects the Reopen and Rebuild
America's Schools Act, which would provide 130 billion dollars
to address the deteriorating conditions in our Nation's schools
and create more than 2 million jobs.
In my district some school staff are concerned about
returning to campus, not just because of COVID-19, but also
because some school buildings have had mold and other serious
health hazards since even before the pandemic.
We must invest in school infrastructure that the students
and school staff can learn and work safely. The President is
also proposing to expand access to safe and affordable child
care. Operating child care facilities and increasing our
Nation's child care capacity.
Moreover, we expect the President to soon propose a robust
plan that would lower the cost of child care for families. Even
before the pandemic too many families could not afford
childcare, and more than half of all families did not even have
access to quality childcare.
Last week Congressman Sablan joined Senator Murray and me
in reintroducing the Child Care for Working Families Act which
would increase childcare capacity, support childcare workers,
and ensure that all working families can afford quality care.
Finally, the President is seeking to boost our Nation's
community colleges which play a critical role in helping
underserved students access job training and higher education.
Unfortunately, these institutions face severe enrollment
declines and funding cuts. In response the President's proposal
to modernize this community college infrastructure will ensure
that they have the capacity and resources needed to serve
students and job seekers.
We further expect the President to release a proposal to
make community college tuition free and incentive State
reinvestment in higher education. This mirrors the America's
College Promise Act Which Congressman Levin, and I introduced
this week. Today my republican colleagues may argue that these
proposals are unnecessary, or unrelated to infrastructure, or
maybe too expensive.
But these arguments are unrelated to the actual needs of
the American people. Working parents do not care if access to
childcare is labeled as infrastructure, they care about having
a safe, enriched place for their children to grow and learn
while they work.
Unemployed and underemployed workers do not care if job
training programs are branded as infrastructure. They care that
investments in job creation are made to investments and
training they will need to access those good jobs.
A student's parents and school staff do not care if school
buildings, or community colleges are called infrastructure.
They care about whether or not all students have access to a
quality education. So today I hope we can come together to
discuss solutions that will improve the quality of life in our
communities and help build back a better economy.
With that I thank the witnesses for being with us today.
I'm pleased to yield to Ranking Member Dr. Foxx for her opening
statement.
[The statement of Chairman Scott follows:]
Statement of Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Chairman,
Committee on Education and Labor
Today, we are gathered to discuss how substantial investments in
the infrastructure of our schools, workforce, and communities will help
overcome the COVID-19 pandemic and build back a better economy for all
Americans.
We are finally starting to defeat this deadly pandemic. Roughly
three million people are getting vaccinated every day and most people
can get a vaccine in less than 24 hours; the economy created more than
900,000 jobs in March; and 95 percent of schools are open for either
full-time, in-person instruction or a hybrid of in-person and remote
schooling.
Despite the many reasons for optimism about America's future, we
cannot ignore the ongoing risks that this pandemic is posing for
students and workers.
Millions of displaced workers remain unemployed without the skills
needed to find good-paying jobs; schools are unable to ensure the
safety of students and staff due to hazardous and outdated facilities;
families are finding it even more difficult to find safe and affordable
child care; and the rising cost of higher education continues to
restrict opportunities for countless students.
These challenges have hit some communities harder than others. This
is particularly true for low-income individuals and people of color who
entered the pandemic with inadequate access to quality child care,
education, health care, and workplace protections.
Over the last year, the Committee has work to protect the lives and
livelihoods of our constituents. But we cannot be satisfied with a
return to the pre-pandemic status quo. We have the responsibility to
build back an even better economy.
Last month, President Biden unveiled the American Jobs Plan, which
proposes a range of investments to improve the infrastructure of our
Nation's child care centers, schools, and workforce.
This plan invests in our chronically underfunded public workforce
systems by providing $100 billion for apprenticeships, pre-
apprenticeships, sector-based training, and programs to help displaced
workers build the skills for new careers. It ensures a more equitable
recovery for workers with barriers to employment by expanding re-entry
programs and subsidizing employment, especially for disconnected youth.
This proposal reflects key elements of the Relaunching America's
Workforce Act, which would invest $15 billion to help workers quickly
re-enter the workforce, as well as the bipartisan National
Apprenticeship Act of 2021, which the House passed earlier this year.
The President's proposal ensures school facilities are safe for
students and staff by investing $100 billion to repair outdated and
hazardous infrastructure at high needs schools. This reflects the
Reopen and Rebuild America's Schools Act, which would provide $130
billion to address the deteriorating conditions in our Nation's schools
and create more than 2 million jobs. In my district, some school staff
are concerned about returning to campus--not just because of COVID-19--
but also because school buildings have had mold and other serious
health hazards since even before the pandemic.
We must invest in school infrastructure so that students and school
staff can learn and work safely.
The President is also proposing to expand access to safe and
affordable child care by upgrading child care facilities and increasing
our Nation's child care capacity.
Moreover, we expect the President to soon propose a robust plan
that will lower the cost of care for families. Even before the
pandemic, too many families could not afford child care and more than
half of all families did not even have access to quality child care.
Last week, Congressman Sablan joined Senator Murray and I in re-
introducing the Child Care for Working Families Act, which would
increase child care capacity, support child care workers, and ensure
that all working families can afford quality care.
Finally, President Biden is seeking to boost our Nation's community
colleges, which play a critical role in helping underserved students
access job training and higher education. Unfortunately, these
institutions have faced severe enrollment declines and funding cuts. In
response, the President's proposal modernizes community college
infrastructure to ensure they have the capacity and resources needed to
serve students and jobseekers. We further expect the President to
release a proposal to make community college tuition-free and
incentivize State reinvestment in higher education. This mirrors the
America's College Promise Act, which Congressman Levin and I introduced
this week.
Today, my Republican colleagues may argue that these proposals are
unnecessary, unrelated to infrastructure, or maybe too expensive. These
arguments are unrelated to the actual needs of the American people.
Working parents do not care if access to child care is labeled as
infrastructure--they care about having a safe, enriching place for
their children to grow and learn while they work.
Unemployed and underemployed workers do not care if job training
programs are branded as infrastructure--they care that investments in
job creation are paired with investments in the training they will need
to access those good jobs.
Our students, parents, and school staff do not care if school
buildings or community colleges are called infrastructure--they care
about whether or not all students have access to a quality education.
Today, I hope we can come together to discuss solutions that will
improve the quality of life in our communities and help build back a
better economy.
With that, I thank our witnesses, again, for being with us today. I
am now pleased to yield to the Ranking Member, Dr. Foxx, for her
opening statement.
______
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank our
witnesses for being here today also. When President Biden first
announced that his administration was working on an
infrastructure plan, I was cautiously optimistic. Why? Because
republicans and democrats agree that investment in American
infrastructure is vitally important.
But here is where democrats get it wrong. When republicans
talk about infrastructure, we actually mean it. We want to
invest in roads, buildings, bridges and highways. For
democrats? infrastructure is anything that appeases their left-
wing based and union allies. That's not an exaggeration.
Ninety-five percent of the Biden administration's American
Jobs Plan and American's Families Plan funds a socialist wish
list. The left may be trying to further twist the English
language to suit their political aims, but let's call these
bills what they are--democrat power grabs disguised as
infrastructure with little real help for struggling Americans.
These bills wrongly assume the Federal Government is the
solution to the challenges facing the Nation, rather than the
cause. Our country will exceed 100 trillion dollars in budget
deficits by 2050. Expensive partisan promises are driving that
number to record highs.
President Biden's solution tax job creators and taxpayers,
the same people who are driving our economic recovery in COVID-
19. We cannot balance our spending sprees on the backs of hard-
working American taxpayers, and our children and grandchildren.
Nor can we continue to blindly throw money at our education
system and call that a solution. Despite allocating trillions
in education spending over the last several decades, student
outcomes are underwhelming.
Remote learning and the COVID-19 pandemic have only driven
home the importance of targeting local intervention in
student's success. If our students, particularly students of
color, who have been disproportionately impacted by democrats
shut down politics, are going to bounce back from months of
learning loss, and compete in an increasingly global economy,
we need fundamental reform to our education system, not a few
extra zeroes at the end of a budget request.
Yet despite evidence that more spending alone will not
measurably improve student outcomes, democrats are attempting
to dive even deeper into taxpayer's pockets to shell out
billions in additional education funding.
One hundred billion dollars will be allocated to school
buildings even though only 3 percent of our Nation's permanent
school buildings were in immediate need or repair according to
Federal data. This is a failure to assess accurately the
problem. A failure to come up with an adequate solution, and a
failure to protect the taxpayers? funds we've been entrusted
with when we were elected to the people's house.
These problems aren't limited to K-12 education. Government
overreach and easy universal access to taxpayer funds have
contributed to exorbitant college tuition rates and the student
debt crisis. The democrat's plan doubles down on failed
policies of the past, wildly assuming that more spending and
more government mandates are the solution to our languishing
educational system.
Democrats love to tell us that offering free college is the
answer to skyrocketing tuition rates, but the cost of post-
secondary education doesn't simply disappear. It means someone
else is on the hook for the bill.
Increasing student aid will only drive up tuition prices
even further. Once again, more money is a far cry from the
sensible solution. The Biden administration's failure to
address the root cause of our inadequate education system also
hampers our ability to cultivate a qualified workforce for the
21st Century.
While our workforce economic recovery ensues, the Biden
administration is ushering in policy that will limit
opportunities for workers and job creators, while providing
political favors to enrich democrat's big labor allies.
The American Jobs Plan calls for all construction projects
to utilize project labor agreements, and government mandating,
prevailing wages, which discourages non-union contractors from
bidding on taxpayer funded construction contracts and will
drive up construction costs by more than 20 percent.
This is far from a win for the American people, rather it's
another win for union bosses. Republicans support policies that
harness the power of the free market to create jobs and improve
the Nation's education and workforce development systems. These
proposals fall embarrassingly short of that goal.
Instead of delivering targeted aid that will affect real
change, democrats are once again throwing money at a problem
under the guise of relief. American deserve better. I look
forward from hearing from our witnesses today and I yield back
Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
[The statement of Ranking Member Foxx follows:]
Statement of Hon. Virginia Foxx, Ranking Member,
Committee on Education and Labor
When President Biden first announced that his administration was
working on an infrastructure plan, I was cautiously optimistic. Why?
Because Republicans and Democrats agree that investment in American
infrastructure is vitally important.
But here is where Democrats get it wrong. When Republicans talk
about 'infrastructure,' we actually mean it. We want to invest in
roads, bridges, buildings, and highways. For Democrats,
'infrastructure' is anything that appeases their left-wing base and
union allies. That's not an exaggeration--95 percent of the Biden
administration's American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan funds a
socialist wish list.
The left may be trying to further twist the English language to
suit their political aims, but let's call these bills what they are:
Democrat power grabs disguised as infrastructure with little real help
for struggling Americans.
These bills wrongly assume the Federal Government is the solution
to our Nation's woes rather than the cause. Our country will exceed
$100 trillion in budget deficits by 2050. Expensive, partisan promises
are driving that number to record highs. President Biden's solution?
Tax job creators and taxpayers, the same people who are driving our
economic recovery from COVID-19.
We cannot balance our spending sprees on the backs of hardworking
Americans and our children and grandchildren.
Nor can we continue to blindly throw money at our education system
and call that a solution. Despite allocating trillions in education
spending over the last several decades, student outcomes are
underwhelming. Remote learning and the COVID-19 pandemic have only
driven home the importance of targeted, local intervention in student
success. If our students, particularly students of color who have been
disproportionately impacted by Democrats' shutdown politics, are going
to bounce back from months of learning loss and compete in an
increasingly global economy, we need fundamental reforms to our
education system, not a few extra zeros at the end of a budget request.
Yet despite evidence that more spending alone will not measurably
improve student outcomes, Democrats are attempting to dive even deeper
into taxpayers' pockets to shell out billions in additional education
funding. One hundred billion dollars will be allocated to school
buildings even though only 3 percent of our Nation's permanent school
buildings were in immediate need of repair according to Federal data.
This is a failure to accurately assess the problem, a failure to
come up with an adequate solution, and a failure to protect the
taxpayer funds we have been entrusted with when we were elected to the
people's house.
These problems aren't limited to K-12 education. Government
overreach and easy, universal access to taxpayer funds have contributed
to exorbitant college tuition rates and the student debt crisis. The
Democrats' plan doubles down on failed policies of the past, wrongly
assuming that more spending and more government mandates are the
solution to our languishing education system.
Democrats love to tell us that offering free college is the answer
to sky-rocketing tuition rates. But the cost of postsecondary education
doesn't simply disappear, it means someone else is on the hook for the
bill. Increasing student aid will only drive up tuition prices even
higher. Once again, more money is a far cry from the sensible solution.
The Biden administration's failure to address the root causes of
our inadequate education system also hampers our ability to cultivate a
qualified workforce for the 21st century. While our workforce and
economic recovery ensues, the Biden administration is ushering in
policies that will limit opportunities for workers and job creators
while providing political favors to enrich Democrats' Big Labor allies.
The American Jobs Plan calls for all construction projects to
utilize project labor agreements and government mandated prevailing
wages which discourages non-union contractors from bidding on taxpayer-
funded construction contracts and will drive up construction costs by
more than 20 percent. This is far from a win for the American people.
Rather, it's another win for union bosses.
Republicans support policies that harness the power of the free
market to create jobs and improve the Nation's education and workforce
development systems. These proposals fall embarrassingly short of that
goal. Instead of delivering targeted aid that will affect real change,
Democrats are once again throwing money at a problem under the guise of
relief. Americans deserve better.
______
Chairman Scott. Thank you. And without objection all
Members who will to enter written statements into the record
may do so by submitting them to the Committee Clerk
electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m. on May 12,
2021.
I will now introduce our witnesses. Rasheed Malik is a
Senior Policy Analyst for Early Childhood Policy at the Center
for American Progress. His work focuses on childcare
infrastructure and supply, the economic benefits of childcare
and bias and discrimination in early childhood policy.
He holds a master's degree in public policy from the Gerald
R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan
and a bachelor's degree in public affairs from Baruch College.
Dr. Neal McCluskey serves as the Director for the Center
for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institution where he
focuses on K through 12, higher education, and educational
issues at large. He has written and co-edited a number of books
focusing on topics such as school choice and the U.S. higher
education system.
He holds an undergraduate degree from Georgetown
University, a master's degree in political science from Rutgers
University at Newark, a Ph.D. in public policy from George
Mason University.
I'll now yield to the gentlelady from Oregon Ms. Bonamici
to introduce our next witness.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chairman Scott. I am very honored
to introduce a friend who is a leader in education in Oregon
and nationally. Portland Community College President Mark
Mitsui as a witness today. He has served as a President of PCC,
the largest postsecondary institution in Oregon since 2016.
Prior to that President Mitsui served in the Department of
Education under President Obama as the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Community Colleges.
Before that he was President of North Seattle College in
Washington State. President Mitsui has long been focused on
equity in higher education, and his leadership at PCC, both
before and throughout the pandemic will certainly inform his
testimony before the Committee today. I look forward to hearing
from him. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. Our next witness after that will
be Bob Lanter. He's currently Executive Director of the
California Workforce Association. He's held various positions
at local workforce investment systems from case manager to
Executive Director of the Contra Costa County Workforce Board.
He previously worked for the U.S. Department of Labor's
Employment and Training Administration as a Federal Project
Officer. He's a graduate of California State University East
Bay with a bachelor's degree in business personnel
administration, and industrial relations.
He is adjunct faculty at the California State University
system teaching workforce development.
Brian Riedl is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute
where he focuses on Budget, Tax, and Economic Policy. He
previously served as a Chief Economist for Senator Portman of
Ohio, and as Staff Director of the Senate Finance Subcommittee
on Fiscal Responsibility and Economic Growth. He served as the
Heritage Foundation's lead research fellow on the Federal
budget and spending policy from 2001 to 2011. He holds a
bachelor's degree in economics and political science from the
University of Wisconsin, and a master's degree in public
affairs from Princeton.
Mary Filardo is the Founder and Executive Director of the
21st Century Fund. She is a leading national
authority and advocate for improving the equity, efficiency and
quality of public-school buildings and grounds.
She founded the 21st Century's School Fund in
1994 to improve the crumbling public school facilities in the
District of Columbia. She also helped State PK through 12
public facilities, public education facilities, at the Council
on School Facilities where she is the founder of the Rebuild
America's Schools Infrastructure Coalition, known as RASIC.
She has a BA in philosophy and mathematics from St. John's
College, a master's in public policy from the University of
Maryland, and she is a 1979 Truman Scholar from the District of
Columbia.
And we appreciate the witnesses for participating today and
look forward to your testimony. Let me remind the witnesses
that we've read your written statements and they will appear in
full in the hearing record.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 8(d) and Committee practice,
each of you is asked to limit your oral presentation to a five-
minute summary of your written statement.
Before you begin your testimony please remember to unmute
your microphone. During your testimony, staff will be keeping
track of your time and a timer will sound when your time is up.
Please be attentive to the time and wrap up when your time is
over and then remute your microphone.
If you experience any technical difficulties during your
testimony or later in the hearing, you should stay connected to
the platform, make sure you are muted and then use your phone
to immediately call the Committee's IT director, whose number
was provided to you in advance.
We will let all the witnesses make their presentations
before we move to Members questions, and when answering a
question, please remember to unmute your microphone. The
witnesses are aware of their responsibility to provide accurate
information to the Committee, and therefore we will now proceed
to their testimony.
And I will first recognize Mr. Malik.
STATEMENT OF RASHEED MALIK, MPP, SENIOR POLICY
ANALYST, EARLY CHILDHOOD POLICY CENTER FOR
AMERICAN PROGRESS
Mr. Malik. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Foxx,
and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today. I'd like to begin my testimony by applauding the
relief funding for childcare providers that Congress included
in the recent American Rescue Plan.
The childcare industry was among the hardest hit sectors of
the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic, and without these
much-needed funds, many more programs would have permanently
closed.
I'm also heartened to see that 25 billion dollars has been
included in the President's American Jobs Plan, a timely
infrastructure investment that will help upgrade child care
facilities so that provides can meet important health and
safety protocols that can then reduce the risk of coronavirus
transmission.
But what I'm really excited to discuss with you all is the
prospect of a once in a generation investment that would
dramatically transform our childcare system. For far too long
childcare has been an economic barrier for families and
consequently, a restraint on our Nation's economic growth.
Parents are rarely prepared for the high costs of
childcare. And on the provider's side a broken childcare
funding model means many early educators earn poverty wages.
The primary source of revenue funding our childcare providers
right now are the tuition and fees that parents pay, but only
the richest families earn enough to cover what it costs to
provide high quality childcare.
And decades of public underinvestment has resulted in a
market based system where families with higher incomes have
better child care choices available to them, and we've allowed
something that should be narrowing opportunity gaps to become
an engine of inequality, with the early care and education
workforce paying a price at every stage.
Here are the facts. The childcare development block grant
program that's supposed to make care affordable, only reaches 1
in 7 eligible children. Head Start serves fewer than half of
those eligible children. State funded preschools only enroll 34
percent of four-year old and 6 percent of three-year old. And
more than half of American families live in childcare deserts
where there simply aren't enough licensed providers nearby.
