[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2016
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
TOM COLE, Oklahoma, Chairman
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee BARBARA LEE, California
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking
Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Susan Ross, John Bartrum, Allison Deters,
Jennifer Cama, Justin Gibbons, and Lori Bias,
Subcommittee Staff
_______________
PART 5
Page
Budget Hearing--Department of Health and Human Services.......... 1
Oversight Hearing--The Vital
Responsibility of Serving the Nation's
Aging and Disabled Communities.................................. 107
National Institutes of Health................................. 183
Department of Education....................................... 309
Department of Labor.......................................... 389
Oversight Hearing--Closing the
Achievement Gap in Higher Education............................ 507
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
_______________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLSHING OFFICE
96-204 WASHINGTON : 2015
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey NITA M. LOWEY, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
KEN CALVERT, California SAM FARR, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BARBARA LEE, California
TOM GRAVES, Georgia MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
KEVIN YODER, Kansas BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas STEVE ISRAEL, New York
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska TIM RYAN, Ohio
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DAVID G. VALADAO, California MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland DEREK KILMER, Washington
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2016
----------
Wednesday, February 25, 2015.
BUDGET HEARING--DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
WITNESS
HON. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Opening Statement
Mr. Cole. Good morning. It is good to have you here, Madam
Secretary. And let me go ahead and make an opening statement,
and then we will move on from there.
So, again, good morning. Good to have you here. It is my
pleasure to welcome you to the Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education for our very first hearing of
the year and my first hearing as chairman. So I am honored to
be able to share that with you and looking forward to your
testimony.
I want to add quickly on a personal note, I had the
opportunity to meet you, thanks to my good friend Mr. Womack,
sometime ago and facilitated that relationship when you were at
OMB, and I want to tell you how much I admired and appreciated
your services there.
Working with you in your current capacity when you had the
challenge of the influx of illegal immigrant children in the
summer, you were extremely helpful. I had 1,200 of those--or up
to 1,200 that were going to be stationed at Fort Sill. You
worked with us very well.
So, again, my experiences with you have all been positive
and productive. So it is great to have you here.
As I have been coming up to speed as the new chairman, I
have been learning more and more about the astonishing range of
programs under your jurisdiction. From overseeing research that
we hope will cure diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's to
protecting our people from Ebola and the flu, to providing
child care and early learning to our youngest Americans, to
training our next generation of medical professionals and
administering health insurance for our Nation's poor and aging
populations, your responsibilities are broad, great, and
numerous.
There are many things in your budget that I think we can
all agree are priorities and that we can collectively support.
There are others where we may well disagree. The challenge that
will be facing this subcommittee is how we can support the most
critical programs, the investments that will give Americans the
greatest bang for the buck, so to speak, with the limited
resources that we will have available to us.
Your budget assumes an array of tax increases, new user
fees, changes in mandatory spending, and other spending sources
that are beyond the purview of this subcommittee. You use these
funds to pay for increases in popular programs.
In my opinion, we will not be able to do everything you are
proposing. I look forward to having a discussion with you this
morning about the top priorities in your department. From your
perspective, where should we actually invest the taxpayer
dollars that are at our disposal? If we cannot fund everything
you request, where would you prefer us to focus our limited
dollars?
I would also be remiss if I did not point out many of the
management challenges facing you at the helm of HHS. From the
continuing problems with administering Obamacare to contracting
irregularities, backlogs, and complaints from medical
professionals, there seem to be no shortage of areas in need to
managerial improvement, an area, frankly, in which you have
proven repeatedly you excel. I hope to learn more this morning
on what you are doing to take positive steps in these areas and
where we can assist you.
Finally, there are many external challenges facing your
agency. Threats to cybersecurity, threats from diseases like
Ebola and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and the many
challenges of poverty also land at your doorstep. I look
forward to hearing your ideas on how to combat these this
morning as well.
As a reminder to the subcommittee and our witness, we will
abide by the 5-minute rule so that everyone will have a chance
to get their questions asked and answered.
Before we begin, I would like to yield to the gentlelady
from New York, our ranking member, for any opening statement
she would care to make. I yield to the ranking. Yes, ranking
member of the entire committee.
Ms. DeLauro. Oh, okay. [Laughter.]
Mr. Cole. And then--sorry.
Opening Statement
Mrs. Lowey. Welcome. I would like to thank Chairman Cole
and Ranking Member DeLauro for holding this hearing today.
Chairman Cole, welcome back to the subcommittee. It has
been my pleasure working with you on these issues, so many
other issues. I look forward to working together, and certainly
with Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member DeLauro, to continue
funding these important investments.
And to Secretary Burwell, we are so pleased to have you
here today. And as I look at you and as we have talked, I think
how fortunate we are to have a person of your experience and
your commitment in public service. So thank you for taking on
the responsibilities of this very important committee, and I
know that we will work together in a bipartisan way to ensure
that the critical priorities are adequately funded.
You come before us with a budget request of
$75,800,000,000, amounting to an increase of $4,200,000,000 in
discretionary funding. Your request includes welcome policy
proposals that will fund medical breakthroughs, provide
affordable child care for working families, and create jobs.
The department's budget is symbolic of the President's
budget as a whole in that it calls for investments in research,
education, training, infrastructure--all vitally important and
interconnected. These investments are necessary not only to the
health infrastructure but are crucial to growing our economy
and creating jobs.
Throughout my time in Congress, Federal funding for the
National Institutes of Health has been among my top priorities.
Your NIH budget would include an increase of $1,000,000,000,
resulting in 1,200 new additional competitive research grants
in fiscal year 2016.
The NIH budget would make welcome investments in advanced
cancer treatments with the new Precision Medicine Initiative,
would increase funding for the BRAIN Initiative to research the
workings of the brain, development treatments to combat
Alzheimer's disease, autism, and other neurological and
psychiatric conditions. It would also better the lives of
working families and provide children with the building blocks
to succeed throughout their lives.
I was very pleased to see the President's requested
increase of $1,500,000,000 to expand Head Start to full-day,
full-year services and to expand Early Head Start programs for
infants and toddlers.
Now, Mr. Chairman, you reference how do we save money? How
do we set priorities? The President has also called for an end
of the mindless austerity of sequestration, urging Congress to
replace it with more targeted spending cuts, program integrity
measures, and the closure of some outdated tax loopholes.
The effects of sequestration were immense, are still being
felt. Across the Government, we see instances where training
was postponed, routine investments were put off, and research,
especially the critically important research funded in this
bill, was abruptly halted. It really was a worst-case scenario
for many agencies such as the NIH, and we have to make sure
that it does not happen again.
As we begin the annual process of crafting a budget
resolution, a fiscal blueprint, I know there will be many
viewpoints represented in the debate. Many of my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle will undoubtedly press on for
additional cuts to leave the outdated sequester-level caps in
place. But I think we all know now how dangerous that is and
how we must do everything we can to avoid a repeat of
sequestration.
We have forged compromise in the past. The Murray-Ryan plan
was not perfect but does provide a path forward for another
budget deal. Without such an agreement, our appropriations
process is deeply imperiled. Discretionary funding is falling
to its lowest level as a percentage of GDP since the Eisenhower
administration.
So we must act again to ensure reasonable allocations for
the important programs and investments funded through the
appropriations process, especially those under the jurisdiction
of the committee. This bill provides critical Federal funding,
some of the most important priorities of the American people,
groundbreaking health and science research, valuable education
programs, job training programs designed to keep this country
globally competitive. The dollars we invest in these programs
matter.
I look forward to your testimony today, Secretary Burwell,
and to hear your agency's plan for the coming fiscal year.
And I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back.
Mr. Cole. Well, I thank my friend, the gentlelady from New
York.
And with that, I would like to recognize my ranking member,
the ranking member of this subcommittee, the gentlelady from
Connecticut.
Opening Statement
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And good morning, Madam Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, congratulations to you, and I look forward to
working with you on these--the efforts that are involved in
this subcommittee.
Before I begin, let me mention to you, Mr. Chairman, that
our colleague Congresswoman Barbara Lee is not here this
morning and would very much like to be, but I think we know
that her mother passed away just a few days ago, and so she is
in California tending to personal family and so forth. And I
know we send her our thoughts and our prayers.
Madam Secretary, welcome to you in your first hearing with
this subcommittee. I would like to express my gratitude for the
work you and your department do. I know your job can be a
thankless one. Everyday successes are overlooked while the
mistakes get magnified.
I want to highlight two areas of your work. First, your
efforts to implement the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable
Care Act is helping millions of families across our country.
Americans can no longer be denied coverage for preexisting
conditions. Preventive screenings, maternity care, pediatric
care are now covered. Women's health has been put on an even
footing. Millions of low-income children have healthcare
through CHIP.
Insurers can no longer subject families to lifetime caps on
coverage. And as we heard from HHS yesterday, the Affordable
Care Act is making prescription drugs more affordable for
seniors every year. As a result, 9.4 million people on Medicare
have saved over $15,000,000,000 since 2010.
Premiums are down. Enrollment is up. Nearly 20 million more
Americans will have health insurance this year, thanks to the
Affordable Care Act. This growth in coverage is particularly
strong among historically underserved communities like African
Americans and lower-income Americans.
The Congressional Budget Office recently cut its estimate
of the cost of expanding coverage, a saving of $140,000,000,000
compared to previous estimates. That speaks to the strength of
your department's leadership.
Second, I want to recognize your measured response to the
Ebola outbreak. Instead of bowing to pressure for travel bans
and quarantines, you and your colleagues listened to the public
health experts. You helped to coordinate a Government-wide
response that is both turning the tide of infection in West
Africa and protecting the public health here at home.
The Ebola crisis is a horrific reminder of the need to
provide adequate funding for public health institutions under
the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, like the CDC, the NIH,
and BARDA. Which brings me to the topic of today's hearing, the
HHS budget for fiscal year 2016. Programs funded through this
budget provide lifelines to millions of Americans.
LIHEAP frees working families from the impossible choice of
whether to heat their homes or put food on the table. The
National Institutes of Health pursue lifesaving treatments. A
30-year cancer survivor myself, I know the value of biomedical
science.
Another crucial HHS program, Head Start, is 50 years old
this year, and during that time, it has helped to level the
playing field for over 30 million low-income preschoolers. As
the father of Head Start, Ed Zigler, put it, ``My politics is
children.'' And I am very proud of Ed Zigler since he is a
constituent of the 3rd District of Connecticut.
As our population grows, so does the demand for vital
programs--Head Start, LIHEAP, the NIH. We need to provide them
with the resources that keep pace both with need and with
inflation. After years of neglect, your budget request begins
to get us back on the right track. I would argue that it does
so too slowly, but I recognize that the overall budget must
walk a fine line in that regard.
There is a lot of good in this request. It substantially
increases funding for early childhood through Head Start. It
includes $500,000,000 for a multiagency effort against
antibiotic-resistant superbugs. It provides an additional
$1,000,000,000 for NIH, including funding for a new Precision
Medicine Initiative.
Current levels of funding across HHS programs remain
woefully inadequate. This is largely the result of what in
Washington is called sequestration, a disastrous policy of
arbitrary cuts and spending caps. Applied to the HHS budget,
these cuts and caps are jeopardizing the health of millions of
Americans. As is too often the case, low-income families are
the hardest hit.
Since 2010, after adjusting for inflation, the Labor, HHS
budget has lost almost $20,000,000,000. These cuts mean less
money for medical research, less money for public health, and
less money for other critical priorities across the Labor, HHS
bill.
The inflation-adjusted numbers for the past 5 years tells a
dismal story. The Health Resources and Services Administration
has seen its discretionary budget cut by a quarter, reducing
services for more than 25 million low-income patients who rely
on community health centers.
Between them, the NIH and the CDC have been cut by more
than $4,800,000,000. That is a disaster for American public
health. We must do better. We need to eliminate the sequester
caps once and for all, return to adequate levels of funding to
support our Nation's health. This budget request starts to do
that.
We must invest in the NIH, accelerate breakthroughs against
diseases like cancer, invest in Head Start to bring benefits of
a full-day, year-round service to young children whose need is
greatest. We need to invest in public health, strengthen our
country in the fight against measles, meningitis, Ebola, and
the obesity epidemic. These are examples of critical programs
that help to improve the health of our Nation.
We can and we must find the resources to support them. I do
not agree with every proposal in the President's budget. I am
disappointed to see reductions in cancer screening and the
graduate training in children's medicine, level funding of the
LIHEAP program.
But this request does at least show what is possible if we
come to our senses, reverse these shortsighted sequester cuts.
For the good of all Americans, we need to do this and do it
soon.
I look forward to your testimony and to our questions.
Mr. Cole. We have now been joined by ``the big chairman,''
as he is affectionately known. So I will recognize Chairman
Rogers for whatever opening remarks he cares to make.
Opening Statement
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for yielding,
and congratulations on your very first hearing as chairman of
this important subcommittee, as we discuss the 2016 budget
request for HHS.
And it is great to see the Secretary join us. Thank you
very much. It is a thrill to know that the new Secretary of
this huge department of the Federal Government hails from just
across the State line from Ashland, Kentucky.
Madam Secretary, we are proud of you and wish you well in
this new venture. You did a great job over at the Budget Office
and other chores.
Undoubtedly, you have taken the reins of this big
department during a tumultuous time in our history. The rollout
of the President's healthcare law has been undeniably
underwhelming. Our healthcare costs remain among the highest in
the developed world. And despite Obamacare's broad reach and
unfathomable price tag, many still remain without access to
basic health services, particularly in rural areas.
In the face of numerous public health challenges, from the
Ebola outbreak abroad to the epidemic of prescription drug
abuse here at home, we are facing a budget crunch that requires
tough decisions in order to maintain continued investment in
lifesaving and breakthrough medical research, as well as
prevention and treatment initiatives.
Unquestionably, much of this crunch is driven by
unsustainable growth in mandatory spending, which hamstrings
all of us as we seek to make these tough calls. Unfortunately,
we have seen no leadership from the White House on your agency
to address the billion-dollar elephant in the room, and that is
mandatory spending.
I want to take a moment to point out in that regard since I
have chaired this committee these 4 years, we have actually cut
$165,000,000,000 from discretionary spending while all the same
time, the mandatory spending has increased dramatically and
continues.
When I first came to Congress, entitlements amounted to
about a third of the Federal spending. Now it is more than two-
thirds. We only appropriate a third of what Federal spending
takes place, and that includes, of course, your department.
Your challenges are many, and I want to hear how you plan
to tackle these and other issues, which play so prominent a
role in the lives of every American. In particular, I would
like to thank you, Madam Secretary, for your attention to the
issue of prescription drug abuse, which has been designated by
CDC as a national epidemic, and that is especially so in my
district, all of east Kentucky.
You have personally spoken about the need to address the
crisis. I know that many are anxiously awaiting your comments
at this year's prescription drug abuse summit in Atlanta, put
together by the organization I formed in my district called
UNITE to try to stop the problem.
Your budget request reflects your commitment to doing your
part in a holistic, multipronged Federal response to this
problem. In fact, there is more people dying from prescription
drug overdose than automobile accidents in this country, and
that is just not acceptable.
I have long advocated that treatment and education need to
play a critical role in this unique public health challenge.
And CDC, SAMHSA, ONC, and AHRQ, along with the research
branches of your agency, all have a part to play.
I am also pleased that HHS is focusing on leveraging our
existing State-run prescription drug monitoring programs with
new eHealth technologies to make PDMPs more user-friendly for
the medical community and encouraging the development of
evidence-based opioid prescribed guidelines to ensure that
these powerful, addictive medications are being appropriately
and safely prescribed. I look forward to hearing more about
this $99,000,000 interagency initiative and working with you on
this shared goal.
We also want to hear about Obamacare. As predicted since
its passage, there have been many hiccups and issues with its
implementation. Many of my constituents who were promised by
President Obama that they could keep their plan and keep their
doctor are upset because their plans have been canceled, and
they no longer have access to their doctor of choice. Premiums
have also increased dramatically, and my constituents are
paying more for less health insurance coverage.
Hospitals in my area are starting to see more and more bad
debt because patients cannot afford the incredibly high
deductibles required by their new health insurance plans.
Hospital bills are going unpaid. I fear, unfortunately, that
this situation is not unique to my part of the world in
southern and eastern Kentucky. While issues like these continue
to unfold around the country, this year's budget requests more
money to feed this monster.
For the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services program
management, your budget request is $4,200,000,000, an increase
of $270,000,000. That kind of growth is just not sustainable.
In addition, your request included several added user fees
that will wreak havoc on healthcare providers, especially those
in rural areas. One example is the administration's proposal to
collect a user fee for each purchase of 340B drugs from
entities participating in the drug price reduction program.
The budget claims this money will be used to enhance the
program's integrity efforts, and yet the 2015 omnibus provided
$10,000,000 in discretionary funding for that very purpose.
Trying to collect this fee from doctors and hospitals that are
providing healthcare services to disadvantaged and rural
communities just does not make sense.
Finally, Madam Secretary, the budget also proposes changes
to critical access hospitals that could have a very adverse
impact in rural communities. These hospitals provide care in
areas with very limited healthcare access.
Many rural people depend on the 24-hour emergency services
offered by these facilities in my district, sparsely populated
and full of dangerous mountain roads. We have several critical
access hospitals that are doing a great job providing necessary
health services to their communities.
In many situations, if hospitals were not available,
patients in life-threatening situations would have to drive 30
minutes at least to the closest medical facility with emergency
services. This might mean life or death for someone
experiencing a fatal heart attack or stroke.
Reducing the rate at which these hospitals are reimbursed
and reducing the distance requirement to maintain a critical
access hospital designation will have a very detrimental impact
on these healthcare facilities and the people who depend on
their services.
Madam Secretary, we look forward to hearing your testimony.
Thank you for being here.
I yield.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, your full statement will be entered into
the record, and you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Opening Statement
Secretary Burwell. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Cole,
Ranking Member DeLauro, Ranking Member Mrs. Lowey, and Chairman
Rogers.
Thank you all, and to the members of the committee, I want
to thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President's
budget for the Department of Health and Human Services.
I believe firmly that we all share common interests, and
therefore, we have a number of opportunities to do common good.
From preventing and treating substance abuse, as the chairman
just mentioned, to advancing the promise of precision medicine,
and to build an innovation economy as well as strengthening the
American middle class, the budget before you makes critical
investments in healthcare, science, innovation, and human
services.
It maintains our responsible stewardship of the taxpayer
dollar. It strengthens our work together with Congress to
prepare our Nation for key challenges both at home and abroad.
For HHS, it proposes $83,300,000,000 in discretionary budgetary
authority, $75,800,000,000 of which is for activities that are
under this subcommittee.
This $4,800,000,000 increase will allow our department to
deliver impact today and lay a strong foundation for tomorrow.
It is a fiscally responsible budget, which, in tandem with
accompanying legislative proposals, would save taxpayers a net
estimated $250,000,000,000 over the next decade. In addition,
it is projected to continue slowing the growth in Medicare
costs, and it could secure $423,000,000,000 in savings as we
build a better, smarter health delivery system.
In terms of providing all Americans with access to quality
affordable healthcare, it builds on our historic progress in
reducing the number of uninsured and improving coverage for
families who already had insurance. We saw a recent example of
this progress with the about 11.4 million Americans who have
either signed up or re-enrolled in health insurance through the
marketplaces in this past open enrollment.
Our budget extends CHIP for 4 years. It covers newly
eligible adults in the 28 States, plus D.C. which have expanded
Medicaid. And it improves access to healthcare for Native
Americans.
To support communities throughout the country, including
underserved communities, it invests $4,200,000,000 in health
centers and $14,200,000,000 to bolster our Nation's health
workforce. It supports more than 15,000 National Health Service
Corps clinicians serving nearly 16 million patients in high-
need areas, and it helps with health disparities.
With the funding streams ending in 2016, millions stand to
lose access to primary care services and providers if we do not
take action. To advance our common interest in building a
better, smarter, and healthier delivery system, it supports
improvements to the way care is delivered, providers are paid,
and information is distributed.
On an issue for which there is bipartisan agreement, it
replaces Medicare's flawed sustainable growth rate formula and
supports a long-term policy solution fix to the SGR. The
administration supports the type of bipartisan, bicameral
efforts that Congress undertook last year.
To advance our shared vision for leading the world in
science and innovation, it increases funding for NIH by
$1,000,000,000 to advance biomedical and behavioral research.
In addition, it invests $215,000,000 for the Precision Medicine
Initiative, a new cross-department effort focused on developing
treatments, diagnostics, and prevention strategies that are
tailored to an individual's genetic makeup.
To further our common interest in providing for Americans
the building blocks of healthy and productive lives at every
stage of life, this budget outlines an ambitious plan to make
affordable quality child care available to every working and
middle-class family. It supports evidence-based interventions
to protect youth in foster care, and it invests to help older
Americans live with dignity in their homes and communities.
To keep Americans healthy, the budget strengthens our
public health infrastructure with $975,000,000 for our domestic
and international preparedness, including critical funds to
implement the Global Health Security Agenda. It also invests in
behavioral health services and substance use prevention.
Finally, as we look to leave our department stronger, the
budget invests in our shared priorities of cracking down on
waste, fraud, and abuse. We are also addressing our Medicare
appeals backlog, and taken together, we believe this budget
advances our broader goals of bringing middle-class economics
to the 21st century, providing Americans with those building
blocks of healthy and productive lives.
As I close, I want to make one final point, and that is
that I am personally committed to responding quickly and
thoughtfully to the concerns and communications with Members of
Congress and especially this committee. And since I have been
confirmed, I have made it a top priority for our department to
do that.
And lastly, I also just want to take a moment to thank the
employees of HHS. From their work combating Ebola to their
compassion assisting those unaccompanied children, to the
commitment they show every day to help our fellow Americans, I
look forward to working closely with you on behalf of the
American people.
And with that, I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cole. Well, Madam Chairman, your reputation for
responsiveness precedes you. So we know you are certainly as
good as your word in that regard.
Just for the committee, I am going to--our chairman and our
ranking member have very heavy schedules today, and so I am
going to go ahead and recognize them first so they can ask what
other questions they need to pose to you and can go on their
way if they choose to do so.
So, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, thank you. That is very kind of
you to be so considerate.
CRITICAL ACCESS HOSPITALS
Just as a side note, we are starting our hearing season
with gusto. There is five hearings today at the various
subcommittees at which five different Cabinet Secretaries will
be appearing. So, but we appreciate you being here, and thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for that courtesy.
Let me ask you, Madam Secretary, about critical access
hospitals. A licensed hospital with a maximum of 25 beds and
24-hour emergency service located in a rural area, which meets
one of the following criteria--over 35 miles from another
hospital or is over 15 miles from another hospital in
mountainous terrain or areas with only secondary roads. I have
seven of those hospitals in my district alone.
And in your 2016 budget request, you propose two major
changes. One, you would prohibit critical access hospital
designation for facilities that are less than 10 miles from the
nearest hospital and, two, reduce critical access hospital
reimbursements from 101 percent of reasonable costs to 100
percent of reasonable costs.
The proposed distance change really does not take into
consideration, in my judgment, the terrain and the difficult
road situation in many rural areas. And Madam Secretary, I know
where you lived, and you know there are some mountainous roads
and terrain that are formidable in that part of Kentucky and
West Virginia.
And the economic situation in that region is almost
disastrous because of the mine layoffs. I have got 9,000 laid-
off miners in my district alone. So the economic situation is
terrible. To encourage healthcare facilities to take root in
these hard-to-serve communities, these critical access
hospitals are absolutely vital.
You may be aware that we have some very unique health
challenges in my area as well. Obesity, a major problem, 31.1
percent of Kentuckians classified as obese. Sixty-six percent
overweight. Diabetes, unfortunately, prevalent. Ten percent
rate among Kentucky adults. Cancer having a huge impact on
Kentucky, where, according to the CDC and the American Cancer
Society, there are 9,600 deaths out of 2,400 incidences per
year.
These are very troubling statistics, and I believe the
problem is magnified in these rural areas across the country,
but especially in areas like my district.
In the 2015 CRomnibus report language, CMS was asked to
provide a report about how the proposed 10-mile limit would
impact access to services in rural communities, including the
analysis and criteria. I have not seen that report, and I think
it has not yet been filed. Are you familiar with it?
Secretary Burwell. Not familiar, that this is one of the
reports, there is another report that was included in the
CRomnibus that was related to language. This one I am not, but
I will look into it. We have done some of the analysis around
this issue, and so we will work and follow up on that.
Mr. Rogers. Do you appreciate what I have been saying about
the critical need of these hospitals and that in difficult
terrained areas, the 10-mile limit is very important here?
Secretary Burwell. Mr. Chairman, the suite of issues that
you described, as you mentioned in your opening remarks, we
live in areas that are very close to each other and, therefore,
very similar. And the issues of rural health issues altogether,
the team at HHS knows now anything that comes before me, that
is one of the first questions. How does it impact rural
America? So----
Mr. Rogers. Would you--would you seek out the report that I
mentioned?
Secretary Burwell. I will do that.
Mr. Rogers. See if we can get----
Secretary Burwell. I will. I know that we have looked at
the analysis, and what I am hearing, because the analysis for
the Nation as a whole is that this would impact, the 10-mile
issue would impact only 5 percent of hospitals and that what we
would be doing is trying to preserve that access to emergency
care, those economic issues that you are talking about, making
sure that we are using the taxpayers' monies wisely, and
balancing those issues.
The numbers that you are giving me in your district are
disproportionate to the numbers I have seen. So I want to
follow up on that.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I think that all of that 5 percent you
mentioned is in my district.
Secretary Burwell. That is why, when you give me those
numbers, those are not the numbers that I have seen as we
reviewed this policy. So I want to make sure we understand
that.
Mr. Rogers. And then there is----
Secretary Burwell. And the broader issues, I just want to
recognize across the budget and whether it is how we are
funding CDC, the community health centers, the issues of the
Public Health Service Corps, making sure that rural America has
access to the needs--to healthcare and that whether it is
behavioral health or primary care or, you know, the range of
care is something that I consider a very important priority.
Mr. Rogers. And then there is the impact to the hospitals
themselves, the economic impact. In my area, many of these
hospitals are struggling just to keep the doors open. How would
that change in the reimbursement rates affect healthcare?
Secretary Burwell. So in terms of the broader picture as we
think about these rural hospitals and what is happening in
those rural hospitals, in the State of Kentucky, just about 10
days ago, there was a study that was released by Deloitte and
the University of Louisville in terms of what the impact has
been for both jobs and the GDP in the State. And it said that
there would be 40,000 in terms of the number of jobs that will
be created from some of the health changes that have occurred--
that is the expansion of Medicaid mainly that is causing that--
as well as additions to the GDP that would be around
$40,000,000,000 by 2021.