This puts middle class families in a precarious position
with childcare issues forcing millions of parents, almost
always mothers, to reduce their hours worked, to leave school,
or leave the labor force. My research has shown that in 2018
more than 2 million parents experienced some kind of childcare
related job disruption.
And I think it's safe to say that number was much higher in
2020. But as surely as there are costs from this problem, there
are huge benefits that come from policy solutions. Childcare
gaps may mean fewer women in the labor force but solving this
problem will allow for more women to join the labor force.
A recent Harvard study analyzing more than 125 policy
interventions found that the most cost-effective policies, from
a public standpoint, invested in the education and health of
young children.
The basic inputs for economic growth are the size of the
labor force, and the productivity of that labor force. By
providing the stability and economic relief that comes from a
well-funded broadly accessible childcare system. We should
expect positive effects on both of those inputs.
Investing in the potential of the American workforce has
never failed to yield positive returns. I'll finish by
highlighting the bold childcare legislation introduced last
week by Chairman Bobby Scott.
The Child Care for Working Families Act would finally
establish a comprehensive birth to five childcare system. This
bill would move to an entitlement approach to childcare
funding, which is the most sustainable path to a system that
can serve all the families that need it.
It would build upon the current childcare market,
preserving parental choice, and investing in a variety of
models, including home-based childcare and family friend and
neighbor care. It would make child carefree for low-income
families, and truly affordable for the middle class, with a
typical family paying about $9.00 a day.
It would raise wages for early educators, but it would also
fund professional development, establish scholarships for
credentials, and partner with higher education institutions to
develop a pipeline of qualified future early educators. And
this bill would do all of this while keeping the focus on
equity--expanding access first for low-income families,
children with disabilities, dual language learners, children
from underserved ethnic and racial groups, and for geographic
areas with low access.
I want to thank you again for inviting me to this hearing,
and I look forward to answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Malik follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rasheed Malik
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Scott. Thank you. Dr. McCluskey.
STATEMENT OF MR. NEAL McCLUSKEY, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM, CATO INSTITUTE
Mr. McCluskey. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Foxx, Members
of the Committee thank you for inviting me to speak with you
today. My name is Neal McCluskey, and I am the Director for the
Center of Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, a non-
profit, non-partisan public policy research organization. My
comments are my own, and do not represent any position of the
Institute.
Now since the onset of COVID-19 the Federal Government has
significantly increased its spending on education, and with new
proposals that would increase it even more, it is important to
ask whether there's good reason to expect significant new
spending to result in commensurately better outcomes.
I start though by noting that the vast majority of Federal
education spending is unconstitutional. Federal Government has
only specific enumerated powers and authority to broadly spend
on education is not among them. That said, moving on from
Constitutionality, does performance today give good reason to
believe very large increases in spending will produce
commensurate improvements in outcomes.
In elementary and secondary education, the national data
suggests not. Looking at the Federal national assessment of
educational progress long-term trends exam, results for 17
years old's, sort of the final products of the K through 12
system, show large increases in spending, and not been
accompanied by commensurate increases in learning, at least as
judged by these exams.
Between 1959, so looking 12 years before the first long-
term trend reading test, so as to capture 17-year old's full
education, between 1959 and 2012 real per pupil funding rose
from about $4,000.00 to roughly $13,500.00. In contrast, the
share of 17-year old's meeting or exceeding the middle
performance level of math rose from just 52 percent to only 60
percent.
In reading, between 1971 and 2012 there was no improvement
for this more than tripled funding. Looking at other tests, and
breaking scores down by proxies for income, the outcomes were
sometimes somewhat better, but not commensurate with spending.
This is especially true since by most measures child
welfare greatly improved, including with real income for the
lowest percentile of earners rising from about $19,000.00 in
1979 to $36,000.00 by 2017 after accounting for transfers and
taxes.
In higher education Federal spending rose from about 23
billion adjusted for inflation, 1965, to more than 107 billion
in 2012, as well as greatly increasing student loan volume.
This no doubt helped to increase degree attainment, but also
increased prices substantially.
Much evidence suggests it did not increase learning
commensurately, including two assessments of literacy that
showed literacy among degree holders dropping appreciably as
degree attainment grew.
We seem to get more pieces of paper called diplomas, but
not greater skills and knowledge. We also found employers
increasingly asking for degrees for jobs that did not
previously require them.
In light of the data showing hallowing out degrees, there's
reason to be concerned about ``free'' college proposals. Such
proposals are certainly well-intentioned, especially
considering the astonishing sticker price at some colleges and
universities. But the root problem remains.
When the consumer does not pay with their own money, or
money they receive voluntarily from others, they will tend to
overconsume.
Making college free would likely make matters worse than
status quo, limiting any of the discipline inducing requirement
that consumers pay for school at least using some of their own
money. It would also hurt what is good about higher education
in America.
It must respond to students driving schools to provide
better experiences. Making college responsive only to
government would change incentives toward lobbying and
navigating bureaucracies. It could also lead to rationing, as
institutions might find themselves without the resource to
expand and greatly accommodate greatly increased demand.
Community colleges are relatives easy to make free to
students with average tuition fees costing less than the
average Pell grant. What we see in those schools are very low
completion rates.
According to the National Student Clearinghouse, the
students that started a 2-year public college in 2014, only
40.2 percent have completed a program of study within 6 years.
Making public colleges free would likely kill also many
private colleges, often religious, which public institutions
cannot be.
Finally, a bit about school's physical condition. Again,
worry is understandable, but some data suggests the overall
conditions of the school may not be bad. As recently as the
2012-13 school year, a Federal report found districts reporting
that only 3 percent of current buildings were in poor
condition.
Other data suggests that districts tend to use facility's
money for building new schools, or other sort of flashy
projects. Such basics as maintaining HVAC systems get lower
prioritization.
The desire to put as much money as possible into education
is certainly understandable, but evidence suggests that
increased spending in the past did not translate into
commensurate increases, and skills and knowledge, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCluskey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Neal McCluskey
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Scott. Thank you. Mr. Mitsui?
STATEMENT OF MARK MITSUI, PRESIDENT, PORTLAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Mr. Mitsui. Hello Chair Scott, Ranking Member Dr. Foxx, and
Members of the Committee, and again in particular our amazing
Representative for Oregon, Suzanne Bonamici than you so much
for your kind introduction.
For the record my name is Mark Mitsui, and I'm President of
Portland Community College in Portland, Oregon. Thank you for
having me here today to speak with you about the role workforce
training will play in our recovery, and the critical need for
investments in community college infrastructure.
Speaking of infrastructure, in Portland we have a lot of
bridges, and I think of Portland Community College as one of
them. On one side of our bridge we have hard working people who
just need an educational opportunity. And on the other side we
have high-skilled jobs that offer living wages that need to be
filled.
We, like all community colleges, are the bridge that
connects the two. Investments in the students who cross the
bridge, and investments in the bridge itself can keep America
on the forefront of the world economy and create a more
equitable recovery.
That's why we appreciate the President's proposed 12-
billion-dollar community college infrastructure investment.
Developing leading edge skills requires leading edge equipment
and facilities. That equipment is getting old, and our
facilities are as well. Due to inadequate funding, academic
facilities have a backlog of infrastructure deferred
maintenance projects.
In evaluating facility needs the American Association of
Community Colleges estimates that the national total deferred
maintenance, renovations and upgrades to be 60 billion dollars.
While there is a cost to these needed improvements, the good
news is that community colleges are a great investment.
At PCC, for every public dollar that's invested in our
college, taxpayers see a $2.70 return. Society has a whole in
Oregon, sees a return of $8.20 in reduced social cost and
increased earnings. Likewise, a national commitment to
education and training is also essential because post-secondary
credentials are the new minimum.
According to Georgetown University, 99 percent of jobs
created during the last recovery went to those with at least
some post-secondary education. According to the Lumina
Foundation about half of adults between the ages of 25 and 64
lack a post-secondary credential.
Without upscaling opportunities, half of the adults in this
country are at risk of being locked out of the next economy. We
also see that COVID is accelerating automation, as employers
seek to pandemic-proof their operations. The World Economic
Forum estimates that by 2025 on a global basis, automation may
displace 85 million jobs, and foster 97 million new roles.
Here in the U.S. this shift will disproportionately impact
our most marginalized communities. Clearly, community colleges
are a bridge between the old jobs lost, and the new ones
gained. Another key barrier to building back better is basic
needs and security.
According to a national survey conducted during the
pandemic by the Hope Center at Temple University, nearly 60
percent of respondents indicated they experienced either food
or housing insecurity with a black/white gap of 60 percent. I
applaud components of the America's College Promise Act that
could push states to address food and housing insecurity
resulting in higher completion rates.
ACP also incentivizes states to reinvest in our colleges,
which will reduce tuition and student debt. And I can't over-
emphasize the importance of the student success components of
this bill, including the establishment of the Student Success
Fund.
Finally, support of minority service institutions like on
AANAPISI's, HBCU's, and TCU's are essential for bridging equity
gaps. In conclusion, I'd like to end with a student's story.
Tara Roberts, a single mom with three children came to PCC. She
was in tears when she reached for the classroom door for the
first time, frightened but determined.
At PCC she found a community that supported and challenged
her. Well Dr. Tara Roberts, now holds a doctorate in nursing,
and is an administrator at Virginia Garcia Memorial Health
Center. All eight of her children completed post-secondary
education, two now teach at PCC.
America's College Promise in the infrastructure investments
are about helping more people like Tara and their families
cross that bridge to a better life. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitsui follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Mitsui
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Scott. Thank you. Mr. Lanter.
STATEMENT OF BOB LANTER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA
WORKFORCE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Lanter. Good afternoon Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
Dr. Foxx and Members of the Committee. My name is Bob Lanter,
Executive Director of the California Workforce Association, and
I'm honored to join you to discuss the Federal investments
needed to create jobs and further stimulate our economy.
The proposed 100 billion Federal investment in the American
Jobs Plan would set our country on a sustainable, equitable
path, at a severe economic disruption. I will touch on the
following policy and funding recommendations to ensure key
components of the American Jobs Plan are met.
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, WIOA, should
be directly funded to provide immediate and economic recovery
services. Funding must be made available to ensure communities
can build equitable recovery. Fund industry, and sector-based
training to build talent pipelines that lead to family
sustaining wages and invest in proven and effective models.
WIOA's workforce boards, networks of local education,
training providers, business, labor management partnerships and
economic development organizations invest Federal funds to
businesses and individuals that need them most. Increased
direct funding through workforce boards allows for these
existing partnerships to expand, and addresses significant
workforce challenges we face, like long-term unemployment and
job losses due to COVID.
The principles for the workforce investments in the
American Jobs Plan, come from the Relaunching America's
Workforce Act. Legislation led by Chairman Scott and many
others on this Committee, which provides additional funding and
important flexibilities to WIOA, like funding workforce board
and community college partnerships, and increasing the cap on
incumbent worker training.
As we know now, impacts of COVID hit the most vulnerable
populations earlier and longer. These effects continue to
create significant barriers to employment for minorities,
women, disabled individuals, out of school use, and ex-
offenders, among others. Access to childcare, transportation,
food, and housing often prevent these individuals from
enrolling in education, or even getting a job.
We continue to see signs that an economic recovery may not
mean everyone will recover equitably. The American Jobs Plan
calls for 12 billion dollars to be targeted to build equity in
labor markets. We have begun work like this in California as
the bipartisan Breaking Barriers Initiative provides 15 million
dollars to partnerships between community-based organizations
and workforce boards serving vulnerable populations like ex-
offenders.
The Initiative focuses on three outcomes, enrollment into
post-secondary vocational education, enrollment into
apprenticeship programs, or placement into a job that has a
career path to self-sufficiency.
Workforce boards are well-positioned to deliver these
services at wider scale with the funding proposed. The American
Jobs Plan calls for a 40-billion-dollar investment in new
dislocated worker programs and sector-based initiatives.
Our nation's training system must allow laid off workers to
retool, but also provide necessary supports to complete
training programs and obtain quality employment, especially
those Americans who are long-term unemployed. In California the
High Road Training Partnerships Initiative is a 25-million-
dollar demonstration project designed to model sector-based
strategies from around the State, ranging from transportation
to healthcare to hospitality, the HRTP model exemplifies the
focus on industry partnerships that deliver equity,
sustainability and job quality.
The American Jobs Plan proposes 48 billion to build the
capacity of the workforce development system. One of the key
areas for this effort is registered apprenticeship--a proven
earn and learn model. Workforce boards could become more active
intermediaries in registered apprenticeship, and increased
participation from non-traditional industries.
Costs for curriculum development, training for wage
subsidies and data collection validation should be allowed and
supported through this legislation. Job creation strategies
like these will enable us to build our regional economies back
stronger.
In closing, the investments in the American Jobs Plan will
facilitate thousands of successful workforce and economic
development models like the ones I have spoken about in my
testimony, providing resources that are desperately needed by
workforce stakeholders will lead millions of individuals from
unemployment and low-wage, dead-end jobs to careers that will
lead them on a path for a positive degree.
Thank you for inviting me Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,
and I look forward to the opportunity to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lanter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bob Lanter
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Scott. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
testimony and we will next hear from Mr. Riedl.
STATEMENT OF MR. BRIAN RIEDL, SENIOR FELLOW IN BUDGET, TAX, AND
ECONOMICS, THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE
Mr. Riedl. Good afternoon Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
Foxx, and Members of the Committee. My name is Brian Riedl. I
am a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. I have been
invited here to step back and provide a general critique of the
American Jobs Plan. I will make four points.
First, the 2.6 trillion-dollar cost is fiscally
irresponsible given America's daunting Federal budget outlook.
This would be the most expensive non-emergency law in half of a
century, and it's coming at a time when the national debt is
already projected to double from 17 trillion to 35 trillion
between 2019 and 2030.
Overall, Washington is projected to run 100 trillion
dollars in budget deficits over the next 30 years according to
CBO, and if interest rates exceed the CBO baseline by just 1
percent point, that would add 30 trillion dollars in interest
costs over 3 decades, just 1 percentage point.
And even if this 2.6 trillion is mostly paid for in new
corporate tax hikes, it is still fiscally irresponsible because
we already need every progressive tax proposal just to pay for
the current programs we already have in the baseline.
Second, while infrastructure can certainly use some
upgrades, lack of funding is not the main problem. Rather,
America's infrastructure is among the most expensive
bureaucratic and slowly built in the world. Consider that. CBO
reports that Federal investment delivers average returns of
just 5 percent, compared to 10 percent for private sector
investments.
The per mile cost of highway construction quadrupled
between 1960 and 1990 and has continued to grow since then. The
David Bacon Act raises wage costs by 22 percent, mandatory
project labor agreements add costs too. Our subway systems cost
quadruple the world average to build.
Many of these delays are driven by the necessary but slow
environmental impact statements, and the historical artifact
reviews. Consider that environmental reviews commonly exceed
1,000 pages and require on average 7 years to complete, with
several taking more than 17 years.
And no ground can be broken until the project has survived
the legal gauntlet, including appeals by any litigant. By
comparison, these statements take one to 2 years in Canada, and
three and a half years at most in the EU.
Third, despite the title of American Jobs Plan, there is a
broad economic consensus that infrastructure policies do not
provide short-term stimulus. First, because as I mentioned, you
need 7 years to finish the environmental impact statement
before you can even break ground.
Additionally, Federal investment is usually offset by State
and local investment cuts, which nullifies the effect.
Additionally, infrastructure is most needed in the fast-growing
communities where the unemployment rate is already lower than
typical. Thus, the congressional Research Service has included
that the short-term effects of both output and unemployment
could be nullified or even negative.
When combining the painful taxes of ineffective spending,
the Penn Wharton budget model reports that the American Jobs
Plan will over the long-run create no net jobs, reduce wages by
0.8 percent, reduce the capital stock 3 percent, and reduce the
GDP by 0.8 percent. And Penn Wharton is not a conservative
organization.
Finally, the American Jobs Plan includes a historic
expansion of corporate grants, loans, and contracts with little
to no congressional oversight. Rather than rely on tax
incentives and tightening patents and copyrights, Washington
would micromanage the innovation process by sleepily raising
corporate taxes and then returning hundreds of billions of
dollars in Federal grants to companies that undertake
government-approved projects.
The administration is seeking huge discretion in dispensing
hundreds of billions of dollars, which risks becoming a budget
busting slush fund for favored industries, businesses, and
allies, from Cylindra to the now defunded banks technology
program, Washington's track record picking winners and losers
is not particularly strong, and these programs often invited
corruption and collusion between big business and government.
Today's promising companies have no problem securing loans
and equity from a financial system, a wash in capital and low
interest rates. More corporate wealth there is not necessary.
Therefore, I recommend that Congress pare back the cost of
this proposal, encourage State and local governments to use
their 500 billion dollars in recent aid, and reform our
infrastructure policies to make them more effective and
efficient, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Riedl follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brian Riedl
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Scott. Thank you. And our final witness will be
Ms. Filardo.
STATEMENT OF MARY W. FILARDO, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
21st CENTURY SCHOOL FUND
Ms. Filardo. Thank you very much. Chairman Scott, Ranking
Member Foxx, Members of the Committee thank you for your
invitation to participate in this hearing. I'm Mary Filardo,
and I'm honored to be here today.
I'm a long-time D.C. resident whose children went to
decrepit public schools here in the Nation's capital. Seeing
that my children and so many others were spending their school
days in classrooms that were baking hot, or too cold, and
buildings with leaky roofs, fire code violations, asbestos, and
poor air quality, this inspired my life's work.
I founded the 21st Century School Fund to
provide research, model policies, and advocacy to eliminate the
structural inequities in public school facilities. The success
of our efforts in the District of Columbia public schools led
to the expansion of this work in other cities, states, and the
Federal Government.
Deficiencies in our Nation's public-school facilities have
been well-known for decades. We know that lead paint, asbestos,
PCB's are harmful, that all schools must be ADA complaint, that
schools in severe weather zones must be resilient, that schools
must be built to educate a modern workforce, and that
antiquated schools need to change to support changing codes and
programs.
My job today before this Committee is not to convince you
that these conditions are problematic. I do not believe a
single Member would argue that any child or staff should be in
unhealthy, unsafe, or educationally deficient buildings.
Rather, I will address the following: Does our country need
a Federal program to support school facilities? Is the Reopen
and Rebuild America's Schools Act the right Federal solution?
And does RRASA belong in a major infrastructure package?
First why do we need a Federal program? Our nation's
public-school facilities are critical to ensuring equitable
educational opportunities. On average schools are nearly 50
years old, and many have never been fully modernized. But our
State and local system for funding public school facilities
improvements is broken.
Despite their best efforts, many districts are unable to
raise the capital needed to address the shortcomings of their
facilities. These challenges have resulted in gross disparities
between the wealthy and poor districts. Federal inaction to
address these issues is exacerbating the inequalities.
States provided only 18 percent toward district capital
construction projects over the 20 years from 1994 to 2013,
resulting in nearly half a trillion in long-term debt for local
school districts. The solution to these challenges lies in a
local, State and Federal partnership with the State at the
center.
A Federal role that builds State capacity to meet
district's needs in the most underserved areas is absolutely
essential to reforming this broken system.
Second, is RRASA the right Federal solution? RRASA was
developed over many years, through extensive stakeholder input,
including local and State practitioners, industry and labor
representatives, and the civic groups working to improve child
health, the environment and the quality of public education.
As a formula grant to the states, RRASA would establish a
Federal education interest in public school facility issues
without putting Federal action in the critical path of State or
local decisions. RRASA addresses the structural inequities by
requiring targeted Federal funds to the lowest wealth and
highest needs school districts, but without mandating specific
State program on how to allocate funds.
RRASA gives states the capacity to assist districts,
capacity to rural districts that haven't built or modernized a
school in over a generation, and capacity for urban districts
that are overwhelmed by the monumental scale of their capital
needs.
The capacity building that RRASA would support at the State
level will help districts meet the increasing complexities of
educational facility planning, financing, design and
construction. States can reduce burdens on districts and reduce
costs for taxpayers.
RRASA is smart public policy and is the right Federal
solution for these issues. Finally, does RRASA belong in an
infrastructure package? The public works traditionally funded
with Federal funds are not traditional infrastructure, it's
just infrastructure that traditionally gets Federal funds.
In fact, public school facilities are the second largest
capital outlay for State and local governments after highways.
In a recent political poll, 70 percent of Americans agree that
public schools should be considered part of America's
infrastructure.
Roads and bridges get Federal funds for the same reason our
public-school infrastructure needs Federal funds. State and
local governments can't raise enough revenue to support their
capital needs. This is precisely why the Federal Government
steps in. Applying this logic, this should be the same for our
public-school facilities.
But despite their best efforts, State and local revenues
fall short, and our preliminary analysis for the 2021 State of
our schools, the gap was 40 billion a year in 2016, and is now
50 billion a year for 2020.
Last, schools belong in the infrastructure package because
like most public works projects, school construction projects
invigorate the economy. RRASA will increase manufacturing,
create 2 million jobs, and support building industry services.
In summary, RRASA is good policy, good politics, good
business, and good for the future of our country and should be
enacted. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Filardo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mary Filardo
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Scott. Thank you very much. Under Committee Rule
9(a), we will now question the witnesses under the five-minute
rule. I will be recognizing Committee Members in seniority
order.
And again, to ensure that the Members' five minutes is
adhered to, the staff will be keeping track of time and the
timer will sound when your time is expired. Please be attentive
to the time and wrap up when your time is over and then remute
your microphone.
As chair, I will recognize the gentleman from Connecticut
Mr. Courtney to begin the questions.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
the witnesses. And again, I think this hearing could not be
more timely, I mean partly because obviously we have a
President who is really serious about doing more than just
announcing infrastructure week, but actually but an
infrastructure plan on the table for Congress that has it paid
for, which is you know long overdue.
It's also timely because you know the economy certainly is
beginning to recovery, but we're already seeing that the sort
of post-pandemic profile, this economy is going to be different
than what existed even just a year and a half ago when the
pandemic first struck.
The New York Times today has an article in the business
section as the economy rebounds manufacturers face new hurtles.
And it describes very powerfully what I think probably all of
us know in our districts which is that trying to get workforce
that's got the right skillset to take on jobs right now is a
big problem and a big issue for employers.
So we have this situation that I think Mr. Lanter sort of
alluded to it where we have large numbers of dislocated workers
who are from sectors like retail and service industries,
restaurants, who may not be coming back either any time soon or
at all.
And at the same time, we have a new demand for workers who
don't have the skillset to connect to those opportunities. And
then you overlay that with the infrastructure bill which is
talking about investing in critical new activities such as
semi-conductor and chip manufacturing, which I think frankly,
anyone who looks at that issue in terms of the fragility of the
supply chain into this country, we understand that's really as
much a national security issue as it is an economic issue.
The same with production of off-shore wind turbines. And in
my district in the one in Connecticut, we're going to have wind
turbine assembly platforms that are going to be taking place
that again is a whole new skillset in the building trades, and
we actually have this venture that's now been spearheaded by
Vestas which is a Danish company that's the largest wind
turbine manufacturer in the world, that's a project labor
agreement, incorporating the building trades associations,
electric cars, I mean the list goes on and on.
So Mr. Lanter, I guess you know I would just you talked
about how the workforce boards need to sort of you know take on
a new level, if not new task in terms of being the interface
with apprenticeship programs. Can you again, just sort of walk
through that process because you know the WIOA Program again
takes people who are sort of the pre-apprenticeship level in
making sure that they actually get inside you know, a new
employer's front gate.
I think it's still sort of a connection that we probably
need to strengthen at a time like this. I think you need to
unmute sir, yes.
Mr. Lanter. Yes. Thanks Congressman. I appreciate your
question and yes, workforce boards are quite poised to really
assist with the expansion of the apprenticeship model. You know
the apprenticeship model, you mentioned it, is really a unique
model that will enable individuals to not only receive the
education and training that they need to get into a career path
that will allow them to raise and support a family.
But it enables individuals who haven't been successful in
the traditional education system to learn while they earn, and
more importantly, it allows individuals who are at the lower
end of our economic spectrum, those low-wage, low-skilled
workers who need income to support a family.
Oftentimes they can't afford to go to school. It enables
them to get that key income while they're training. And so,
here's the role of the workforce boards. They really play a key
role as intermediaries, really bringing together the industry
demand with the critical education partners, and then they can
also market that work to the community, and really recruit from
the most vulnerable populations, key candidates who will be
successful in the training programs.
Right now, in California we have several successful models
of registered apprenticeship programs in industries. Some of
the ones you mentioned IT, engineering, manufacturing,
aerospace, early childhood education, and these apprenticeships
also include youth and that's really key to dramatically
increasing skills and wages for millions of American workers,
and for turning profits for business.
And I would just say this last thing. You know in the
America's Job Plan we can fund cost for curriculum development,
training wage subsidies for these hard to serve populations,
data collection and validation to make sure we're accountable,
and this is really critical to our Nation's largest business,
our small and medium businesses.
They often cannot afford these startup costs, and the
administration costs that come with earn and learn models like
apprenticeship, but this is the key to unlock a more equitable
recovery. Thank you.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. Next there are questions from
the distinguished Ranking Member of the Committee, gentlelady
from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. McCluskey thank you
for talking about the Constitution in your testimony. I don't
want to get too far into the details of these proposals without
bringing the conversation back to that core issue.
We can all clearly see that education is not included in
the Constitution and was in fact among the many powers
delegated to the states by the founding father's envisioned
keeping power concentrated at the most local level possible.
Mr. McCluskey. Well because they knew that there were only
a few specific things that a national government would be good
at and that it should do, and those were basically relations
with other countries, other national level things, and then
making sure that for instance, states didn't do things like set
up trade barriers against each other.
Otherwise, people know their own needs, and communities
know their own needs much better than the national government
would, and the Federal Government, and it was really not even a
thought that the Federal Government would be involved in
something like education.
And then there was mention of a national university, and it
was decided that well you know that could fall under a specific
power, which was control over the District of Columbia. So the
founders, and for most of our history we recognize that
education was something that's very important to individuals,
and the families, and to specific communities, and they should
be in charge of both funding it, and how it runs.
And of course, when the Federal Government funds something,
it ultimately ends up instituting a lot of control.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you Dr. McCluskey. I'm deeply concerned
with employers requiring a college degree for work that does
not require that level of education because it acts as another
hurdle preventing people from climbing the socioeconomic
ladder.
Why might credential inflation be partially the fault of
the Federal Government, and the democrat's proposal for
``free'' college exacerbate this phenomenon. What can Congress
do or stop doing to encourage more skill-based irony.
Mr. McCluskey. Yes if we look historically you could sort
of see where several Federal laws greatly increased aid that
went to students, and that led to massive additional
consumption of higher education, which of course was the
intention, but that had huge unintended consequences which you
have more and more people attaining something called a degree,
but the degree as the national assessment of adult literacy,
the P Act test has shown us that.
The average degree keeps losing more and more as time has
gone on of the skills and knowledge that it represents. And
what's made that even tougher is that increasingly it will
enable employers to ask for a degree when people come for a
job, not because that degree signifies that you have specific
skills and knowledge, but it's becoming more and more a signal
that if you don't have that degree, well maybe there is
something that's not quite right with you.
And so, we've made it sort of a floor, instead of a
meaningful signal of things that you can do, and that you know
because you have received an education.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Mr. Riedl, Riedl excuse me, you
covered the daunting Federal budget outlook in your testimony.
In your written statement you called double or triple the
national debt ``extraordinarily reckless.'' What would the
real-world consequences be, the economy of doubling or tripling
the national debt?
Mr. Riedl. Thank you. The numbers are scary. According to
the Congressional Budget Office doubling the national debt
would reduce the GNP by $6,000.00 per person relative that if
we don't double the debt. $6,000.00 per person lower GNP by the
end of 30 years per person.
So, a family of four that's $24,000.00 a year less income.
Because there's less investment, less productivity, less
growth, and more of the returns go to the international
investors who are purchasing our debt. There's also the
interest costs you know. The CBO basement assumes that in 30
years just under the baseline, half of your taxes go to
interest on the debt.
And if we go up to 250 or 300 percent of GDP, like if
interest rates rise, or the President's plan is implemented,
two-thirds of all of your taxes will go toward interest on the
debt in 30 years. And the problem of course is you don't feel
this while it's building. It's like the termites in the
foundation.
And then when the debt crisis hits and interest rates are
up and you have to raise taxes, it's too late to pull it back
very easily. You have to double taxes, slash spending, or print
money. Better to avoid the problem in the first place.
Ms. Foxx. Absolutely. And I want to point out Mr. Chairman
that Mr. Lanter talks about the apprenticeship programs, and as
you know you have said before we have a 43 percent graduation
rate for apprenticeship programs, and you've called it the gold
standard, others have called it the gold standard.
I hardly think we hold up any institutions with a 43
percent apprenticeship--with a 43 percent graduation rate as a
gold standard, pushing more people into apprenticeships is not
the way we go if they're controlled by the unions.
I was talking about registered apprenticeships. So, we
don't need to be doing that. Thank you very much to our
witnesses again and I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. Next Member for recognition is
the gentleman from Northern Mariana Islands Mr. Sablan.
Mr. Sablan. Yes. Thank you very much Chairman for holding
this hearing. I want to thank all the witnesses also for
joining us and for sharing of their opinions, their comments on
this hearing. I want to take special--Mr. Chairman I'll be
bouncing between our hearing and other Committee where we're
having a 5 hour markup, but I'd be remiss if I don't thank Mr.
Mitsui and his college community and of course all the people
of Oregon for hosting Mariana's residents who relocated to
attend school in Oregon and other parts of the mainland.
And some, like my own daughter has decided to become full-
time residents of Portland. Ms. Filardo. I want to thank you
for your resounding support of RRASA, so I'm going to followup
with a question.
You, according to the GAO 5 percent of school districts
rely on local revenue as their primary source of funding for
school infrastructure. Can you describe the unique challenges
that high poverty schools and districts face in financing
school construction projects and how does this perpetuate
inequity?
Ms. Filardo. Yes. That's a really good question, and it's
one that face poor districts have been wrestling with. Because
if you don't have high property value, if you don't have sales
tax revenue, if you don't have any other form of public revenue
to borrow against, you can't actually do major projects in your
schools.
So, part of what happens to these districts is rather than
having a million dollars to replace a roof, they keep patching,
patching, patching, but then eventually it gets so bad that
it's a problem. So, they really end up spending more on the
maintenance side, disinvesting on the capital side, but they
have little choice.
Just one other point on that even in states where there is
a State role to help fund, like in Massachusetts, or in Georgia
for example, the State will only do so much, and so sometimes
the poorest districts can't even raise their 10 percent in
order to get their State matches.
So, it's very difficult for these low wealth districts.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you, thank you very much. Mr. Malik
research suggests that high quality early care and education,
including high-quality preschool can be a key point in reducing
achievement gaps. I was just in a conversation with Committee
staff earlier before this hearing about early care and
education.
So, could you please tell us what does research show about
the emergence of racial and income achievement gaps? When
during development do these gaps emerge and grow wider between
children?
Mr. Malik. Yes, and thank you for the question. The fact is
as children enter the educational system in kindergarten, there
are already well-documents gaps in their educational experience
that by that point send them on trajectories toward even wider
achievement gaps.
You know there have been numerous studies that show
investments in early childhood education. Don't just have those
educational benefits, but they have you know provide a
stability to families that lowers stress, that has a kind of
cumulative benefit, that has you know not just those early
educational benefits for children, but that stability really
does produce greater long-term outcomes and the kind of safety
and security that young children need economically within the
family.
Mr. Sablan. OK. So, does the current childcare system which
we have and which access to quality care is largely predicated
on parental income then itself too narrowing, or closing
achievement gaps? And why would it be important that all
children, regardless of race or income, have access to high-
quality childcare?
Mr. Malik. Yes, right now we know that you know childcare
deserts disproportionately impact Hispanic and Latino
communities.
Mr. Sablan. Like my district in the islands.
Mr. Malik. Very much so there. There is also just this
market-based reality for early childhood education means that
children in families with the highest incomes are four times as
likely to be going to a licensed childcare program than
children in the lowest income quintile.
So right now, we have just vast inequalities that we need
to solve for.
Mr. Sablan. All right. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman my
time is up. I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin Mr.
Grothman I think is next. Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Hi. A couple of questions. First of all, I
kind of want to reiterate what the Chairman said. I'm a little
bit disappointed. We have so many people from the education
background here looking for the Federal Government to be very
involved, and of course it's unconstitutional.
And one of the reasons why our country is so in debt right
now is people don't study the Constitution. They think the
Federal Government should take care of everything. So, I'm
disappointed that so many people in the field of education feel
that way.
But I am going to lead off with Mr. Brian Riedl. Brian, I
know there's a lot in here for preschool. I know--I'm sorry did
someone say something? I wondered if you could comment on the
ideas of sending children to preschool. Is it successful, or is
it in some cases it's even counter-productive?
Mr. Riedl. It's tough for me to comment specifically on
research that would have been done by my colleagues. I did not
do the preschool. I know in terms of Head Start there have been
studies that have shown that Head Start isn't as successful as
some would like.
There have been studies that have shown I believe the
Department of HHS that some of the effects of programs like
Head Start end up being more short-term, rather than long-term
and that we need to find you know more creative, interesting
ways to help younger children.
Mr. Grothman. I believe you'll find, and I'm sorry you
didn't read it, but I believe you'll find that preschool can
even be counterproductive, that frequently it's better for
children to be with their parents. I know a lot of people are
hostile to their parents, you know, spending a lot of time with
their children, becoming a little bit more hostile, but I think
some of these programs not only are not helpful, but are even
counterproductive.
But I'll move over to Dr. McCluskey then. We talked about
more money for four-year degrees. Could you comment on say the
number of people in four-year institutions today, and I
certainly in my district, again and again, run into people who
feel like they're ripped off.
They feel like they have a big college debt, or that they
spent four or 5 years of their life on getting a four-year
degree and it didn't get them a job other than a job they would
have been qualified for when they were 16 years old anyway.
Could you comment on what you think would be an ideal
number of people, percent of our population involved in a four-
year degree program as opposed to what currently are there
today?
Mr. McCluskey. I am sort of hesitant to pick an ideal
percentage because I don't know all the different needs of
different people. And I think part of the problem we've had is
the Federal Government said, 'Well we're going to put our thumb
on the scale to get people to consume four-year degrees.?
And what I can say is the data clearly shows we have too
many four-year degrees. Data from the fed shows that about a
third of people with a bachelor's degree for their career are
in jobs that do not require that credential.
So, you may say well we should reduce the percentage of
people with a degree by a third. The other problem we have
though because all of this is dynamic, is that the more we
subsidize people going to college, the more we have jobs that
call for degrees.
So, we would say well, these people are not underemployed
right now because this job now calls for a degree, but it may
not have before. And so, it's hard to peg the right percentage.
The way we find out what's right is it's from the bottom up--
people paying for education themselves, or with money they get
voluntarily from others because that's what focuses us on what
do we need, how much are we willing to pay for it, what do we
get along with it.
Maybe we don't need the waterparks and lazy rivers we see
in universities. So, I think the thing we can say most clearly
is probably about a third of people with certainty got
bachelor's degrees and are not using them right now.
Mr. Grothman. How do you feel, and I'm just saying because
there's so many good jobs out there that don't require,
particularly skilled jobs that don't require bachelor degrees?
It would be a mistake. Not only a mistake because the Federal
Government is spending money they shouldn't have to spend, but
for individuals spending time going to school that would be
better off either training or getting a very well compensated
job in the construction field and manufacturing field what have
you. Do you feel that's true?
Mr. McCluskey. Yes. I think a lot of that change needs to
happen at the K through 12 where we have very little school
choice and we need a lot more, so people who don't want to be
in that go to the four-year school track can start to seek out
apprenticeships and other sort of education earlier than that.
But I certainly think if you look at the history of degrees
in this country, we have massively over produced them, and
driven the price higher because it's all sort of fueled by
subsidies that mainly come from the Federal Government.
Mr. Grothman. I think my time is about up, but we'll show
here to the other witness masking the drawbacks of universal
pre-K. And I would suggest that for everybody on the Committee
to read, because not only is it sometimes not helpful, its
counterproductive.
And I know you know people don't like you know going back,
they want additional family and are very hostile right now, but
it's something everybody should familiarize themselves with
before we put any more Federal money into pre-K. Thank you very
much. And that's all my time.
Chairman Scott. The gentleman from Wisconsin offer that for
the record?
Mr. Grothman. Sure. We'll put it in there for the record.
Absolutely.
Chairman Scott. No problem without objection I enter it
into the record. Thank you. The gentleman's time is expired.
Chairman Scott. The next witness is the gentlelady from
Florida Ms. Wilson.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I start
asking my questions, I just want to give a thumbs up for Head
Start and that's where I started my educational career, and
also universal pre-K. I don't know what kind of studies show
that universal pre-K does not close the achievement gap between
African-American children and children of color and white
children.
So, when we begin to talk about a once in a generation
American Families Plan, we've got to consider universal pre-K.
I want to say to Mr. Mitsui from Oregon and Ms. Bonamici. I can
say that you stand as a textbook example of where we're trying
to go as far as free community college for our communities.
And I want to know what has the Portland Community College,
what kind of recommendations can you give to the community
colleges around the Nation who are going to benefit from the
American Families Plan, this once in a generation plan, and
what can you or Ms. Bonamici as you talked about American
Promise Grant and what can you say today to these other
counties, my county, Dade County, Broward County, to offer free
community college to students?
And what do we do with that second 2 years that's not in
the American Families Plan.
Mr. Mitsui. Thank you Congresswoman Bonamici, would you
like me to answer or?
Ms. Wilson. Oh no this is for you not Ms. Bonamici.