And so, that influx also of now having care that is paid
for is something that we are seeing, both anecdotally and now
analytically, through that piece of work that has been done in
Kentucky in terms of those hospitals getting money. And it is
across all over the country where we are seeing, as people have
money to pay for insurance, that those hospitals--that is one
of the things that we are working on and believe will help some
of those hospitals.
Mr. Rogers. I thank you. Briefly and quickly, travel
expenses.
Secretary Burwell. Yes, sir.
TRAVEL POLICY
Mr. Rogers. A local paper recently pointed out that HHS has
spent over $31,000,000 on 7,000 first and business class
flights for employees from 2009 to 2013--CDC, NIH, FDA. Seventy
percent to 80 percent of the premium tickets were due to the
use of medical exceptions to accommodate a special physical
need.
Those are very large numbers. I am popping this to you from
the clear blue sky. You are not prepared to answer, I guess.
But could you tell us what the travel policies are? That is a
lot of money for flying.
Secretary Burwell. So I think those numbers are over a
period of time, and I know that we have put in more stringent
review and requirements----
Mr. Rogers. Four years. It is 4 years.
Secretary Burwell. It is a 4-year period, and I think in
the past several years, we have put in place more stringent
review and requirements. So we would want to look and see if
that is making a difference in the numbers.
The overall is about 3 percent, and it is in limited
circumstances, as you describe, health circumstances or types
of things like 14-hour trips. But I think it merits looking at
if we are seeing a decline from the more stringent requirements
that we have put in place.
Mr. Rogers. Would you check into it?
Secretary Burwell. I will do that.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The gentlelady from New York is recognized.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
And again, welcome, Secretary Burwell. I just want to
follow up on the hospital questions of the chairman. I am
really quite shocked with those numbers. So I am glad I live in
New York.
But on the hospital issue, as we saw with Ebola
preparedness and the cases that were identified last year,
local hospitals and doctors are on the front line during health
emergencies, and Congress provided additional emergency funding
for the Hospital Preparedness Program in fiscal year 2015. But
hospitals in my community tell me that the funds they have
received from the program in previous years are inadequate.
So if you could share with us the President's 2016 request,
how are we helping the hospitals prepare for and respond to
emergencies? Many of them put on extra rooms just to be sure
that they were prepared, and this is a very important account.
And by the way, I am delighted that you mentioned community
health centers because they are providing such important
services, certainly in my communities. So if you can address
that account, that would be very helpful.
Secretary Burwell. So the issue of hospital preparedness
specifically, I think, is nested in the broader issue of our
preparedness as a nation when we have issues like we did with
Ebola. And it is across the system that we need to be prepared,
and that is both in terms of the State and local public health
systems that are in place, as well as those hospitals that are
in place.
And so, funding across all of those pieces is important to
make sure that the system works because where there is a fault
in one place, I am not sure everyone here read, but many of you
may have read that this morning I, of course, had a person
under investigation notice in Bellevue Hospital in New York in
terms of we are still tracking people that come and making sure
on the Ebola front. So it is across that whole spectrum.
With the money--and thank you. First, let me express
appreciation with the $2,700,000,000 that we received to work
on Ebola. Appreciate it. We are moving those monies quickly.
And as you probably know, on Friday, we announced the funding
announcement so that requests can come in from States to do a
portion of that funding that would occur to the hospitals.
So we are using both those monies, as well as the monies in
the 2016 budget proposal to make sure that we get to the levels
of preparedness that we need to as a nation.
And one of the things in terms of that preparedness is, and
we were directed by the Congress, which we agree with, is to
put in place a regional strategy for Ebola and making sure that
we have a set number of hospitals that are prepared for the
most extreme situation, a number of hospitals that can then
support that effort and also do care.
And then what we would consider hospitals that analyze and
make sure a patient is determined whether they should be
somewhere. And then there is the front line. Making sure that
that front line hospital knows this is something suspicious. I
need to get it to someone who can handle it.
And so, there is a strategic overlay and then the financial
overlay in terms of how we are trying to address the issue.
Mrs. Lowey. I would appreciate continuing to work with you
on that issue because, as you know, many of the local hospitals
do not know what a person is bringing in when they come in with
105 fever. And so, they are looking at decontamination units,
et cetera.
So I know we agree on both sides of the aisle that we do
not want to be wasting money, but you need to invest in areas
where the funding is very critical.
AUTISM
I want to mention one other area because we have been doing
a lot of work with autism, ranging from research at the NIH to
workforce training programs at HRSA. I would be interested if
you would share with us how your fiscal year 2016 budget
request would help the increasing number of families who are
living with autism.
What we are seeing is some very exciting investments in
work placement for these young people, not so young, as really
they age out of their school opportunities. So I am really
interested in just a brief overview of what you are doing.
Secretary Burwell. I think it is in the two areas that you
have articulated. One is in the research space. And as you
mentioned in your opening statement, the issue of the BRAIN
Initiative and the investments we are making in research, where
we can understand better the issues around autism, both cause
and how we can work through it when there are cases. And so,
the research is a big part of it, and that is part of the BRAIN
Initiative.
The other place in the department where this sits is in the
Administration for Community Living and making sure that we are
working with our colleagues, in some cases, the Department of
Labor, but also as we think about how people have community-
based living and working on those issues there. So those are
the two main areas that the funding and the budget addresses
this issue.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I just want to say to ``the big chairman'' and ``the
very big chairman,'' I know we all look forward to working with
you and with the Secretary. We all want to cut out waste for
programs that are not really working because your
responsibilities are so very important that you do not want to
cut in areas that are really critical.
And this is why the sequestration issue, and I know the big
chairman and I have had many conversation on this. It just does
not make any sense. So I hope as we move forward, we can
address the basic funding issues that would give you the
opportunity to continue to improve lives.
Thank you.
BUDGET PRIORITIES
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
Let me pick up from there. That is actually a very nice
lead-in, which is not unusual for my good friend from New York
and I to see these things in a similar fashion.
As I suggested in my opening remarks, I have concerns that
your budget is based on financial tax increases and fees that
are unlikely to pass and actually become law. So I think your
number is probably a little bit higher than we are going to end
up with in this committee.
Given that fact or given that possibility, and again, it
could always change if there is a larger deal that involved the
President and the congressional leadership, but absent that,
what would be--if we had to operate on roughly the same amount
of money we had last year, how would you prioritize that? What
are the most important things from your perspective that you
would really like to see accomplished?
Secretary Burwell. So, Mr. Chairman, when we put together
the budget, as we put together a budget, and I am now a piece
of it. I used to be in a seat that brought all the pieces
together. But what we have tried to do is make those choices
and articulate where we believe the choices should be made, and
those are choices that I believe, you know, we all need to
discuss.
But those are important choices, and one of the reasons
that I think they are extremely important choices is, you know,
it is a cap, but it is sequester. It is a policy that I think
many did not expect to be in place. And whether you did or you
did not, I actually think we should put that aside, but
actually put through and view it from the lens of what is the
actual impact?
And when we think about the levels when you say about the
choices and what happens at these lower levels, I think it is
important to hearken back to what happened in 2013 when we
were, for a period of time, at what we would call a sequester
level. And let me just give two examples.
One is at NIH. During that time, at NIH we had the lowest
number of grants that we were doing for project research that
we have in a decade's time. In Head Start, 57,000 children lost
their Head Start.
And so, I understand that these are tough choices. I
understand why this is not, you know, in terms of the
jurisdiction, it goes well beyond this committee to many other
committees as well. But I just think we have to--you know, part
of what we tried to do in our budget is be responsible about
saying--you know, and as a percentage of GDP, when you think
about our discretionary spending, and we can have the mandatory
conversation that the chairman raised. I am not sure, you know,
we want to do that here.
But that we do need to recognize in terms of the
investments we need to make as a nation, and let us just look
at the year in review. When Ebola happened, what were the
expectations of the executive branch and the Federal
Government? And with regard to the issue of when the children
came, how do we take care of those children in an appropriate
fashion in terms of the unaccompanied children?
Measles right now. Right now, we read in the newspapers the
issues of the superbug and the question of are we, you know,
aggressive enough about that, and is the Federal Government
aggressive enough on measles? You know, those are State
responsibility.
So my answer to the question is we believe that we have put
forward what we believe are the right choices, and those
choices extend across and beyond committee jurisdiction, and I
know that. But those are the choices, and they are tough
choices. They are--you know, and we know that some will be
disagreed with, just as the critical access issue we just
discussed or, you know, what I heard from Ranking Member Lowey
is perhaps you did not put enough in the hospital.
And so, we have throughout made choices. And in the
discretionary, over $750,000,000 worth of cuts.
WELDON AMENDMENT
Mr. Cole. Well, again, I do not disagree with that. But
just for the record, this is not a policy. It is the law. It is
a law that Congress passed. It is a law that the President
signed.
And again, absent a larger agreement, we will be living
within the law, I suspect. So I think we are going to have to
make those choices, and I look forward to working with you as
we go forward.
Let me quickly move to one other matter because I cannot
enforce the 5-minute rule if I do not keep it myself. I know
you are familiar with the Weldon amendment, which has been
carried in the Labor, HHS bill since fiscal year 2005. The
amendment prohibits Federal funding of--excuse me, prohibits
funding to any Federal, State, or local government that
discriminates against a health plan for refusing to cover
abortion.
The Obama administration has issued regulations designating
the HHS Office of Civil Rights to enforce the Weldon amendment
by receiving complaints and violations. I understand, I have
been informed, perhaps misinformed, but informed that the State
of California, recipient of funds under the bill, recently
began requiring all health plans sold within California to
provide coverage for abortion on demand through all 9 months of
pregnancy.
It is a clear violation of the Weldon amendment. However, 6
months after the mandate was issued, your Office of Civil
Rights has failed to take corrective action. The mandate went
into place immediately in August of 2014. So real harm is
actually occurring now.
Complaints have been filed by several entities, including a
number of evangelical churches that oppose abortion and are
currently being compelled to fund it through their health
insurance. So time is the essence. Could you tell us where we
stand in this matter and when your Office of Civil Rights
Compliance intends to act?
Secretary Burwell. With regard to the implementation of the
Weldon amendment, it is something that we take very seriously.
And the complaints came in, and we opened the investigation
with the Office of Civil Rights. We are moving to do that
investigation expeditiously.
With regard to my ability to say and tell the Office of
Civil Rights when to finish the investigation, that is
something we want to let the investigation run its course so we
can use its results. And so, we are working expeditiously. The
Office of Civil Rights knows this is an important issue, as you
have said, and that time is of the essence with regard to----
Mr. Cole. So the investigation is underway right now?
Secretary Burwell. It is and--yes, sir. It is right now. We
had--we heard from organizations, and when we heard from
organizations with regard to the issues that you have raised,
we opened an investigation.
Mr. Cole. Well, thank you very much, Madam Secretary, and
we will be following up with you on that to make sure that
investigation does get carried through.
With that, I am sorry I ran over a little bit, but I
recognize my good friend from Connecticut, the ranking member.
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And just for the record, I might just note that since 2010,
after adjusting for inflation, the Labor, HHS budget has lost
almost $20,000,000,000. And with regard to the allocation
affecting Labor, HHS, I have stated this many times in the past
that I believe that it really is Labor, HHS has taken one of
the biggest hits of any of the appropriation subcommittees, and
we need to remedy that.
Madam Secretary, Bureau of Labor Statistics released data
that show that hospital prices are declining over the past 12
months. The largest decline in prices comes in the Medicare
program. Score one for single payer.
Prices paid by private insurers grew by only 1.6 percent,
which is substantially lower than the 6 to 7 percent annual
increases that we used to accept as the cost of doing business.
How much of the decline in healthcare cost is attributable to
the Affordable Care Act? Can you talk about some of the
Affordable Care Act's cost containment measures that have led
to such a dramatic change in the healthcare cost curve?
Secretary Burwell. So with regard to the Government pay
part of this, the portion of it, there are or were changes that
were part of the act that we moved to implement, and there are
types of things that we will continue to work on. As we know
when--in 2009, when CBO was predicting Medicare expenditures
over the period, we know that we are $116,000,000,000 less than
we have been, than we would have been on that trajectory. And
those are changes, you know, attributable both to the market
and to changes that were put in place.
With regard to the market, you also mentioned the actual
broader marketplace beyond Medicare, and one of the things that
I think is happening is the issue of competition with regard to
how that puts pressure on these issues. And we know that there
were 25 percent more issuers that came into the marketplace and
in terms of that price pressure that we see.
I think we are starting to make progress, and we have seen
some progress. We have seen through Medicare some of our
efforts on patient safety. So we have seen a 17 percent
reduction in patient harms through efforts that we have
partnered with physicians on testing ways that you can reduce
harms. Those are infections and falls in the hospital.
And those kinds of things reduce and then not only lives do
they save, but it is savings. And so, this is all part of the
broader part of when we think about that issue of the
Affordable Care quality, access, and affordability, we are
forming our system so that we deliver better quality at a lower
price has been a priority.
We have made some progress. But in I believe that we can
make more progress, and that is an announcement that we made
recently. For the first time, we have set the goal that in
Medicare by 2016, there will be 30 percent of all payments will
be in an alternative payment form so that we can continue to
build on those kinds of savings just as well as quality.
Ms. DeLauro. Just a couple points. You know, I will just
mention medical loss ratio, which has really worked to make
sure insurance companies are spending 80 percent of their
collections on the premiums, and that has resulted in billions
of dollars in rebates to American families.
Secretary Burwell. Two-point-eight.
Ms. DeLauro. A value effort and shifting that cost in
Medicare for value, as opposed to simply paying for volume of
services.
Just briefly, because I would love to get another question
in, the department plans to make 50 percent of payments through
alternative payment models by 2018. What is----
Secretary Burwell. That is part of the delivery system.
Reform will get to 30 percent by 2016 and then 50 percent. At
that point, it will be--people will be doing the alternative
payment models, paying for value, not volume.
Ms. DeLauro. So we can conclude that if the ACA continues
to constrain the growth of healthcare costs, will that not wipe
out a significant portion of the projected future deficits?
Secretary Burwell. We want to continue both through the
implementation of delivery system reform and the proposals we
have to reduce that spending in the entitlement space.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
HEAD START
I would like to move to Head Start, and I will do this
quickly. I just want to say this because I think it is
important.
1912, a teacher in a one-room schoolhouse in Texas made a
decision that would ultimately affect the lives of over 30
million American children. She allowed a 4-year-old boy to join
her class, jump-starting his education by a year at a time when
the concept of preschool learning was virtually nonexistent.
That boy was Lyndon B. Johnson, and he would go on to be a
teacher, President of the United States, and Head Start was
established under his presidency 50 years ago this spring.
Eight-week summer camp, robust year-round program, it serves a
million children every year in the U.S. State and territories.
So congratulations on 50th anniversary, but can you tell us
briefly about the expansion of full day, full services for Head
Start and Early Head Start and the gains you expect to see?
Secretary Burwell. So, in this budget, I will just focus on
three things. One is that expansion of full day, that expansion
of full year, because we know that that is an important way to
maintain the gains. And then the second thing is the quality
implementation, and those have been conversations making sure
that we have standards.
Those two steps will help us improve quality, but also
making sure that those Head Start providers in the program are
meeting quality standards.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
The gentleman from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations
on taking charge of the chairmanship of this committee and for
your first hearing.
Mr. Cole. Can I just say for the record, since you
suggested me for this job, I am glad you were brave enough to
then join us on the committee. [Laughter.]
Mr. Simpson. I felt if I recommended you for the job that I
should be willing to suffer with you. No----
Secretary Burwell. Wait----
Mr. Simpson [continuing]. I do not mean that. This is a
very important committee. Ralph Regula used to call it ``the
people's committee'' because it affects so many people, and
programs in it are very important.
But congratulations to you, and welcome to your first
hearing before this most friendly subcommittee. You know, I
read your testimony last night, and I actually agree with an
awful lot of what is said in there and a lot of the programs
that you have emphasized and put the resources into.
The problem is, as the chairman has said, it is dollars and
how many dollars we are going to have to spend and stuff. And I
agree with my colleagues here who have suggested that
sequestration and you have suggested that sequestration is
going to be devastating. It really is going to be devastating,
and I wish the President had not proposed it as the hammer on
the super committee that was ultimately adopted.
It was never going to happen. It was passed, and it was so
ugly that we were never going to do it. But yet here we are.
The problem is the President proposes doing away with
sequestration and blowing the numbers off in his budget and
doing it with tax increases and fee increases and everything,
and very little, if anything, on the mandatory side of the
program, which is driving our budget deficit.
And right now, while we applaud ourselves and pat ourselves
on the back about the fact that the budget deficit is down by
two-thirds essentially from the high, it is still
$500,000,000,000. And if you look at the $18,000,000,000,000 in
debt and the interest paid on that at historical interest
rates, the interest we pay on the national debt would outspend
defense spending, Labor-H spending, and much of the rest of the
discretionary spending.
So it is still important we focus on the fact that we are
in debt and that we have got to address that. And that is what
sequestration is about. Not the best way to do it, and I hope
to come up with a budget deal to ultimately deal with it.
ORAL CARE
But having said that, a couple of dental questions. You
might guess the dental questions would come from the dentist on
the committee. The CDC has said that one of the top 10 public
health achievements of the 20th century is water fluoridation.
This marks the 70th anniversary of the community water
fluoridation programs.
What plans does HHS have to acknowledge this 70-year
milestone and educate communities about the preventive health
benefits of community water fluoridation, and when will HHS be
finalizing its recommendation to set the level for optimally
fluoridated water at .7 parts per million?
Dentistry supported the proposed change, but it has been
waiting for 4 years to see the final recommendation.
Secretary Burwell. This is an issue that I think--the issue
of the recommendation and where we go with regard to the number
is something that I expect in the relatively near future that
we will come out with. A question of the anniversary, I will
admit, is one that I will go back to CDC, and I am just very
happy that we now have a Surgeon General who is a part of a
great voice for us in a nation to do this type of thing and
make sure the Nation knows.
He has been terrific on measles, been helpful on flu,
having that voice with the American people as a physician. And
so, now I need to add this fluoride anniversary to the list of
things to find out.
MARKETPLACE
Mr. Simpson. Good. Currently, the Federal marketplace--in
the Federal marketplace, consumers must purchase a medical plan
before purchasing any dental plan. This requirement prohibits
adults from purchasing dental plans, including Medicare-
eligible seniors, and also creates a challenging purchasing
experience for consumers who want one-stop shopping.
Will HHS consider allowing direct purchase of dental plans
so that consumers are able to purchase dental benefits within
the marketplace if they desire?
Secretary Burwell. That is one in terms of considering the
standalone purchase is the question I think that you are
asking. And that is something I am happy to go back and look
into in terms of what is--whether it is--what is the limitation
currently in terms of why it does not happen.
Mr. Simpson. I think it would take, from everyone I have
talked to, is a technical change that could happen within HHS.
It would not take a statute or anything for Congress to do. But
I think that it could be--could be done by your department.
As you know, HHS has mandated the replacement of the ICD-9
CM codes that are currently used by medical coders and billers
to report diagnosis and procedures with the new ICD-10 code,
effective October 1, 2015. This will be a significant change in
the way coding is done, and I have heard from physicians in
Idaho and, frankly, across the country that have small
practices that the cost and overall impact that it will have on
them could actually lead to them shutting down their doors.
Given that Congress has already delayed implementation, I
wonder what your thoughts are on either delaying or allowing a
phase-in period after the October 1st deadline?
Secretary Burwell. So with regard to we have delayed, as
you reflected, and believe that we would be ready by the
October 15th deadline--October 2015 deadline this year. And we
have done testing, and we are doing testing. And so, if there
are providers that have concerns, if you can help us understand
because we want to continue to do that testing in terms of
making sure that people are ready.
The value and the benefit, when we get to more simplified
coding, which I think is something that is beneficial across
the system to some of the costs that we were talking about,
that is why we want to go ahead and move forward with it. But
we are trying to do it in a way that we make sure we listen and
understand, which is a part of why we are doing the testing.
If there are specific examples that you are hearing about,
we would like to know about them and hear so that we can work
with folks about that.
Mr. Simpson. I look forward to working with you on it.
Thank you.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
I will recognize the gentlelady from California, my good
friend Ms. Roybal-Allard.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. And can I say I was at the CDC recently and saw
the building named after your father. So it was pretty
remarkable.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
HEALTH PROFESSION TRAINING PROGRAM
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Madam Secretary, in today's increasingly
diverse population, HRSA's Title VII health professions
training programs have really been an invaluable tool in
creating a pipeline of minority primary care professionals who
overwhelmingly return to practice in diverse and underserved
areas.
So I truly wanted to commend the administration for its
support of the minority Centers of Excellence and Nursing
Workforce Diversity Programs and for allocating the $14,000,000
for a new program to build on that experience gained from the
Health Careers Opportunity Program.
However, I am disappointed with your proposal to eliminate
the Area Health Education Centers Program, which has
successfully recruited students and provided training
opportunities for residents and practitioners both in rural and
urban underserved areas. This program, as you know, has been
repeatedly cited by HRSA as exceeding the agency's goals and
objectives.
Therefore, if you could explain why the AHEC program was
not funded, despite its long successful history, and what
funding sources are you referencing in your budget
justification as being able to support ongoing AHEC activities?
And I will give you the other two questions. I have related
questions so you can answer all at once.
Also, how will the new Workforce Diversity Program differ
from the old HCOP program, and will the new program continue to
target minority and disadvantaged high school and college
students? And how will you ensure that its results and similar
increases in the numbers of minority health professions?
Secretary Burwell. So with regard to the first issue in the
program, I think one of the things that we are trying to do is
make sure that in this important time, as you reflected, that
we do get diverse workforce into the communities. And that is
about the training and then getting them there into the
communities.
And I think one of the most important anchors of making
that concept, which we agree upon, become a reality is actually
the National Health Service Corps. Because when we look at
those numbers and you see that expansion that we are proposing
in our budget, 30 percent of all of the National Health Service
Corps are actually minorities, and I am sure many of you,
because there are a number of physicians present and folks who
focus on this issue, only 10 percent of the population. So we
overrepresent, and by working and adding there, we believe that
is an important step.
With regard to that specific program, what we believe is
that there are--it has been an important program, but one of
the things, as we set up the program, we asked the grantees and
others to have sustainability plans so that this would be a
program you got up and running.
With regard to the second issue, the issue of the HCOP and
that question of who will be trained. One of the things that we
are trying to do is make sure that we are getting those
individuals who are both interested in clinical practice as
well as research. We are doing this in the piece you are
talking about, but also as we look at NIH.
There are individuals who have expressed that interest, so
we are focusing on the people at that level who have expressed
that interest, want to be scientists, want to be doctors and
physicians, but we lose along the way. And so, we are putting
our emphasis in our budget on those individuals that we know
are in. So we do not lose those people who are already there
versus focusing on some of the very early years they are in the
program.
So it means there is overlap, but some of the earliest
years, I think we believe that if we can get more people who
are interested in starting to do the training in this space to
stay in, that we get our numbers up and more people into the
communities more quickly, number one. And we create the role
models that help create pull later on.
So it is overall in terms of that is how we are trying to
think about the spending of the dollars in the priority area
that we are focused on.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. So just so that I understand. So,
but you still need that pipeline? In other words, I understand
what the endgame is, but how do you--what is in the program
that will continue to feed that pipeline so that you will have
those----
Secretary Burwell. I think right now what we are focusing
on is the point at which there are people in the pipeline in
terms of how we are putting emphasis with our dollars.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I guess what my question is that is fine
in the short term, for the next year, maybe 2 years. But as we
go down, you know, to 5, 10 years from now, how is that
pipeline going to be fed?
Secretary Burwell. You know, I think the question in
elementary school and children's exposure in terms of diverse
children and other children in terms of STEM issues across the
board, in terms of the place where I think we believe that
there are issues that we see happening with regard to
minorities is at that level when they become engaged and may
not have the support that they need to stay engaged in that
way.
And that is where we are going to emphasize in terms of
what the budget does at this point.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I see my time has expired.
Mr. Cole. Okay. The gentleman from Arkansas, my good friend
is recognized.
OPIOID
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I, too, want to
join the chorus of people congratulating you on your
chairmanship and the skill at which you execute your duties as
chairman of this very important subcommittee.
And I want to welcome my friend the Secretary here today. I
would expect that her background over at Budget is probably an
invaluable asset when considering the matters that we are
talking about here today.
The overall chairmen, to no surprise, talked a little bit
about the problems combating drug addiction. And Madam
Secretary, you are well aware of the State that I represent,
part of the State that I represent, and the fact that drug
addiction, particularly prescription drug abuse, is a major
issue facing our country. And I am glad that we are recognizing
that it is of such major proportions that we have to put a
higher priority on it.
As a matter of fact, in the couple of hours that we are
going to be in this room today, on average, 10 people are going
to die as a result of some kind of a drug overdose. Nearly
7,000 a day are going to be treated in ERs around the country.
There is no question when I talk to my job creators back in
my district, they talk to me about the fact that they have jobs
available, but they have very difficult times finding people
who can do something as simple as pass a drug screen for an
employment opportunity. So, I mean, without belaboring the
point, we do not need to have a debate about that. That debate
has taken place.
Last September, nearly 50 of my colleagues and I sent a
letter to you and the Administrator of SAMHSA calling for a
modernization of our Government's response to this crisis. We
did not receive a response initially, and I am glad in your
testimony you talk about responding to Members of Congress is a
high priority of yours.
But our CRomnibus included report language asking SAMHSA to
update all of its professional education and training programs
for opioid treatments and office-based treatment programs. Do
you know at this stage of the game what steps have been taken
to fulfill this congressional request in the CRomnibus?
Secretary Burwell. I will have to look and see in terms of
where we are exactly, but it is a major part of the three-part
strategy that we are pursuing in terms of this issue of
opioids, heroin, and overdose.
In terms of the first part being about prescribing in terms
of the place where we need to focus, as Chairman Rogers
mentioned, in terms of the State-by-State plans, this is an
important part of giving that instruction on prescribing. And
so, we are moving forward on it. Exactly where we are in the
process related to the exact language of the CRomnibus, I want
to get back to you.
But it is a very important part of the three-part strategy
that we are pursuing in this space, which is first the issue of
prescribing; second, the issue, as you mentioned, of things
like naloxone and how we have access to those; and then, third,
the treatment issue are the three places that we are working.
Mr. Womack. Do we have any other real barriers to our
ability as a nation to elevate the discussion to recognize its
significance from loss of life to productivity? I cannot--I
cannot underemphasize--or overemphasize the impact that it is
having. And are there other barriers that this panel, that this
Congress needs to know about?