Mr. Mitsui. OK thank you, sorry. Just getting used to the
protocol. So, thank you for the question. You know I think the
America's College Promise will help generations of students
access community college in a more equitable way.
And one of the biggest barriers that our students run into,
in fact two-thirds of our students according to the real
college survey are basic needs insecurity. And so, in addition
to assisting with tuition, there are parts of the American
College Promise Act that incent the states to change some
policies in order to improve access to public benefit programs
while students are going to college.
So that they don't have to worry about what they're going
to eat, where they're going to sleep, or other barriers that
they have. You know one of the big reasons some students
dropped out was because they were care givers, either they were
taking care of their kids, they're taking care of parents, or
they're taking care of siblings.
And to the extent that there's support for them while
they're going to school they're going to finish. They're more
likely to be able to complete. And it's when they complete and
they earn that certificate, or they earn that associate's
degree that they achieve escape velocity out of poverty.
Also basic needs insecurity is an equity issue because in
the history of our country it's communities of color that's
disproportionately impacted by poverty, by food insecurity, by
housing insecurity, and being able to improve access to post-
secondary education is also an equity issue and it's an anti-
poverty measure.
And you can't once somebody earns that credential like Dr.
Tara Roberts, you cannot take that away. I mean they have the
knowledge. They have the skill, and they're more likely to be
able to earn a living wage, and then their children are more
likely to graduate as well.
So, what we do is something called Pathways to Opportunity.
And this is a project led by PCC, and we work with the Oregon
Department of Health Services, and we're working on integrating
benefit programs and wrapping around students while they're in
school and helping them to graduate.
So, when you add America's College Promise on top of that
you know, graduation rates are going to increase. Students are
going to be able to focus on school. It's really, it's just so
hard to focus on school when you're hungry, or when you're not
sure where you're going to sleep. That makes it really, really
hard to finish, or how your kids are going to be taken care of,
especially now during the pandemic when everybody is at home.
For the last 2 years for that transfer work at the State
level is also very critical. And so, I know there's work going
on across the country and regionally, which either Western
InterState Commission of Higher Education has something called
the InterState Passport that helps to reduce credit wastage
during the transfer process.
In Oregon we're doing transfer mapping, and so there are
strategies that can be employed to facilitate transfer and make
sure those credits are not wasted, and that students graduate
from a four-year as well.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you so much. My time is up Mr. Chair, but
I want to put in the record some articles I have. One says 3
million kids missing from school because of COVID-19 is a
travesty. The other one says report estimates 1 to 3 million
students missing from school since March, and the other
unprecedented numbers of students have disappeared during the
pandemic. Schools must work harder than ever to find them.
Chairman Scott. Thank you without objection those will be
entered into the record, and that gives us some issues to use
our oversight responsibilities to make sure that the schools
districts are using the money we sent them from the Rescue Plan
to take care of that problem. Thank you.
Chairman Scott. Next Member to be recognized is the
gentleman who appears to have landed in his office. The
gentleman from Georgia Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen. Yes, sir thank you. Thank you, Mr., Chairman and
I want to thank all the witnesses for being here. Mr. Riedl, I
appreciate your data related to the current spending levels.
One of the big issues in my district is workforce, and as I
understand it, we still have about 10 million people on
unemployment, and we've got about 20 million work capable
people trapped in poverty on government programs.
And we can't seem to get those folks to go to work. And so,
but at the same time we're throwing all this money at the
problem, and the big issue--and you know, is there some data
out there that I mean employees and employers are telling me
that the problem is the enhanced, well one is the stimulus
checks.
And of course, let me say that Georgia's economy is only
off about .6 percent right now. We've had an amazing comeback,
and of course we opened early, and under CDC requirements and
you know did all the things that we could do to do it right
under our Governor's leadership.
But you know what bothers me is you know all this money we
spent for stimulus checks and for enhanced unemployment, yet
what's keeping the economy going is the workforce, which we've
all admitted to here today.
You know why do intellectuals in Washington, DC. think they
know more about what a State or a county or a city need to do
to fix those problems?
Mr. Riedl. Yes, I mean that's a great question. The
enhanced unemployment, especially it was originally $600.00,
now it's $400.00 Federal bonus. It made a lot more sense back
when we didn't want people to go to work. I don't think it was
a major disincentive a year ago, or 8 months ago when for the
most part we wanted people to stay home.
But now that the economy is reopening, now that people are
getting vaccinated, we want people to go back to work. All of a
sudden, the $400.00 bonus can become a disincentive. There's an
economic consensus that overly generous unemployment benefits
do provide disincentives to work.
The $400.00 bonus right now is more than the median
unemployed person earns in the short-term. So again it wasn't a
big problem when you didn't want people to work, but as the
economy reopens over the next couple months, that's going to
become a bigger barrier that Congress is going to need to look
at possibly before it expires, because otherwise you're going
to see a lot of help wanted signs, and a lot of people saying
well, maybe I should wait until August or September because I
might actually lose money.
Mr. Allen. Yes, but my colleagues just a month ago passed a
highly partisan, we viciously opposed this stimulus bill that
has created the problem. I mean two trillion. Now we're looking
at another two trillion. I mean you know the taxpayer is going
to get very tired of this.
Tell me something on the scale of where this debt is going,
and then let me tell you republicans and democrats both are
responsible for. I'm not laying it on my friends, you know, but
the bottom line is you know it's not sustainable. We've seen
what it's done to other countries, and we see where our
position is right now.
And also from a national security standpoint it increases
our security risk enormously because all of a sudden if a
country said OK we're pulling all of our investments out of the
United States, people aren't standing in line to buy our debt
anymore, we've got a big problem.
So, tell me about your work with that, and if we don't stop
this what could possibly happen?
Mr. Riedl. Yes, I mean we're on course to have the debt go
from 17 trillion to 35 trillion dollars in a decade. This is
remarkable. If the entire President's campaign agenda was
enacted, the debt would hit 42 trillion dollars at the end of
the decade, up from 17 trillion.
At that point it's 130 percent of the economy, or one-
quarter bigger than at the end of World War II. At least World
War II ended, and the debt came down. We right now are facing
100 trillion dollars in baseline debt over the next 30 years.
You don't want the debt to go to 200--300 percent of the
economy. That's too much for China and Japan to bail out even
if they want to.
At that point you really have to start to run the printing
press and monetize it. Again, this is dangerous ground for us,
and the danger is once the debt gets that big it's really hard
to reverse it.
Mr. Allen. Yes, yes, I mean it would take under a mortgage
if you went to mortgage this debt it would take 500 years to
pay it off. Those folks are not going to be happy with it.
Thank you Mr. Chairman I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentlelady from Oregon, Ms.
Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Foxx, and thank you to our witnesses, especially President
Mitsui. In response to Representative Wilson's question.
Representative Allen I think you need to mute, thank you.
In response to Representative Wilson's question I just want
to add that PCC has a program called Future Connect. This
wonderful program and I know President Mitsui you did submit
some materials about it to support low income first-generation
students, and that really makes a difference.
So I'm actually really glad we passed the American Rescue
Plan, which my colleague was just talking about because among
other things it's made vaccinations more widely available, it's
helped schools and businesses get the support they need to
reopen safely, but families and the economy are still
struggling, and I'm very grateful that President Biden heeded
my call for a 100 billion dollar investment in the workforce
funding, that he also included support for child care and
school buildings in the proposed American Jobs Plan.
And I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
Committee to advance the plan so our communities cannot just
rebuild but build back better. President Mitsui thank you for
your meaningful testimony. I recently joined Chairman Scott in
reintroducing the Relaunching America's Workforce Act which
includes a 2-billion-dollar investment to revive the trade
adjustment assistance community college and training grant
program, an important program with a long name.
Which supports, as you know, community college and industry
partnerships in developing workforce programs. So how would
this funding help community colleges like PCC scale up
workforce programs, especially to support displaced, dislocated
and under employed workers?
Mr. Mitsui. Thank you Representative Bonamici. Yes, the
TAACCT program was a landmark program that catalyzed systems
change across the country. In particular I think about the
State consortia, and how it made a huge difference in Oregon
around career pathways.
And career pathways as you know are short-term certificates
that are stackable credentials with wrap around support
services. And our career pathway program at Portland Community
College has a 90 percent plus completion rate, and of course
high placement rates, and individuals are experiencing wage
progression.
Also, we have almost eliminated the equity gap and so our
students of color graduate at nearly the same rate as the
average rate. When I was in Washington State at North Seattle
Community College, we were part of Air Washington. That was a
TAACCT grant with a State consortia.
I can remember us being--there were several community
colleges with avionics programs. We were all in the same room
with a large major aerospace employer and we all got on the
same page on the curriculum, and we compared the knowledge,
skills, and abilities for the different avionics positions.
And then the employer calibrated their job titles so that
when students graduated, they knew which jobs to apply for. We
found that we needed to actually truncate our curriculum, make
it more efficient, and that saved students time and effort.
Multiply that times 50 states, and you know that's the kind of
impact that TAACCT had.
So, we you know, having another version of that you know at
the same time where we have an infrastructure investment, it's
really important to have a human infrastructure investment.
Ms. Bonamici. Absolutely.
Mr. Mitsui. So that we don't have a skills gap.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And I want to use my last
remaining time to ask Mr. Malik, thank you for your comments
about childcare, and for highlighting the importance of solving
the childcare crisis.
We know that when the pandemic hit schools and communities
got together and made sure that students could get meals during
the day even though the school building was closed. I'm really
grateful for everyone in Oregon who worked on getting those
meals to students.
So, I chair the Civil Rights and Human Services
Subcommittee, and I'm working on an update to the Child and
Adult Care Food Program to better address child hunger issues
for early learners and their families. So, Mr. Malik you
mentioned the importance of CACFP in your testimony.
It currently provides up to two nutritious meals per day
for children in care. So I'm now working on reintroducing my
legislation to expand access to nutritious meals during the
additional time that children are in care, so how would
children who are in care for 8 hours a day or more benefit by
receiving a third meal or snack, and how in general would this
help working families, Mr. Malik.
Mr. Malik. Thank you for the question. The CACFP, Child
Adult Care Program is so crucial. It delivers as you said
billions of meals per year. Right now I think it could really
benefit from a few key changes to allow those three meals per
day, to meet the modern structure of the child care system, and
as well potentially to kind of change those reimbursement rates
I think for sites which may be out of step with rising food
costs, especially as child care programs are starting to serve
really healthy meals, which young children need.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you and I see my time is expired. I
yield back, thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. The next person thank you, the
next person I have on my list is the gentleman from Idaho, Mr.
Fulcher, is he still on the screen? There he is.
Mr. Fulcher. Yes.
Chairman Scott. Mr. Fulcher, OK.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and a comment and a
question just briefly, but in terms of the comment I just want
to share a perspective on the so-called free community college
for the first 2 years.
I know the intention is good. I know the intention is good.
The only problem is it just doesn't work. And we've all, or at
least most of us have children, or have had children or
grandchildren, and if you don't have some skin in the game, if
they're not somehow invested in this process, they're just not
as serious about it.
There's not the reward. If you offer something as a gift,
if you will, then there's just simply not the same response,
the same ownership. And that also carries over to what happens
in the classroom with these instructors. They now would have a
large group of students who just simply don't care.
Now that's not always going to be the case, but that's
certainly going to be a trend. And as we all know there is no
such thing as free. I'm asking you all to pay for my children's
education, and you're asking me to pay for yours. That's how
this really does work. There is nothing for free on that front.
Also, what's bothersome, and what leads to my question has
to do with the Federal and State match, the one dollar for
every three and so on. In our State we don't have the benefit
of a broad-based property tax, which many states use as a
mechanism to fund their education system and other things.
The reason for that is we don't own the land. It's a
Federal State. We're a tenant in the State, the Federal
Government has two-thirds of the land mass. And so that's got
continuous struggle. Other states have similar issues if
they've got large percentages of Federal land.
So, to that end, I'd just like steer a question now to Mr.
McCluskey on that front. If there is such a piece of
legislation that says hey the Federal Government is going to
kick in three dollars, or whatever that number is, but the
State needs to kick in a dollar, what is the assurance that we
may have, that the Federal Government being 30 plus trillion
dollars in debt, will we continue to be able to do that because
the State is on the hook after that. Mr. McCluskey?
Mr. McCluskey. Yes that is really a very real problem. The
first thing I'd say of course we have way too much money in
higher education right now. If we break it down by per pupil,
we've seen huge increases in the total amount spent for
decades, so there's a lot of money there.
But what we've seen in other countries when you compare
OECD countries, the more that you get direct subsidies through
schools, so not as we've done it through students, but directly
to schools, and we're talking about public colleges and
universities here.
The amount of money, the share of money comes from the
government, the fewer resources there actually are in the
schools as we look at the trend for these countries. Because
there is a limit to how much you can spend. And when you make
something free you incentivize more and more people to consume
it because it's not their money, so you run into a big problem.
There's only finite resources in the world, no matter how
many good things we'd like to do with them, there's a limit.
And you run into the problem of you incentivize people to go to
school and you hit that limit on how much you can spend, and
that's when you see things like rationing, and sort of becoming
you have systems where you have to pass a test to access the
university, and I don't think we want to go in that direction.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that. And that makes sense to
me. I have just one followup question just because the benefit
of the drawback of serving our State legislation, and
particularly on the finance Committee, but I've seen this
happen before.
When the Federal Government offers a program, or offers
money, oftentimes there are strings attached that come with it,
and those strings don't necessarily reflect the local value
system, or the local priorities that come along with it.
If this were to be put into place what would you envision
as to be some of those strings that the Federal Government may
want to put on those dollars as a prerequisite for them being
offered?
Mr. McCluskey. Well the things I've seen suggested in the
past are where you would put limits on what schools can spend
their money on. And partially that's well-intended. You don't
actually want colleges and universities to have those water
parks. But it would also be quite possibly, rules about well
you can only have so nice a student union, or your food can
only be so good, and certainly we have extreme expenditures on
that with the subsidies to students.
But it's very dangerous of the Federal Government to get
money to run a school and start saying well here are the sort
of things that you cannot make better. What's really good about
our system and what probably makes it the best in the world in
higher ed is that schools do have to respond to students, and
in many ways that makes them better, including access to
professors, nice campuses, and lots of things like that.
Mr. Fulcher. Mr. McCluskey thank you. I'm out of time. Mr.
Chairman I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. Our next Member is the gentleman
from California who made quite a sacrifice to get here. Thank
you, Mr. Takano, for being here today. I understand you had to
take the red eye and you're with us today at noon, so thank you
so much. The gentleman from California Chairman Takano.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairman Scott. I'll do my best not
to be grumpy. My first question is to Mr. Malik. Mr. Malik some
of my colleagues across the aisle have suggested that Federal
investments in preschool would be harmful for children, a claim
that I believe is false.
As you and Mr. Riedl, one of the republican witnesses
stated, there is a vast literature demonstrating that preschool
yields favorable short-term outcomes for young children.
Moreover, there is growing literature showing that preschool
benefits last up to adulthood.
Children who attend preschool are more likely to graduate
from high school and earn higher wages than their peers who do
not attend preschool. Can you confirm my claims Mr. Malik?
Mr. Malik. Yes Congressman there's a vast and very strong
literature in economics and public policy research showing that
Head Start broad based investments in early childhood
education, in preschool, universal preschool, all have benefits
in the short-term educationally, and in the long-term.
And I think the reference to harmful outcomes is referring
to the Quebec universal pre-K program that was instituted in
the 1990's. And what I would say to that is that there's a
lesson to be learned there, and that lesson is integrated into
the Child Care for Working Families Act, which is you do not do
this on the cheap.
Doing that will only shuttle lower income families into
low-quality programs. And this approach that is outlined in the
Child Care for Working Families Act does quite the opposite.
Mr. Takano. Mr. Malik by high-quality we mean there's many
elements to it, but an essential element is that we have well-
trained teachers that these instructors we just can't--it's not
babies today, that there is learning going on.
Mr. Malik. Yes you know quality has two components. There's
the physical things that you need for a good educational
program, and that's important to invest in--the physical
infrastructure. But I would argue more importantly, especially
for early childhood education, it's those interpersonal
interactions, it's those important moments of hearing and
understanding and listening to children of developing those
social, cognitive emotional skills.
Mr. Takano. Well thank you. So that means trained teachers.
We've already spent 39 billion dollars for childcare under the
American Rescue Plan. How are those funds helping the childcare
sector?
Mr. Malik. Yes. Those dollars were crucial because the
childcare sector suffered an unprecedented set of losses last
year. About half of programs reported going into debt, personal
debt in some cases, to try and keep the doors open. Enrollment
dropped by 50 percent and more, even after programs opened up
after being closed for months.
So, the childcare programs were already on super slim
margins. Their operating costs went up with all the safety and
health protocols necessary, enrollments went down, and they
were in the red. And so those dollars were crucial.
Mr. Takano. My time is short. Why do we need to spend more
under the American Families Plan?
Mr. Malik. What we need is a permanent long-term fix for
what got us into this situation in the first place. We need to
invest in the workforce as you mentioned. Quality comes from
those early educators. And right now, with an average childcare
educator making $12.00 an hour, I mean that leads to high
turnover, that leads to economic stress for those educators.
It does not set us up for success.
Mr. Takano. Thank you. Mr. Mitsui I only have 30 seconds
left, but you made a comment that really struck me. You said
that one of the things impacting completion rates among
community college students is lack of access to childcare. So,
we're talking here about enabling people to get back to work
into jobs, accepting you need childcare for that.
But you also need childcare to help students complete their
programs, is that right?
Mr. Mitsui. Absolutely. Gallup has indicated a high
percentage of care givers stopped out because they needed to
take care of their children, siblings or parents. And that
means they can't complete their training and education that
they need to fill these jobs.
Mr. Takano. So, we also need elder care as well. We spoke
about childcare, but people who are older in their 30s and
their 40s need to take care of their aging parents, that's also
an issue. I yield back Mr. Chairman, sorry I went over, and I
hope I wasn't grumpy.
Chairman Scott. Thank you so much you did well. Next, we
have the gentlelady from Iowa Ms. Miller-Meeks.
Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much Chairman Scott, Ranking
Member Foxx and to all of our witnesses. I think it's vastly
interesting listening to this topic of conversation. I'm from a
family of 8 children. Neither of my parents were college
educated, and so I find it interesting that listening to this
discussion.
My parents and siblings would not be trained teachers and
would not have been able to somehow produce a child that's a
first-generation college graduate, the only one in their family
to ever go to medical school and graduate.
So I think we should be cautious on what we consider to be
trained and adequate child care because there are millions of
parents out there with no college education and no training who
raise phenomenal children, children who have done amazing
things to put men on the moon, develop airplanes, develop
educational systems and help start businesses that are Fortune
500 companies all from very little resources.
And because of that, that is the genesis of my question.
There has been so much I think, especially in K through 12 and
in our society that really is funneling students toward a
bachelor of arts degree program, and for me it is their sole
focus, but there are others of us who advocate for a variety of
post-secondary options for students.