Secretary Burwell. So some of the things we have mentioned
in terms of the budget, and I think the chairman spoke to in
terms of the funding issues, and I think those are articulated.
I think the other thing, and I just spent time with the
Governors this weekend when they were in town on this issue
specifically. Because one of the things that we have to do is
we have to have tracking mechanisms with regard to the
prescribing.
We can teach people about the prescribing, but one of the
things that is happening, and to add to your statistics, in
2012 to 2013, there were 259 million prescriptions for opioids.
And I think you all know the population of the United States so
you understand what that means in terms of--so getting that
prescribing, tracking that prescribing and the filling of those
prescriptions.
That is a place that we have seen progress in places like
Florida and some other States that are taking action, and that
is a place we are going to need to work with the States and
making sure there is interoperability with the States, when the
chairman mentioned the Office of National Coordinator of
electronic medical records. So those are some of the critical
path issues.
We need people to know about the prescribing. We need them
to abide by that. And then we need to do the quality tracking,
and we need to be willing to take the steps in terms of payers
and others when people are not abiding by.
And we need partnerships with the private sector. CVS
tracks within their own system, but you can go to Wal-Mart,
Walgreens, or others. And so, those are some of the critical
things we need to do.
Mr. Womack. Well, even in our own State, there has been a
major discussion, and I am sure this is happening in every
State. But particularly in Arkansas, the fact that it is a
small State with a limited budget, and now we have got so much
of this phenomenon happening, it is crowding our prisons. We
are putting people behind bars at an extremely high cost while
other violent-type criminals are competing for that type of bed
space.
And so, somehow, some way, our Nation has to wrap its arms
around this increasing phenomenon that is directly affecting
our economy.
I see my time is out, and I will come back later in the
next round.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
My friend the gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
join in the praise and thankfulness for you taking chairmanship
of this most important subcommittee.
This is my third term in Congress, my second term on this
most important subcommittee, and I appreciate serving with you
and your chairmanship, sir.
Madam Secretary, good morning.
Secretary Burwell. Good morning.
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
Mr. Fleischmann. I want to thank you as well for stepping
up. This is an arduous task that you have to chair HHS, and I
also want to thank you for your phone call yesterday and for
your civility. And we all have a very difficult role in
governing this great nation, and I want to thank you for being
here today.
I am going to ask some questions about Obamacare and then
RAC audits. But in candidness, I believe Obamacare is
inherently flawed. I thought it was flawed from the beginning.
I was not in Congress when it was passed. It has had a lot of
frailties, and I come to the debate after having seen this now
in my third term in Congress just so frustrated with this
issue.
So I want to let you know that on the onset as I ask you
these questions. And I know you have inherited this role, and I
thank you for stepping up and taking that.
Last March, your predecessor was before us in this
committee, and I asked her questions. And she testified before
this panel that the administration would not delay the
individual mandate or any of its penalties. Yet less than 2
weeks later, the enrollment deadline was extended.
Last week, HHS announced that it had sent 800,000 people
incorrect tax forms. We learned yesterday that has led to
approximately 50,000 inaccurate tax returns filed by Americans
on which the Treasury Department has announced it will not act.
Separately, HHS announced that you would open a special
enrollment period in order for people to avoid paying penalties
for missing all the previous deadlines.
Madam Secretary, my first question, and it is a two-part
question, is what authority does the administration have to set
its own policy each time Obamacare is implemented incorrectly?
And as a follow-up to that, I would specifically like to know
what authority you believe your department has to declare a new
enrollment period and set arbitrary deadlines?
Secretary Burwell. With regard to the issue of--I will
address the special and the most recent special enrollment
period. Special enrollment periods occur for people when they
have life-changing events, and they are able to enter in the
system. You know, we have a marketplace-based system, and the
marketplace is based on private insurance.
And so, insurers actually have periods when you have a life
change, when something happens that is unique, that you can
come in not during their set period. And so, that is with
regard to the issue of special enrollment periods, that is what
we have done.
With the one that you are referring to specifically, for
those individuals who did not recognize that there would be a
fee, that they did not understand, that they did not this first
time through, what we have said is for those individuals that
there will be a special enrollment period for that limited
group of people. And that is what this particular one that you
just referenced that we just did is about.
RECOVERY AUDIT CONTRACTORS
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, I would like to ask you some questions
about your plans regarding recovery audit contractors, the RAC
audits.
Secretary Burwell. Yes.
Mr. Fleischmann. These have wreaked havoc on Medicare
reimbursement processes. I understand you are considering
establishing a fee-for-claims appeals to raise revenue and
discourage appeals in light of the huge backlog which remains.
I cannot see that as anything more than encouraging my
constituents to succumb to a broken RAC system. What plans do
you have to address the underlying problem of the number of
audits resulting in the denial of claims that should have
actually been paid?
Secretary Burwell. So with regard to this issue, when I
came in, it is an issue, and there is a large backlog. So put
together an approach to working through that backlog as quickly
as possible and are very appreciative that there is bipartisan,
bicameral engagement in the issue with us because I think it is
going to take us working together to get through.
Three things we need to do to get those numbers down. The
first thing that we need to do is where there are
administrative things that we can do at CMS in terms of making
that go more quickly or, where appropriate, settling through
with providers, that we do that.
The second thing is we have asked for the funding to help
us get more specialists. This happens through the Office of
Medicare Appeals and Hearings--Hearings and Appeals. And so,
this is a body that is part of HHS, but they are specialized
appeal judges that have to hear these, and so we need the help
to work through the backlog. That is item two in terms of
getting rid of this backlog.
Number three is we actually are asking for legislative
changes from you all to try and make sure that we discourage. A
couple things about the fee. One, never on a beneficiary.
Number two, if you win your appeal, the fee comes back.
Because what we are seeing is in this appeal process
because it is easy and it is simple, part of the reason we have
it skyrocket is there is not a cost. If I think I might
possibly be able to get the money, I am going to appeal because
there is the time issue, but what do I--you know, in terms of
that.
And so, that is why we believe it is something that could
help us with the overall issue.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. And I
yield back.
Mr. Cole. I thank the gentleman.
And I now recognize, move on to the gentleman from
Maryland, probably the one real expert we have on this
committee that knows something about what he is talking about.
So, Dr. Harris.
MEDICARE
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I think.
Thank you, Madam Secretary, for coming before the
committee, and welcome.
First, a couple questions that are just very short because
my time is limited. With reference to the Independent Payment
Advisory Board, or IPAB, you know, the budget document says
that this is one of the mechanisms that is going to reduce
long-term drivers of Medicare cost. Do you intend to appoint
members to that board this year?
Secretary Burwell. If the Congress makes recommendations,
we would welcome those.
Mr. Harris. You do not need--you do not need congressional
recommendations. Do you intend--the law, the ACA very
specifically says you have the authority to appoint the board.
Do you intend to appoint a board?
Secretary Burwell. It says ``in consultation with the
Congress,'' and that is the part we would like to have.
Mr. Harris. Just a follow-up to Mr. Simpson's question on
ICD-10. Since the CMS Web site says that you can run ICD-9 and
ICD-10 parallel, pretty clearly says it can be done, would you
consider creating a hardship exemption for ICD-10 for
physicians whose practices just cannot afford to convert to
ICD-10?
Secretary Burwell. I would want to understand how that
would actually work in terms of those physicians, if that is
something that, you know, happy to understand and take a look
at that question. I think we believe everyone should switch and
that people are ready.
Mr. Harris. Well, I fully understand how the Government
thinks everybody should switch to the regulatory scheme
proposed by the Government. I am telling you this is one of the
largest concerns of small physician groups, the ones we want to
help, the small rural physicians who cannot afford to convert
to ICD-10.
The CMS Web site clearly says they can be parallel. I would
hope you would be opening to creating a hardship exemption.
Maryland's health exchange was a disaster. They are now in
court. They are going to try to recover money from contractors.
I just want to ask you, Madam Secretary, if Maryland recovers
money from contractors, are you going to seek the return of
that money to HHS?
Secretary Burwell. With regard to the issue of how these
contracts were done, it is a matter of when the contracts that
we had with the States in terms of the agreements we had with
the States. Depending on why the money comes back and what was
done wrong is the answer to that.
Where we have the ability to in terms of our relationship,
sometimes those actually have to do with the contract with the
State, not with their relationship in terms of fulfilling their
commitments to the Federal Government. Where there are cases
where that can happen, that is something we would like to
understand.
Mr. Harris. Thanks.
Secretary Burwell. And our IG is working on it.
Mr. Harris. The overall budget increase proposed was an
increase of 6 percent to HHS, that is right? Round numbers.
Secretary Burwell. Yes.
NIH BUDGET
Mr. Harris. Why is NIH only 3 percent? I mean, you know, if
the administration always talks about the importance of
research and all, why actually would you disproportionately not
raise the primary driver of basic medical research in the
country?
I mean, why would you choose to expand other parts of HHS
and not--or not to expand NIH at the same extent?
Secretary Burwell. So with regard to the increases across
the department, we believe that a $1,000,000,000 increase for
NIH is a healthy increase. And NIH, in terms of what it has
seen over the period of time, has been different in different
areas.
Some of the increases that are larger, we just actually
spoke about one of the ones with your colleague in terms of
some of our program integrity efforts have larger increases in
percentage terms than, say, NIH does. Another area is we are
working very hard to implement the Congress, the legislation
that you all gave us with regard to FSMA and food health
safety, and so there are increases that are larger in other
parts of the department.
Mr. Harris. So a decision was made to not prioritize NIH
for their share of the 6 percent increase. I mean, again, I
mean, the numbers are the numbers. The administration says we
need 6 percent more for HHS, but you only need 3 percent more
for NIH.
Secretary Burwell. With regard to how we put a budget
together, I think area by area and operating division by
operating division. We ask, determine the needs, and then we
have to make choices and tradeoffs in terms of how we do that.
In terms of taking a percentage and giving everybody a
percentage increase, that is actually not how we put our budget
together. What we did was work through, as I said, whether it
is particular needs that we have in program integrity or the
implementation of laws that we have, there are places where we
need larger increases.
Mr. Harris. I fully understand the prioritization. I am a
little disappointed that the administration, and let us face
it, this is kind of a make-believe budget because it does not
accept the budget caps that are in current law. So at least in
your make-believe budget, I would have hoped that you would
give the NIH the average increase in HHS.
With regard to the Strategic National Stockpile, can you
assure the committee that your fiscal year 2016 budget request
for the SNS will be sufficient for procurement of both newer
medical countermeasures and for the replenishment of the
existing stockpiled medical countermeasures?
Secretary Burwell. We have proposed the budget that we
believe will meet those needs, as well as what we believe we
can adequately spend in terms of making sure we are managing
the taxpayers' money well.
Mr. Harris. And will that be enough to procure the 75
million dose of anthrax vaccine that would be needed?
Secretary Burwell. With regard to the specific of that
particular procurement, that is something I want to get back to
you on.
Mr. Harris. And I would appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Cole. Just following in order, I am going to skip down
actually to Mr.--yes, Mr. Rigell, who was here at the beginning
of the hearing, and then we will come back.
MEDICARE APPEALS
Mr. Rigell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Secretary Burwell, thank you for being here today. It
is a pleasure.
I want to call your attention to page 16 of your testimony,
which I read carefully, and let me just highlight in here.
``Between fiscal year 2009 and 2014, the number of appeals
received by the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals has
increased by more than 1,300 percent.'' And I read carefully
where you are going with your response.
And I say this in a constructive way, but it seemed to me
like a circular loop. The first action was to take
administrative action. And the second part was to request new
resources, and then third was to implement new strategy. So the
strategy is to implement a new strategy.
And I am going to give you just a moment to respond, but
then the third part says propose legislative reforms that
provide additional funding. So it was taking administrative
actions, finding new resources, which are funding, and then to
implement a new strategy. The strategy was to implement a new
strategy. And then the third one was additional funding.
So I felt like I ended up right where I started, and there
was no explanation at all that I saw, perhaps I missed it, as
to what was causing it, nor was there a satisfactory answer as
to what you will be doing about it.
Secretary Burwell. So with regard--I apologize if I used
the word ``strategy.'' Policies and the policies that your
colleague referred to are some of the types of policies that we
believe are important. We think in terms of what is happening
is that, first of all, we have a backlog, and part of what we
need to do is work through the existing backlog.
And in terms of administrative actions and whether that is
settlements or additional funding to work through that backlog,
it is very important. As we think through the question of how
to deter those kinds of numbers in the future, what we do think
is it is important to put in place certain types of deterrents,
and also I think we believe that there are places where the
amounts and what people are appealing should be changed.
Mr. Rigell. Okay. I guess you are somewhat answering the
question on what is driving this, the causal factors that led--
I mean, it was a stunning increase in the number of appeals,
and I am sure many of them need to be paid, and then some of
them are probably fraudulent, of course.
But help us to understand has the department--has the
agency, have you been able to understand why the sharp
increase?
Secretary Burwell. I think we think that some of the reason
that there has been a sharp increase is because there actually
has been the development of a number of people who see this as
an opportunity and an economic opportunity to help providers
appeal. And so, one of the things, and that is why we want to
do some of these policy changes, is to put in place deterrents
to that.
Mr. Rigell. Deterrents from the third parties being able to
engage in that or deterrents----
Secretary Burwell. Frivolous appeal.
Mr. Rigell. There you go. Well, we are in complete
agreement on that.
Secretary Burwell. Frivolous appeal. Frivolous appeal is
all we are trying to get at, which is why in the proposal we
have, if you win, you do not pay. So what we are trying to do
is get to a place where--you know, appeals are important. We
understand that.
Do we get it right 100 percent of the time? When you look
at the numbers, actually they are quite--the appeals are
actually small. Relative to the number of transactions in
Medicare, it is still relatively small. But what we want to get
at are the frivolous appeals.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Mr. Rigell. Okay. I am just going to make a comment here at
the end, and that is just as it relates to what Chairman Rogers
said, and I was very encouraged to hear him say this. This, he
was speaking about the failure really of us as a nation, all
branches--although I am proud of what we have done as House
Republicans on this matter--but the failure to address
mandatory spending.
There is going to be compression on the rest of the budget,
discretionary part, into perpetuity because of the sharp
increase in the number of seniors over the next 10 years. And I
really have not seen anything from the administration on this,
and I considered it a real special opportunity, if you will, to
meet with the President just briefly on this.
And he said, ``Scott, what is on your mind?'' I said, ``Mr.
President,'' I said, ``I am just deeply concerned about we have
not as a nation, and I have not seen from the administration
enough leadership on this topic.''
Because the math, it needs to be faced by the American
people and all of us that we have got to come up with
meaningful reforms on mandatory spending. So I would implore
you and your colleagues to lead in this. It is something that
has got to be done for us to have a bright future for our
children and grandchildren and all of us, actually.
Secretary Burwell. I think it is an issue of importance,
and we look forward to hearing the response to our
$450,000,000,000 worth of cuts that are represented in the HHS
budget specifically on the mandatory side. And while one can
say we should do more, I think I hear that is your point, I
guess I would say----
Mr. Rigell. Mathematically, the math leads me to this
conclusion. That is why I bring it up.
Secretary Burwell. And I think we have $450,000,000,000
worth of changes on the table as part of our overarching
budget, and the question is, is we have an approach to work on
those issues. And I think we look forward to hearing how people
think about those.
Mr. Rigell. Well, I appreciate the spirit in which that is
offered, and I will learn more about it. It is just my
experience has been to this point that the administration has
just not really led in this area. And just as a fellow
American, I am just asking that that take place.
But I appreciate your testimony today and your service at
the agency. Thank you.
Secretary Burwell. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Rigell. I yield back.
Mr. Cole. Just for the gentleman's information, Mr. Delaney
and I will be dropping a bill next week that actually deals
with the entitlement issue and Social Security. You might have
a look at it, and we would welcome your input.
Mr. Rigell. And thank you for your leadership on this. It
needs to be done. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. Absolutely. I yield now to my good friend, the
gentlelady from Alabama.
MARKETPLACE
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, thank you for being here today.
If you will just bear with me a minute, I will get to the
question. But the IRS requires the HHS-managed marketplace and
State-operated exchanges to report account level information,
including the identity of all individuals who obtained coverage
and the amount of assistance received by that person. We are
all aware about the administration's failed healthcare.gov Web
site launch. However, I am not sure that most Americans are
aware of the fact that the critical backend data reporting and
payment systems used by issuers in CMS were not operating
effectively as of last spring.
HHS's inability to provide timely and complete transmission
of the required reconciliation data to the IRS seems to
indicate that the critical backend systems continue to function
at less than optimal levels and are still not fully
operational. So we understand that HHS's first transmission of
this required data was not provided to the IRS until October of
2014. In addition, we understand that the data that has been
provided on a monthly basis has not been shared in full and in
a routine manner.
Our understanding is that as of January 20th of 2014, the
start of the tax filing season, HHS provided the IRS with the
following partial data from the 36 States participating in the
Federal facilitated marketplace, and this data only covers 2.8
million of the 4.2 million policies purchased through the
Federal facilitated marketplace, limited data from HHS-managed,
State-based exchanges for the 9 of the 15 State-based
exchanges.
So given the fact that over 86 percent of the individuals
participating in the marketplace or an exchange are eligible
for advance premium tax credit, how can the IRS and HHS ensure
that taxpayers are not subject to overpayment, underpayment, or
fraud in light of the lack of accurate data for individuals who
purchased insurance through the marketplace or exchange?
Secretary Burwell. The data for the 1095s with regard to
that issue have been provided to the IRS in terms of that is
what is happening as part of this tax season. So the question
and the number that you have with regard to the number of
people and the data that the IRS received is not a number I
have.
Love to take it back, love to understand where it came
from. Because in terms of the IRS receiving the information as
part of this tax season, they have. And so, I am not sure where
that number is coming from, and maybe if you can help me----
Mrs. Roby. Well, if you can correct that for me, it would
be really helpful----
Secretary Burwell. Sure. Sure.
Mrs. Roby [continuing]. Because that is the information
that we have----
Secretary Burwell. I would love to follow up and understand
where that came from because the IRS has the tax information.
And certainly, we are responsible for the Federal marketplace.
With regard to the State data, you know, that is a State
responsibility.
Mrs. Roby. Sure.
Secretary Burwell. But those numbers were not at all what I
would have--you know, what I have reviewed in terms of the
State numbers. So if we can understand that, love to follow up.
Mrs. Roby. Okay. That would be appreciated. I think, well,
in light of the fact that you have differing numbers than I do,
I guess the follow-up question would be these backend systems,
I mean, are they fully operational? I mean, is that the
position that you are taking?
Secretary Burwell. So there are two different issues when
we talk about I think that reference the backend systems.
Because at one point, you referenced the insurers and the
question of their relationship, you know, this is about the
individuals in terms of the IRS. Because I thought when you
started and you mentioned the insurers.
The question of the backend system with regard to the
insurers, everything is automated. Do we believe it should be
done in a way that is more technologically easier? Yes. And we
are going to continue to work to do that, and we are going to
work every day to make that.
But the automated system that we are currently using is a
system that we use for Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D,
and so the system that we are currently using is a system we
have used in other ways for other things. Do we believe this
can be made easier? Yes. Let me be clear about that, and we
want to work towards that.
Mrs. Roby. As it relates to consumer data hacking or
unauthorized activity, can you talk about do you all have a
number of events that have occurred, and can you give the scope
of the events and then what you are doing to protect consumers
on this?
Secretary Burwell. With regard to personally identifiable
information, we at this point have not had a malicious breach
of the marketplace with regard to that data.
Mrs. Roby. Okay. All right.
Secretary Burwell. You know, it is an important issue, as
we have seen with private sector companies. It is something we
stay on top of. We have come in and put in place a strategic
approach that actually is about the how you set up the systems,
the prevention, and the constant monitoring to make sure that
we are staying on top.
I guess I just want to emphasize it is a very important
issue. We have not had a breach, but it is something we want to
make sure that we continue to focus on. It is also a part of
the funding. So an important thing.
Mrs. Roby. Okay. My time has expired. But if you would
please follow up on the first question, and I will make sure
and give you----
Secretary Burwell. Be happy to.
Mrs. Roby. [continuing]. Where we received information.
Secretary Burwell. That would be helpful. That would be
helpful. Thank you.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you. We have two gentlemen from
Pennsylvania who have yet had an opportunity to ask questions,
but in the interest of partisan balance, I want to----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I thought you had forgotten me.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cole. Well, no, we are just moving down, giving
everybody an opportunity. But my friend Mr. Fattah is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And in great congressional fashion, I am going to say a
group of things, and then I am going to ask a question. All
right?
First of all, I want to thank you for your extraordinary
leadership at the department in a great many things in
particular, but first and foremost, your visit to Philadelphia
on Dr. King's birthday and at the Project HOME with Sister Mary
Scullion. And it was great to have you.
The work that you have done on the Affordable Care Act,
Pennsylvania has been extraordinarily benefited by the
enrollment process. We have hundreds of thousands of people who
now have coverage that in the latest enrollment process, with
over 11.4 million people signed up. So I want to congratulate
you on that.
I want to mention that the work that the department is
doing as part of the BRAIN Initiative that I have been so
involved with. Francis Collins and NIH, but across the board,
the administration has done just some very important work. We
have some 15 million Americans suffering from one of the 600-
plus brain diseases or disorders, and we have a lot of progress
that we could make in this regard.
Obviously, it is a tremendous cost, but beyond the cost of,
you know, things like Alzheimer's, it is really the families
involved. I mean, just so I want to thank you for that.
And then I want to ask my question, which is about our new
Governor in Pennsylvania, Governor Wolf, who wants to proceed
now in terms of Medicaid expansion as part of the Affordable
Care Act. And our previous Governor had wanted to do--had a
proposal that had been--the department and the State had been
jostling back and forth for about, and there was some
agreement.
And I want to know how we can now transition and how you
see the transition to full Medicaid expansion?
Secretary Burwell. The Governor can come, and it actually
can happen really, I think, two different ways. It depends on
how the Governor does or does not want to implement the
existing agreement, and he has that opportunity to do that.
If he wants to do anything different in terms of the
agreement, we welcome that conversation and look forward to it.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
The long-suffering other gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Dent.
OPIOID
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not suffering, but
thank you just the same. And congratulations on your
chairmanship.
Secretary, great to be with you this morning. I want to
follow up on some questions I think that Mr. Womack just
discussed. And I came in during the middle of it so I may be a
little redundant. I hope I am not.
But my home State's legislature, like yours, has taken up
action to expand access to naloxone, or Narcan. I know you had
gotten into that. In fact, I am holding a hearing in my own
district on this very important subject in rural Berks County,
Kutztown, to discuss this. We have had numerous deaths of
overdose from heroin.
How would you, I guess, describe the HHS budget proposal,
how would it help States like mine, and how the department
plans to reduce overdose deaths through ensuring broader access
to naloxone?
Secretary Burwell. So I think it is both about the access
to naloxone, but one of the other parts of the budget is the
importance of supporting the States in their prescription
monitoring plans because that gets to this core issue of the
starting point of the prescription.
And so, it is both about naloxone, making sure that we
understand its use and make its use easier in communities and
support that. That is some of the work in SAMHSA that we will
be doing.
At the same time, we need the stronger prescription
deadlines--guidelines, and so those are two different things
that we are working on. One is more from CDC and that part of
the organization. The other is SAMHSA working with communities
as they are trying to work through the issues and do the
implementation of the naloxone and things like that on the
ground.
EBOLA
Mr. Dent. Thank you. As we discussed yesterday--thank you
for your call--Ebola, of course, is a very important issue. And
I am pleased to say that there is a lot of activity in my
congressional district on that issue. One company, OraSure, is
developing a rapid diagnostics working with CDC and others and
NIH.
But I am also pleased to say that there are two health
systems in my district, too, that volunteered to make
investment to become designated Ebola treatment centers. What
advice should I give them about the process to take the next
step to be considered a regional center?
Secretary Burwell. With regard to the consideration of a
regional center, I mean, that is something that coming through
ASPR, the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response,
and working with HHS's regional office would be the next step
on that part.
The other part that I think they should do is be in close
contact with their State health departments because the State
health departments are going to play a role in two things. One,
as we work through where the regional location will be. But
second, some States will actually also have additional
hospitals that will be treatment facilities, in addition to the
issue of the one--you know, the regional designate.
And that is so that we have a capability to expand if we
ever need it. At the point at which we were in the middle of
the Dallas situation, we did not know. You know, we thought we
had a sense, but one had to plan for the worst case.
So those are the two places that I would encourage those
hospitals to speak.
LIHEAP
Mr. Dent. Thank you. And we will follow up.
And just briefly, too, Madam Secretary, move to LIHEAP.
Given the low cost of crude oil, which has translated into
heating oil prices being on par with and sometimes lower than
the equivalent natural gas price, why would HHS be using
valuable LIHEAP program dollars to switch recipients' fuel
systems at a cost of $10,000 on average when there is no real
need, given the current price of fuel?
Current LIHEAP funds could go to help consumers make
simple, cost-effective upgrades that immediately reduce
emissions and save them on their monthly bills to help pay for
the fuel they are currently using. And do you really think it
is appropriate for HHS to use LIHEAP rules to discriminate
against homeowners based on the fuel they use at this time?
Secretary Burwell. With regard, I have focused on actually
the movement of the money in terms of LIHEAP during this winter
season since I have been at the department. With regard to this
specific issue, it is not one that I have looked at and I will
look into.
Mr. Dent. Yes, I would appreciate it because there is some
concern that why make the conversions now when the price of
fuel oil is comparatively low. And it seems like there is some
type of discrimination based on type of fuel used, and I think
there is a better way to allocate those LIHEAP dollars. So I
would appreciate you getting back to me.
Secretary Burwell. And as a part of our budget proposal, I
think as the ranking member mentioned, we are flat. But I think
one of the things that is important is actually we are trying
to put in contingency and other monies that would be more
targeted to when there are changes so we can act and react in
terms of pricing.
And so, that is an important part of what we have done, and
I will look at this. But as we think about this in the context
of the budget, we have tried to create a situation where the
additional funds would be something that would help us be more
flexible in reacting to situations that we always cannot always
predict, which is why I am attaching it to your issue of the
changing price.
Mr. Dent. Well, I am going to yield back since I have time
left and just doing my duty here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
generosity.
Just in the interest of trying to get as many questions in
as we can in the limited time that we have left, I am going to
reduce the question time to 2 minutes, if I may, for all
concerned for a second round.
So, with that, I recognize the gentlelady from California.
PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Madam Secretary, I have had a
longstanding concern about the use of psychotropic drugs to
treat children with behavioral problems. And in the past, my
colleague Representative DeLauro and I asked the GAO to issue a
report. And what GAO found was that the children on Medicaid
are prescribed these medications at twice the rate of privately
insured children and that 18 percent of foster children were
prescribed psychotropic medications often in amounts that
exceed the FDA guidelines.