Mr. McCluskey in your written testimony you write in 1960
only 7.7 percent of Americans 25 years and older had a
bachelor's degree or higher. In 2019 the number was 36 percent.
The important question is whether this was a net gain for
society? And if you can very briefly elaborate on what you mean
by whether this is a net gain for society?
Mr. McCluskey. Sure. So, we often talk about education and
the shorthand for are we getting more education, do we have
more degrees? Do we have more attainment? But what we really
want to know is, are people getting more skills and knowledge
that are of value to them and in the economy.
And that's why unfortunately in higher ed we don't have a
lot of standardized tests, but we do have two. We have again
the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 1992-2003, and then
more recently we have the P ACT. Both of them had two
administrations. And you could see that the literacy levels--
this is post-literacy, you know can you read a newspaper
article? There was document literacy, can you read a tax form
and understand it?
And there was also sort of whether you were literate in
math, you know whether you were numerate. And what we saw was
prose and document literacy had been dropping consistently as
we've increased credentials.
The sort of good news as we just stated sort of flat when
it comes to numeracy, but what this strongly suggests is that
we're not actually creating more knowledge, more skills, we're
creating more pieces of paper called diplomas, and that isn't
what we should be aiming for, and we're doing it for a lot more
money for each one of those diplomas.
Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much and Mr. Riedl I believe
incentives matter. And as a State Senator we often address this
when we are looking at healthcare professions, and when I would
meet with colleges would talk to them, you know, we can do
other loan programs, we can do scholarships, but what are you
doing to lower prices.
So, you know Congress I think well intended, has wanted to
make college accessible and affordable. That was the point of
government backed student loans, and now direct Federal student
loans. While this is an admirable policy goal, colleges and
universities were able to increase their prices because
students had easy access to credit, and you know in essence a
guaranteed payment program.
So, it would cover that higher balance. So, this in turn
created more risk of going to college, more risk of
indebtedness. And I think if you could just address that in the
brief time, I have left remaining I would appreciate it thank
you.
Mr. Riedl. That's a great question. I mean it makes sense
theoretically. Colleges will charge as much as their target
students are willing to pay, and as financial resources rise
with student aid, colleges will capture that aid. We see the
same thing happen in healthcare.
Since 1978 the price of college tuition and fees has
increased 1,335 percent with the CPI inflation of 293 percent,
so it's growing four times faster than inflation. And there is
a link. The New York Federal Reserve confirmed a few years ago
that each dollar in subsidized student loans brings a 60 cent
rise in sticker price tuition, which even goes to the people
who don't get the loans.
So, you give the loans to one group, another group gets a
higher tuition as well. Even Pell grants raise tuition by 37
cents on the dollar. And so, we have to be careful. We mean
well when we do increase student aid, but if the colleges are
just going to raise tuition to capture it, we're not really
helping with affordability.
Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much. I yield back my time
Chair.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. Next the gentlelady from North
Carolina Ms. Adams.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for holding
this meeting today, for the witnesses, thank you for sharing
your expertise as well. President Biden's American Jobs Plan
commits among other things to address critical infrastructure
needs at our K-12 schools, early childcare facilities, and
community colleges, and to provide needed support for workforce
training and development.
I'm pleased as well that the plan mentions investing in
research infrastructure and research and development, at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other
minority-serving institutions. However, I think that HBCU and
MSI deserve an even greater commitment to adjust their overall
infrastructure needs and to support their efforts to build
facilities in order to prepare students for 21st
Century jobs.
I'm working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle in
both chambers on legislation right now to address this. And I
look forward to seeing it considered by this Committee in the
near future as part of our efforts to advance this American
Jobs Plan.
Now for my questions Mr. Mitsui, can you explain on the--
can you expand, excuse me, on the infrastructure needs of
community colleges across the country? And beyond renovation
and maintenance, can you explain how additional funding would
help community colleges purchase the up to date technology and
equipment necessary to provide students with the education they
deserve?
Mr. Mitsui. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. So
advanced manufacturing is a good example of a sector that
requires very expensive equipment. And in order to stay on the
leading edge internationally, we need a big turning machines,
we need additive manufacturing laser centering machines. We
need equipment that is quite expensive if we're going to train
and educate students to move into high wage jobs, actually
where there are a lot of openings.
And so, take aviation science as an example. Jet engines
are kind of expensive. And they're really important. You know
our air freight and power plant students need to get it right,
and they're great jobs waiting for them when they complete. As
we transition also to electric vehicles, we're going to need to
install a lot of electric charging stations across the country.
And how do you do that? How do you train that? If you're an
automotive tech, how do you repair and all electric vehicle
without electrocuting yourself? That's a really important basic
skill, right?
So, all of these are skills that do require equipment, and
by being able to invest in the leading-edge equipment, we're
going to have leading edge workers.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, sir. You know this investment in
community colleges is critical and I know our HBCU's need it as
well. Mr. Lanter in your testimony you discuss some of the
challenges that individuals face in accessing affordable
childcare, transportation, food, and housing, which often
prevent them from enrolling in education and training programs,
or even getting a job.
So how important is it to provide equitable access to
supportive services through WIOA? And should we be considering
expanding access to these supports through the American Jobs
Plan?
Mr. Lanter. Yes, thank you Congresswoman for the question.
You know this is so critical really, these basic support
services. We don't need you know reports and studies to tell us
that an individual will really not be successful finding and
obtaining a job if their basic needs are not met as well.
These support services you mentioned are all basic needs
that hinders one success in obtaining education and finding a
job. Things like childcare, housing, food, medication, tools,
license fees, these are things that people making less than
$27,000.00 a year just cannot afford and will keep them out of
education.
And so, the second part of your question yes, we should
expand the uses to support services in many different ways. The
dollars should be available in amounts so that they're not
rationed. In my career I've seen support services rationed
because there's just not enough money to meet the demand and
the need.
We need to expand the types of services that are allowable
so that we can really break cycles of inequities. Things like
car repairs, and purchases for cars, grooming for homeless
individuals, housing are really critical and often overlooked
support services, and then last really critical, support
services need to be offered early in job training programs, and
later in job training programs.
So, for example, after somebody obtains a job, we can
provide support services so that they can keep a job and then
get a better job moving to quality jobs and moving them out of
poverty thank you.
Ms. Adams. I'm out of time. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman I
yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from Utah Mr.
Owens.
Mr. Owens. Thank you. Thank you, all the witnesses, for
your participation today. Dr. McCluskey one of the central
arguments you made against free college proposal is it would
likely make post-secondary education less responsive to
students. This sounds very familiar to me.
I'm the Ranking Member of the K through 12 Subcommittee,
and I can tell you one of the witnesses of our public education
system is how unresponsive parents can be. We've seen that
frustration being the forced closing of our schools, yet
democrats want to convert our current Federal student aid
system in post-secondary education to something that looks more
like the K through 12 model.
All the thoughts at least Federal students aid generally
goes to students and follows those students to the institution
they choose. Is there some reason to think that funding
educational systems rather than the students, will give us
better results if we put it into post-secondary level that is
now in the elementary and secondary level?
Mr. McCluskey. Right. I think one of the things we've seen
actually very clearly, more clearly than even before with
COVID-19 is that public schools often are not very responsive
to parents, and it can be hard because you may be trying to
serve different kinds of parents, but we've seen a lot of
parents say I want my school to be open. I want it to be in
person.
What we've seen from CDC reporting and research is it's
safe to be there, but these schools will not open for us. On
the other side, private schools are very responsive with in-
person education, they are very responsive at providing sort of
substantive education right very soon after lockdowns began,
and there is a fundamental difference of incentives for public
schools, although local, and that's often good, they still
don't respond directly to parents.
Parents don't get to decide whether the money comes or
goes, and so they tend to be less responsive to what parents
want. In higher education we do have a lot of excess because
there's so many subsidies that come to the students. But
there's no question that lots of college universities are very
responsive to what students what, what they desire.
It's that sometimes those desires are kind of excessive
because they're paying for college with so much money that
actually comes from other people, and those other people are
taxpayers.
Mr. Owens. Thank you so much. Mr. Riedl you mentioned in
your testimony that the middle class will have to pay the taxes
to cover our Federal Government's spending commitments. Why is
that? And what are the estimated tax increases on the middle
class that will be needed to be covered with our current
commitments and those proposed by the democrats?
Mr. Riedl. Thank you for that question Congressman. Let's
assume that we can pay for the entire President's agenda on tax
hikes for the wealthy and corporations. It's pretty unlikely,
but let's just assume we can. You still have an underlying 100
trillion dollars in 30-year budget deficits, and at that point
you've already maximized taxes on enriching corporations for
other priorities.
So how are you going to close that 100 trillion-dollar
shortfall? Forget balance the budget. Let's just try to
stabilize the debt at its current share of GDP. To do that you
would need to close a budget gap rising to 6 percent of GDP. If
you were to do that with taxes, you would need either an 18
percent increase in the payroll tax, or a 35 percent value
added tax.
You'd basically have to double taxes on the middle class
just to pay for the programs in the current baseline over 30
years. And again, you have to do that because we've already
used up all your upper income tax hikes to pay for all the new
spending. That's the danger.
Once you use up all those tax hikes the middle class is all
that's left to pay for the rest, and that's what Europe does.
Europe finances their big government on value added taxes and
payroll taxes on the middle class.
Mr. Owens. Thank you so much. In the little bit of time I
have left Dr. McCluskey my next question relates to the first
one. It interesting you use the NAEP scores to discuss the lack
of progress we're seeing in educational outcomes. Spending has
exploded.
The Department of Education at the University of Arkansas
recently released a study that compared the NAEP scores to the
level of educational freedom available in the states. And the
study concluded that, ``Higher levels of education freedom are
significantly associated with higher NAEP achievement levels,
and higher NAEP achievement gains.''
Dr. McCluskey given this, should we shift the K through 12
funding to a more student-focused model?
Mr. McCluskey. Yes. I mean I hesitated to say that the
Federal Government should do it. I don't think the Federal
Government should be involved. But clearly, what we've seen in
that study and many others is the more that parents are able to
make decisions about where their kids and the money to educate
them go, the better the outcomes because then the schools have
to respond to those families.
It's not about how well they lobby or negotiate a
bureaucracy. The parents will leave if we don't provide what
they want. And interestingly that study also showed it
controlled for a lot of different variables, and it showed
actually negative correlations between the amount of spending
and NAEP scores.
Mr. Owens. Thank you so much and I yield back my time.
Thank you.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from California,
Mr. DeSaulnier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the
panelists. I want to say hello to someone I've known for many
years, Bob Lanter. Nice to see you Bob. I just maybe an
observation and welcome the panelists to make any comment.
Having spent a good deal of time in the last few months around
infrastructure while serving on the Transportation Committee,
it strikes me obviously that infrastructure changes.
The foundation of this country infrastructure was very
different. And as we struggle to define that under the purview
that this Committee and how much infrastructure needed as I
understand it, and I look at the definition, the dictionary
definition.
The support system that helps for productive households and
individuals. So clearly, in my mind's eye, education,
preschool, vibrant preschool, after school programs and another
hearing right now about hunger in America, and we're focusing a
lot on youth hunger.
The infrastructure has to be efficient and effective, so
maybe we're having the wrong argument as I listen to these
debates in Congress about what the Federal Government's role
is. I think the Federal Government's role should be helping the
states and local--and here I agree with the Ranking Member, to
facilitate the conversation about what the client needs.
And in this instance, it's that productive citizen in
America who needs early education, who needs the kids to be
well-fed and connected to the private sector as somebody who
used to be in the food industry.
So as we try to define infrastructure, maybe we need more
performance standards, but less--all of us to be less
ideologically driven about delivering the infrastructure and
the support system to two-income households, to single parent
households who are under a lot of stress everywhere in this
country, and an area like I represent in the San Francisco Bay
Area where housing costs are so difficult, but our
transportation costs are so difficult because people have to
spend a lot of time commuting as we see commutes starting to go
back up as gratefully we get out of COVID.
So, if any of you wanted to comment on that. Could we
change the conversation maybe Mr. Scott and the Ranking Member,
we could try to change that conversation about the appropriate
role to help a very different social model where we've got two
incomes in households driving a long way, changing careers
often, as we look at traditional transportation infrastructure
there clearly needs to be more, and public education is part of
that.
And if we can make public education perform better and be
more client-driven, the client being the individual student and
their families, let's all focus on that. So, Mr. Chairman I
look forward to the discussion. If any of the panelists want to
respond to that observation, I'd like to have their insights.
Mr. Lanter. Thank you. I'd like to respond. Thanks
Congressman DeSaulnier. It's really nice to see you back in
action. You know your words I think are critically--should be
critically listened to because you know I think we have really
realized that the workforce development services are needed in
this country by millions of individuals.
And it sounds cliche to say that there's just not enough
funding and workforce development, but our system public
workforce development was built in a time where our economy was
humming along. We had very low unemployment, and individuals
weren't really struggling to find work except those that we
serve in the public workforce system.
Those kind of that you mentioned Mark and painted a picture
of that are struggling to make ends meet. And I think we
realize now today that the interventions that are needed are
going to come at a cost.
And these services need to be funded not only to workforce
boards, but the network of workforce stakeholders, and that
they really need to think innovative about how to expand access
to services more, so that we don't think about brick and mortar
as infrastructure, but we think about access and equity as
infrastructure. That's what I will say to that thank you.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Since my time's almost up Mr. Chairman, the
definition of infrastructure is the capital infrastructure, but
also the organizational infrastructure that goes to support
productive workers from my perspective, and people who are
struggling to be productive workers.
So, I look forward to having this discussion when we're
back together with the Ranking Member and some of my colleagues
across the aisle, because I think it's a good one. Thank you
Mr. Scott I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. The next Member to be recognized
is my distinguished colleague from Virginia, Mr. Goode.
Mr. Goode. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all of
our guests. Doctor McCluskey this discussion is a continuation
of the democratic philosophy that No. 1, more money is the
answer to everything. Two, the Federal Government should be
intimately involved in every aspect of our lives, and three,
it's the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide
womb to the tomb care for its citizens.
The fact is many American families sacrifice from one
parent to provide the ideal at-home care for young children.
And my wife and I actually did this as a young, lower middle-
class family many years ago.
Why should these families be penalized and taxed to fund
those who are making other choices? Furthermore, why are we
incentivizing and subsidizing single parenting versus the ideal
two parent family structure? And what's the evidence for the
results achieved to justify the trillions we've invested in K
to 12 and higher education?
And as with higher education, would not greater Federal
spending on childcare serve to drive up our costs? So, Dr.
McCluskey if you could please comment further on the
Constitutional justification with the Federal Government being
involved in providing childcare, and the demonstrated
connection, demonstrated connection between more Federal
spending and better outcomes in terms of cost and quality.
Mr. McCluskey. Sure. Well so again the Constitution doesn't
authorize Federal spending on education, and it's important to
understand that the Federal Government is supposed to be
limited to specific and numerate powers.
But as sort of an impact, a policy impact, what we see in
higher education, and what we see in K through 12 is that more
money doesn't seem to correlate with the commensurate
improvements on outcomes. Sometimes they are negative outcomes.
And I do think it's important that we understand that
there's been mention of well it is pre-K, early childhood, can
those programs be damaging? And in fact, there is research that
suggests it can be. That the best place for a child, if
possible, is that they are you know with one parent all the
time, and that we don't have them in a childcare situation.
Now obviously, some people will need to work. And it is a
very serious concern that we would put money into maybe in the
hands of people to pay for childcare and that drives up the
price of childcare.
And it's also really important to understand that actually
research shows that there is--very often, research has shown a
fade out, that there are early years of some improvements, but
that it fades out over time to the point where for instance,
Head Start ends up not making a difference.
And some of those long-term studies that are often cited
were of two very specific programs, Abecedarian and the Peri
pre-school--hyper intensive, treated only about 57 kids each.
So, I don't think when I look at the early childhood research
that it is sort of a homerun showing that we know it works.
In fact, once you dig into it, it gets pretty murky and one
of the things we see regularly is a fade out problem.
Mr. Goode. Yes. Thank you, sir. And I want to direct my
next question to Mr. Riedl. As you mentioned the Davis Bacon
Act is incredibly wasteful, drives up costs by billions of
dollars, and it is in fact a holdover from the Jim Crow era and
was enacted in 1931 solely to disadvantage minority
contractors.
That's why I introduced H.R. 2218 the Davis Bacon Repeal
Act, unfortunately had no democrat cosponsors. Mr. Riedl can
you please comment further on the increased costs from Davis
Bacon, how it represents favoritism for the small percentage of
unionized workers in the construction industry, and how much we
would save from its repeal?
Mr. Riedl. Yes. I mean if we want our infrastructure dollar
to go further, you can't have a policy that raises wage costs
by 22 percent, the overall cost of construction by 9 percent.
And also, it costs jobs. We could add 155,000 construction jobs
for the same cost by repealing Davis Bacon, 155,000.
It's also terribly designed. Most of the formulas to
determine the prevailing wage in most regions haven't been
updated since the 1970's, so in some places like New York, you
have to pay double the market wage. In other places the Davis
Bacon is lower than the minimum wage.
So, I'll give another example, at GAO investigation found
that the formulas for determining the prevailing wage were
wrong in 100 percent of localities sampled. So, it's an out of
date, poorly run program that hikes wages 22 percent and raises
costs by 10 percent.
We could save about 12 to 15 billion dollars by pulling
this program back, and you'd still be paying good construction
wages for good construction work. This should be a no brainer
to be more productive.
Mr. Goode. Thank you, Mr. Riedl, thank you Dr. McCluskey
and I yield back my time Chairman.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentlelady from Washington
Ms. Jayapal.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is exciting to
be talking about the Build Back Better Plans of the President.
And let me just remind my colleagues that the 2 trillion-dollar
infrastructure proposal, the President's proposal had enjoyed
68 percent support across the country.
The upcoming plan, the Families Plan enjoys 65 percent
support. So, these are intensely popular. People want the
government to be involved in helping to build their lives and
to build their opportunity. I just want to start by adding a
personal welcome to President Mitsui.
We were so sorry to lose you from Seattle, but it's
wonderful to have to still not so far away and bringing your
voice to this forum. As you may remember it was 2016 when I
first introduced the Washington Promise into the State Senate
to make community college free for everyone in our State, and
how great it is that we see that proposal in the President's
Family Plan even as we do more to cancel student debt and
address 4 years colleges as well.
If we want a successful job's bill that creates union jobs
with living wages, we have to include in the same single
package this comprehensive support for families, including
support for working parents, domestic workers, paid leave, as
well as real reforms to healthcare.
Today I want to focus my questioning on just two pieces
that I've been focusing a lot on regarding childcare. And the
first is that we do not put up unnecessary barriers in the way
with onerous work requirements, and that we ensure that we
expand the income threshold cap to include the wide swath of
middle-class folks who also need these benefits.
So Mr. Malik, it's good to see you. Let me start with you.
Childcare is essential infrastructure but work requirements do
impose unnecessary restrictions on access. The requirements on
subsidies are arbitrary. They vary in both definition and
enforcement State to State, and according to recent CRS
estimates if we expand the childcare subsidies with work
requirements in place, it would automatically exclude half of
children under 75 percent of State median income.