So I was pleased that your budget calls for a 5-year
demonstration project to encourage States to provide evidence-
based psychosocial interventions that could be used hopefully
in place of or in combination with the drug treatment. So very
quickly, I have three related questions.
First, has the department considered reaching out to
organizations like a Boys Town Hospital that have had
considerable success in reducing these psychotropic
medications? And also because, according to the GAO report,
psychotropic drugs represent the single largest expenditure in
Medicaid. That is over $2,800,000,000 in 2007. So has CMS done
any research to determine whether reimbursement policy may be
feeding this problem?
And also what research has been undertaken to address the
problem that is so critical to children's long-term
development, and what percent of research is focused on looking
at this?
Secretary Burwell. So, first, I just want to say thank you.
It is that study that I read when I was at OMB that led me to
very strongly support this and then, when I got to HHS, worked
to expand the effort. So thank you for that. That piece of work
is part of what made this policy.
The policy is actually to pursue and that is what the
dollars are, to pursue, so that we get to the best practices. I
want to check specifically if we are working with not-for-
profits. I know that we are working with States. But you have
raised an issue of not-for-profits. We need to check on that.
With regard to the issues of the payment, it is an issue
that we are looking at if in terms of how we are doing our
payments, if that is a part of the issue that is exacerbating
it. So that will be a part of what we are doing.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. Madam Chairman, I have other questions, but I am
going to hold mine and submit them for the record to you so we
can indulge the other Members.
Mr. Cole. I want to move to the gentleman from Idaho.
CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Quickly, I appreciate the fact that your budget fully
supports the estimated contract support costs for Native
Americans.
Secretary Burwell. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. You say that you want to modify the program by
reclassifying it as a mandatory appropriation in 2017, not this
year's budget, but next year's budget. Whenever I try to do
something on the mandatory side or try to put something in
mandatory, I have to find the pay-for.
How are you going to pay for it? Have you come up with that
yet? Have you thought about how we are going to make it
mandatory?
Secretary Burwell. So with regard, because we have done the
entire budget and we have paid for everything within the
budget. And so, the question of one-for-one pay-fors, we have
our pay-fors throughout the budget in terms of both on the
mandatory side, as well as on the discretionary side in terms
of puts and takes.
So it is embedded within the budget our payment for it.
There is not a specific pay-for for it, but we believe it is
the right place to be with regard to this issue of the contract
support cost.
Mr. Simpson. I do not disagree with you. On the other side
of that, the mandatory funding for community health centers is
ending October 1st. Have you proposed continuing making that
mandatory funding in the future?
Secretary Burwell. Yes. It is a mix. And our budget is a
mix, and we believe it is important to continue that on the
path that was done as part of previous legislation.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
CHILD CARE
On child care just very quickly, pleased to see a
$370,000,000 increase for child care. A portion is requested is
$100,000,000, pilot programs. Can you talk a bit about that?
And then if you can just talk about the consolidation on
food safety from your perspective of that effort under HHS and
those responsibilities?
Secretary Burwell. So the $370,000,000 is to implement the
bipartisan child care reauthorization that you did. With regard
to the specific of $100,000,000, there are populations, parents
who actually work differing hours, people who work at night,
and so there are a number of different populations that are not
being reached by our child care.
And so, we need to make sure that for working Americans who
may have circumstances that are not the traditional
circumstance, that we are thinking about it. That is what that
money is about.
With regard to the food safety issue, what we are trying to
do is get a system that is simpler and higher quality. And
because pieces sit in a different place, you know, everyone
uses the pizza example that if it is a cheese pizza, it is at
one place. If it is a pepperoni pizza, it is regulated by two
different parts of the Government. That is a part of what we
are doing as we propose this effort.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, you are putting legislation forward?
Secretary Burwell. At this point, I think this is an issue
that we want to hear and understand where the Congress is.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. The gentleman from Arkansas.
EBOLA
Mr. Womack. Yes, just a couple of real quick questions. I
want to go back to Ebola for just a minute because we knew that
it was on the material threat determination list for more than
a decade, but therapeutics and vaccines not fully developed.
Can you tell us, and I am not asking you to pull out your
crystal ball and predict the next Ebola, but what else is not
on that--that is on the threat assessment list we are still not
entirely prepared for and where we should focus maybe some of
that concern?
Secretary Burwell. So I think the most important place for
us to focus our preparedness in terms of we need to continue
working on those lists. And whether it is airborne things or
things like Ebola, we need to continue that. But the place
where I think we can make the most progress to protect the
homeland is by putting in place the things that are part of the
Global Health Security Agenda.
And why that is the case is because when you saw what
happened in Nigeria, we all know Nigeria had the cases. They
had up to almost 20 cases, but it did not spread, and it is
because they had the ability to do the prevention, detection,
isolation, and contact tracing.
And so, putting those pieces in place in the places where
these things will come from is a very important step and one of
the ones that I think we need to emphasize most.
Mr. Womack. Assuming that there is always going to be
insufficient funding--and I think that is an accurate
assumption that we can all make--to deal with these kinds of
issues, how would you prioritize?
Secretary Burwell. With regard to--I think with regard to
the Global Health Security Agenda monies, we prioritize those
by country need. And the other thing we have to do and we are
doing is we have got to get other countries to help pay.
Mr. Womack. If all the smart people in your organization
calculated the total cost to deal with all possible threats,
what would that number look like?
Secretary Burwell. I do not think we have done it in an
aggregate fashion in terms of all total costs in terms of
modeling it that way. I think what we do is on the pieces we
prioritize, and the area you were talking about are the anthrax
issue or those issues, we prioritize that way.
Mr. Womack. Just as an aside, you know, Mr. Chairman, we
were all, most of us were treated to a visit up to NIH, and I
found it pretty impressive that there was a young lady there--I
want to say her name was Sullivan--that was working back in the
vaccine area that had pulled out her--in fact, you made the
comment that must have been her----
Secretary Burwell. Her notebook.
Mr. Womack [continuing]. Junior high notebook.
Secretary Burwell. It was her notebook, and she had worked
on the Ebola vaccine. I have met with her.
Mr. Womack. Amazing.
Secretary Burwell. Yes.
Mr. Womack. That what was truly--what stood out to me and
to her credit was the fact that she had done all of this work
before, when it was not even really----
Secretary Burwell. No one cared.
Mr. Womack. It was more of an afterthought than anything
else, and she was able to go back to that research and expedite
by as much as I think 6 months the time it would take to
respond.
Secretary Burwell. Yes.
Mr. Womack. I just thought that was a credit, and it speaks
well of the NIH.
Mr. Cole. And Mr. Harris, you will have the last questions.
Mr. Harris. I guess I sit between us and lunch. [Laughter.]
GRANTS
Just very quickly, you know, as you know, the ORR grants--
provides grants to institutions that provide housing for the
UACs. And you know, I was very disappointed by the Christmas
Eve regulation that basically set regulations on some of these
faith-based. You know, six of the nine grantees are faith
based, and they do feel that their religious freedom is going
to be impinged by these regulations.
And you know, you find yourself at the department that is
really the tip of the spear in what many people, myself
included, feel is a war on religious freedom in this country. I
would hope that you take their comments, the comment period
ended Monday, into account for the final regulation.
When your predecessor was here last year, I asked her about
the nontransparency of abortion coverage in exchanges, you
know, and the department comes out with their definition of
separate payments that is just mind-boggling because it is not
a separate payment, which would add to transparency.
So I would hope that you would take some steps to modify
the rule to make it really a separate payment which provides
some transparency.
And just finally, a question for you, what has come to my
attention is that a lot of the plans on the exchanges are
putting all the drugs for a given disease in their top tier. So
what you are doing is you are basically giving people a plan
that covers a routine physical, but God forbid they get a
disease where they require an expensive medication.
Tiering is actually doing two things. One, it actually
discourages them from taking a plan. So it actually--it puts
high-risk people and it does not allow them access to really
all the plans.
And the other one is, strangely enough, tiering is actually
supposed to discourage people from taking the top tier drugs
because a lower tier drug would do the same thing. But what we
are finding is that all the drugs for a disease are being put
in the top tier.
Is this adverse tiering something that the department is
going to do something about in these plans?
Secretary Burwell. With regard to the issue as these issues
have come in and been raised, they have been raised in some
specific actual disease areas, HIV and some others. We are
continuing to look at them on a case-by-case basis and overall.
And so, when these have come in, we are having the
conversations and understanding and working with the States and
the insurers to talk about these issues. As these things come
in, we want to work on and figure out how we can create a
situation where people do have the access, which I think is
your point, to the quality care they need. We agree with that.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Cole. Madam Secretary, I want to thank you for your
testimony today. They did not lay a glove on you. I am not
surprised. But we very much appreciate your taking the time----
Secretary Burwell. I have a long to-do list.
Mr. Cole. Well, I suspect it will get longer once the
questions for the record arrive.
Secretary Burwell. I do as well.
Mr. Cole. But seriously, thank you very much for your
service. Thank you for your cooperative and open attitude. We
very much look forward to working with you as we sort through
these issues and find the appropriate balance.
Secretary Burwell. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. So have a good day, and thanks for being here.
Secretary Burwell. Thank you. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, February 26, 2015.
OVERSIGHT HEARING--THE VITAL RESPONSIBILITY OF SERVING THE NATION'S
AGING AND DISABLED COMMUNITIES
WITNESSES
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
KATHY GREENLEE, ADMINISTRATOR, ADMINISTRATION FOR COMMUNITY LIVING,
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Mr. Cole. We actually really will open, but I want to thank
everybody for being here on a very bad day and very difficult
weather wise. Let me just go through my formal opening remarks.
But good morning, and welcome to the Subcommittee of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and we look forward
to your testimony today.
The Social Security Administration and the Administration
for Community Living both share a particularly important
mission serving two of the Nation's most vulnerable
populations, the aging and disabled communities.
I welcome and thank the Commissioner of Social Security,
Carolyn Colvin, and the Administrator of the Administration for
Community Living, Kathy Greenlee, for their participation in
today's hearing. And it really is good to have both of you
here. I really, frankly, appreciate the job you do, and these
are some of the more important agencies we have.
The hearing is focused on the fiscal year 2016 budget
requests of these agencies, as well as the quality of the
services they provide to these two communities. While the roles
of SSA and the ACL play in supporting the aging and disabled
differ, the services they provide are vital to each community
and ought to be held to the highest standards.
With regard to the budget request the SSA submitted, it
appears that you have taken a number of steps in the past year
to improve the quality of services available to the public,
both at your local offices and online. And I am pleased to see
that your fiscal year 2016 budget proposes to continue that
progress, Commissioner Colvin, and really appreciate your
efforts in working on this vital program.
I am additionally encouraged by your recent decision to
stand up a new anti-fraud office to tackle the constant threat
of misuse of taxpayer dollars. Yet the number of individuals
applying for disability insurance, with that number at an
historically high level, SSA continues to struggle with
managing the disability claims workload.
I have a number of questions about the actions you are
taking to overhaul SSA's management of this program. With the
Disability Trust Fund on the brink of insolvency, it is all the
more crucial that SSA is wisely using the resources Congress
provides to improve its management of the disability insurance
program.
In reviewing the budget request of ACL, what first struck
me was the sizable increase you are seeking, Administrator
Greenlee. I am interested in understanding what impact those
additional services will have on the valuable programs the
elderly, the disabled, and their caretakers rely upon.
My question for you is what can the ACL do within its
current level of resources to improve and modernize these
services in partnership with the State and local governments
and numerous nonprofits that carry out the very work that we
will be discussing today?
I look forward to our discussion of all these matters. And
in just a moment, I am going to yield to my good friend, my
ranking member from Connecticut, for whatever opening statement
she cares to make. But I would ask you, as we proceed to the
testimony, to keep in mind we are looking at budgets that have
been submitted by the President that assume, frankly, a great
deal of additional revenue that this committee does not have
the authority to provide.
In other words, they assume tax increases, fee increases,
some changes in mandatory spending that may or may not and,
frankly, I think are likely not to happen. So the reality is we
may well be looking--we do not know what our allocation is yet,
but a pretty flat budget full of a lot of hard choices.
So as you are going through your testimony, knowing what
your priorities are, knowing, gosh, if we cannot get everything
we would like to get in terms of funding, what are the most
important things where the efficiencies can be achieved? I
think that is going to be something we are really looking for
your suggestions and advice on.
So with that, again, I want to yield to my ranking member
for any statement she cares to make.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for holding this hearing on a set of programs that provide
critical support to our Nation's seniors and to people with
disabilities.
Commissioner Colvin, Assistant Secretary Greenlee, we
welcome you to the committee. Pleased that you are here. It is
a great opportunity to talk about and answer questions on your
agencies' important programs.
For tens of millions of Americans, the benefits are
critical, critical to maintaining a basic level of financial
security. Now Social Security turns 80 years old this year, and
before 1935, what old age meant, economic insecurity for
practically all seniors. And today, two-thirds of seniors rely
on Social Security as their primary source of income, and it is
a vital strand in the fabric of our community.
I like to describe, Mr. Chairman, the Social Security
system. I think the genius of it is its intergenerational
connections. It ties me with my mother, who worked all of her
life and put that money into Social Security. It is my job now
to work to make sure that we keep the effort solvent, and my
kids then are tied to me. And I do believe that that is the
strength, which ought to be preserved.
In fiscal year 2016, the Administration, Social Security
Administration will distribute more than $1,000,000,000,000 in
benefits to seniors and to people with disabilities. The figure
includes nearly $800,000,000,000 in old age and survivors'
benefits, $150,000,000,000 in disability benefits, and
$65,000,000,000 in Supplemental Security Income benefits.
And yet SSA runs these programs on a relative shoestring.
Operating expenses for SSA are less than 1.3 percent of the
size of the program. Less than 1.3 percent, something I think
should be noted.
And despite this laudable efficiency, we have spent the
past 5 years starving its operating budget. Adjusting for
inflation, that budget has been cut by more than $1,200,000,000
since 2010. As a result, SSA lost 11,000 staff between 2010 and
2013, has closed at least 64 field offices since 2010.
The cuts have consequences, real consequences. People spend
seven times as long on the phone to reach an SSA agent. Five
times as many callers are faced with a busy signal. The average
wait for a disability hearing decision is now more than 15
months. We all believe that that is unacceptable.
I expect much of our time this morning may focus on
backlogs and delays in services at SSA. I have a number of
concerns myself, but I ask my colleagues to keep in mind that
SSA is being asked to do its job with less funding and fewer
staff. And until we eliminate sequestration, restore the proper
resources to the SSA, we should not be surprised if we see
growing backlogs, more cuts to seniors, and additional field
office closings.
Our second agency this morning, the Administration for
Community Living, administrates programs that are no less
important. Programs allow seniors and people with disabilities
to live active and independent lives.
Every year, ACL funds the delivery of more than 200 million
meals to over 2 million seniors, most of whom are low income;
provides critical support services that enable families to care
for their loved ones at home. Assistant Secretary Greenlee
notes in her prepared testimony that over 80 percent of long-
term support and services come from family members. ACL's
programs enable families to continue to provide these services
at home.
The programs also save taxpayers money. Without them, many
families would be unable to care for their loved ones in their
homes. They would be forced into expensive nursing homes or
institutional facilities, often paid for by Medicaid.
And yet we persist in shortchanging these programs, and
over the past 5 years, after accounting for inflation, ACL's
home and community-based support services and family caregiver
programs have been cut by 13 percent. Nutrition programs cut by
9 percent. Programs for individuals with developmental
disabilities slashed by 20 percent.
Devastating to millions of families across the country who
are finding it harder and harder to care for the people they
love. Instead of cutting services for seniors, people with
disabilities, and working families, we need to invest in them.
I strongly support SSA's request for an increase of
$700,000,000, which would reverse about half of the cuts to its
operating budget over the last 5 years. I also support the
President's proposal to increase funding for senior nutrition
by $60,000,000 and support services for seniors by $40,000,000.
The increases, in my view, are not nearly enough to address
the needs of American families. If we truly commit to these
agencies, if we fund them in the way that keeps pace with
growing need and rising costs, we can help seniors, we can help
people with disabilities to live in their own homes with help
from their families at a fraction of the cost of an
institutional setting.
Cutting these agencies' budgets will do the opposite, and
when we cut programs like the ones under discussion today, we
cannot expect them to do more with less or even the same with
less. They will do less with less. That is inevitable.
And I look forward to your testimony and your conversations
and our discussion today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
If we can, we will have--thank you. Sorry to make your life
that difficult.
If we can, we obviously would like to have your testimony
now. Obviously, anything, your entire statements, written
statements will be entered into the record. And if we can, we
will recognize you, Commissioner, first.
Ms. Colvin. Thank you.
Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to update you on
what we are doing to provide quality service to the American
public, including our seniors and those with disabilities.
My name is Carolyn Colvin. I am the Acting Commissioner of
Social Security. I am very pleased to be here with my good
friend and colleague, Kathy Greenlee.
At Social Security, our record shows that when we receive
adequate and sustained funding, we deliver. We are amongst the
most efficient and effective Federal agencies. Our
administrative costs are only 1.3 percent of all benefit
payments.
We achieve great success when our can-do attitude is
matched with sufficient resources. However, in fiscal 2011
through 2013, we lost about 11,000 Federal and State employees
due to budget cuts. Even though we worked hard to mitigate
those losses through automation and business processes, our
service suffered.
We are grateful for the funding Congress provided to us in
fiscal 2014. As a result, we were able to hire new employees to
replace half of those losses, and we are now seeing the results
of those hires.
Thanks to our fiscal 2015 appropriation, we will be able to
restore some field office hours, improve wait times to our
National 800 Number and enhance our online services, and handle
more hearings. The fiscal 2016 President's request of
$12,513,000,000 for our administrative account will help us
address wait times and backlogs, reduce improper payments,
protect the public with a variety of anti-fraud initiatives,
and hire employees who can best serve the public.
It will allow us to modernize our service delivery for the
millions of people who count on us. It will also allow us to
hire more Administrative Law Judges so we can complete a record
number of hearings.
However, resources alone will not be enough to address our
backlogs. The current ALJ hiring process has not operated as
efficiently as needed to fill vacancies. The Administration is
creating a workgroup to review the process of hiring ALJs. In
addition, within our agency, we are looking for ways to process
hearings as efficiently as possible.
We remain committed to protecting the integrity of our
programs. Our continuing disability reviews and SSI
redeterminations save billions of program dollars with only a
small investment of administrative funds. With the President's
request, we plan to complete more of these cost-effective
reviews.
We must position our agency for future success. Sustained
and adequate funding will help us meet our challenges and
enable us to provide service the public expects and deserves.
I thank the subcommittee for your support, and I will be
happy to answer your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cole. If we can, Secretary Greenlee, we will go to you
next.
Ms. Greenlee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member DeLauro, members of the
committee, thank you for inviting us to come testify with you
this morning.
As you noted, my name is Kathy Greenlee, and I am the
Administrator of the Administration for Community Living, as
well as the Assistant Secretary for Aging. I welcome this
opportunity to talk about how ACL plans to serve Americans in
this budget we have requested for fiscal year 2016.
It is also a pleasure to have the opportunity to appear
with Carolyn Colvin. Commissioner Colvin and I have done
multiple things together in the last few years and find this
collaboration to be both pleasant and positive, in terms of
work we can do together.
I am here today on behalf of a very diverse group of
people. I represent the 85-year-old who lives independently
with a little bit of help, such as rides to the doctor's office
and lunch provided by her local senior center.
I am also here on behalf of the 25-year-old veteran. An IED
in Afghanistan took away his balance and short-term memory.
With the support of his wife and some in-home services, he is
learning new ways to achieve his dreams.
I am here for the 19-year-old with Down syndrome who is
about to graduate from high school. Like her friends, she is
looking forward to college, finding a job, and starting the
next chapter of life.
And ultimately, I represent most of us in this room. At
some point in our lives, most of us will need assistance to
maintain our independence, and many of us will provide care for
a loved one.
The Administration for Community Living was created around
one core idea, that older adults and people with disabilities
should be able to live independently and participate fully in
their communities. This work has never been more important.
By 2020, there will be more than 77 million people over the
age of 60 in the United States. As many as two-thirds of them
will eventually need help with dressing, showering, and similar
activities. In addition, nearly 57 million people with
disabilities live in non-institutional settings, and about 20
percent of them need help with daily living tasks.
We know that people enjoy a better quality of life when
they are able to live at home. Community living also makes
financial sense. The average cost of a shared room in a nursing
home is around $75,000 a year, and residential facilities for
people with disabilities can cost three times that amount. And
when people cannot afford those costs, Medicaid is the primary
payer.
In contrast, the supportive services ACL provides can
enable people to remain in their homes and completely avoid or
delay these more expensive services. With our budget request,
ACL will work towards this goal in four ways.
First, we will increase access to home and community-based
services and supports. A $42,800,000 increase for senior
nutrition programs will help provide meals to over 2 million
more older adults. An additional $38,500,000 will help States
assist seniors with daily activities such as offering rides to
doctors and grocery stores, and they will be able to provide
adult day services.
A $5,000,000 increase will help Centers for Independent
Living help people with disabilities leave nursing homes or
other institutions and assist young people with disabilities as
they move from high school into adult life. ACL will also
invest in supporting families, who provide the vast majority of
assistance to older people and people with disabilities.
When families become overwhelmed by the challenges of
caregiving, Government-funded solutions, which are often far
more expensive, are the only option. ACL will direct
$177,000,000 to help alleviate the strains and enable families
to continue to assist their loved ones.
Second, ACL will expand efforts to connect people with
information about programs and services. We will invest an
additional $13,900,000 in Aging and Disability Resource
Centers, which work with States to improve access to resources
to help people remain in their communities.
To share one success story, ADRCs have worked with the
Veterans Administration to empower veterans to select and
manage the supports that they need to live at home.
Third, we will expand protections for our populations at
most risk. More than 10 percent of older adults are abused,
neglected, or exploited annually, and people with disabilities
are 4 to 10 times more likely to be abused than peers without
disabilities.
With the additional $21,000,000 requested this year, ACL
will advance our efforts to provide Federal support to the
States for their existing Adult Protective Services programs.
This will include investments in innovation and research, as
well as infrastructure development for data collection.
Finally, ACL will develop and improve evidence-based
programs to share best practices. We will invest $20,000,000 to
modernize the senior nutrition programs, which help older
adults remain healthy and independent. This will ensure the
continuity of the quality of the programs and help the programs
prepare to meet the changing demands of seniors as the baby
boom generation ages.
In addition, this budget reflects much-needed
infrastructure. The transfer of the Rehabilitation Act and
Assistive Technology programs to ACL in 2014 and the transfer
of other programs in earlier years has created a stronger
organization that will better serve the country. But these
transfers also created costs that were not fully funded.
We are committed to supporting both the transferred
programs and the existing programs, such as those provided by
the Older Americans Act and the Developmental Disabilities Act.
As Administrator of ACL and Assistant Secretary for Aging, I
have been encouraged by the collaborative and entrepreneurial
spirit of our Federal, tribal, State, and local partners. We
are making a difference in preserving the rights of all people,
regardless of age or ability, to fully participate in their
communities.
However, we are at a critical juncture. The populations we
serve are growing. We must continue to work together to ensure
that older adults and people with disabilities have the
services and supports they need to live at home, participate in
their communities, and avoid more costly alternatives. This
budget will allow ACL to continue to make and improve upon the
important investments to support that goal.
Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
And if we can, I am going to start the questioning,
Commissioner, with you. And as I discussed in my opening
statement, there is clearly a compelling need to reform SSA's
management of disability insurance program.
And I know you are taking some steps right now to try and
address the backlog with the creation of units focused
exclusively on processing disability claims and the effort to
bring on additional administrative law judges that you
mentioned in your opening statement. Unfortunately, it appears
like it is going to take quite a bit of time to actually make
much progress in this area.
I am also concerned about the differences between States
when it comes to the approval rate for disability application.
It strikes me as something that has more to do with who is
making the decision, and the lack of uniformity there is a
considerable concern.
So given those two concerns, could you bring us up to date
on what you plan to do this fiscal year to process disability
claims and including both the initial claims and the appeals?
And then could you discuss in your view some of the reasons for
the disparate approval rates by States and some of the measures
you might be taking to try and address that concern?
Ms. Colvin. Okay, thank you very much.
Let me start first with what we are doing to try to address
the entire disability adjudication process. Certainly,
resources allow us to get hearings done and allow us to do our
initial claims. But in addition to that, I have established an
intercomponent committee that is looking at our process from
beginning to end to see if there are efficiencies that might
exist that we have not already identified.
We know that we cannot staff our way out of the backlogs
that we have. I do believe we are a very efficient agency. As
mentioned earlier, our overhead is only 1.3 percent. But I
think there is always room for improvement, and so we are
looking at that.
I think the President's budget will allow us to make some
improvements. With the early intervention demonstration
projects, we want to see if there is the ability to have people
not come onto our rolls as quickly and to stay in the job
market. We believe that perhaps with some supports, that might
occur.
We have had demonstrations that have demonstrated that some
interventions will allow people to return to work, but they
have been very modest. So we believe that we have to do things
that will stop them from coming on the rolls to begin with.
Mr. Cole. When you talk about early intervention, could you
give us some of the specific things that you do when you are
trying to sort of head somebody off from going onto disability?
Ms. Colvin. We are working with HHS so that we can make
certain that we select the right population, and we are looking
potentially at those individuals who have been denied
disability to begin with, to see if there are things that will
enable them to continue to work and not have to come into our
system as quickly as they normally would.
And we think that perhaps some supportive vocational and
medical services, some opportunities for accommodations on the
job may help. So one of the proposals would include work
incentives to employers. But also we need to really test to see
what types of supports would work. I think that is one of the
areas that we can certainly work with Secretary Greenlee on
since she is working with the population with disabilities.
We know the people want to work, and we know that many of
them are in and out of the job market. And we believe that with
some support they may be able to do so. We do not have a
specific answer at this time. We really need to demonstrate
what will work. The $50,000,000 that has been requested would
allow us to do research. We would have an evaluation component
so we could determine what works and what does not work.
We would work with the local groups at the local level. And
I think that with vocational rehabilitation, with Aging, and
some of the other services, we would be able to come up with
some solutions.
Mr. Cole. And if you could, if you could address just the
issue of disparate outcomes in different States?
Ms. Colvin. I think that my answer would be that is not
unexpected. It depends upon the populations in those States.
For instance, if you are in a community that has a labor
force that is doing very hard work, coal mining or some of the
other types of industries, you would see a higher rate of
disability perhaps as a result of aging. In your areas where
you have more office-type jobs or more IT jobs, you might, in
fact, see less approvals.