In your article from last year you wrote that women,
especially women of color, face higher unemployment rates and
racial discrimination and hiring, and yet need to access
childcare in order to remain in the labor force.
Would you say that work requirements can be unfair barriers
to otherwise qualified families, even applying for, or
accessing childcare? You can just give me a short yes or no
answer.
Mr. Malik. Yes, thank you Congresswoman. Yes, just simple
work requirements are not really the way to effectively connect
families with what they need in terms of childcare.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much. And in your testimony you
had said that child care access needs to come before people can
start looking for work, so if we were to remove work
requirements, don't you think it would help the neediest of
families access child care?
Mr. Malik. I mean I think from what I've looked at with the
Child Care for Working Families Act, what it does really
importantly in this new version is it makes--expands the
entitlement to people looking for jobs which kind of removes
that friction from I'm out of work, I'm looking for work, I'm
getting back into work.
And really it has in the current status quo eject families
out of the childcare system that they need. It also though
expands to parents seeking education. There are more than four
and a half million student parents who really, really need
childcare in order to continue and to complete that educational
framing, as well as you know when there's these other
provisions in there.
So I'm encouraged. I think that ultimately getting to
universal coverage is where we want to get to. And this gets us
a big part of the way there.
Ms. Jayapal. Thanks Mr. Malik. I agree there is some
important provisions that help us expand. My concern is that
working parents are already struggling to come up with
thousands of dollars, and you know I think the CRS estimates
that half of children from low and middle-income families would
be left out is very troublesome.
I want to call to people's attention the work that's been
done on scarcity. Research and behavioral science has
consistently shown that work requirements are very tough and
small hassles can have a disproportionately large impact on
whether and how people complete any process.
So just for us to be successful with these benefits that
care is so essential to families across the country, we need to
minimize the hassle and complexity and not have enormous forms
and administrative costs that come from administering those
complex work requirements.
Let me just quickly spend a minute on actually I have even
less than that, just on the cap. You know the Family Child Care
expenses are 47 percent higher now than it was before the
pandemic. In Washington State on average, Washington households
are already spending 14 percent of their income on childcare.
And middle-class families, especially those in my district
whose median income exceeds the State level by 50 percent. In
districts that are housing poor, where people are spending up
to 50 percent of their income on housing, they're really
feeling this blow.
And so I'm hoping that as we move forward with this bill we
can make sure to expand the income cap because as costs
continue to rise I think we need to stick to the HHS
recommendation in 2016 that no families spend more than 7
percent of their income on child care. We don't want to exclude
some very critical families at the middle-income range,
particularly in our income you know, high income families.
So thank you so much for that testimony today, and Mr.
Chairman thank you for your leadership on all these bills.
Important hearing. I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentlelady from Tennessee
Ms. Harshbarger. Gentlelady is still on mute.
Mrs. Harshbarger. So sorry, can you hear me now? Are you
good? OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Foxx and
all the witnesses. I had a story similar to Dr. Miller-Meeks. I
was the first one to graduate from college and then went on and
got a post-doctorate degree. My parents never graduated from
high school.
You know I've worked full-time. I went to school full-time.
And I raised a family full-time, and I paid every bit, every
loan that I had back until they were completely paid, so it can
be done. And that just strengthened my character as a matter of
fact where I could become a freshman Member in Congress and
take on the world it looks like.
But this is for Mr.--Dr. McCluskey. Canceling the student
debt hasn't been mentioned in the infrastructure package, but
that doesn't mean that it may not be included in the
legislation when the text is passed. Let me ask you a question.
Would canceling the student debt fix the underlying problems
that lead students to borrow over 1.5 trillion to fund post-
secondary education sir?
Mr. McCluskey. The only thing I think, and thanks for your
question, I think canceling would increase the willingness of
people to take out debt, and more debt to pay for higher
education because the assumption would be well I can take on
this debt.
And just as we just saw I won't actually have to pay it
back. And so why not take more? Why not go to a more expensive
school that may have you know, the nicer food, the nicer
buildings, the lazy rivers. And so if anything, it would
exacerbate the problem to say you know I'll take on the debt.
There's a good expectation it will be forgiven.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes. Well the second question is what
could Congress do to create space for the private marketplace
to re-enter the higher education sector and how would that
benefit students?
Mr. McCluskey. Sure. So the Federal Government is by far
the biggest lender in higher education. It's like 90 percent of
the market or more. And that means it's crowded out lots of
private lenders. The Federal Government should begin to reduce
how heavily involved it is in student lending. You might start
with the PLUS loans. There's parent PLUS loan, graduate PLUS
loans, but they are not targeted at all toward low-income
families who are the ones who need the most help.
So you start by reducing all those programs that funnel
money to people who clearly do not need the assistance in order
to pay for college. But that is, you know, it's counter
intuitive, but that's how we turned rationality--not just to
college pricing, which is incredibly inflated prices, but to
college consumption where we no longer have our thumb on the
scale saying you should all go get a four-year credential,
whether it represents actual learning or not because we're
going to give you the money to do it.
We want people to do it as efficient and as effective an
education as they can get, not just another piece of paper.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Absolutely. Well you know you have those
loans too you're going to do your best to make a good grade,
get out and get a good job. And this next question, thank you
sir, is for Mr. Riedl. Let's stay along those lines sir and say
that Congress were to pass legislation canceling that student
loan debt.
Is there any evidence to suggest this possibly would act as
a stimulus to the economy?
Mr. Riedl. It would not be a stimulus to the economy at all
for three reasons. First, the 1.5 trillion dollars in benefits
for borrowers would be off-set by lenders receiving 1.5
trillion dollars less in repayments that now cannot be spent or
lent out.
So it's a zero transfer from one group to another. Second,
any benefits to the borrowers were to accrue gradually over the
life of the repayment period. It's not like you get a huge cash
windfall at your door for the amount of your loan.
And third, student loan forgiveness we have not determined
this for sure, but student loan forgiveness may be taxable as
income, meaning that if you get $50,000.00 forgiven, you may
get a tax bill having to pay taxes on that $50,000.00
immediately in the current year which would mean it actually
hurts the short-term economy.
So in that way it's certainly at best it's not a stimulus.
In worse, depending on tax law it could be harmful.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Well one last question. Who would benefit
the most from the Federal Government wiping that debt away?
Mr. Riedl. According to the Urban Institute, 544 billion
dollars in benefits would go to the highest earning quarter of
people and only 192 billion would go to the bottom earning
quarter of earners. And that's because half of all student loan
debt is held by graduate degrees, doctors, lawyers, MBA's,
that's who benefits.
Mrs. Harshbarger. Yes. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentlelady from Connecticut,
gentlelady from Connecticut Mrs. Hayes.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this hearing
today. The communities hardest hit by COVID are also the
communities that have schools in the worst physical condition.
A 2014 study by the U.S. Department of Education estimated that
it would cost 197 billion to bring all public schools into good
condition.
It's been 7 years since that study. Ms. Filardo does your
current research show any data about the cost it would take
today to bring schools into good condition?
Ms. Filardo. Yes. Thank you for the question. It's a little
bit tricky because there is not a national data base, or
there's not really great data on some of this. What we know is
what it takes to keep schools in good repair. And it takes
about 100 billion dollars a year.
And we know we've been spending about 50 billion a year, so
we're running a deficit of about 50 billion a year. So you
could do the math, in 10 years you're at a trillion-dollar
deficit.
Mrs. Hayes. Well thank you. I don't have any scientific
evidence, but if only 3 percent of our schools were in
disrepair, they must have all been in my school district. In 15
years I can tell you that we've had so many buildings with
problems.
So I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that many of
our schools are in desperate need of attention and we need to
revisit. I mean it's over a decade and this pandemic has only
further exacerbated these problems and shown us how the air
quality, the physical space, mold, mildew, things that we've
talked about how it's so critical that we address these issues,
so thank you.
We've also seen not just in the physical infrastructure,
but gaps in our childcare system. We couldn't reopen the
economy without thinking about how our children would be taken
care of. And I would be remiss as a classroom educator if I
didn't comment on the fact that I know for sure that children
benefit from preschool.
We can disagree on what that looks like. We can disagree on
how it's paid for. But in this Committee, I want the record to
reflect that Congresswoman Hayes does not believe that
preschool is counterproductive.
Mr. Malik according to Professor Taryn Morrisey at American
University, on average the early care and education settings
attended by many young children, particularly low-income
children, or children of color, provide quality at levels too
low to adequately promote children's learning and development.
My question for you is how does a parent identify what is
high-quality in a childcare system? And then what affects does
the lack of high-quality childcare have for children,
communities, and our country?
Mr. Malik. Thank you, Congresswoman, that's a very good
question. And unfortunately, right now it's very hard for
parents to get all the information that they need on what
programs are high-quality, what quality does indeed look like,
what the future of that program that they're enrolling their
child or children in may be.
Because childcare programs have high turnover, have severe
challenges in you know emergency situations such as pandemics,
are very vulnerable to drops in enrollment and don't get the
adequate funding that they need.
Now the second part of your question I'm sorry if you could
repeat.
Mrs. Hayes. What effects does the lack of high-quality
childcare for children have on communities and our country?
Mr. Malik. Yes, yes, so you know the quality comes from the
trained professional, hard-working workforce of more than 90
percent women, disproportionately women of color who have
operated this industry on a shoestring budget for decades. And
I just want to State here that this year they worked through
this pandemic to serve all of the essential workers, the front-
line healthcare workers.
They were there when we needed them. They deserve an
investment in the work that they have provided to our families
and to the children that they have taught through the years.
And those quality investments pay for themselves many times
over, in terms of not just the educational outcomes, but the
social and economic outcomes for children, and for as I've said
before, the security of those family units.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I'll just close by saying educating
my children doesn't only help my family, it helps your family,
and it helps our community. It is a public good, and Mr. Chair
with that I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. Next the gentlelady from
Illinois Ms. Miller. The young lady from Illinois Ms. Miller?
Mr. Levin. You've got to unmute.
Mrs. Miller. I would like to thank all of our witnesses for
their testimonies. As the mother of seven and as an educator
that has spent time in public, private and home school
educational situations, school is very dear to my heart, and
strengthening our families also.
I believe that every child deserves a high-quality
education that meets our unique needs and gifts. I also believe
that it's best handled at the local level. As we consider
proposals related through K through 12 education, I hope that
we consider how to keep D.C. bureaucrats out of the classroom,
and instead empower State and local educational officials to
improve their schools.
So my question is for Dr. McCluskey. You demonstrated that
pumping more money into our current K through 12 system hasn't
done much to improve our math and reading scores. I share your
doubts about being able to spend our way to better education.
What reforms do you think would be effective in improving
academic outcomes for American students?
Mr. McCluskey. Thanks. I mean the No. 1 reform is we need
school choice. We need to fundamentally change how we deliver K
through 12 education from a model where we fund--the government
funds the schools, and you are essentially assigned to a
school, we've moved away from that somewhat, but that's still
the norm.
To a model where the money follows the student to the
school, where the other educational arrangement, you know now
we have pandemic pods, we have home schooling, we have lots of
other options. But it follows to what works best for that
family and for those children because all children are
different. But that should not be a Federal thing, other than
in Washington, DC.
Certainly, for people in the military you can deliver
school choice, otherwise it should be State and local, and the
job of the Federal Government should be to stay out of the way,
not to put rules and regulations on how K through 12 education
functions.
Mrs. Miller. And I have another comment. So you know I have
the seven children, and we encourage them to seek merit
scholarships and/or to work. So they either work part-time or
full-time their entire way through school, but I have to say
that we observed because we had close relationships with some
of our children's friends, that my children's peers that
received free school were the ones in our experience, that
didn't graduate.
They were the ones that moved out of their homes. They
upgraded their vehicles, and they spent their time partying and
flunked out. And so my question to you Dr. McCluskey is so many
of these people that are getting full tuition assistance end up
dropping out.
It turns out that only 60 percent of those that enroll in
bachelor programs have completed their degrees 6 years after
enrollment. Dr. McCluskey what do you make of our abysmal 6-
year graduation rates, and do you think free college proposals
would have any effect on graduation rates?
Mr. McCluskey. Well there's certainly a problem when
someone, when you're consuming something, where you're going to
college using money that comes from somebody else, and
typically not somebody you know, so it's not family. You are
less incentivized to finish, and to finish as quickly and as
efficiently as possible.
So there's I think little question that the existence of
subsidies have incentivized people to do a lot of other things
in college, then focus on completing a program as quickly as
possible in an area that's in demand.
But there is another problem to this which is that it has
made it expensive, much more expensive than education should
be, so there are certainly people who do have to work because
the price that they are presented with is so high, and it's so
high because it's been artificially inflated by student aid.
So now rather when the problem is that you're not
incentivizing people to get education as efficiently as
possible, and to complete it, or that the price has become so
high it's very difficult for some people to afford, it's that
aid that's at the root of those problems.
Mrs. Miller. Yes and Dr. McCluskey you've pointed out that
many issues with the free college proposals, but you rightly
acknowledge that college tuition costs are out of control. Can
you recommend any policy proposals for the Committee that would
reduce the cost of higher education without the unintended
consequences of free college?
Mr. McCluskey. Right. So instead of saying we make it free,
we reduce those subsidies that the student aid program,
especially those student loan programs that aren't well
targeted. Start with those. I think the parent PLUS loan and
the grad PLUS loan in particular, are good places to begin to
add rationality to consumption and pricing by saying we're not
going to provide money to the people who don't need it. Let's
at least focus our aid on those who do need it.
Mrs. Miller. And I do have to add if I may, that the
experience of my children having to work and go to school at
the same time did keep them out of some of the traditional
landmines that college students fall into, and gave them
experience in the workforce while they were going to school.
So that's very valuable too and I don't think it should be
discounted. And I don't think we should look at it as all bad,
people have to scramble and work, or even be concerned about
what they're going to eat or where they're going to live,
because that's part of entering into adulthood. And I yield
back my time.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has
expired. The gentleman from Michigan Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. Thank you so much Mr. Chairman for convening
this important hearing today and thanks for the witnesses. I
can't begin to count how many priorities I'm excited to work to
include in President Biden's Infrastructure and Jobs Plan.
But I want to take a moment first to focus on the idea of
tuition-free community college which bears little relationship
to some of what I've been hearing here. As a former Chief
Workforce Officer for my home State of Michigan, I created a
free community college program called No Worker Left Behind,
and we put 162,000 un and underemployed workers back to school.
And we had waiting lists in every one of Michigan's 83
counties.
And now recently my Governor Gretchen Whitmer created a
tuition free benefit for front line workers who have kept our
country running during the pandemic. But there's an important
difference between the proposals before us today including the
America's College Promise Act that I introduced yesterday with
you Chairman Scott, and many of the recently created State
level programs.
Unlike many state-run programs, America's College Promise
would provide what's called a first dollar benefit, meaning
that benefits are not reduced when a student receives other
financial aid like the Pell grant. So President Mitsui let me
ask you this, can you talk about how this type of first dollar
structure helps to ensure that students can use other financial
aid to cover basic needs?
What would it mean for their ability to stay enrolled and
complete a degree which many people have you know talked about
today?
Mr. Mitsui. It is vitally important. Thank you, Congressman
Levin, for the question. As I mentioned earlier, and as
research points out two-thirds of our students in the community
colleges struggle with basic needs insecurity.
And you know I do want to point out that the survey that we
conducted at Portland Community College, almost 19 percent of
respondents indicated experience with houselessness.
Mr. Levin. Yes.
Mr. Mitsui. And this is not a rite of passage. This is
living in a car. This is couch surfing or living in a tent. Not
being housed. Out in the cold during the winter and trying to
study and trying to complete school.
Mr. Levin. So in other words if we cover their tuition and
books or whatever, then they would really need the money to be
able to live. So I just think that that's so important. Let me
turn quickly to Mr. Lanter. It's good to see you too.
I'm worried about the 4.2 million Americans who are long-
term unemployed, especially given the additional challenges
these workers face re-entering the labor market right now. The
American Jobs Plan calls for new dislocated worker program and
a subsidized job program for the long-term unemployed and
underemployed.
Our Committee is considering ways to expand dislocated
worker supports through WIOA and last week I introduced a
bicameral bill with Senator Chris Van Hollen to create a
targeted subsidized job program for long-term unemployed
workers. So from your experience in California, what additional
supports do you think long-term unemployed individuals need to
reenter the workforce successfully?
Mr. Lanter. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. Great question
it's nice to see you. Look in my almost 30-year career working
in the front lines of the public workforce development system
there are fewer people served by our system that are more
challenged than the dislocated worker.
Often long work history and coupled with a lack of
reskilling over time is a recipe for long-term unemployment. So
you asked what can we do. Well look, our Nation's retraining
system must allow these laid off workers to not only receive
education but receive the necessary supports that we were just
talking about that will help them complete the education and
obtain employment.
In California we've started a critical program called
Breaking Barriers where we use 25 million dollars of general
fund money for partnerships between community-based
organization and workforce boards to enable the most vulnerable
populations to receive the supports and have their remedial
education necessary to complete their programs. That's the type
of expansion we need.
Mr. Levin. That sounds outstanding. All right. Well before
I yield back Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight the importance
of the Build America's Libraries Act. You know I'm all about
the libraries, and the Reopen and Rebuild America's School Act.
I'm a proud advocate for investing in our school and
library infrastructure, and I look forward to working with you
to ensure they're both included in the American Jobs Plan. We
need to create great union jobs rebuilding our infrastructure
so that our kids and our communities have safe spaces to learn
and grow. Thanks Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Sablan. Mr. Levin this is Sablan. Could you add me on
to your Build Library Act?
Mr. Levin. Yes sir. You've got it.
Chairman Scott. No problem. Next Member we recognize is the
gentlelady from Indiana, Ms. Spartz.
Ms. Spartz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee. It's a very good discussion. You know someone who
went through a lot of education, worked on education Committee
in the State senate in Indiana, I would have a lot of
discussion, we have lots of problems.
So I'll make a comment and then I have a quick question.
You know my observation within our educational system is really
broken and it creates with a lot of incentives that's
happening, with low outcomes. We're not ready for life-long
learning, and now that you know the pace of change is getting
stronger, faster and faster, and we calculated in our State of
Indiana less than half of the money goes to classroom, and I
think putting more money in fancy buildings is not going to
improve education.
I went to a pretty bad building. Wouldn't you know it back
in Ukraine and had very good education. My father-in-law
studied in one class, one room class, one room school, and he
became very successful. Like we can spend a lot of money on
education, buildings, but that's not what the quality of
education. It's not going to get kids better and ready for this
very difficult world with a lot of changes.
And if you look at our country spends pretty much almost
the most per child on education, and in a lot of areas. We have
like somewhere a tenth, twentieth, and now it's common where we
are. So I think it's unacceptable, it's very disturbing and
it's very bad.
So my question is how we can--and maybe I'll ask Mr.
McCluskey because Cato Institute is sometimes more like a
libertarian. It can find a common ground between republicans
and democrats and some criminal justices for example. Because
we're having discussions and debate, we talk about it, we all
understand that something has to change, but we'll never come
up with any solution if we actually don't look at restructuring
the system.