We have inline quality reviews. We have a strong quality
review program to make sure that we are making the right
decisions at both the initial as well as through the hearings
process. We focus a lot on that because we want to make sure
that the decisions are correct.
We do reviews of 50 percent of all allowances that are made
at the DDS level, which is the first level prior to a benefit
ever being paid. The accuracy rate has consistently remained
high. So we do believe that the decisions that are made at the
DDS level are the right decisions.
Now I know you have had some concern about at the hearings
level, and that is usually because the case is probably well
over a year, sometimes 2 years by the time it gets to the
hearings level, and so, you have a different case. You have
situations where individuals' disabilities have increased, and
so you are likely to get a different decision there.
Mr. Cole. Okay. Just very quickly because I am going over
my 5 minutes here, and I am going to be pretty rigorous in
enforcing it on other people. So, but I will take it probably--
so you are pretty comfortable in your own mind then that most
of the disparities we are seeing really do reflect population
differences at a State level?
Ms. Colvin. I really am. We do focused reviews at the ALJ
level.
We do pre-effectuation reviews. In addition to doing those
reviews, we do policy reviews to see if the decisions are
policy compliant.
Our approval rate now at the DDS level is 32 percent. Some
would argue that that is too low. I try not to look at approval
or disapproval, but really look at the right decision. But for
the past several years, we have been consistent with the rate
of disapprovals.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
I recognize the gentlelady from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank our guests this morning. Just very,
very quickly, with regard to early intervention that the
chairman talked about, are you working with the Office of
Disability Employment Policy, Department of Labor, National
Institutes on Disability, Rehab----
Ms. Colvin. Absolutely.
Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. Research, as well as with
Commissioner Greenlee here? So you are working with all of
those efforts?
Ms. Colvin. Yes. Yes.
Ms. DeLauro. Is there a percentage of veterans in that
population that you are working with?
Ms. Colvin. Well, we have 1 million veterans on our
disability rolls right now, and we have instituted procedures,
as you know, to expedite the processing of those cases. And
those numbers do grow.
Ms. DeLauro. Okay. And again very quickly, if I might, this
is about the backlog that the chairman addressed. Worst-case
scenario in which sequestration remains in effect and
discretionary appropriations remain flat, what would happen to
the hearing backlog and average processing if SSA is level
funded next year?
Ms. Colvin. Well, for me, it would be catastrophic. We
already have over a million cases backlog with the 2015 budget.
And if we can get the ALJ candidate register and the ability to
hire judges, we expect to be on a trajectory that would allow
us to begin to reduce those backlogs by 2019.
If we begin to have flat funding, we are going to have a
significant deterioration because we cannot do a hearing
without a judge, and we have lost a significant number of
judges over the years. It takes time to train them and to get
them prepared to handle a full caseload.
Ms. DeLauro. Let me address service cutbacks, Commissioner.
We talked about at least 64 field offices closing. We talk
about the wait time for folks and effort. Let me get to the
question.
What improvements in customer service--including in-person
and phone waiting times, claims processing, and other key
service methods--could you provide if you receive funding at
the President's budget level and the kinds of tradeoffs you
have to make if the funding continues at the current level?
I am going to add another question to that. Senate report
notes that, ``Hiring freezes resulted in disproportionate
staffing across the Nation in 1,245 field offices, with some
offices losing a quarter of their staff.''
Will SSA be able to address staffing shortages in offices
that lost a disproportionate number of personnel, and how are
field offices being affected by the difficulty Americans are
having getting service on the 800 number?
Ms. Colvin. Let me start off by saying that we have
received over $3,000,000,000 less over the last 3 years than we
requested, and you have seen what the impact has been. We have
had a significant increase in waiting times both on the 800
Number as well in the field offices, and there has been an
impact on the claims processing.
The $700,000,000 increase that we requested will allow us
to be able to replace those staff that will retire as a result
of the fact that our workforce is aging. So we would be able to
replace our losses, and we would hope that we would be able to
have a few additional staff assigned to those field offices.
The majority of my budget is personnel. It is either
personnel or IT. So when we have less money, it means we have
less staff, and it means less services. We have tried to create
efficiencies, and we have gotten efficiencies through our
automation. But we recognize that our field office structure is
always going to be our primary structure because we have
individuals who need face-to-face assistance, and we have
others who prefer face-to-face.
So although we are making great progress with our IT
development, it is not going to replace our field offices, and
we need staff to be able to keep those offices vibrant.
Ms. DeLauro. And would you have to continue to close
offices or to cut back hours, and what is the plan to begin to
restore those offices with additional money and to restore the
hours? Each of us has a district office that relates very
directly with Social Security. So when the increased complaints
come in because of hours or closures, that winds up being a
problem that we are faced with as well. So----
Ms. Colvin. Social Security is the face of Government. We
touch the lives of almost every American, and so we need to be
in the field. There would certainly be a significant impact.
Yes, we did close a significant number of offices last year,
and we have a commitment that we will not continue to close
offices, hopefully, if we get our 2016 allocation.
Beginning March of this year, we will be restoring 1 hour
per day of service on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays
in field offices that I had to eliminate as a result of the
budget cuts. That is going to allow more people to be seen and
people to be seen more quickly. Now should we not get the
budget, then we are going to have some challenges to be able to
keep that momentum.
I will tell you that there are no plans to close offices in
2015 and 2016 as a result of our 2015 allocation, and we really
thank the Appropriations Committee for that. We were able to
replace about half of the 11,000 staff that we lost.
But remember, we have an aging workforce. As fast as we
hire staff, we are also losing staff. We are just trying to
keep up.
I would also like to point out that about $350,000,000 of
our budget are increases in fixed costs, and you have that
increasing each year. Those are costs that we cannot change.
We would also be able to significantly address our program
integrity issues. We have demonstrated that by doing medical
reviews, continuing disability reviews, that we are able to
save $19 for every $1 that we spend. And those continuing
disability reviews are critical because they are used to remove
people from the rolls who are no longer disabled.
In FY 2014, we had a backlog of 1.3 million in that area.
With the President's budget, we would be able to do 908,000
CDRs in 2016, which would be a significant reduction of the
pending cases, and about 17 percent of those individuals are
projected to come off the rolls as a result of the reviews that
we do.
So it is a very cost-effective activity. We believe that we
should have a dedicated program integrity fund so that we do
not have to continue to choose between doing program integrity
and doing customer service. That is where we are right now.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Alabama is recognized.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Colvin, I want to go back to what--and thank
you both for being here today. I want to go back to what the
chairman was talking about a minute ago as it relates to the
appeals. You reported in fiscal year 2014 that the allowance
rate for disability appeals was 45 percent, and most of the
individuals had already been subject to the initial denial
review and the reconsideration process.
And I understand that this has decreased from 2010, when it
was at an all-time high of 62 percent. And I want you to, if
you could, elaborate on the reason for the decrease. But I want
to share my chairman's concern that we are still at almost 50
percent succeeding at the hearing level after having already
gone through these two processes.
So can you address those two things, please?
Ms. Colvin. Certainly, Mrs. Roby. Thank you for that
question.
As I mentioned, there are some negative consequences of
backlogs. The older a case is, the more likely that it is not
going to be the same case. So when someone comes into the DDS
for a decision and they are disapproved, they have the right to
appeal and have a reconsideration. They may be disapproved at
that point.
By the time they get to the hearing level, you are talking
about a case that is well over 2 years old. So if someone
actually has a disability, that problem has further
deteriorated. In addition, there is new medical information
over that period of time that the judge is going to take a look
at.
So you cannot look at the case that is first heard in the
disability office and assume that that is the exact same case
by the time it gets to the ALJ. At one time, we were well
over----
Mrs. Roby. Can I interrupt you for just a second? I
understand that part of it, and I heard you say that to the
chairman. But what can you attribute to the decrease from 62
percent to 45?
Ms. Colvin. I think that the decrease is due to quality
reviews that have been put in place. There is a system that has
been developed in ODAR, ``How MI Doing?'', which allows the
judges to get feedback, to take a look at whether or not they
are making policy-compliant decisions.
We are using a lot of data analytics when we do reviews to
see if there are particularly difficult areas where we need to
do more training to be able to ensure that we are, in fact,
getting a quality decision. We do some after the decision has
actually been made, but we are always looking at how to improve
the decision-making.
I know at one time, this committee was concerned about some
judges' approval rates and disapproval rates. I think that
those have been brought closer to a norm.
I think that it is a continuous quality improvement that we
are attempting to make in the agency, the continuous training,
and the improvement in our policies so that those who are
adjudicating the cases clearly understand some of the more
difficult decision areas.
Mrs. Roby. Okay. Thank you.
Can we switch gears and talk about the selection of
administrative law judges? It is now being done by the Office
of Personnel Management. What is your confidence level in their
ability to manage the hiring of these individuals?
Ms. Colvin. The process has been challenging for us. The
President's budget is establishing a workgroup that will be led
by the Administrative Conference of the United States, which is
an independent agency that, hopefully, will work with us, work
with OPM, and try to come up with a process that works better
for us.
One of the reasons that we have had such a backlog in our
cases has been our inability to get judges because we have had
trouble getting a registry. And as you know, last year Congress
gave us funding for judges, but we were unable to bring the
judges on because of the problem we had around the ALJ
registry.
Mrs. Roby. I mean, also the 1 million individuals waiting
for decisions could attribute to the hardship in hiring these
administrative law judges, I would suspect.
Ms. Colvin. That is accurate.
ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES
Mrs. Roby. Quickly, Ms. Greenlee, thank you for all your
help with seniors and those with disabilities at ACL. I would
like, and I do not have very much time left, but I would like
to expand--for you to expand on the Adult Protective Service
program. As GAO has expressed, collecting, maintaining, and
reporting statewide case-level data for Adult Protective
Service program is a challenge.
And I guess the question to you is, is the technology
infrastructure that you worked on with the Assistant Secretary
for Planning and Evaluation still current, and what is your
biggest hurdle in getting this up and running?
Ms. Greenlee. Thank you, Congresswoman.
The first thing to understand as we talk about APS is that
we never created a Federal infrastructure for Adult Protective
Services. Each Adult Protective Services system was developed
at the State level, and until we started working on this very
recently, there was no Federal role at all.
So what we have focused our attention on is the basics. How
can we put together a way to gather information from the States
so we at least have a national snapshot of what an APS case
looks like, all of the details of the case? So what we have
been doing with the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation is working with about 30 States to find out how we
then build an architecture that would interface with the
existing State programs that are all very different.
That is what the budget request is for, to be able to then
take this architecture, which we have now worked on developing,
and provide grants to States so that they can start to create
interoperability with the Federal system. So we are really
starting from scratch, and we have been doing that for the last
couple of years. But this is completely different than the
approach that we took for Child Protective Services, where we
created this sort of infrastructure several decades ago.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I went over
my time.
Mr. Cole. I think I went over mine. So that is okay.
[Laughter.]
If we could, by order of arrival, Mr. Fattah is next up.
So----
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Now let me see if I can, monthly, how many Americans
receive benefits through the Social Security Administration?
Ms. Colvin. Well over 60 million.
Mr. Fattah. Okay. And this is both in terms of the
disability side and the income security?
Ms. Colvin. Yes, sir. We have about 11 million who are
receiving disability.
Mr. Fattah. So, and the other 49 million are----
Ms. Colvin. Retirees and some survivors and children.
Mr. Fattah. Now the Heritage Foundation did a report a
little while back about labor market participation and how,
given the baby boomers, it is becoming lower and lower. When
you talk in terms of the early intervention on the disability
side about how to help people stay in the workforce, this
$50,000,000 is an investment in evidence-based research models?
Ms. Colvin. That is correct.
Mr. Fattah. Right. That will be able to--because there has
been a lot of concern about making sure that we could have as
many people as possible in the workforce, right? So, and we
also do not want to be paying out if we do not need to pay out,
I guess, on disability.
So the plan, assuming the appropriations, would involve how
many people and how many models?
Ms. Colvin. I would need to give you that for the record--
--
Mr. Fattah. Okay.
Ms. Colvin [continuing]. Because we are working with HHS
and their research and evaluation unit. We want to make sure
that we develop the models correctly, and we also want to make
sure we have an evaluation component. There are discussions
going on, but we are not too far down the road yet with that.
This would be a proposal for 2016, so we are working so we
would be ready for that.
[The information follows:]
The FY 2016 request for $50 million will provide funding for the
first model, which will be a large scale demonstration to test whether
employment support and other services can forestall enrollment in SSA's
disability programs. The demonstration will have a treatment (or study)
group that receives services and a control group that does not. Based
on past demonstrations we have run at SSA, the number of individuals in
the treatment group could total 2,000-5,000 individuals (the final
number depends on additional technical work to determine sufficient
sample sizes).
For FY 2017 through FY 2020, the President's Budget requests an
additional $350 million that would support at least two other models.
Mr. Fattah. Okay. And let us just go back to the larger
group of retirees. So at some point, you know, the baby boomers
will have all retired, right?
Ms. Colvin. I hope so. [Laughter.]
Mr. Fattah. I do, too. But that so at some point in terms
of your staffing pattern I guess is the question, you know,
school districts have this problem when they are trying to plan
for school building usage. You know, like there is going to be
a wave of kids, and then there is going to be no kids.
And then, so like as you are hiring up, you said earlier
that there are a number of people retiring. Will it meet the
needs as you project the agency forward, you know, say over the
next 20 years or so?
Ms. Colvin. Well, we are in process of doing our 10-year
vision for 2025, and we certainly do not see the numbers going
away at that point. I mean, you have individuals living longer.
So you have a longer life expectancy. Even if you have people
who are going onto disability, many of them rollover to the
retirement program. They may roll over a little bit later since
we changed the retirement age to 66.
I think we have over 50,000 people who are 100 years of age
or older now. So people are living longer.
Mr. Fattah. That is good.
Ms. Colvin. I do not think that we have reached a point
where we believe that we are going to have more staff than we
need, and we each year give a projection of what the numbers of
staff we need to do the workloads that we have. We are a very
production-oriented agency, and we can tell you how we spend
your money. Any dollar that you give us is well spent.
Mr. Fattah. My last question. You know, in a perfect world,
we want people when they retire to have, you know, private
pension, some savings, some investments, and Social Security.
But for many, many Americans, that is not the case. What they
have is what shows up in the mail or in direct deposit from you
each month, and that is the totality of what they exist off of.
Do you have an estimate about the percentage of people in
which the Social Security retiree benefit is the extent of
their cash?
Ms. Colvin. I do have that. I do not think I have it before
me, but it is a high number.
Mr. Fattah. If you could supply----
Ms. Colvin. Maybe my staff can give it to me before we
leave here. But that is the importance of the Social Security
program. For the majority of Americans, it is the only source
of income. I know because I have focused most recently on the
disability program that, you know, it is an average benefit of
$1,200 a month. And for about 37 percent of the people, that is
virtually all they get.
And for about 61 percent of those on disability, most of
them rely more significantly on Social Security than any other
type of income. And before we leave, I can give you the amount,
the percentage of----
Mr. Fattah. Or for the record. Thank you very much.
Ms. Colvin. I can provide it for the record also.
[The information follows:]
We have estimates of the percentage of beneficiaries who are
largely dependent on Social Security:
Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 52 percent of married
couples and 74 percent of unmarried persons receive 50 percent or more
of their income from Social Security.
Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 22 percent of married
couples and about 47 percent of unmarried persons rely on Social
Security for 90 percent or more of their income.
Mr. Fattah. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Fattah, most of those are women because
women live longer.
Mr. Cole. Yes, do not rub it in.
Mr. Fattah. That is because they live better. [Laughter.]
Mr. Cole. We will go next to the other gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Dent.
Mr. Dent. Thank you both for joining us this morning.
Appreciate this opportunity.
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY
My question is for Administrator Greenlee. The transfer of
the Assistive Technology Act to ACL will bring a nice
complement to many of your existing programs. As I know you
understand, assistive technology devices help make it possible
for people with disabilities and older Americans to live
independently and participate fully in their communities.
Can we count on ACL to bring forth your leadership to
support all the existing assistive technology entities and to
expand opportunities for alternative financing programs so that
it is possible for people with disabilities or their families
throughout the United States to be able to buy the devices that
they need?
Ms. Greenlee. Yes, Congressman. We are very pleased to have
the Assistive Technology program transfer to us. Another huge
opportunity is that the National Institute for Disability,
Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research has also come
to us, and they have a history of also investing in technology
that can help people remain independent and be employed.
So we have two more opportunities as a larger organization
to work to help people get access to assistive technology.
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
And the Rehabilitative Services Administration assigned
priority points to applicants who competed in the most recent
funding cycles for alternative financing programs. Congress did
not assign priority points, but rather stated that the monies
support alternative financing programs that provide for the
purchase of assistive technology devices.
The goal in providing these funds is to allow greater
access to affordable financing to help people with disabilities
purchase the specialized technologies needed to live
independently, you know, to succeed at school and work, and to
otherwise live active and productive lives. If we in Congress
can continue to provide designated funding for alternative
financing programs, how can the Administration support and
build on these programs?
Ms. Greenlee. Congressman, of the programs that came to us
with Assistive Technology, the primary support grants to
States. The Alternative Financing Program was not requested as
a part of the Administration's budget. So I would like the
opportunity to respond later if Congress decides to continue to
fund that program, it was not part of our budget request.
Mr. Dent. Okay. I wanted to recognize that some of the
current alternative financing programs, like the one in my
State, the Pennsylvania Assistive Technology Foundation, and we
are very proud of the work they do to help people remain
independent and in their homes in many cases. They are helping,
you know, thousands of residents but need our help because they
are out of Federal funds or very close to it.
And so, the bottom line is would you set the competition in
closer alignment to the direction we in Congress provided in
this matter?
Ms. Greenlee. I said, Congressman, we did not request
funding for the Alternative Financing Program. I would be glad
to follow up and because I have not ever administered the
program and, did not request funding for the program, would
want to know what your concerns are so that we could address
them in the event that Congress decides to make that
appropriation.
Mr. Dent. And we would love to have that follow-up dialogue
with you. Thank you very much.
And to Administrator Colvin, a number of high-profile
companies and corporations, as well as Federal agencies, have
been the target of cyber attacks, resulting in the exposure and
theft of personal and consumer data in the recent years. What
kind of security measures are in place to protect Americans'
personal information used and stored in ``my Social Security''
accounts?
Ms. Colvin. Thank you for that question.
We have been very fortunate to have a very strong
cybersecurity program in place. I do not know that I am
technically proficient in all of the things that we do, but I
will tell you that we have a review done yearly by an outside
consultant to make certain that those security activities or
tools are in place.
We have been very fortunate that we have not had any
breaches of that information. We are probably the largest
holder of data on the American public. We are very careful to
make sure that we are using best practices, as cited throughout
the Nation by security experts.
I would be very happy to provide you a more detailed
listing of the specific activities that we take on a regular
basis to ensure the security of the data. One of the biggest
areas of attempts would be around identity theft when we are
looking at fraud, and we are always trying to make sure that we
tell our beneficiaries and the American public they need to
keep their data safe. So we have to set that example.
Mr. Dent. Okay, and I see my--right on time. I will yield
back.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
And next, go to the gentlelady from California.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FAMILY SUPPORT AND CAREGIVING
Ms. Greenlee, as you know, many cities have repeatedly
cited family caregivers as the backbone of care of older people
and adults with disabilities. And having two parents who lived
into their nineties and were disabled, I have a real
appreciation of the demands that family caregivers face.
According to findings from an AARP national survey, almost
half, about 46 percent of family caregivers performed medical
or nursing tasks for their loved ones and reported feeling
stress or worried about making a mistake. More than half
reported feeling depressed or hopeless, and more than a third
reported being in poor health. So I am very interested in the
Administration for Community Living's family caregiver
programs.
HRSA recently reorganized their Title VII and VIII
geriatrics program into a single grant, which will allow for
training of family caregivers. How will this change work with
the existing support programs at ACL? What is ACL doing to
support the shrinking population of family caregivers? And what
is it doing to build a competent geriatric workforce to meet
the demand for long-term care?
Ms. Greenlee. Congresswoman, thank you.
I share your concern about the incredible burdens and
stress on family caregivers. I am familiar with the AARP report
that you cited. So I think it is important that we continue to
acknowledge this is the backbone of our long-term care system.
The changes I believe that you referenced were to the
Geriatric Education Program at HRSA, which is focused on
providing geriatric training to providers. We have many
relationships with HRSA, but they are really more at the
consumer delivery point, like with the community health
clinics, than the geriatric education centers because we see
more and more older adults coming to the federally qualified
health clinics. So I think that is where the best connection is
with HRSA.
We don't have specific workforce investment resources at
ACL. In fact, the Affordable Care Act gave HRSA incredible new
resources to reach in this particular direction. I believe the
workforce support that we provide is slightly different, and
that is that we provide the support for caregivers so
caregivers can get the training they need, respite they need,
any other type of emotional support that they need. So that if
they are in the workforce, they can continue to work and
provide care for their loved one.
But the companion piece to that is also reflected in this
budget, providing more services to the older person who needs
care, such as adult day. That also helps the caregiver because
while the older person is in adult day programming, the
caregiver may need to be able to go to work.
So I think it is a companion piece, and it is the
centerpiece really of what we are doing in this country to
provide long-term care. The tremendous, I always call it a
burden of love, family caregiving. It is essential.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Following up on that, you know,
there are definitely cultural differences in family caregiving.
So what does ACL, many of the programs, what are they doing to
support the diverse culture and linguistic needs of family
caregivers?
Ms. Greenlee. The way the program is administered is we
distribute the family caregiving money to the States, and the
States then distribute this to the local Area Agency on Aging.
For instance, in your part of California, to both the City and
County of Los Angeles. They then will do an assessment of both
the needs of the older person and the family caregiver.
And because the assessment is person specific, it provides
an opportunity to provide culturally appropriate services,
regardless of the nature of the family or the family caregiving
need, and also to access other community resources that are
important so that you can maintain connections to community for
both the older person and the family member.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Now the President's budget includes a
new family support initiative that focuses on keeping family
caregivers in the workforce. Can you talk a little bit about
the importance of a program like this in ensuring that family
caregivers can remain in the workforce and are able to retire
themselves?
Ms. Greenlee. Are you talking specifically about the
$15,000,000 request in our particular budget?
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes.
Ms. Greenlee. This particular family caregiver program
would allow us to provide grants to States to look at the
complex needs of family caregivers in all kinds of family
caregiving situations, including caregivers who are providing
support for an adult with a disability in their family. There
currently are no systems in place to provide comprehensive
training or education to a family on what the resources are
that they may be able to access in their community to help them
both stay in the workforce and provide care for an adult child
with a disability, who often will live with their parents for a
lifetime.
Once a person with a disability leaves the educational
system, the family really does not have any sort of collection
of community resources. And what we are attempting to do is
work with States to find a way to create models that really
give the family a different pathway so they do not have to
immediately turn to Medicaid and instead can keep the family
unit together, independently financed, with access to a
different constellation of community resources to help the
family know that they can access everything to support the
person with the disability and the family caregiver.
Our family caregiver programs really run the life span at
ACL. They are slightly different, but also very complementary.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. Mr. Rigell.
Mr. Rigell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you both for being here today. We appreciate your
testimony. It is helpful and instructive to us. We trust that
our questions are helpful to you as well.
Commissioner Colvin, I would like to direct my questions to
you, at least initially, and draw your attention to SSI and its
solvency or lack thereof. It would be helpful to me--I am new
to the committee--but if you could explain, to me at least,
what your responsibility is for providing recommendations to
the President and to the others within the administration to
ensure that it is solvent, and what actions are being taken, if
any, by the administration in terms of proposals for Congress
to consider to ensure its solvency?
Ms. Colvin. Thank you for that question.
I think you mean the SSDI program.
Mr. Rigell. That is what I meant.
Ms. Colvin. Okay.
Mr. Rigell. And thank you.
Ms. Colvin. It is scheduled to have its reserves depleted
in 2016. I am certainly a voice inside the administration to
talk about what the various proposals would mean, what the
impact would be on the various constituency groups, and what
the impact would mean for the trust funds. I think I have an
active responsibility to provide as much information to the
administration as I can.
I think the President's reallocation proposal is designed
to allow us time to come up with long-term solutions, but the
reallocation proposal, as you know, proposes to take 0.9
percentage point from the taxes, moving it from Old-Age
Survivors Insurance to DI Disability Insurance, which would
give us solvency until 2033 in both programs. And I think that
there are a number of long-term solutions that have been placed
on the table that will require bipartisan support to reach a
conclusion.
Mr. Rigell. Have you made a definitive recommendation on
any of those?
Ms. Colvin. No. As I said, I think my role is to make sure
that the consequences of the various proposals are well known
and that we do the estimates and the analysis, and that is what
I have been doing.
Mr. Rigell. Do you think that the reallocation is actually
a substantive reform? I mean that it solves the underlying
problem? It seems like it does not to me because it then
exacerbates the problems that we have got on the other account.
Ms. Colvin. I think you are accurate. I do not think that
the reallocation proposal is designed to be a long-term
solution. But you are talking about 2016, which is next year. I
think the reallocation proposal is designed to give Congress
and the administration time to come up with the long-term
solution----
Mr. Rigell. Well, I would respectfully submit that, you
know, the 6-plus years the administration has had in office is
plenty of time to have done that. And I would say as well that
to the extent that it is this organization's responsibility
that we could move a bit faster as well.
Once someone--let us move on then on the SSDI to look at
when someone is receiving the benefit. What mechanisms are in
place to go back and see that if they do not need it anymore,
of course, that they are moved off of it, which I think is the
right intent and the intent of the program?
Ms. Colvin. Yes, and Congress did authorize in our budget
what we call continuing disability reviews. These are medical
reviews that we do every 3 years when resources are available
to determine whether or not that person's medical disability
continues. About 17 percent of the individuals who receive a
medical review, I am told, we project will come off of the
rolls.
Unfortunately, we have not been funded to be able to do
them on a regular basis so we had a backlog of about 1.3
million in FY 2014. Our 2016 budget, as you may know, would
allow us to do 908,000 of those reviews, and we think that will
result in about 17 percent of those individuals coming off the
rolls.
Mr. Rigell. Okay. You know, when I ask these questions, I
want to make clear that if a fellow American needs some help, I
am ready to help. But for those who would take advantage of the
system, you know, I have a real visceral reaction to that
because they are really stealing from others. And I know the
agency is trying to do what it can to ferret out the waste.
But the sharp increase--and I think if I get my
nomenclature wrong, I will get it right by the next hearing,
Mr. Chairman. But anyway, on SSDI, it seemed like there has
been a sharp increase in the number of applications and things.
You know, that trend is striking as I have looked at the data.
So what--and I know this was even brought up in the
previous Congress, but what is driving that? Because I looked
at your answer from the previous hearing in the previous
Congress, and I just was not fully understanding. I was not
satisfied that we really understood what is driving the demand.
And I see that my--the light is on, the red light. So I
will stop at this point. If you could maybe just give a couple
sentences, the chairman might allow, I do not know. It is up to
him.
Ms. Colvin. Well, I do want to emphasize that the increase
in the rolls was projected. If you look back as far as 1995
with the trustees reports, our actuary always predicted that
the rolls would go up as a result of the aging of the baby
boomers, who would be more prone to disability, and more women
in the workforce who would be earning on their own record, and
their disability rate would be comparative to men.
But I will tell you that the Disability Insurance rate, the
number of applications that we are receiving is declining, not
increasing.
Mr. Rigell. I see.
Ms. Colvin. And that was projected also.
Mr. Rigell. Okay. Well, thank you for your answer, and I
thank the chairman for giving me a little grace there.
Mr. Cole. Absolutely. If we go next, I think Mr. Harris
arrived next. So----
Mr. Harris. But I am just--I am going to be coming back. I
am going to have to step out for a minute. So I will defer.
Mr. Cole. Okay, very good. Mr. Fleischmann, you are the
lucky guy. You are up next.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. And
I apologize for my delay. I was at another subcommittee hearing
for the Secretary of Energy.
Ladies, good morning, and thank you for being here.
Commissioner Colvin, thank you for updating us on the
excellent work SSA is doing to increase accessibility through
online services. Social Security employees from my district who
assist my constituents every day have expressed concerns to me
about the security of users' data in ``my Social Security''--
and I put that in quotes--online accounts.
Their concerns center on the Administration contracting
with a company that has sold personal data to a Vietnamese ID
theft operation, but they do have broader concerns about the
security of iClaims and SSA's online operations in general. I
would like to follow up on Mr. Dent's questions on
cybersecurity.
Could you please outline specific steps that you are taking
to guarantee personal information entered into SSA Web sites is
not at risk of being sold or made susceptible to security
breaches? That is one question.
What recommendations from the OIG have you implemented, and
what recommendations are you still working on? And have any
investigations been launched into the company or companies you
contract with to determine how safe users' information is in
their possession?
Ms. Colvin. Mr. Fleischmann, I am going to ask that you
allow me to provide that answer for you on the record. I will
tell you that our information is very secure, that we work with
outside experts to ensure, as I mentioned earlier, that we are
using best practices.
I am not aware of any major breaches in the personal
information that we use or that we secure. And so, I would like
to give you a very detailed response for the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Colvin. There are also some steps that we take that I
do not think we want to be made public because fraudsters are
always looking at how they can defraud the system. We would be
very happy to brief your staff on what we are doing in those
areas.
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay. Thank you. I will look forward to
receiving that.
Commissioner, as you have stated, SSA has a lot of work to
do to continue to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in Social
Security. Your application process and investigations play an
extremely important role in cutting wasteful and fraudulent
spending that threatens our national fiscal sustainability.
I am interested in finding out what additional steps can be
taken to help these efforts. It is my understanding that your
processes do not currently involve reviewing unemployment
compensation records to determine if disability insurance
applicants who, by definition, cannot work and are receiving
unemployment compensation, which requires that they are able to
work and are actively seeking employment.
Has SSA ever considered including this step? Are there
barriers in place that would keep you from being able to
implement this type of review?
Ms. Colvin. Let me answer the last part of your question.
The President's budget does have a proposal that would offset
any income that is received from unemployment against
disability. I think that was your question. So there is a
proposal in the 2016 budget for that.
I also want to stress, though, that fraud is very small in
our program. The Inspector General's Office has identified that
it is less than 1 percent, although even one case is too many,
and we have a lot of fraud initiatives. We have established an
Office of Anti-Fraud Prevention so that we could make sure that
it was highly focused.
Our cooperative disability investigative (CDI) units are a
partnership with Office of Inspector General, the first one was
established in 1998 when I was here as the Deputy for
Operations. We now have 28. We will be opening another four in
2015, and another five in 2016 if we get the budget.
So these are the ones that we think are especially
important because they prevent a check from going out, where
many of the other initiatives we have are going after the money
once it has been paid out. This is a cooperative initiative
with the local disability determination services at the State
level.
They identify suspicious cases or where the information
does not seem credible, and that is referred to the CDI unit
that does an investigation. We are often able to intercept a
payment there.
We also have a national anti-fraud committee that works
with the 10 regions, and they review the cases that have been
identified for lessons learned. They also look at policy
changes that may be necessary or anything that would help
prevent a case from occurring again.
We are really doing a lot now with disability analytics,
analyzing information so we can see trends. This allows us to
identify third-party facilitators, doctors or lawyers who may
be in collusion to receive a benefit for their client they
should not get. And we have been having a lot of success there.
We have mandatory training for all 62,000 of our employees
on fraud so they know how to detect it. SSA just recently
implemented new notice language so that all of our notices now
have a statement urging individuals to report any suspicious
fraud, and we give them our hotline as a reminder.
And then we are doing a number of things with eServices
fraud, which I would prefer to report to you privately so that
fraudsters will not have that information.
I think we are doing a lot. One of the things that I would
ask Congress to do is pass legislation that would allow us to
impose penalties against third-party fraudsters, where many
times a court will not accept our cases because they do not
come up to the dollar value that they want, and we then are not
able to prosecute.
But if I had certain authorities, we could at least go
after individuals civilly. We do have a legislative proposal in
the budget, and we hope you will consider that.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Cole. Thank you. And I just for the record want to
commend your fraud effort in terms of what I have seen
personally, actually before I was on this subcommittee, in your
Oklahoma City office. It is absolutely eye-opening, and I share
Mr. Rigell's righteous indignation here when----
Ms. Colvin. Absolutely.
Mr. Cole [continuing]. We are talking about taking people's
retirements and taking money that is set aside for people that
have genuine disabilities and real need. So thank you for your
efforts in that way.
NATIVE AMERICAN PROGRAMS
Administrator Greenlee, if I could go to you for a moment,
I have got always a tremendous interest in what is happening
with Native Americans and with tribal governments, and I know
you have got some initiatives underway to try and help some of
the both elderly and disabled in those communities, which are
quite often isolated and in many cases have very limited
resources of their own.
So, number one, could you describe the relationship you
have with tribal governments, which vary in capacity and,
frankly, what they can do? And two, could you then go through
some of the specific things, I noticed you have asked for a
modest increase in nutrition and caretaker services for Native
Americans in particular. So what are the sorts of efforts that
you are doing to reach out and build those relationships and
reach those very difficult to serve populations?
Ms. Greenlee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, through the Older Americans Act, we have specific
dedicated funding where we fund tribes directly for both
nutrition services and caregiver services. Any time we make a
request for an increase in the budget for the other Older
Americans Act funds for nutrition and caregiver, we always try
to make the same request for the tribal programs that we have.
For the whole time I have been here, I have conducted a
listening session with our tribal grantees. For about the last
3 years, I have done that with Dr. Roubideaux, the head of
Indian Health Services, and they are always sobering when you
talk to the tribes.
I actually did a listening session in Oklahoma with the
Oklahoma Indian Council about 3 or 4 years ago, and it is they
always come back and talk about multiple things--the poverty
that many tribes face, the role of the family is always
paramount when we talk to tribes, the way they really have to
stretch the dollars that we give them, and that anything that
we can do to support the whole family helps the elders, as well
as helping the elders directly through our Title VI grantees.
Elder abuse is a major passion of mine in terms of working
on these issues. For the last several years, elder abuse has
come out from tribes as one of their primary concerns. When we
talk elder abuse, we find the same jurisdictional issues that
you would have with Adult Protective Services and law
enforcement with regard to the ability of tribes to deal with
abuse on tribal lands.
We specifically have funded a national elder Indian--
national elder indigenous project to work specifically on elder
abuse with the American Indians so that we can be culturally
competent as we work with tribes. It is really rewarding and
sometimes heartbreaking work because of the amount of poverty
the tribes have.
I think the thing that is most uplifting is really to see
the value of the family and the way that in tribal communities
the elder is not left behind in any way and that there is a
real attention to those services. So anything that we can do to
help tribes in that way we do.
There are also other funding opportunities. When we have
general program announcements for any other programs, the
tribes are also completely welcome to apply. So it is not just
as specific as dedicated funding, but other opportunities as
well. It is important work.
Mr. Cole. Well, thank you very much.
You know, one of the challenges for this particular
population, too, is Native Americans are no longer living on
tribal lands. And you know, in the healthcare system, we have
38 different facilities in communities with high Native
American populations, but where most of that population is
apart from the area of jurisdiction or the reservation, which
is home.
Do you have any particular outreach efforts to those folks?
And again, this is a population particularly in the disability
area that has a unique--you know, will be much more likely to
have diabetes, much more likely to have certain kinds of
illnesses that they are genetically predisposed to have and,
frankly, have quite often had a lot less in the way of care and
services over the course of a lifetime that sort of help you,
sustain you when you are a little bit older.
Ms. Greenlee. It is an expectation that we have of both the
State and the local Area Agency on Aging that they provide
services to all older people in their communities. So for urban
Indians who are living in a catchment area and an Area Agency
on Aging that is not on a reservation or specific tribal land,
we really fund them to do that work directly and find it is
important that we continue to fund national resource centers
who can work with States and Area Agencies on Aging to make
sure that they provide specific information to tribes.
It is not just the responsibility of the tribes themselves
because, as you say, not everyone is living on specific tribal
land. It is everyone's group responsibility to serve all the
diverse communities in an urban population, including American
Indians.
Mr. Cole. Well, I commend you for your work in this regard
and particularly am pleased to hear that you are working with
Dr. Roubideaux. Because I do think those 38 healthcare centers
may be an awfully good place for you to focus on as well
because, again, that is where a lot of that population is going
to come to in an urban setting.
And there is no doubt there is an opportunity there for
cross services, obviously for medical services, but for some of
these assisted living programs as well. So just thank you for
looking at it.
Mr. Harris has not yet returned. So if I can, I will go to
the gentlelady from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Ms. Greenlee, thank you for your focus on elder abuse.
I think it is an area that has--really needs a lot of
attention, and I do not know the various ways in which we have
the opportunity to monitor what is happening. And you know, I
have a mother who is 101 years old, and she lives with me and
my husband in New Haven, and we have caregivers, you know,
around the clock. And I know how well they treat her.
And we are all people who would go to various facilities
and nursing homes, et cetera, and you hope that people are
being cared for in the right way. But I think your attention to
this issue is critical, and we need to really uncover those
places and take them really more than to task, you know? Put
them out of business, I swear, if they are abusing elderly,
elderly people.
NUTRITION
And I want to focus and I want to move to senior
nutrition----
Ms. Greenlee. Yes.
Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. If I can because I think that is
another area of real serious concern. You have asked in the
budget for $60,000,000 to increase nutrition programs. And
there has been a decline, as I understand it, in those services
over the past 5 years. At this level, you can provide more than
200 million meals to more than 2 million seniors, most of whom
are lower income.
My understanding is that more than 9 million Americans over
the age of 60 face the threat of hunger. Is that number barely
scratching the surface of what the problem is out there in the
hunger issue? What other ways could we assist in trying to
provide healthy and nutritious meals for seniors?
And in your experience, is a lack of nutritious meals a
common reason that seniors need to move into assisted living
facilities?
Ms. Greenlee. May I start with your last question first?
Ms. DeLauro. Sure.
Ms. Greenlee. Every year, we do a survey of people who have
participated in Older Americans Act programs, and we ask that
question specifically, if people had not been able to receive
the meals, would they have been more likely to need to move to
an institutional setting? And that is always the information
that we get back, that the meals themselves help people remain
independent.
In fact, that is often the first service that someone will
call for, either the older adult or a family member. That
certainly was the case in my own family, where we called for
meals. And when the Area Agency did an assessment, they often
find that someone needs additional kinds of supports.
The budget request for additional nutrition funding is
broken into two pieces. One to provide basic additional funding
to the States through the formula grants that we have for home-
delivered and congregate meals to stem the tide. We have been
losing progress in the last several years and have been able to
serve fewer and fewer people just because of inflation.
So the trend is this way because of inflation. If you
looked at that trend overlaid with the increased number of
older people, the trend line would be stark in terms of the
percentage of people that we are able to reach being far less,
compared to the older population as a whole.
Ms. DeLauro. And that includes the Meals on Wheels program?
Ms. Greenlee. Yes. Yes.
Ms. DeLauro. Yes.
Ms. Greenlee. And so, all home-delivered, all congregate
meals would benefit.
We also are very interested in innovation. I do not have
any innovation dollars for the nutrition program. They all go
out by formulas and go to the States. So $20,000,000 of the
$60,000,000 increase is to look at how we could modernize the
system, look at the ongoing demand, as we have more older
people come because of the age wave, and figure out if there is
different types of service deliveries----
Ms. DeLauro. Do you have any thoughts on how to--
innovations?
Ms. Greenlee. We can look at the ability to use technology
to order meals or to alert people if someone is not going to be
home. We can try different kinds of food service. Salad bars
are very popular. Can we adequately provide the daily
nutritional allowance if someone is choosing more meals? And
how can we change the service system itself?
Ms. DeLauro. I have taken the opportunity on several
occasions to go with the people who deliver the Meals on Wheels
just to ride along and then go into folks' homes. And in so
many instances, I have found that they are people who are
homebound, and they may or may not have a relative close by. Or
even some had relatives out of State.
And that person who does go not only delivers a meal, but
also checks in to see if the person well, if they have other
concerns and issues. So that the extent to which we can
increase that opportunity because in some instances, it is the
only meal that folks get for a day. If they are homebound and
they cannot get around and so forth, that is what their level
of food is for a day.
I would like to work with you on the issue of hunger, which
is an issue that is very, very important to me----
Ms. Greenlee. Thank you.
Ms. DeLauro [continuing]. Both for seniors and others as
well.
Ms. Greenlee. Thank you for your interest.
Ms. DeLauro. And on tribal lands, I might add, Mr.
Chairman, a big issue on tribal lands is hunger.
Mr. Cole. It is, and as my friend knows, it is not just the
sustenance. It is the social contact and the interaction that
you get when you are actually with a group. That support makes
a lot of difference for a lot of people.
Actually, Mr. Dent was going to be next. But----
[Laughter.]
So I think Mr. Fattah is now next.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ALZHEIMER'S AND OTHER BRAIN DISEASES
I am very interested in brain health-related issues. So you
indicated earlier that over 70 million people will be over the
age of 60. Degenerative brain diseases, dementia, you know,
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Huntingdon's disease, I am interested
in what you, given your footprint, what you sense about--you
know, the NIH, which is also under our jurisdiction, says there
are over 15 million Americans suffering from some one of
hundreds of brain illnesses or diseases.
But this population, both on the disability side that you
interact with, and the elderly, you know, the most you are
actually touching these people in real ways each day. So I
would be interested in what you think is happening about
caregiving for those who have a neurological-based illness?
Ms. Greenlee. I am glad you started by mentioning NIH. We
have a close partnership with the National Institute on Aging,
which has a history of specific investments in Alzheimer's
related research. And it is a nice complement where we can
invest in long-lead research to help look for ways to slow the
disease or maybe get rid of the disease.
And then there are the programs that we have that help
provide support for people who are living with Alzheimer's and
related dementias and their family caregivers. So we have
specific programs that are designed with an evidence base for
Alzheimer's disease to help support people. We have systems in
place to help States redesign their long-term services system
so they are capable of understanding the unique needs of this
population.
With our broader mission as ACL, we have been able to
provide additional focus since people with Down syndrome as
they age are at incredible risk for having a diagnosis of
Alzheimer's disease. We have done an awareness campaign to
reach out to individuals, and our base family caregiver program
also has a lot of support for people with Alzheimer's disease.
Mr. Fattah. Well, I would be very interested in getting as
much detail as is possible about those activities, and the
other things you talked about earlier is when you have younger
people who are disabled and who age out of the education
system. So autistic kids or kids who are in the spectrum, once
they age out, they are in a situation where, you know, there
are challenges for families.
And I would be interested in whether you have any
interaction at that level?
Ms. Greenlee. Yes, and the challenges for families are
similar to what Congresswoman Roybal-Allard was talking about
when she asked me about family caregiving. How can we find a
way to build an entire community around the family to provide
support for family and provide support for the young adult or
middle-aged adult with the disability?
That family will age together, and the caregiving
experience for families can often then last for a lifetime.
This becomes very stark when the issues all converge, and you
have really old people caring for middle-aged people with
disabilities and really needing to do some planning for the
future. So how do we take a comprehensive look at what it looks
like to have community supports in place and not assume that
everything is going to be a Medicaid payment?
Mr. Fattah. Well, we should work together. I look forward
to having opportunities to follow up with you on this after. We
could get some information about your various programs, all
right?
Ms. Greenlee. Sure.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
We have not given you much time, Dr. Harris, but if you are
ready, you are up next.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SHELTERED WORKSHOPS: CMS RULE
I have one just quick question, and it is just out of
curiosity. I do not know if you know, but CMS issued a rule
last year that would in effect eliminate the use of Medicaid
funding at the State level for sheltered workshops. These
workshops, which I have in my district, provide jobs for people
who likely would not otherwise be able to work. It allows them
to socialize with other individuals similar to them and the
community more broadly.
Again, this is an important issue for the disabled in my
district. I just want to ask, were you, as one of the lead
departments that actually does work with the disabled, were you
consulted by CMS prior to the rule being issued?
Ms. Greenlee. Yes, sir. We were. We worked with CMS as they
worked on developing that.
Mr. Harris. And do you agree with that rule? You think they
really should remove the funding from these sheltered
workshops?
Ms. Greenlee. The purpose of the rule and our participation
as they were developing the rule is to look at evaluating the
experience of a person who is receiving Medicaid funding so
that they have an integrated community-based experience. And
that is really the goal of the rule. It is not specifically
directed at sheltered workshops, but at how someone completes
community integration.
Mr. Harris. Okay.
Ms. Greenlee. And then the States are given both a
challenge to make those assessments and time to make changes to
their systems. So it is still primarily a Medicaid
conversation, but we were involved in the conversation.
Mr. Harris. Okay. All I can tell you is the sheltered
workshops in my districts are worried about it. I mean, you
know, I think they do a great job for the communities, and I am
a little concerned that they came up with that.
Anyway, look, my other question is while I am glad to see
that SSA is extending the field office hours by 1 hour 4 days a
week, the wait time for an appointment at a field office is
still unacceptably long. If the majority of the public were
able to go online for SSA basic services, the local office
staff could focus on serving those who are unable to access
online services or whose needs are more complex, many of whom
are in the disabled and aging communities.
Now I know that SSA has recently taken steps to make some
of its services available online. While the availability of
information is crucial to the public, the accessibility of the
majority of SSA services is what will really drive the public's
use of your Web site.
So with the $664,000,000 increase requested for LAE, could
you outline SSA's plan for fiscal year 2016 to better exploit
technology to make greater service automation for the public
possible? And a related question, to what degree do you make
public announcements about the availability of SSA's online
services so as to encourage wider use?
Ms. Colvin. Thank you, Dr. Harris.
We are very pleased with the progress that we have made
with online services. Today, about 50 percent of our claims
are, in fact, taken online, both retirement and disability. We
also have our earnings statement now online.
We also have a ``my Social Security'' account for
individuals working and paying into the system. They do not
have to be retired to go online and get information about their
benefit. They can change their address or other types of
information.
In 2015 and 2016, we are going to be increasing additional
services online. We are going to be putting a Social Security
replacement card online. We have to do that carefully. I heard
some of your colleagues' concern about security. So we have to
make sure that security is in place.
We already have put the 1099 online so that individuals can
get that information to do their financial planning. We are
also increasing a number of the other types of services that we
will have available both for the customer, as well as improving
some of the systems inside that will make it easier.
We do see that this will help us to reduce the traffic into
the field offices. We recognize that not all of the American
public feel comfortable online, and some of them really need
personal service. So what we hope is that as we are able to
move more traffic out of the field offices onto online
services, that will then give the people in the field the
opportunity to serve people more rapidly and give them a little
bit more personal attention, which we are not able to do now
simply because of the shortage of staff.
Our 2015 appropriation, and we are so appreciative of that,
has allowed us to hire people, but it is going to take us time
to train them. It takes us about a year to get them proficient
to be able to do work on their own, and so we are hopeful that
2016 will allow us to continue to do those things that I just
talked about.
Mr. Harris. Well, what about the service kiosk pilot? Do
you think that will be successful?
Ms. Colvin. Well, we certainly hope so. We are piloting it.
We are getting good reviews so far. I am hoping we can get
something in the district so that some of your staff can come
out and take a look at it.
We have found that the videoconferencing, particularly in
the remote areas, where we still want to do face-to-face, there
was some initial apprehension. But I said to the constituents,
``Do you watch TV? It is just like that, except that the person
in the screen talks back to you.'' There has been great
satisfaction with the videoconferencing.
With the pilot that you are talking about, this will allow
a little bit more self-servicing, and we have seven that we
have placed in various areas to test that out. We are very
excited. So we thank you.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. And good to see you again.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Ms. Colvin. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
My good friend from California is next up.
ELDER JUSTICE AND ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Ms. Greenlee, I want to go back to the
issue of elder abuse. During your tenure as the Assistant
Secretary for Aging, in 2010, the Elder Justice Act authorized
the Elder Justice Coordinating Council, and the Advisory Board
on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation. And the former
Secretary of HHS solicited nominations for 27 appointments to
the advisory board.
And then since the creation of ACL in 2012, the Elder
Justice Coordinating Council fell under its purview, but we
have not seen any additional information with respect to the
membership appointments for the activities of the advisory
board. What is the current status of the advisory council
appointments and activities, and also if you could just
describe a little bit more about the Elder Coordinating
Council's current initiatives to improve prevention and
awareness of elder abuse and whether or not your proposed
budget will be sufficient enough to carry out these objectives
in fiscal year 2016?
Ms. Greenlee. Congresswoman, as you pointed out, the Elder
Justice Act created two formal bodies. One would have been a
Federal advisory committee, the one you mentioned that had 27
members.
When the law was passed as a part of the Affordable Care
Act, it received no appropriation. We did put out a Federal
Register Notice, hoping to be able to stand up that advisory
council, but because there was no appropriation to help staff
or provide support for the advisory committee, we were not able
to move forward on that.
The second body was the Federal Coordinating Council, and
this is where Carolyn Colvin and I spend a lot of time
together, where there is a large group of about 12 Federal
agencies that have met to talk about what we can do
comprehensively to deal with both prevention and response.
Because we have not had this external advisory committee, we
have conducted those meetings with the public in mind, have had
many of those same experts who were nominated provide testimony
to us directly.
We came up with a short list of eight recommendations on
what we can do, from awareness to prosecution, and have really
given the charge back to each of the individual agencies for
them to lift whichever pieces they can lift.
And I think the best kind of example right now is not just
the work that we are doing at HHS, but the Department of
Justice has been an essential colleague in this. Justice
announced a national online resource for prosecution of elder
abuse that would be available to all State and Federal
prosecutors around the country.
So it is really each of us who have been taking up the
responsibility to go back to our agencies and do what we can
do. My piece is reflected here in this budget, which is how can
we help with Adult Protective Services and some research
dollars?
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you.
Commissioner Colvin, I understand that the Social Security
Administration is drafting a long-term strategic plan that has
yet to be finalized. But a draft report was circulated that
indicates that by 2025, the SSA hopes to provide direct service
options only in very limited circumstances, preferring to focus
as much as possible on online service.
And then, recently, the New York Times reported that 20
percent of adults do not use the Internet, and only slightly
more than 50 percent of Americans 65 and older use it. Is the
strategic plan in the best interests of the American people?
And also earlier you mentioned that your field offices
always will be the primary form of service delivery. So how do
you reconcile the draft report with your earlier statement?
Ms. Colvin. Thank you so much for that question. It allows
me to clarify the report that is out.
The report you are referencing is a report that was done by
NAPA, which this body asked for. The report has been released,
and we will use it to inform our plan that will be coming out
shortly. But that report does not reflect the vision for the
agency.
I believe it goes too far. I think that certainly at some
point, you will see more and more online services, but
certainly not by 2025. So we are going to use the information
and the research and some of the other information that was
contained in that report to inform our decisions.
We also reached out to a much wider stakeholder group so we
could ensure that we were hearing from everyone. It has taken
me a little bit longer than I anticipated to finalize that, but
we expect that to be coming out in the near term.
Our report will reflect in there that we do expect that our
field offices will be a basic foundation, and that we also will
be increasing our online services. We believe that we have to
look at customer choice because our services are paid for by
the individuals who pay into the FICA system, and so we do need
to at least listen to what they want.
We do find more and more people are willing to use online
services if they are easy and convenient, and so we want to
certainly tap into that. But we recognize that there will
always be a population that prefers to do face-to-face and in
some instances really need it. We serve the SSI population, the
homeless, the mentally ill, and other individuals who will
always need assistance.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
My good friend from Arkansas, Mr. Womack, has been in
Defense. That is why he has not been here. So he has been
taking care of all of us, but certainly covering for me not
being there. So----
Mr. Womack. I apologize for being late to the meeting, and
I have had an earful from the Chief of Naval Operations and the
Marine Corps Commandant.
So, Administrator Greenlee, in your testimony, you say that
you ``know that people enjoy a better quality of life when they
are able to live in a home of their choosing with people they
love rather than in an institutional setting'' and that keeping
the developmentally disabled in their homes is ``clearly the
right thing to do.''
I agree with you that that is true for most individuals.
But I find it extremely concerning that you have made such a
definitive, all-encompassing statement because it is certainly
not true for all individuals, and I want to use John Sherman as
an example.
John is 46, but due to suffering severe brain injury at
birth, has less cognitive ability than my 20-month-old
grandson, Kaden. John is profoundly disabled. His mother,
Carol, is in her seventies. She is also half his size and
cannot provide the level of care necessary to care for John,
much less provide him with better care.
So she had to make the tough decision to give John a new
home at the Arkadelphia, Arkansas, human development center, a
Medicaid-certified intermediate care facility. It was clearly
the right thing to do for John.
PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY
As the Administrator for ACL, you oversee the
Administration on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities,
which provides Federal funding to grantees in each State to
carry out its protection and advocacy program. In Arkansas, our
program has in the past brought multiple Federal lawsuits
against our State using as named plaintiffs residents of long-
term care facilities without notice of their legal guardian, to
their legal guardians.
They have also released a report in January of this year
calling for the closure of one of our State's human development
centers. So I have a couple of questions in the context of this
discussion.