How we can provide fundamental skills in a better way,
eliminate perverse incentive, have more skin in the game for
institutions of learning, and get our kids ready for life-long
learning. We have the whole world to compete, and our kids are
not ready.
So I don't know Mr. McCluskey, do you have any observations
and thoughts or any policy that we actually could agree on and
move forward, not just continue debating.
Mr. McCluskey. Sure. Thanks for the question and thanks for
saying that. Maybe be able to bring democrats and republicans
together. I'm going to try the best I can do here. The first
thing I'd say is I do think that there may be a chance if a lot
of the people look at the PLUS loans, parent PLUS and grad
PLUS. That may be an area that a lot of people could agree.
This is very poorly targeted aid, and the less well we
target the higher education aid to those who need it most to
lower income families, the worse we make this price inflation
problem. So maybe in higher education that is a place where
people can start looking at some of those programs that are not
well targeted.
And another area I think that there may be a--where we
could get widespread agreement, not necessarily do I think it
should be Federal, but is at apprenticeships. But
apprenticeships where we start with school choice at the K
through 12 level, where we don't sort of constantly push people
and say really if you want to be a full you know, person that
everybody will respect, you have to get a four-year degree.
I think it's terrible how much we emphasize four-year
degrees, but we also don't want to track people, and track
students against their will. So we see charter schools for
instance that do work toward apprenticeships, where people who
want to learn, you know really valuable skills that aren't
necessarily done in the college classroom, where they can
choose that early on.
And I think that's somewhere that a lot of people could
agree is let's make those kinds of apprenticeships, something
that's a much more viable easy to access option for people
while maybe they're still in high school.
Ms. Spartz. Right. And I think we're working the State of
Indiana. And ultimately, it's not about four-year degree. You
can actually attain your bachelor's degree much faster. You can
you know I mean in 10 years you can really get you know primary
education. Your secondary and post-secondary education could be
done at high school.
And you can actually already have an associate degree. I
had my master's degree in 15 years, back in Ukraine, and here
for 13 years you're still in school. You know, so I think it
could be done faster, and maybe looking at how we can
integrate.
And I don't know if you ever look to integrate some of
these technical skills and maybe some degrees that some people
just want to have a piece of paper, although that really
doesn't matter. But at least they can get a piece of paper
faster and get done and get to work and be a productive Member,
maybe get another one.
But I appreciate if you have any other ideas please reach
out and I yield back, thank you.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentlelady from North
Carolina Ms. Manning.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do represent
Gilford County, North Carolina. We recently had an outside
evaluation done on what it would cost to do the necessary
repairs and upgrades through our K through 12 schools, and the
cost was in excess of 2 billion dollars.
Ms. Filardo school districts can you coded relief funds for
school facility repairs and improvements, thank goodness. In
your testimony you reference a letter from a National Council
on School Facilities that recommends school districts use 15
percent of funds to meet CDC requirements and reduce deferred
maintenance of their facilities.
Can you describe the need that remains beyond just my
community, and how the Reopen and Rebuild America's Schools Act
can build on this investment for schools across the country,
not just North Carolina?
Ms. Filardo. Yes, thank you. I know there's some confusion
about sort of that maybe the money there is there to solve all
the problems of our crumbling schools. And there's no question
that if we actually took 15 percent, that there could be some
progress made against deferred maintenance.
But I calculated it for about 12 states that had given me
their most recent data, and it's still about 3 percent. If they
got the 15 percent for schools, it was about 3 percent of their
need. I mean I think one of the things that's really hard for
people to appreciate is that the scale of this infrastructure
is really enormous and complex.
We really operate industrial sized operations when you're
talking about high schools and middle schools with you know
complex mechanical systems, and you know, heating plants of you
know all different sorts that are used on buildings that may be
half a million square feet.
So it's fantastic what we're getting from the Rescue Plan
for our school districts, but it just in no way makes progress
against the really long-term issues that we're facing for
resilient schools, for energy efficient schools, for you know
schools that we really need to meet the workforce and early
childhood requirements that we know are a part of the
responsibilities of our communities.
Ms. Manning. Thank you so much. Mr. Lanter as I've been
meeting with people from across my district, I have been
hearing from a lot of the businesses in my State that they're
having trouble finding a supply of qualified workers. Amid the
COVID-19 pandemic, but even before that.
For many the ability to hire trained and qualified workers
has been a long-standing challenge that was simply exacerbated
by the pandemic. Can you help explain the investments in the
Federal workforce system made through the American Jobs Plan
and how those could address the long-term workforce challenges
that I am hearing about and help us improve equity in our labor
markets?
Mr. Lanter. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman, excellent
question. And you know you're absolutely right. The skills
mismatch, and our country has been around long before the
pandemic. You know the thing about it is the pandemic is only
going to exasperate the challenges that individuals in our
country had faced as we were going into the pandemic. And I
think you know the skills mismatch really is at the heart of
everything we're talking about today.
We have employers that are struggling to find talent and
struggling to find individuals. And we have individuals who
cannot see the path to those jobs. And this is where the
America's Job Plan really helps. It can enable us to really
retool the workforce development system.
This is the place for that retooled sector strategy. In
California we've launched over 50 sector partnerships that
bring industry, labor, workforce, and community-based
organizations to the table. And you know what's really
important about these partnerships is that it's driven by the
demand of industry, and they're convened all over the State by
intermediaries, by organizations who understand the challenge
in these industries.
And more important, understand that job quality is more
than just wages. For individuals that you're talking about
Congresswoman, we're talking about set schedules. We're talking
about career pathways. We're talking about childcare and
benefits.
So these partnerships can really help. The America's Job
Plan can fund industry sector partnerships across the country
that are industry-led, where partnership is a priority, for
long-term sustainability in an industry where worker voice is
incorporated so that we can ensure quality jobs beyond wages,
thank you.
Ms. Manning. Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. Thank you. The gentleman from
Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Interesting
discussion, especially I think my perspective as a former State
legislator. I'll just say I mean my position is still to
decentralize education, allow the Governors of our states, and
the State legislatures and the school boards, the school
boards, handle the vast majority of these issues.
Everything from curriculum to infrastructure. In Wisconsin
if a local school district wants to rebuild the high school,
they put the question on a referendum and let the taxpayers
vote on it. And right now in Wisconsin over the last decade or
so there's been a record number of referendums that have passed
because there's been in excess of 50 percent of the people that
vote in that school district say yes, we need a new high
school, or no, we don't need a new high school or baseball
field, or swimming pool, or whatever it might be.
So it makes me nervous whenever I heard Congress stepping
in the middle of that and saying we know better, and we can
figure out a better way of doing this, and we're going to make
sure that we're going to fund these things because we all know
strings are attached and that's alarming.
I'd also say I think it's almost insulting the way it's
come up numerous times today that infrastructure is extended
beyond what we would traditionally define it as. And the reason
it's troubling I think is because you're trying to put people
in that definition, so you're talking about teachers.
You're talking about school staff. You're talking about
families and you're talking about the actual students, the
children. That's insulting to throw them in that mix and say
this is also infrastructure. No it's not. And that's why the
polling that you see is so wildly popular is because it's got
to be that the people that are being polled are saying you know
we know what infrastructure is, an infrastructure is bricks and
mortar, it's roads, it's bridges.
And if you try and redefine it like I know is going on
right now, you know you're undermining people that they make a
difference in our educational system. I just want to talk a
little bit about and Congressman Goode talked about this a
little bit too Bacon Davis.
But Mr. Riedl I was going to ask you the question on
project labor agreements. It kind of falls under the same area
as Bacon Davis, but you know certainly every dollar spent on
schools, whether it is done at the local level, or whether it's
some type of Federal money that might make its way down to a
school district.
You know a lot of times these PLA's they eat away at the
amount of revenue that's actually available to finish a
project, and you know in Wisconsin we did away with project
labor agreements, and especially when it comes to any of the
municipal projects going on, and it's really helped us a lot. I
was wondering if you had a comment on that?
Mr. Riedl. Sure thank you Congressman. And I'll say that
when I was in Wisconsin building on your point, we built
Appleton North High School when I was in high school without
any Federal help. It was decided locally, and they built it and
it's a great high school and, so I agree with that.
Project labor agreements absolutely raise costs. They have
been shown to raise school construction costs by anywhere from
13 to 30 percent in various states. And so you know money is
limited, so when you're doing these infrastructure projects you
can do less. You can't build as big of a school, you can't
build as nice of a school, or you can build fewer schools,
because 13 to 30 percent is a huge increase in costs.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes and I'd just say you know in the PLA's
that sometimes are involved in some of these projects as well,
you know they kind of push the project in a specific direction
that otherwise you know probably wouldn't happen, and again it
increases costs.
So interesting discussion today, and I would yield back
Chairman Scott.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. Next gentlelady from New Mexico,
Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much Chairman Scott as
well as Ranking Member Foxx for having this important hearing
today. We're here today to talk about the actions we can take
to strengthen our economy by creating jobs, investing in what
we believe, and we believe in investing in our children and
supporting families.
But we can't do that without acknowledging disparity and
the hardships Americans have faced right. So women in our
country have lost a net 5.4 million jobs during the pandemic.
Nearly 1 million more job losses than men. Women of color were
hit the hardest.
Mr. Malik I was a Head Start baby, which is where I fell in
love with learning, and appreciate your testimony about the
importance of funding quality early child care, both to improve
women's ability to return to the workforce, but also to invest
in our children because we know that is how we create a future
for our communities.
But when I meet with constituents they tell me that the
lack of affordable, reliable child care holds then back,
especially moms from accepting well-paying jobs, and becoming
financially independent, and they want their children to be in
those quality early child care situations that has been talked
about today.
We also know that poor families don't always participate in
programs like the free school lunches if the application
process is difficult. So my question is what can we do in
Congress to make sure that all families can access early
childcare, including the poorest who might not be comfortable
with complicated application processes?
And how can we make sure that families don't pay more than
7 percent of their income on childcare?
Mr. Malik. Thank you for that question Congresswoman. I
think we absolutely need to expand our investment in early
childhood education as a public and consider all of the
spillover benefits that we accrue throughout the K through 12
system and throughout society.
Those are well-documented. You know and I think we also
have to prioritize making sure that low-income families are the
target population that we want to make sure gains access to
these programs. Now that might you know, a lot of that is the
devil is in the details there, and I think that the Child Care
for Working Families Act that we have now, the new version
that's just come out.
I want to note that there's a whole slew of eligibility
categories that are aiming for the greatest hiccup to try and
really make sure that families who have been left out of the
system are brought in first, and that those dollars prioritize
low-income, middle class families for whom child care is an
economic necessity, but one that has just been too far out of
reach.
Now in terms of capping the amount spent on childcare, I
think right now there is this 7 percent number. Of course that
HHS set as kind of the ceiling for affordability. The only
families that are spending 7 percent on quality childcare right
now are really high-income families, and I've run the numbers
on this.
And you've got to be making six times the Federal poverty
level, so if you're over $150,000.00 a year in family income,
on average that group is the group that's only paying 7
percent. Everybody else is at 20 percent, 15 percent, 10
percent of their gross income spending on childcare among
working families that are paying for it right now.
So I think the way that the bill is structured we're
talking about making it free for low-income families, capping
it at 2 percent for those who are making the State medium
income.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Mr. Malik. I did want to
get a quick question in with regards to the funding of school
construction. And so, Ms. Filardo I think I wanted to see if
you could talk quickly about the benefits that new school
construction can have in addressing not just the need for
schools, but schools that have access to the technology that we
need, and that also by building schools that are more resilient
and environmentally conscious that also attacks the other
pandemic problem we have with regards to our global-type
crisis, our climate crisis.
Ms. Filardo. Yes so than different from your colleague from
Indiana mentioned, it really does make a difference the quality
of the environment that we're in. And we do better in better
environments, so we are under-performing in part because of the
environment that we're in. And that's true from an academic
level. It's true from an energy perspective, it's true from the
resilience perspective.
That our schools can be more resilient. They can be more
energy efficient. They can be healthier. And all of these
things you know it takes money. And again to counter some of
the other you know I think really misinterpretations of RRASA
is it is not a takeover.
It is really a program to strengthen the states, and their
ability and capacity to do this. And the National Council on
School Facilities who I work with, these fantastic State
officials, you know, from Alabama, from Georgia, from Maine,
from Alaska, from New Mexico, these folks are really doing some
fabulous work, but the states need more incentives to be able
to do more to help the local districts.
The decisions will still be local. They'll still be done at
the State level. This is not a program where the Federal
Government gets in between those decisions as referendums will
still take place.
Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Ms. Filardo. My time has
expired. And we will welcome additional funding in New Mexico.
I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. Gentlelady from California Ms.
Steel.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and thank you
Ranking Member Doctor Foxx. Congress has increased funding for
K to 12 schools, colleges and universities over the last
several decades, yet student's outcomes have not improved.
We have heard from parents who spoke to this Committee that
the pandemic reeked-havoc on their child's education. We have
sent teacher unions, elected officials kept classroom closed.
We are seeing in California that parents are frustrated and
ready for reform, in favor of more school choice.
According to the Public Policy Institute of California in
2020 school vouchers are very popular with parents, but
California seems to be slow to implement new school choice and
voucher options.
We asked so many questions and answers since I am one of
the last ones. So I have a simple question to Dr. McCluskey. Do
you think that providing parents with more options for their
children for example, charter schools, virtual school, home
schooling and vouchers for private schools, do you think it
would improve educational outcomes?
Mr. McCluskey. Oh I think it definitely would improve
educational outcomes. In fact there are 29 or so studies on the
competitive effects of having school choice. I think it's 27 of
those have found that the more options parents have around a
public school the better that public school does because you
need those incentives of people being able to take their money
elsewhere to really focus on the outcomes that parents want.
So the research very much supports the idea that the more
choice there is, the better the outcomes. And of course there
was the study that was mentioned earlier at the University of
Arkansas that found that NAEP scores are better, they get
higher when people have more choice in their states.
Mrs. Steel. Thank you Dr. McCluskey. Thank you, all the
witnesses who came today, and Chairman I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. The gentleman from Indiana Mr.
Mrvan.
Mr. Mrvan. Thank you Mr. Chairman and I'd like to thank all
the witnesses for joining us today. With that being said Mr.
Chairman, before I ask my question, I wanted to point out that
the Davis Bacon or prevailing wage provisions do not increase
construction costs.
The argument that prevailing wage laws increase
construction costs relies on the flawed assumption that only
the way the contractor can minimize labor costs is by paying
workers less. This is false. In any industry an employer can
also reduce labor costs by reducing turnover and using wages to
attract and hire the industry's most productive of workers.
That being said I would like to address my support for the
Buy American provisions. I strongly believe that Buy American
policies ensure that we are not missing out on good-paying job
opportunities and manufacturing across a range of industries in
our community.
Chairman Scott's Reopen and Rebuild America's School Act
has a strong Buy American provision, including a melted and
poured standard for iron and steel. The melted and poured
standard is extremely important for the steel producers and
steel workers of Indiana's First congressional District, as
well as workers across the country.
I thank the Chairman for recognizing the importance of the
strong Buy American requirements. Mrs. Filardo can you share
why Buy American requirements, along with prevailing wage and
project labor agreements are important to the Reopen and
Rebuild America's School Act?
Ms. Filardo. Yes. Thank you for that question and I've been
really mystified by the negative comments about it. It's you
know proper wages and the quality that we get from our school
construction from the project labor agreements, and frankly
from union builders is just not--is well-known.
And we also know from building that was done under ARRA
where you know in Texas and Arkansas and Georgia and California
as well, spent money using the Federal dollars that they did
not have a problem with Davis Bacon.
And in fact in Georgia they reluctantly explained to me
that they thought maybe it was a little bit higher, maybe 7
percent that they had paid on a premium, but I would argue that
you actually get something. You know there might be a little
premium, I don't care if you get something for it.
And we know that in this country we didn't have schools
fall down on top of kids like they did in China during an
earthquake right. So we have really safe schools. We have
schools that are done at very high quality with our project
labor agreements, and I think we should be proud of those and I
don't think we should be lowering those standards at all.
And certainly in terms of Buy American. One of the amazing
things and wonderful things about our public schools is that
they do have you know equipment and supplies and materials in
them that are really--they're full of them frankly, with their
furniture and equipment.
And if we could be manufacturing more of that in this
country we'd be very, very well-off. In Indiana I know there's
locks on doors and hardware that comes out of Indiana, and all
of this is really important to our schools. We need a lot of
materials and equipment, and we should be manufacturing it
here.
Mr. Mrvan. I thank you very much. And I just wanted to
close with saying that the Reopen Rebuild America's School Act
along with the Buy American provision, one of my colleagues,
Congresswoman Spartz asked what we can do together.
And what I believe can unite our country is bring workers
together and make sure that we're uplifting workers' ability to
make a wage and a family sustaining income, along with health
benefits, and along with a secured pension.
And as we go forward, I just want to thank everyone for
your participation. This ties everything together with early
childhood development along with community college and
dislocated workers and making sure we get our workforce back on
track and being able to provide for their families.
I thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. And our next Member to be
recognized is the gentlelady from Louisiana, Ms. Letlow.
Mrs. Letlow. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Foxx, Members
of the Committee and witnesses. Thank you for taking the time
to discuss President Biden's new legislative proposals, the
American Jobs Plan, and American Families Plan.
While I believe Congress should invest in education and
workforce development efforts, we also must be mindful in
evaluating four important areas before we start spending hard
earned taxpayer dollars. First, how much we spend and the
effect it will have on our children and grandchildren.
Two, the regulatory burden that Congress puts on the use of
funds, less government intervention, not more. Three, if we are
addressing the root cause of the problem, throwing money at a
program without addressing the challenges, or how we can
measure the success is not a wise use of taxpayer dollars.
And fourth, that the role of State and local governments
for education spending. Most education spending is funded
locally. Congress has already spent billions of dollars for
education with the last several COVID-19 relief packages and
stimulus bills. While some of the President's new proposals
hold merit, like expand broadband access to rural areas. I have
serious concerns about piling on additional spending when many
of the already appropriated funds have yet to be allocated and
sent out by the Federal Government.
My question is for Dr. McCluskey. Do you know where the
United States falls in comparison to other countries in terms
of elementary and secondary education spending? And where do we
fall in comparison to other countries in terms of our outcomes
for these students?
Mr. McCluskey. Yes. We spend more than almost any other
country, certainly Luxemburg spends more an a few others. And
if you look at international exams like the Tim's exam, or the
PISA exam, especially if you look at math is where we struggle
the most, it doesn't appear at least relative to other
countries, they seem to generally spend less than we do.
And they typically have better scores. Especially again if
you look at the math. It's a little bit less when you look at
reading, but it doesn't appear that we're getting the bang for
the buck that we would like to get.
Mrs. Letlow. Thank you. And finally there seems to be a
perception that we are vastly underfunding education. Why do
you think that perception persists?