Is it the policy of your agency to endorse activities of
lobbying, the threat of litigation, and Federal lawsuits by
protection and advocacy programs for the purpose of undermining
and closing long-term care facilities?
Ms. Greenlee. So, Mr. Chairman, the program you have
correctly cited, the Protection and Advocacy agencies are part
of the Administration for Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities. Their primary purposes are to advocate on behalf
of individuals with disabilities, especially looking for people
who are at risk for abuse or have been abused. And they also
have been charged with or taken up the responsibility to
enforce the Supreme Court decision with regard to the Olmstead
case to make sure that people are served in the least
restrictive setting.
I obviously cannot comment on any specific litigation that
you are talking about, but that is their mission, to make sure
that people are not abused and that they are in the least
restrictive setting.
Mr. Womack. So you are not going on any witch hunts?
Ms. Greenlee. No.
Mr. Womack. Okay. Are you aware that grantees are
restricted from using Federal funds to attempt to influence
deliberations or actions by Federal, State, or local
legislative or executive branches?
Ms. Greenlee. What are you talking about specifically? I am
sorry. I do not understand.
Mr. Womack. It is plain English. Grantees are restricted
from using Federal funds to attempt to influence deliberations.
So is that your understanding?
Ms. Greenlee. Yes, and if we are still talking about
Protection and Advocacy agencies, they are charged by statute
with this advocacy responsibility and litigation responsibility
that you have just outlined, not with the legislative activity
that you are asking me about.
Mr. Womack. Are there fine lines between undue influence
using the Federal purse, the Federal connections there as an
influential technique?
Ms. Greenlee. Sir, I am not quite sure how to be the most
responsive to you. They are charged with the responsibility of
being advocates. So perhaps there are concerns that you have
that they have gone too far. I do not know without having a
specific situation.
But advocacy is a statutory responsibility of many of the
programs that I run, and that is to bring forward the issues on
behalf of the American people. That is not to lobby or talk
about a specific piece of legislation, but to talk generally
about the issues in front of them.
That is different than lobbying. It is about providing
basic education about the people they are serving.
Mr. Womack. Okay. Finally, Ms. Greenlee, what are ways in
which your agency supports the option of long-term care
facilities for persons who cannot care for themselves, like the
example that I gave in my opening remarks?
Ms. Greenlee. Like you said in your opening remarks, the
person that made this decision made a decision on behalf of
their family, and this was a Medicaid-funded program. This is
not an agency or a program that we administer at ACL.
We do believe in the statement that I said, that you quoted
from our record, that most people want to live at home. And
what we have found to be true is that we have become
extraordinarily good in this country at serving people with
significant disabilities in a home setting, and we continue to
improve our ability to do that over time.
We think that is the right policy decision that we should
continue to explore every option so that people can have their
family members with them. If any family member chooses to go in
a different direction, that is their particular choice as a
family and is a decision with Medicaid. But for us, we want to
continue to explore every option to make sure that people can
stay in community.
Mr. Womack. So, and finally, I will leave it with this. Is
it your goal to eventually, I hate to say eliminate long-term
care facilities like the one I have spoken about, but is it
your goal to see that the home setting is going to be the
answer to the future needs of this population group, or do you
see a place out there for these long-term care facilities into
the distant future?
Ms. Greenlee. Our goal is to see that the home setting is
the primary venue for all the populations that we serve and
that we continue to provide every support that we can to make
that a reality.
We have no mechanism to require that any other setting
change or close, but we will drive policy and work with
families and older people and people with disabilities to
explore everything we can do as a country to provide
integration in the home setting because it has clearly been
represented to us by older people and people with disabilities
that this gives them the best quality of life and the most
integration.
We are not a facility closure agency. They are not the
facilities that we run.
Mr. Womack. Yes, I understand that. I just--my parting shot
is I just think that you cannot have a ``one size fits all''
approach going into the future.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Colvin, we have talked a little bit about some
of the efforts you have made in both in the fraud area, but I
would like you to elaborate a little bit more on that because I
think, again, it is something we are all very sensitive on. So
what are the specific things you are doing on fraud?
And the other place I would ask you to focus some attention
and bring us up to date on what you are doing is obviously
sometimes mistakes are made, and we either overpay or underpay.
It is usually a disaster when you overpay and you find it. You
have to go back and get the money. It is hard to do. The person
that received sometimes is totally innocent but obviously has
spent the funds and does not have very much.
Ms. Colvin. Right.
Mr. Cole. So what are we doing to lower our error rate,
which I understand is like 10 percent in over or underpayment?
Ms. Colvin. Thank you for that question.
Mr. Cole. I want you to correct me because I would like to
be wrong.
Ms. Colvin. Right. Well, overpayment and underpayment are
two areas that are especially important to me, and I focus on
them a lot. I believe that we have an obligation to make
certain that we recover overpayments for the taxpayers.
We do know that in some instances the overpayment can be
the result of a mistake that we made, or it could be because
our workload is heavy and we do not get to it on time. So
Congress recognized that, and there is a waiver process.
Individuals have the ability to prove that the overpayment
was through no fault of their own or that they do not have the
ability to pay because they just have basic income that allows
them to survive. So we do that. But once it is determined that
the individual has the ability to pay and it was their fault,
we do aggressively pursue that.
I am particularly concerned about underpayments because the
benefit payment is low, and we have a very complex program. So
we do have situations where people are underpaid because they
do not always give us all the information, and we find out
later. It happens particularly with the widows and individuals
like that.
We have workgroups within our agency who are focusing on
those error-prone areas. But the accuracy rate for Title II is
99.7 percent. The accuracy rate for Title XVI is not as high
because that is our more complex program, and it is our means-
tested programs. But that is still 90.7. I have been able to
get that up 1 percent in the time I have been here, and we are
constantly looking at ways to do that.
The biggest area where we have the problem is with wages
that are not reported, and we have had various proposals where
we would get quarterly instead of yearly reporting from IRS. We
have not been able to get that through yet.
But we have a program that we call Access to Financial
Institutions where we are able to work with the banks and
identify any assets that are not reported. That has been
extremely successful. And so, we check up to 10 banks in an
area to see if individuals have accounts that they have not
reported. That is just a data match, and that has been very
successful.
We also now have the ability to have individuals report
their wages by mobile application or telephone application, and
the number of people who are reporting has significantly
increased. So we believe the easier we make it for people to
report their wages, the more people will report.
But in the fraud area, I want to emphasize again that it is
a very complex program. We pay out almost $1,000,000,000,000 a
year, $940,000,000,000 this year. But we are projecting by the
end of 2016 almost $1,000,000,000,000. And so, we know the
fraudsters are going to go where the money is.
So we began to use data analytics to identify the trends
that I talked about. You have many stories about doctors and
lawyers who fabricate information and work together to try to
defraud the program. We are being very aggressive in going
after those kinds of cases.
One of our biggest challenges is that the prosecution is
not sufficient. Our cases just are not accepted by the local
States. We had when I came back----
Mr. Cole. Can I ask you on that just a specific question? I
do not mean to interrupt. I apologize.
Ms. Colvin. That is all right.
Mr. Cole. It is just so you can incorporate in your answer.
You know, I am particularly interested, look, when you have got
a scheme, as opposed to a person chiseling the system is bad,
but it is one person. But when you have got a scheme and you
have got literally dozens of people involved in these sorts of
things and quite often very, you know, ``high-class
professionals''--doctors, attorneys, as you mentioned. Do they
ever get any prison time for this?
I mean, is this just white collar crime and a fine, or do
they go to jail?
Ms. Colvin. Some get prison time, but the penalty is not
where I think it needs to be. But we do not control that. It
depends upon the court where they are being tried.
Some of the dollars are significant. Some people get jail
time. Some get restitution. But we try to push for the maximum
penalty.
Where you have the third-party fraudsters, as I mentioned,
we are proposing legislation that penalties will be increased
in those areas. With the smaller crime, though, where you have
someone who got their mother's benefit for 15 years, and they
took $500,000 that they should not have received, I think they
should go to jail regardless of their age.
The court does not seem to think the same thing, so they
might get home detention, or they might get restitution. We
have to accept that, but we feel that there has to be strong
penalties in order to act as a deterrent.
Mr. Cole. Well, I would love, just in closing here quickly,
to work with you on that.
Ms. Colvin. I would----
Mr. Cole. Obviously, that is not our jurisdiction. We are
an appropriations committee, not an authorizing. But, boy, if
there is ever an area for bipartisan cooperation, this is
clearly it. I have never met anybody that is not outraged by
this, this sort of thing and thinks you ought to be throwing
the book at people that are defrauding Social Security or
Social Security disability.
And let alone when it is a systematic scheme of major
proportion, or it is I could not agree more with your remarks
and your obvious indignation at somebody collecting a check for
15 years on somebody that is deceased. I mean, that is a
criminal activity, and it actually dishonors the person's
memory as well, in my view. But just not appropriate.
So thank you for the----
Ms. Colvin. And you know, 99.9 percent of our beneficiaries
are honest people, and I do not want the program jeopardized
because of a few who get a benefit to which they are not
entitled.
Mr. Cole. Well, good for you.
I will go next to my good friend from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would add to your comment I think it is just outrageous
of trying to game the system in Social Security. I think we
have to be equally concerned about the penalties that are
imposed with regard to the Medicare system and what we find by
way of fraud in the scales that exist in the Medicare system
and would love to work with you on that as well. Because I
think that that is, you know, not the direction we want to go
in.
CAP ADJUSTMENT: HOME AND COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES
Administrator Greenlee, I just wanted to ask you, I have
heard the end of the conversation on the community-based
support services and the home and community-based support
service, and obviously I am for your approach and where you
want to go.
But the issue in terms of practicality and looking at money
saved, and I do not know if that is in your purview, but I
think we need to take a look at as appropriations committee
about if we move in that direction from whether it is long-term
care, short-term care, whatever it is, to a home-based setting
and what would the savings in that effort be?
Have you looked into that? Have you calculated that? It may
not be within your purview, but where is the discussion about
the amount of money that we might save as a result of moving to
home-based and community-based support services?
Ms. Greenlee. I think there are two conversations, one that
is more pertinent specifically to my agency. But the other one
is the Medicaid conversation----
Ms. DeLauro. Right.
Ms. Greenlee [continuing]. That you very much see about
rebalancing the Medicaid system so that we provide Medicaid
services in the community because it is so much less expensive
than in any institutional setting. We are a companion piece,
and if you start talking about the types of services that we
provide, whether it is through the Centers for Independent
Living and Area Agencies on Aging, they are so much less
expensive. I mean, we start talking about a few thousand
dollars a year, instead of tens of thousand dollars a year to
help someone with basic supports to stay independent.
Because of the way the budget mechanisms work, these are
discretionary funds, those are mandatory. I wish I could
capture all the savings that I think we could prove. But I
think we can make a case that these really are wise
investments, prevention investments, and keep people from
seeking a more expensive alternative.
Ms. DeLauro. Okay. I would just mention this. There are two
other areas in the Labor, HHS bill where we have something
known as a cap adjustment. It is a special budget designation
for programs to create savings in mandatory programs, such as
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security.
Given that the substantial savings that your programs--that
would accrue to Medicaid, one of the things that I would like
to explore is a cap adjustment for home and community-based
support services and family caregivers. I would like to work on
that.
HOME CARE WORKFORCE
And you talked about or I was not here when you talked
about home care workers. We need a qualified and a trained
workforce in this effort. I struggled for years to be able to
get qualified people to take care of my mother. I now have
seven people because it is----
Ms. Greenlee. Yes.
Ms. DeLauro. You know? And to be honest, there are
different levels. Some are just basically a companion. Some can
take care of the needs. What more needs to be done in this area
of the training in order to make--to have qualified home care
workers?
Ms. Greenlee. I think we have to keep talking to our sister
agencies at HHS, such as HRSA, because that is really where
they have the workforce investment dollars and investments,
whether the Affordable Care Act or other direct appropriations
to them, to help supply a workforce to care for an aging
population.
We do not have a direct workforce kind of component. Ours,
as I was saying earlier, is more to help the family, to help
the person who is working with caregiver support, help the
older person who may need some assistance, help families that
if they have younger people with disabilities there so they can
remain in the workforce.
But the workforce investment needs to be made because, yes,
to really help someone be at home, it is going to take a
trained workforce. And people are assuming more complicated
medical tasks ever than before. So it is a good news story.
Ms. DeLauro. Right.
Ms. Greenlee. We really can help people with severe
limitations or disabilities in community, but it takes a skill
set to be able to do that competently.
Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Chairman, I have just two questions. Can
I--thank you. Thank you.
With regard to I have one question for you, Ms. Greenlee,
and then one for the Commissioner. On ACL, there were agencies
combined, the Administration on Aging, Administration on
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities combined to create
this single agency. You have taken on additional programs,
independent living and the National Institute of Disability.
Where do you see yourself in terms of the effectiveness of what
you are doing in this combined agency over the last few years?
Ms. Greenlee. My favorite way to describe us now is that we
are a multicultural agency. And in a sense that we are really
responsible for representing the cultures of all different
kinds of people--older adults, younger people with
disabilities. And in a multicultural sense, it means that we
need to be mindful of what we have in common and also mindful
of the things that are differences.
I see this as a large Venn diagram between aging and
disability. And what we have gained by bringing these programs
together is a much more significant presence as we talk more
comprehensively about long-term supports and services.
The Older Americans Act is an essential program to provide
supports, but long-term supports and services for all
populations is a much bigger conversation. I think we have more
expertise at the table, more of a stakeholders investment in
making sure that we continue to provide services in the
community that are less expensive, that are more desired.
And for that, it is an aging and disability combined
conversation. It is not one or the other.
Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
And finally, Commissioner, the National Support Center?
Ms. Colvin. Yes.
Ms. DeLauro. That you are making good progress on the
center. You began to transition, the transition of IT services
from the 30-year-old computer center to a new National Support
Center. So I think you are about 4 or 5 months ahead of
schedule in this effort.
Ms. Colvin. Yes.
Ms. DeLauro. So are you still on track to complete the
transition of IT services to the National Support Center by
August of next year? Are you still on track to complete the
project within its original budget?
Ms. Colvin. Yes, yes, yes. We are excited about this. This
is a project that we really received great bipartisan support
on, and we came in under budget and ahead of schedule. So it is
a nice note to end on.
Ms. DeLauro. And ahead of--all right.
Ms. Colvin. Thank you.
Ms. DeLauro. Cannot do better than that.
Ms. Colvin. Absolutely.
Mr. Cole. I was going to say I know a set-up when I see
one. [Laughter.]
That was very impressive.
Ms. Colvin. Can I make a----
Mr. Cole. What a way to end it. I have a wily ranking
member.
Ms. Colvin. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a correction for
the record because I do not want people to think I do not know
this. But the new retirement age is 66.
Mr. Cole. I wondered. You really were concerning me because
I turned 66 in April, and then I heard 68.
Ms. Colvin. But 67 is the age in 2027.
Mr. Cole. Oh, I know.
Ms. Colvin. So it is 66 now, and it is 67 for 2027.
Ms. Greenlee. That is the year I turn 67.
Mr. Cole. Let me just in concluding make a few remarks.
First of all, I want to thank both of you, honestly, for the
wonderful work that you do and the people that work with you
and your respective staffs. I mean, these are clearly agencies
that really do touch a lot of lives, make a lot of lives
better.
And frankly, these are areas where the data shows we have
made considerable progress under your leadership. So thank you
both for what you are doing. A lot to be done.
There is always--you could tell we have a pretty busy
morning, and a lot of members were in and out. But there is a
real interest in what you are doing, and they all came with
very specific questions and something they wanted to know about
or bring to your attention. So, again, I think that is a pretty
good indication of how serious all of us take this.
I tend to judge agencies actually more less by what I hear
here and more by what I hear from my case workers, who are
literally interacting on ground. And I have to tell you, in
both cases I get wonderful comments back for both the agencies
that you are there.
They really appreciate when somebody calls with a problem
the kind of responsiveness they get, Social Security or local
aging communities, people that you are intimately involved
with. So thank you for that very much.
Let me end with this on a somewhat sober note. I also
happen to sit on the Budget Committee, which no appropriator
likes to do. I mean, it is usually you have offended the
chairman somehow, and you are sent to the Budget Committee.
But the grim reality is right now sequester is the law of
the land. It is not a policy. It is not a choice. It is a law,
and it is a law that was passed by Congress, signed by the
President. And frankly, the President advocated sequester. If
you go back and read Bob Woodward's book, The Price of
Politics, pretty clear what happened.
Having gotten there, you know, we are now producing budgets
that say, well, if it did not exist, this is what we would do.
I am not convinced at all that we are going to be able to get
out of this particular thing and particularly during the
appropriations process. I suspect we will end up appropriating
to the law.
Now I would hope that we find a way not to do that, that
there is another Ryan-Murray type agreement or some larger
agreement. For that to happen, though, the President has to be
engaged, and there has to be some mechanism or process set up.
So, obviously, the congressional leadership does, too. I am not
trying to do an either/or here.
But I do think, absent some sort of negotiation that is
initiated at levels well above the pay grade of anybody on this
panel, this is where we are going to end up. And so, you know,
again, I know the President has a proposal, but I also know
that he is politically wise and sophisticated enough to know
even though I am sure he believes in the proposal he offered,
that is not going to happen.
So the only way around that is some sort of negotiated
agreement. We managed to do that a couple of years ago, and I
think while nobody would tell you the Ryan-Murray deal was the
best thing they ever saw, it was a lot better than the
alternative that we would have had.
And we are going to have these tough choices in panel after
panel. When I talk to my friends that are in Defense, where I
also sit on that subcommittee, I know they are very worried.
And I do not think the way out of this, by the way, is to rob
the nondefense agencies to plus-up defense, which some
advocate. We are just going to have a larger global settlement
here, or we will end up living under the law.
So, number one, just again thank you for your service, and
we hope that we do not make it harder on you rather than
easier. But also, and I urge this to my friends on both sides
of the aisle, I am going to be making this kind of statement on
a regular basis in this committee and on others. People have
got to sit down and start talking about this and not talking
past one another or politically positioning themselves, but
literally sit down saying, ``Are you prepared to live with the
law?'' If not, what can we do to change the law and to direct
resources in defense and nondefense areas where they can make a
difference.
Certainly, both of you and your respective agencies have
made a difference and are making a difference, very positive
difference in the lives of millions and millions and millions
of our fellow Americans. And we just say, you know, at the
political level, the Congress and the administration need to
sit down and work this thing out.
And we have done it before, but only for short periods. I
would much prefer--I would never presume to draw you,
Commissioner, into a discussion on what I think needs to happen
long term on Social Security. Not your job, as you
appropriately point out. You are there to administer the
agency.
But that is the place we need to sit down and have some
discussions. We know we have got, as you said, an age wave--I
like that term, I am going to steal it--coming along, and it is
going to put a strain on all parts and particularly the
discretionary part of the budget.
But again, I just want to thank both of you. Very much
appreciate the testimony. Very much appreciate your efforts on
behalf of the American people and particularly on behalf in
many cases of people that do not have the ability to look after
themselves.
And I can tell from your testimony how serious both of you
are about this, how important a task this is for you. Clearly,
when they can talk you out of retirement, Commissioner, you
must feel pretty strongly about this. [Laughter.]
And I just appreciate the level of commitment to public
service.
So thank you very much, and with that, we are concluded.
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, March 3, 2015.
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
WITNESSES
FRANCIS S. COLLINS, M.D., PH.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF
HEALTH
ANTHONY S. FAUCI, M.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND
INFECTIOUS DISEASES
THOMAS R. INSEL, M.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH
JON R. LORSCH, PH.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL
SCIENCES
NORA D. VOLKOW, M.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE
GARY H. GIBBONS, M.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD
INSTITUTE
Statement of Representative Cole
Mr. Cole. Good morning. It is my pleasure to welcome you to
the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education to discuss the fiscal year 2016 National Institutes
of Health budget request.
We are looking forward to hearing the testimony of Dr.
Collins and some of his distinguished colleagues.
I would like to publicly thank Dr. Collins and the staff at
NIH for hosting me and five other subcommittee members for a
briefing and tour of the NIH campus a few weeks ago.
I think it is safe to say we all left the NIH with a deeper
appreciation of the exciting work your staff do every day to
find ways to save lives.
The scope of biomedical research supported through and at
the NIH is wide, and we are confident that, thanks to the
talented staff and scientists that work there, we will one day
find cures for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's. Ensuring a
sufficient basic biomedical research base and supporting the
next generation of researchers is critical to pave the way for
these long-term advancements.
Your budget assumes many areas of enhanced spending on
genomic activity, including a focus on Ebola, universal flu
vaccine, antibiotic resistance, and Alzheimer's research, to
list only a few.
Of course, we all support biomedical research.
Unfortunately, right now, sequester is the law of the land,
and, given the reality of funding allocations, we might not be
able to do everything that the administration is proposing
absent a larger bipartisan budget agreement--one, quite
frankly, that I hope we achieve.
I look forward to having a discussion with you this morning
on your top priorities for this year given our funding
constraints.
I would also be remiss if I did not point out how important
it is to ensure that we continue to focus on the next
generation of investigators. We know how long it takes for a
new drug or treatment to make it from lab to the patient. So,
without a pipeline of young researchers committed to following
the scientific process of investigation and experimentation, we
won't be able to find the cures we seek.
Today, we welcome Dr. Francis Collins, the NIH Director, to
the subcommittee.
Dr. Collins is accompanied by five of his distinguished
institute directors, who can assist in answering specific
Member questions. They are: Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Director of
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Dr.
Thomas Insel, the Director of the National Institute of Mental
Health; Dr. Jon Lorsch, the Director of the National Institute
of General Medical Sciences; Dr. Nora Volkow, the Director of
the National Institute on Drug Abuse; and Dr. Gary Gibbons, the
Director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
As a reminder to the subcommittee and our witnesses, we
will abide by the 5-minute rule.
And before we begin, I would like to yield the floor to my
chairman, the gentlemen from Kentucky. After that, we will move
to our ranking member, the gentlelady from Connecticut, and
then to the gentlelady from New York, our ranking member on the
full committee.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, you are recognized.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement of Representative Hal Rogers
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Congratulations on being the new chairman of this great
subcommittee and the responsibilities that you have gladly
taken on.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being here.
Dr. Collins, your leadership role in the groundbreaking
international Human Genome Project is just one example of your
many talents. I am told that another one of your talents is
playing guitar, apparently--apparently very well. So, you know,
you have something to fall back on in case this don't work out.
Unquestionably, you all are at the helm of research at NIH
during a time that demands our country's interest and
investment in medical research. The recent Ebola epidemic in
West Africa highlights the importance of NIH's mission to gain
and apply knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and
reduce illness and disability.
Medical research is one of the most important parts of
preventing future epidemics and developing cures for diseases
that are not preventable. The NIH fiscal 2016 budget request
highlights priorities such as Ebola, Alzheimer's disease, and
antimicrobial resistance.
In addition to the public health benefits that accompany
NIH work, the economic impact of medical research should not be
underestimated. NIH research dollars not only impact research
and facilities and researchers, but they also help get new
drugs and devices to the marketplace.
And I am pleased that you have seen fit to invite Dr. Nora
Volkow to join us this morning. As the Director of the National
Institute of Drug Abuse, Dr. Volkow has been a true pioneer in
the science of drug abuse and addiction. She was one of the
first people in history to use brain imaging to investigate the
effects and addictive properties of abusable drugs, and her
research has undoubtedly made the world that we live in a much
better place. She has been with us since day one as we have
battled drug abuse in my area, in southern and eastern
Kentucky, hard-hit especially early on by OxyContin and others.
And I am looking forward to seeing both of you, in fact, at
the Atlanta summit on prescription drug abuse this summer. And
I thank you for coming last year and helping us battle this
prescription drug abuse scourge that is killing more Americans
than car wrecks. And we appreciate your dedication to that,
especially.
We look forward to hearing also from you today about two
critical drug-related issues. First, I am pleased that NIDA,
under Dr. Volkow, is pursuing an Adolescent Brain Cognitive
Development Study, ABCD, to collect rigorous longitudinal data
on the effects of marijuana, alcohol, nicotine, and other drugs
on a young person's brain.
It is unfathomable to me that States continue to pursue
policies to decriminalize or legalize marijuana in
contravention of Federal law, I might add, even here in the
Nation's Capital. It is ironic that in Washington, D.C., the
Nation's Capital, you can't smoke cigarettes but you can smoke
pot. Explain that to me. Help me out.
We don't have scientific data to tell us about the long-
term impacts of marijuana use on the brain, but hopefully this
will open a lot of minds. This study will help close that gap,
hopefully bring some much-needed sense to the conversation
about marijuana use in this country.
Secondly, Dr. Volkow, I am interested to hear about recent
efforts regarding the abuse of prescription medications. As you
well know, that has been characterized by your colleagues at
CDC as a national epidemic. I understand that you are
partnering with nine major pharmaceutical companies to evaluate
the risks associated with the long-term use of opioids for the
management of chronic pain. If there are non-opioid
alternatives to the treatment of pain, we need to know about
them and doctors need to be educated about them.
I am also hoping that you can provide us with an update on
the science of abuse-deterrent medications. It is remarkable
that OxyContin, the drug that caused so much difficulty--and it
still is, but mostly back 5, 6 years ago. The drug was changed
to make it drug-abuse-deterrent. You can't crush it, you can't
snort it, you can't inject it. It still retains, though, the
good qualities of relieving pain over an extended period. That
is what can be done to stem the use of opioids, and I commend
you for it.
In addition to our longstanding struggles with drug
addiction and abuse, the research provided by NIH is critical
to understanding, preventing, and developing cures for ailments
like diabetes, cancer, and heart disease that continue to
plague my region especially.
We are very proud of the partnerships we have established
with NIH in Kentucky--for example, the Markey Cancer Center, a
National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center at the
University of Kentucky; and the U.K. Center for Clinical and
Translational Science, which previously received your
prestigious Clinical and Translational Science Award for its
work to confront chronic health issues in Kentucky and rural
populations, especially in the Appalachian region.
Currently, 22 of the world's 50 top-ranked universities for
life sciences are in the U.S., and we must continue to foster
the next generation of scientists. We look forward to
continuing these important collaborative efforts as we work
together to bring an end to these devastating diseases.
We thank you for being here. And, with your colleagues, Dr.
Collins, we expect to hear some good stuff.
I yield.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Next, we will go to ranking member, distinguished
gentlelady from Connecticut, and, frankly, a tireless champion
of this particular agency for many, many years.
Statement of Representative Rosa DeLauro
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And good morning to everyone. It is a little earlier than
we usually start these hearings, but it is such an important
topic that it was important to all of us to have the
opportunity for the full 2 hours with the distinguished panel.