Mr. McCluskey. I think it's because a lot of the times we
hear that well our schools of course are underfunded. It's
repeating it as if is a given truth. And what's interesting is
there's polling, often polling that's been done in the last few
years, asking whether people think we spend enough on
education. And it's usually you know maybe 60-some percent or
so say no. We don't spend enough.
And then when they're presented with the amount that we
actually spend, that goes down by about 20 percentage points.
So I think we're accustomed to hearing that we don't spend
enough and that we're always cutting, but if you look at the
numbers only after the Great Recession, if you go back to the
1920's, only then did we see a dip in per pupil spending,
adjusted for inflation, and it has since come back and was back
in record levels.
Mrs. Letlow. Thank you so much Dr. McCluskey and to the
rest of the witnesses. Thank you for your time. Mr. Chairman I
yield back the remainder of my time.
Chairman Scott. Well thank you so much. The gentleman from
New York Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing and of course to the witnesses for testifying today. As
I have listened to some of the questions and testimony, I am
disappointed in some people at the lengths to which they will
go to shortchange our students and teachers.
One of the witnesses here today, Mr. McCluskey has made the
argument that we should not increase our investment in
education because the average score on the National Assessment
on Educational Progress has only seen a nominal increase. I
would like to just note that while it's true that the average
score has only seen a slight increase, scores for Black and
Hispanic students have increased tremendously.
Between 1975 and 2012 the average reading score for
students only increased by one point. But during that same
period scores increased by 28 points for Black students, and 22
for Hispanic students, and a similar trend can be seen with
math scores.
This shows that investing in students and schools,
especially in poor communities and communities of color,
improves outcomes and indeed does make a difference. We've also
heard from others on this panel today that funding for
education outside of Federal lands is somehow unconstitutional.
A deeply embarrassing and unserious argument that I never
expected any witness before this body to make, frankly. And of
course we've also heard the tired argument that Federal
infrastructure investments are somehow inefficient and
wasteful.
This runs counter to Ms. Filardo's testimony and what we've
heard from stakeholders, constituents, and experts, including
the non-partisan Government Accountability Office.
And to Mr. McCluskey, you know, who may or may not have
actually read the Constitution, I feel the need to remind him
that Congress derives its authority to craft and enact
legislation from the spending and general welfare clauses in
that very document. The Federal Government provides
approximately 8 percent of all funding for K through 12
education. And what we are talking about today is the Federal
Government playing a greater role in school infrastructure to
improve the conditions of our Nation's public schools.
Ms. Filardo school segregation continues to be a major
barrier to educational equity. The legacy of decade's old
discriminatory housing policies continues to exacerbate
segregation in housing and in our Nation's schools.
According to a 2016 GAO report schools are more segregated
today than at any time since the 1960's. How can states and
districts support improving school integration through school
construction?
Ms. Filardo. That's a great question and they certainly
segregated them through school construction. And I think that
in RRASA with the ability to do planning and the requirement to
have good data, and have the communities engaged in planning
with good data, that there will be a possibility to better plan
to have integrated schools.
But I would also like to caution that schools that are 100
percent minority that are in poor condition should be
modernized. They should not have to wait to have white students
in them before they are modernized. And part of what's happened
in many of our urban center city communities is the
disinvestment in those schools has pushed enrollments down, so
that they've been threatened with closing, and they've been
closed rather than fixed up.
And I think that we have to be careful about the frame on
what it looks like because I think that we really want to make
sure that this gets the highest needs kids, and then frankly
those schools will more than likely to be integrated.
We saw that in Washington, DC. when my kids were in school.
Mr. Jones. Thank you so much. And Mr. Malik, President
Biden recently proposed a 25-billion-dollar investment to
upgrade childcare facilities and build new supply of childcare,
especially in high need areas. At the Center for American
Progress, you have written extensively about childcare deserts.
Can you please explain what childcare deserts are, and how
President Biden's plan would address the issue?
Mr. Malik. Yes. We were first to collect the locations on
all the licensed childcare programs in the U.S. and found most
census tracks, there were more than three times as many
children as there were licensed childcare slots, which we
dubbed childcare deserts.
Those were disproportionately rural areas, low-income
areas. And what we really need to think about when we're
investing those infrastructure dollars is how can we fill those
gaps? How can we innovate to grow the childcare sector in its
supply, to find those gaps and to serve those communities that
have been underserved and have been left out?
Mr. Jones. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. Gentleman from New York Mr.
Bowman.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
witnesses. Ms. Filardo thank you for your leadership at the
21st Century School Fund. As you already know before
I was a Congressman, I was an educator in public schools for 20
years. I know first-hand that the infrastructure needs of our
neighborhood schools run deep.
The quality of education we want for every child is only
possible if we address the decades of disinvestment in our
public schools, and specifically the learning environment we
ask our students to learn in, and our educators and school
staff to work in.
Incrementalism is a timeline we can't settle for. The
President's American Job Plan calls for 50 billion in direct
school infrastructure grants, and 50 billion in bonds. RRASA
doubles this investment with 100 billion in grants.
Can you explain why 50 billion in bonds would not provide
as much support to low-income stores and how RRASA will support
the development of zero carbon schools?
Ms. Filardo. Yes, I can. You know we were delighted to see
school infrastructure in the President's plan, but actually
quite disappointed in that the raising of the bonds, and the
lowering of the grants is really counter to any agenda for
greater equity.
Wealthy districts, or even basically middle-income
districts can afford to borrow. They can get credit. They don't
have to pay high interest rate because they have credit. The
poor districts they can't borrow. They don't go out to bond
because there's no point. They've got no evidence stream to
repay their debt with.
So the lowering of the grant program in half was a real
blow to low-income, the lowest income districts and really the
highest need cities where they're already burdened with
tremendous amount of debt.
And I don't think people really realize but local school
districts, you know, I said it earlier in my testimony, about a
half a trillion dollars in local school bond debt, and you
know, it's not that they're not trying. They really are, but
they need the Federal help that RRASA would give.
Mr. Bowman. Can you explain how poor school districts
became poor in the first place?
Ms. Filardo. Well there's a lot of different ways right,
but part of it is the average size of a school district in this
country is 1,000 students--median, I'm sorry, not the average,
the median. And only you know a handful of districts that are
really large. The small districts in part are small in part
because of segregation.
They were carved out to be small, and they don't come
necessarily with high tax base or any tax base, whether it's
sales tax or property tax. And so they are struggling, and they
will not have any capacity to do a comprehensive project
without State and Federal help.
Obviously, in the cities you have a different situation
where you've got the average age of your infrastructure at 60-
70 years old like in Baltimore or Philadelphia, and it's just
so big and so old, and so expensive to work in these urban
environments that they have had a very hard time meeting the
level of needs that they need, as well as you know the
challenges with you know the operating costs of operating very
old infrastructure.
So it's a very challenging thing and I know this is new.
Federal funding for school infrastructure is new. You know they
did it in the depression, but it's not been a program, but it's
not that we can't solve this problem we can, but we need this
Federal, State and local partnership to do it, and RRASA really
lays a plan out.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you. Mr. Lanter between 2018 and 2028 the
direct care workforce is projected to add more than 1.3 million
new jobs. Home care will add nearly 1.1 million jobs in that
period which represents the largest growth of any job sector in
the country, yet nearly a quarter of these workers still rely
on public assistance due to low wages and poor benefits.
What can we do as legislators to make sure that we are
training enough care workers to meet the growing need, and how
can we best ensure all care workers earn a living wage?
Mr. Lanter. Yes. Good question, thanks Congressman. We have
to do better. We need to start by acknowledging that the term
quality jobs takes on many forms. But in all matters, we need
to strive to ensure that individuals have dignity in work, and
that they can provide for themselves and families.
Sectors like the one you mentioned and another one we've
been talking about here today early childhood education are in
demand, and the impact of these industries are enormous. In
California kidsdata.org reports that even though there are
roughly 1 million childcare slots available, it's only one-
third of the need.
The cost of business is annually 1.8 billion in absenteeism
and turnover among working parents. But there are things we can
do Congressman to help these industries.
First, we should fund the development and articulation of
career pathways that started entry in mid-range jobs in these
industries like the ones we're discussing, and show how
individuals can further their career and move into an
occupation that pays better wages in that field, or into a
related industry in a field nearby, a related industry, sorry.
And second, fund the work of workforce intermediaries,
organizations that have deep knowledge of the industries in
question. They can work with employers to help provide better
work environments. They can link education providers to
workforce development. They can ensure wages are increased, and
finally they can connect partnerships together resulting in
models like apprenticeship programs.
And this work can all be scaled by the funding in the
American's Job Plan.
Mr. Bowman. Awesome. Thank you Mr. Chairman I yield back.
Sorry for going so far over.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. Our next Member is the
distinguished chair of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from
Kentucky, Mr. Yarmuth.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and thanks to
all our witnesses. It's been an interesting discussion. I think
what I've come away with from the last couple of hours is a
pretty stark reminder of why it's difficult to find common
ground.
I mean we have some very substantial differences here, not
just about whether the Federal Government should be involved in
financing our education across our country, but also what the
value of education is. And I've been astounded to hear
statements. I think basically one from Mr. McCluskey that
diplomas are just pieces of paper.
I don't know how many non-college graduates are in
responsible positions at the Cato Institute. I suspect that
virtually everyone there has a college degree, so there must be
some value placed on that. I've heard comments about how early
childhood education is not really effective.
And these things are--represent again a stark difference in
the--I won't necessarily say parties, but in the perspectives
that we have in Congress. I'm particularly interested in early
childhood education. We are now in a position in this country
where for the first time a majority of children born in this
country are not white.
That means that at least on a particularly predictable
basis, a larger percentage of our children will be coming from
households where fewer resources of lower income levels than
has historically been true. But they are the next generation,
or two generations from now.
They are our tax force. They are our workforce. And I think
this has to be a major national priority. And you know I heard
comments like studies show that a young child is better off
developmentally with a parent. Well that may be true, but maybe
true in a majority of cases. I don't know.
I know it is not true for everyone. I know it is
unrealistic because a vast--a huge number of our children are
not in households where the parent can spend all of his or her,
mostly her time with the child. And so I'll just keep asking
where the answer is.
I know what a former republican President said, that was
George W. Bush who said we can't afford to allow children to be
deprived of the education they deserve because they are in a
State or a locality that doesn't want to make the efforts to
provide the quality of education for them.
And I think that's a truism, I think it remains true today
if not more-true than it was almost 20 years ago. But again,
I'm focused on early childhood education. I represent
Louisville, Kentucky. You could say Happy Derby Week to me, but
we have an institution there called the Keystone Academy.
It's an early childhood development center. It sits in the
middle of housing projects. Every child in that facility is a
Black or brown child and is coming from lower income
households. And they use something called the Reggio method in
which the creativity of the kids determines what they do.
The teachers are there to facilitate their wishes. I
visited there and I was blown away. It was miraculous. These
kids have such superior socialization skills, verbal skills.
They are doing things that I could not believe two and 3 year
olds could do.
And it seems to me that when you have that unlimited
potential, and the reality of the situation that we have
literally tens of millions of kids in that position that we at
the Federal level would not want to do something about that.
So I fully support those provisions in the American
Families Plan and will work very hard to see that that's done.
I have one quick question I'd like to ask of Mr. Malik, and
maybe somebody else would want to respond to it.
And that is the one thing I worry about if we provide these
enormous benefits to a lot of people, whether it's free
community college for 2 years, or child care, are we going to
have a resourcing problem, and how are we going to handle that
resourcing problem. Because if you make a promise to American
children that they're going to have access to full-quality and
high-quality childcare, are we going to be able to provide
that.
Mr. Malik. Thank you, Congressman. I fully agree that this
is a big project before us. I think the encouraging thing is
we're talking about--finally talking about the kinds of
investments that can get us to scale, but it will take several
years, and we will need to prioritize certain regions, certain
geographies, and certain categories of families and children as
we move up to scale.
Because currently right now we've got a system that is
working for the rich and the upper middle class. They can keep
paying and that's going to be annoying for them to keep paying,
but that is I think doable, and that is the reason that we have
the Child Care for Working Families Act scaled to the degree
that it is.
Mr. Yarmuth. Thank you for that. Thanks again to all the
witnesses and I yield back.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. Has any Member not been
recognized for questions? I don't see anybody. If not, I'll
recognize myself for 5 minutes starting with Ms. Filardo. You
had indicated the problem is about 50 billion per year. Is that
what we are under investing in school construction?
Ms. Filardo. It's close.
Chairman Scott. And you've talked about the problems State
and local governments have in coming up with the money,
particularly in low income areas. Can you say a word about why
it's so important to use the Title I formula for distribution
of the money, so it will actually go to low-income areas where
it's most needed?
Ms. Filardo. Yes. I mean it's absolutely critical that it's
targeted because essentially what RRASA would do, even at 100
billion, it's about not even 10 percent of the need nationally
for what we should be spending on our school facilities right.
So the 100 billion.
The 50 billion is what we're not doing, it's the gap right
roughly, right? So if you've got 10 billion a year to spend out
of RRASA over 10 years, you have to target it in order to get
to the poorest kids. I mean it's just not going to happen any
other way. And you know we know that the politics of even
states getting their dollars to the highest need is very tough,
and very hard, you know.
It's not easy choices when there's not enough money around,
and so this is so important to get it to poor communities.
Chairman Scott. Thank you. Mr. Riedl you indicated that
this problem in getting people to work if they're getting
unemployment, you're aware that if you've been offered a job
you're not entitled to unemployment, is that right?
Mr. Riedl. That is technically what the law has said,
although that was relaxed during the pandemic. That was not
fully enforced by states during the pandemic.
Chairman Scott. But that's the rule. If you're offered a
job, you're not entitled to unemployment compensation.
Mr. Riedl. That is not always the case. If you can make a
reason why, whether it's related to the pandemic or childcare,
or anything like that you're not required to take the job. In
some instances on paper you are, that has not necessarily been
enforced however for the past year.
Chairman Scott. OK. But the rule is if the employer offers
you your job back and you refuse it, you'll just submit that to
the Employment Commission and then you will lose your
unemployment benefits, not just the $400.00 but the whole
thing. Are you aware that you talked about the deficit that's
growing over the years?
You are aware that every republican President since Nixon
has left office with the worst deficit situation as a
percentage of GDP than they inherited, and every democratic
administration has left with a better deficit situation than
they inherited. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Riedl. Yes. But that's--those stats can be used
misleadingly. For instance, President Bush had a housing crash
happen.
Chairman Scott. Well--
Mr. Riedl. President Trump had a pandemic happen at the end
of his presidency.
Chairman Scott. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. He was on track to
have the worst deficit before the pandemic you're aware of
that. So you're aware of the trend. You've also talked about
the devastating impact on the deficit that this spending would
have. Are you aware that there are taxes associated to pay for
these programs, so will totally pay for the program within 15
years? Are you aware of that?
Mr. Riedl. No. These programs are not paid for. In fact,
the current one only counts 8 years of spending and takes 15
years of taxes, even though the spending programs would likely
continue after 8 years. The Congressional Budget Office is
going to show that the taxes do not pay for these programs.
The proposal released today as well is also comes, will be
scored by CBO as likely being about a trillion dollars short.
Chairman Scott. In the 10-year window, but in 15 years so
it will pay for itself.
Mr. Riedl. But the spending that only assumes the spending
stops. Unless the long-term care expansion is actually going to
end after 8 years, which I do not believe is Congress's
intention, the costs will continue, and the deficits will rise.
That's why a lot of the long-term studies such as Penn Wharton
have shown higher debt, lower wages, and lower GDP.
Chairman Scott. I'll go back to the fact that every
democrat since Kennedy has ended up with a better deficit
situation than they inherited.
Mr. Riedl. That's not based on policies, however.
Chairman Scott. Just a coincidence. Mr. Lanter in terms of
apprenticeships, you didn't mention healthcare, insurance or
technology. Is there--can we fashion apprenticeships to cover
these untraditional apprenticeship opportunities?
Mr. Lanter. Absolutely Chairman. In fact there are already
apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeships in those industries,
including the insurance industry in our country and they're
modeled off of apprenticeship programs in the European Union.
Chairman Scott. Good thank you. And I see my time has
expired. So I want to thank all of our witnesses for being with
us today. I want to remind my colleagues that pursuant to
Committee practice, materials for submission to the hearing
record must be submitted to the Committee Clerk within 14 days
following the last day of the hearing, so by close of business
on May 12 of 2021, preferably in Microsoft Word format.
Materials submitted must address the subject matter of the
hearing. Only a Member of the Committee or an invited witness
may submit materials for inclusion in the record. Documents are
limited to 50 pages each.
Documents longer than 50 pages may be incorporated into the
record by way of an internet link that you must provide to the
Committee Clerk within the required time but recognize that in
the future that link may no longer work.
Pursuant to House rules and regulations, items for the
record should be submitted to the clerk electronically by
emailing submissions to [email protected].
Members are encouraged to submit materials to the inbox before
the hearing, or during the hearing at the time the Member makes
the request.
Again I want to thank the witnesses for your participation.
Members of the Committee may have some additional questions for
you that we may ask the witnesses to please respond to these
questions in writing. The hearing record will be held open for
14 days in order to receive those responses, and I remind my
colleagues that pursuant to the Committee practice, witness
questions for the hearing must be submitted to the Majority
Committee Staff or Committee Clerk within 7 days and the
questions submitted must address the subject matter of the
hearing.
The Ranking Member has indicated that she does not have a
closing statement, so I just want to thank the witnesses for
joining us today and for sharing their expertise with the
Committee. Today's hearing made clear that the proposals in the
American Job's Plan does not just provide immediate COVID-19
relief for our communities, they also make long-term
investments to address the lasting consequences of the pandemic
and improve the quality of life across the country.
Investments will help millions of displaced workers get the
skills they need to find good paying jobs and ensure that
students and staff can safely return to the classrooms. They
will ensure that working families can afford safe and high-
quality childcare. And they will expand access to the lasting
benefits of high-quality higher education.
Importantly, today's hearing also established the urgency
of these proposals. Nearly all of the consequences of the
pandemic are exacerbating disparities that have existed far
longer than COVID-19, unless we proactively invest in
eliminating these disparities a recovery effort could just
bring us back to the status quo that failed too many Americans
even before the pandemic.
That proactive investment is what we mean when we say Build
Back Better. So again I want to thank our witnesses for their
time today, and as we swiftly consider this legislative plan, I
want to put aside, hopefully we can put aside our differences
and work to build a stronger and more equitable future for all
of the people in our country.
If there's no further business before the Committee without
objection the Committee stands adjourned. Thank you again for
all of the witnesses.
[Additional submissions by Chairman Scott follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
GAO Report 20-494: K-12 EDUCATION--School Districts
Frequently Identified Multiple Building Systems Needing Updates
or Replacement
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-117HPRT47050/pdf/
CPRT-117HPRT47050.pdf
[Additional submissions by Ms. Wilson follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submission by Mr. Grothman follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Additional submission by Ms. Wild follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions submitted for the record and the responses by
Mr. McCluskey follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions submitted for the record and the responses by
Mr. Riedl follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]