I am so thrilled to welcome you, Dr. Collins, the Director
of the NIH, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Volkow, Dr. Insel, Lorsch, Gibbons,
to discuss the 2016 budget request for NIH.
First and foremost, let me just say thank you for your
work. Every scientific discovery, every medical breakthrough,
the research you support advances human knowledge, and it
improves the quality of our lives. And, most of all, it saves
lives. And as an almost 30-year survivor of ovarian cancer, I
am alive today because of the grace of God and biomedical
research. When I was elected to the Congress, I made supporting
that research one of my top priorities.
As well as improving health, research also drives our
economy. As the chairman said, every dollar invested in NIH
repays more than double that in local economic growth. NIH is
the cornerstone of our life sciences industry, which employs
more than 7 million Americans, adds almost $70 billion to our
GDP. So there is no reason not to fund NIH as fully as
possible.
In January of this year, along with the chairman, I had the
pleasure of touring the NIH, and along with other members of
the subcommittee. It was, as always, a fascinating visit.
While there, we met with a senior investigator, Dr. Nancy
Sullivan, who is largely responsible for one of the Ebola
vaccine candidates that is currently being tested in a clinical
trial. That clinical trial is only possible because, thanks to
NIH support, Dr. Sullivan and her colleagues have been able to
pursue a vaccine over many, many years--since 1997, in fact.
Research can take a long time to bear fruit, and if we do
not invest now, we will not be able to benefit from scientific
discoveries 5, 10, even 20 years from now. So it is troubling
to me, deeply troubling to me, to note that since fiscal year
2010, after adjusting for inflation, NIH has seen its budget
erode by about $3.6 billion. That is an 11 percent cut.
Sequestration is terrible policy for any budget. It is
especially cruel where there are literally lives at stake. In
2013 alone, sequestration took more than $1.5 billion from the
NIH. Even after modest increases over the past 2 years, we
still have not returned NIH's budget to its pre-sequestration
level.
A decade ago, NIH was able to fund almost one out of every
three applications for research grants. Amid sequestration,
that success rate has fallen to one in six. In 2015, NIH will
fund almost 1,000 fewer research projects than it did in 2010.
We will never know how many scientific discoveries and medical
breakthroughs the world may have missed out on because of these
budget restraints.
That is the disturbing context in which we consider the NIH
budget request for fiscal year 2016.
Overall, this request starts to set us back on the right
track. There are some exciting initiatives in this budget. The
Precision Medicine Initiative will help doctors provide
treatment finely tailored to the individual characteristics of
each patient. The Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria
Initiative, CARB, focuses on defending against deadly super-
bugs. The BRAIN Initiative holds the potential to revolutionize
neuroscience and to make advances to treat Alzheimer's, autism,
and many other brain disorders.
The budget includes funding for research to develop a
universal flu vaccine and potentially a cure for HIV/AIDS. It
also supports basic science research that has long-term
benefits across multiple fields.
As I said, I believe this is the right track, but, given
the severe neglect of NIH over the past few years, I am
disappointed that we are not restoring funding more quickly.
This request restores less than one-third of the cuts since
fiscal year 2010.
I introduced a bill in the last Congress and again in this
Congress that would enable our committee to increase NIH
funding by 10 percent this year and 50 percent over 5 years by
providing a cap adjustment. That would ensure proper funding
for research without robbing other vital programs to do so.
We have invested strongly in NIH before. In the 1990s, I
was among a bipartisan group of Members of both chambers on
this committee who fought to double NIH's budget over 5 years.
To this day, it stands among my most proud achievements.
Instead of starving the NIH of funds, we should be seeking
to repeat that achievement and double its budget again. But
this investment cannot happen unless and until we undo that
failed policy of sequestration and summon the courage to ask
those who can, the wealthiest who have done so well in recent
years, to contribute more to support our national priorities.
Biomedical research gives us the gift of life. It has done
so for me and for countless others. That is what the NIH
represents. We can and we must find the resources to support
it.
And I thank you.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. I thank you.
I next go to my good friend, distinguished gentlelady from
New York, for her opening statement.
Statement of Representative Lowey
Mrs. Lowey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a pleasure for me to be here today. And I would
really like to thank Chairman Cole and Ranking Member DeLauro
for holding this hearing today.
It is such an honor for me to have such a distinguished
group of public servants: Drs. Collins, Fauci, Insel, Lorsch,
Volkow, and Gibbons.
I really appreciate your being with us today, and I thank
you for the lifesaving work that you do every day.
Throughout my time in Congress, Federal funding for the
National Institutes of Health has been among my very top
priorities. The NIH is the world's premier research institute.
Its researchers have mapped the human genome.
And I do remember, Dr. Collins, that empty shape that you
have filled up. It is really amazing.
You have created vaccines that are being tested to prevent
the spread of Ebola, developed advances in cardiovascular
disease that have reduced death rates by more than 60 percent
over the last half-century, and invested in HIV therapies that
turn what used to be death sentences into longer, more
productive lives.
As a result, it is no surprise, but it continues to amaze
me, that NIH-supported scientists have been awarded no less
than 145 Nobel Prizes.
Not only does NIH's work improve the quality of life for
millions of Americans, it is also a springboard for economic
growth, generating $2.21 in economic activity for every dollar
invested. And I remind my friends and neighbors all the time
that not only are you moving ahead in saving lives but you are
creating jobs.
Your 2016 budget request proposes an increase of $1
billion, resulting in 1,200 additional competitive research
grants. It would make welcomed investments in advanced cancer
treatments with the new Precision Medicine Initiative; increase
funding, as my colleague Ms. DeLauro said, for the BRAIN
Initiative to research the workings of the brain, develop
treatments to combat Alzheimer's disease, autism, and other
neurological and psychiatric conditions. These are the very
definitions of worthy Federal investments.
The President has also called for the end of the mindless
austerity of sequestration. In fact, I have even heard some of
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refer to the
mindless austerity of sequestration, urging Congress to replace
it with more targeted spending cuts, program integrity
measures, closure of some outdated tax loopholes. I could not
agree with them more.
The effects of sequestration are immense and are still
being felt. In 2013 alone, sequestration reduced the NIH
investment by more than $1.5 billion, and fiscal year 2015
funding is still below the pre-sequester level. Many critically
important research initiatives were abruptly halted. It really
was a worst-case scenario for many agencies, and we have to
make sure it does not happen again.
The United States must keep pace with the rest of the
world. While NIH funding is $3.6 billion, or 11 percent below
the fiscal year 2010 level when adjusted for inflation, others
are making substantial increases. Between 2007-2012, China
increased their biomedical research spending by $9 billion--
increased. While others are advancing, our investments in
biomedical research are just not keeping up.
As we begin the annual process of crafting a budget
resolution, I know there will be many viewpoints. Many of my
colleagues may undoubtedly press for additional cuts and to
leave the outdated sequester-level caps in place. But I think
we all know how dangerous that is.
Discretionary funding, which includes biomedical research,
education, job training, transportation infrastructure, and
clean energy development, is falling to its lowest level as a
percentage of GDP since the Eisenhower administration.
We must act to ensure reasonable allocations for the
important programs and investments funded through the
appropriations process, especially the National Institutes of
Health and those under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
I look forward to your testimony. Thank you again for being
here before us, and I look forward to the NIH's plans for the
coming year.
Thank you.
Mr. Cole. I thank the gentlelady.
And, Dr. Collins, your full statement will be entered into
the record, and you are recognized for whatever opening
comments you care to make.
Statement of Dr. Collins
Dr. Collins. Well, thank you. And good morning, Chairman
Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro, distinguished members of this
subcommittee. It is an honor to appear before you today, as
this panel has a long history of supporting NIH's mission to
seek fundamental knowledge and apply it in ways that enhance
human health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.
NIH SUPPORTED RESEARCH BREAKTHROUGHS
Breakthroughs generated by NIH-supported research are
behind many of the gains you see here that our country has
enjoyed in health and longevity. For example, over the last 60
years, deaths from cardiovascular disease have fallen by more
than 70 percent. Meanwhile, cancer death rates have been
dropping about 1 percent each year for the last 20 years. And,
likewise, HIV/AIDS treatments have greatly extended lives, and
prevention strategies are enabling us to envision the first
AIDS-free generation.
The future of biomedical research has never been brighter.
Allow me to tell you about just a few of the many exciting
opportunities that NIH is pursuing today.
Let's start with vaccines. Thanks to NIH research, two
different vaccines against the deadly Ebola virus are being
tested right now in Liberia.
Vaccine research is also making exciting progress against a
virus that nearly all of us have tangled with: influenza.
Currently, a new flu vaccine has to be produced every year
based on our best guess of how the virus will evolve, but that
approach isn't ideal, as we have learned this past season, so
NIH-funded researchers are working to design a universal
vaccine that will protect against virtually all flu strains.
Such a vaccine could eliminate the need for annual flu shots
and reduce the risk of a global pandemic. So I am excited to
tell you that universal flu vaccine candidates have now moved
into early-stage human clinical trials.
NIH SUPPORT FOR BASIC RESEARCH
NIH also remains strongly committed to supporting basic
science, fundamental research that serves as the foundation for
discoveries that have long made America the world leader in
biomedicine.
One exciting example is the BRAIN Initiative. This bold,
multi-agency effort is enabling development of innovative
technologies--you see one here--to produce a clearer, more
dynamic picture of how individual brain cells and neural
circuits interact in time and in space. This initiative will
give us the tools for major advances in brain diseases, from
Alzheimer's and autism to schizophrenia and traumatic brain
injury.
PRECISION MEDICINE
Scientific advances are also accelerating progress toward a
new era of precision medicine. Historically, doctors have been
forced to base their recommendations for treatments on the
expected response of the average patient. But recent advances,
including the plummeting cost of DNA sequencing, now make
possible a more precise approach to disease management and
prevention that takes into account individual differences in
genes, environment, and lifestyle.
With this in mind, we are thrilled at NIH to take a lead
role in the multi-agency Precision Medicine Initiative. In the
near term, this initiative will focus on cancer. To accelerate
efforts, this project will support research aimed at
understanding why cancers develop drug resistance, using
noninvasive methods to track therapeutic responses, and
exploring new treatments targeted to the genetic profiles of a
wide range of adult and pediatric cancers.
As a longer-term goal of this initiative, NIH will launch a
national research cohort of 1 million or more volunteers who
will play an active role in how their genetic and environmental
information is used to prevent and manage a broad array of
diseases. A project of this magnitude will lay the groundwork
for new prevention strategies and novel therapeutics.
There is no better time than now to embark on this
enterprise to revolutionize medicine and move this precise,
personal approach into everyday clinical practice.
Conclusion
In closing, let me share a story that highlights the early
promise of precision medicine. When Maki Inada was diagnosed
with stage 3B adenocarcinoma of the lung in 2008, it was
completely unexpected. She was just 36 years old, had never
smoked a day in her life. Her tumor was very large, as you see
here, 7 centimeters, with a very low likelihood of survival
beyond a year or two.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Dr. Collins. As Maki began the recommended standard
chemotherapy, her doctor suspected she might have a particular
mutation in a gene called epidermal growth factor receptor
(EGFR). Genetic testing confirmed their hunch, and Maki was
prescribed Tarceva, a drug that precisely blocks EGFR's signal.
After 3 months of treatment, Maki's large tumor shrunk
dramatically. This was followed by surgery to remove cancerous
tissue, plus retreatment with Tarceva. Today, seven years after
her diagnosis, her doctors can detect no signs of cancer.
What is more exciting during the extra time provided by
this approach, Maki competed in a triathlon, landed her dream
job as a biology professor at Ithaca College, and welcomed a
healthy baby girl.
Clearly, we need many more stories like Maki's. That is our
dream, and I am sure it is yours too.
With your support, we can realize our vision of
accelerating discoveries across the vast landscape of
biomedical research, from basic scientific inquiry to more
precise, personalized approaches to treatments and cures.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues and I now welcome
your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Dr. Collins.
And just for the members of the committee, we are going to
go first to our chairman and our ranking member, and then we
will go through our normal order, in terms of questions.
So, Mr. Chairman, you are recognized for whatever questions
you care to pose.
ADVANCES TOWARD EFFECTIVE DRUG ABUSE DETERRENT
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Collins, Dr. Volkow, thank you both for your special
interest in prescription drug abuse.
As you know, every day about 105 Americans die from
overdose, mostly prescription medicine. Sadly, as we have taken
strides to address that challenge, we have also seen a rise in
heroin use and its consequences, as people that are addicted to
painkillers graduate to those drugs, that are cheaper.
I have long advocated for a multipronged approach to
addressing this unique challenge, and, of course, research is
one of the main prongs of that approach. I am particularly
interested in the development of new technologies that will
make these drugs more difficult to abuse. And we have seen some
real progress in that field--effective abuse-deterrent
technologies that will ensure that patients truly in need of
these therapies can receive treatment, while also ensuring that
these very powerful, addictive medications can't be tampered
with or abused.
ADVANCES IN DETERRENT TECHNOLOGIES
Let me ask you, what investments has NIH or NIDA made to
advance the science of abuse-deterrent technologies? And can
you comment on the fruits of those labors?
Dr. Collins.
Dr. Collins. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question
and for your leadership in this area, which is really quite
remarkable, the way which you have shown a bright light on the
importance of our addressing this, brought experts together, as
you have done each year and will do again in April.
I am going to ask Dr. Volkow, who is an internationally
recognized expert in this area, to address your question.
Nora.
Dr. Volkow. Dr. Collins, thanks very much.
Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for asking the question and
for your interest in the matter.
And, as you describe it, we do use a multiprong approach
also in science to address the issue of the prescription opioid
abuse problem.
One of them is effectively to develop medications that, if
they are opioid-based, they have the deterrent formulation so
that they cannot be diverted and abused in ways that they can
produce addiction and harm. And many strategies have been
developed, and some of them relate to the combination of drugs.
Others relate to inserting the drug into a polymer so it cannot
be diverted.
In this effort, we partner with pharmaceutical companies,
so it is a public-private partnership to enhance the likelihood
that the products will get into the market. And, again, here
innovation has led to very different ways of solving the
problem. That is one.
The other one is the development of medications and
strategies to prevent deaths from overdoses because they are
antidotes. In fact, Nyloxin is very, very effective in
preventing overdoses. And we have again partnered with the
pharmaceutical industry in order to be able to provide with
Nyloxin in ways that are user-friendly and anyone can
administer them.
And, thirdly, as importantly, we cannot underestimate the
relevance of developing medications to treat those individuals
that become addicted to opioid medications, because the proper
treatment can prevent the overdoses.
In parallel, we are also working on implementation research
to ensure that practitioners will provide better screening and
treatment of patients with pain, minimizing risks, and as well
as substance abuse disorders.
PRODUCING TECHNOLOGIES
Mr. Rogers. NIDA is working to develop an abuse-deterrent
formulation of OxyContin using what I understand is called pro-
drug technology. What is that?
Dr. Volkow. The pro-drug technology is you administer a
medication that is not active until it suffers a second
conversion. In this case, the medication that we are working
with Signature Pharmaceuticals is a pro-drug that will not
become active until it gets into the gastrointestinal system
and the enzyme trypsin then activates it.
The advantage, therefore, is someone, if they want to
inject the drug, which is the way that these drugs are abused,
there will not be any pharmacological effects because it will
be an inactive drug. It requires the enzyme in the
gastrointestinal tract to activate it.
Mr. Rogers. What do you think about it?
Dr. Volkow. I think very promising. There is already
evidence in the past for pro-drug stimulant medications that
have shown they are much less likely to be diverted and to
produce problem of the addiction.
Dr. Collins. I might mention that Dr. Volkow has taken a
personal interest in that particular approach and has worked
closely with the company to try to be sure that NIH, in a
public-private partnership, can play our role in encouraging
that effort to go forward, ultimately, we hope, to FDA
approval.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I mean, if this should be successful,
this is a major breakthrough, is it not?
Dr. Volkow. It would be a very important breakthrough. And
we hope that we will be hearing soon. I mean, we are expecting,
hopefully, some results in the very near future.
Mr. Rogers. About when?
Dr. Volkow. Well, I am on a confidentiality agreement, so I
cannot give details. But let's say that we hope that we will be
hearing soon.
ENCOURAGING PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTMENT
Mr. Rogers. Well, it is an exciting thing. OxyContin, like
many other of the opioids, are wonderful drugs for terminally
ill cancer patients and the like, 12-hour release. But if it
can be crushed and injected, all of a sudden you get a 12-hour
release in a split second, and, thus, the addictive power of
this drug. So if you can find a way that we can use its great
qualities while preventing it from being abused, that would be
an extremely well-liked lifesaving development. A hundred and
five people a day are dying from drug overdose.
How can we incentivize the private companies to invest in
the development of these technologies? How can we make it so
there is something in it for them?
Dr. Volkow. Well, to start with--and, again, it is an
example about how science and policy need to work together. As
these products are developed, there is research invested and
dollars invested into it. So, we want to ensure that, once
these products are developed, physicians will be able to
prescribe it and companies will pay for those prescriptions.
So, I think that ensuring that the innovation that results
in safer medications that, however, may be slightly more
expensive is supported by the resources that will make it
possible for patients to get access to these medications.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I thank you for your work and your
dedication.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
TREATMENT ADVANCES FOR INOPERABLE TUMORS
The gentlelady from New York is recognized for whatever
questions she cares to pose.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you.
Dr. Collins, the example you gave us of this woman with a
growth on the lung is really extraordinary. And what I thought
of immediately is every person who goes to the doctor with--
what I have heard in two cases--inoperable tumors in their
lung, do they all get that test?
Dr. Collins. That is a great question. And, in fact, one of
the things we hope to achieve with the first stages of this
Precision Medicine Initiative is to make that kind of
experience much more available.
Increasingly, individuals who develop cancer are having
some kind of analysis done of the tumor to see what is driving
it. Because we are developing a long list of reasons why good
cells go bad and start growing when they shouldn't. And the
ability to be able, in the individual to determine what is
going on in that person and then connect that up with the
appropriate choice of drugs, this targeted therapy approach, is
extremely exciting.
In fact, the National Cancer Institute has, for lung
cancer, started such a protocol, called Lung-MAP, which aims to
do that, in that case for squamous cell lung cancer, and
another one for pediatric cancers and for adult cancers called
MATCH.
But, so far, the development of these approaches and the
implementation across all of health care is not there yet, in
part because we don't know quite enough to know what is the
best strategy.
The Precision Medicine Initiative, by expanding that effort
in a very significant way, should make this kind of opportunity
available to many more people with cancer. It should also teach
us things about why it doesn't work when you think it should. I
gave you a beautiful example of a remarkable cure, but we don't
always see that. And we don't know why, when it doesn't work,
something is responsible, or why, when it seems to have
produced a remission, and then the disease comes roaring back a
year later, what is that about. If we could understand the
causes of relapse, that would help us.
And another thing which the Precision Medicine Initiative
will focus on is the opportunity to find out, could we combine
more than one targeted therapy or perhaps combine a drug
therapy with immunotherapy, which is extremely exciting right
now, and have a higher likelihood not just of remission but of
cure?
All of those are ripe for investigation. This initiative
aims to really turn up the heat in getting those kinds of
answers.
Mrs. Lowey. But it is still not widespread is what you are
saying. I just recently had two friends who had inoperable lung
cancer, and I just wondered if those tests were available to
them. But you are saying it is not that widespread.
Dr. Collins. Increasingly, they are, but I would certainly
say to anybody who develops cancer at this point who is
interested, go to clinicaltrials.gov, find out what trials are
currently being conducted all over the country, many of them
supported by NIH, find out whether you qualify for one of these
studies that would include this kind of DNA analysis of the
tumor and an opportunity to match that up with the available
therapies.
BREAKTHROUGH IN BREAST CANCER PRECISION MEDICINE
Mrs. Lowey. I am particularly interested in how precision
medicine, due to this initiative, could bolster treatment for
breast cancer.
We already know that white women are slightly more likely
to develop breast cancer than African-American women. But for
women under the age of 45, breast cancer is more common in
African-American women than white women overall. These factors,
likely evident in our genetic code, are why advances in
precision medicine are so very vital.
And I know there are many studies, because I was part of
initiating them years ago with Senator Al D'Amato, on
environmental factors. That never led to very much, frankly.
So if you could share with us, what breakthroughs for
breast cancer have we seen as a result of NIH-funded research?
And how will the Precision Medicine Initiative improve the
chance of finding a cure once and for all?
Dr. Collins. Thanks for the question.
Breast cancer, obviously, is an area of major priority for
the National Cancer Institute. The ability to be able to look
at thousands of breast cancers and see exactly what is
happening at the molecular level has taught us that this is not
just one disease; this is many different diseases, with
different kinds of molecular pathways activated, comparing one
person to the other.
And, those have already led us to new insights about kinds
of therapies that we didn't know about. Obviously, the
discovery of genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 that play a major role in
hereditary susceptibility is part of that, but we have a longer
list now of hereditary risk factors than I would have thought
possible 20 years ago.
But, of course, what we really need is better means of
prevention and early diagnosis and treatment. Put all of that
together.
Here is why I think, again, the Precision Medicine
Initiative has a lot to offer. If, as we are claiming we can do
starting next year, we could put together a cohort of a million
or more individuals who are participants in a study that
collects all of the data you could imagine about their medical
experiences, about their DNA, about their environmental
exposures, we might have sufficient power to really be able to
get our hands on information that has been rather elusive about
exactly what is the interaction between genes and environment
that results in this disease or does not.
Electronic health records now becoming the norm in many
people's medical records is going to help that hugely. That is
why this is the right time to initiate a program of this sort.
We couldn't have probably done it 10 years ago, but now we can.
Between electronic health records, environmental sensors,
DNA analysis at an increasingly affordable cost, and the
willingness of the public and the enthusiasm of the public to
be part of a national effort of this sort, we could do
something really groundbreaking and historic. And that is what
this initiative aims to do for breast cancer and for many other
diseases, as well.
SUPPORT FOR YOUNG INVESTIGATORS
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I see the red light is on, Mr. Chairman,
but I just have to tell you, this is why our investments in the
NIH are so critical. I find the information we gather here so
very exciting, and I am ready to double it again, as John
Porter did. We could be groundbreaking here, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. Cole. I am very tough on the clock, except to my
chairman and my ranking member of the full committee. So you
take the time you need.
Let me quickly, if I may, ask one question for myself, Dr.
Collins. One of the areas that I know concerns you and
certainly concerns me is simply the pipeline of talented young
scientists and researchers.
And I recognize and I think my colleagues have pointed out,
when we are not as generous as we would all like to be in terms
of our appropriations to this particular institute, you have
fewer grants to award to younger researchers, and the success
rate of applicants goes down.
I was really made aware of this recently by a good friend
of mine, Dr. Skorton, who is the president of Cornell but the
incoming president of the Smithsonian. And I asked him why in
the world was he leaving a wonderful place like Cornell, this
capstone job--the Smithsonian is a great job--but, actually,
the thing he said that concerned him in the future of science
was exactly this. He said: I have some brilliantly talented
young people, and, obviously, they enjoy teaching, but they
want to research, they want to get things done. And we are not
giving them the opportunities that they need to have, and that
is going to cost us down the road.
So I would like to know, number one, your assessment, but,
number two, what are the things that we ought to do, what are
the things you are doing now, to make sure that we engage the
next generation of scientists that will hopefully match the
accomplishments of this distinguished panel in their respective
areas?
Dr. Collins. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
This is the issue that wakes me up at night, when I try to
contemplate the future of where biomedical research can go in
the United States. We have such amazing scientific
opportunities. Some of them, I am sure, we will continue to
discuss during this hearing. But, yet, our most critical
resource is not, you know, pieces of equipment or buildings; it
is the people and particularly this next generation of
researchers.
They are full of ideas and vision, and yet they are finding
themselves facing a situation that is the least supportive for
that vision in 50 years. And they look ahead of them and see
the more senior scientists struggling to keep their labs going
and having rejection after rejection of grants that previously
would have been supported, and they wonder, do we really want
to sign up for that? And many of them, regrettably, are making
the decision to walk away and to do something else.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world, as has already been
mentioned, is picking up steam, trying to be what America was
20 years ago, even as we seem to have lost some of our
momentum. And that is going to have really significant trickle
effects downstream.
So what are we doing? Again, there is no real magic here to
solving what is a very difficult equation of supply and demand,
where the demand for resources to do research is not currently
being matched by the supply. But we are trying to adjust many
of the things that we can adjust. And I have had many
interesting conversations with people on this Subcommittee
about this.
One thing we are doing is to try to be sure that that first
application from a new investigator gets a special effort to
get funded beyond what would happen if they simply competed
with people of larger experience. So, new investigators, early-
stage investigators, compete against each other, not against
the experienced ones. That gives them a bump in terms of their
likelihood of getting funded. And many of the institutes,
actually, on top of that, give them an additional bump in terms
of the likelihood of making the cut.
That has helped to some degree. But, of course, we don't
want to set people up for that first award to be successful and
then, when they come back for a renewal or the second award, we
lose them because the edge is no longer there.
We are doing a number of other things. We are funding a
program that provides support for post-doctoral fellows who are
ready to go on in a couple of years to an independent position
to compete for their award and then carry part of that award
with them to an academic position, so-called K99 awards. And we
are increasing the number of those, because that does seem to
be a good mechanism.
And a number of other things are being done to try to free
up more of the proportion of funds for more applicants. I am
going to quickly ask Dr. Lorsch, the Director of the National
Institute of General Medical Sciences, is a major part, of our
training initiatives, to say something about some of the ideas
they are pursuing.
Mr. Lorsch. Thank you, Dr. Collins.
And thanks for the question, Chairman Cole. This is an area
that we are very concerned about, as are you.
We are starting a new pilot program called the Maximizing
Investigators Research Award, which has as its fundamental goal
to improve the efficiency of our funding mechanism, which would
increase our ability to distribute funds, especially to young
investigators.
It would also have several other targets. One would be to
improve the stability of funding for these investigators,
because if they are constantly at risk of losing their funding,
clearly, that is not an ideal situation. It would improve the
flexibility for investigators to follow new research questions
as they arise. Additionally, we think it would improve their
ability to take on ambitious research projects and follow them
in a creative manner. Nontheless, I think efficiency is the
key.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
I want to move next to my friend, the ranking member from
Connecticut.
GENDER BALANCE IN PRECLINICAL RESEARCH
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank all of you.
Mrs. Lowey and I just briefly talked to each other about
how the level of discussion at the hearings with the NIH is
inspiring. The intellectual pursuit, the science--gives you--
and that the United States is on the cutting edge of these
efforts. It gives us such a sense of pride, but, more than
that, again, it is what you are doing to push the edge of the
envelope in so my directions, in terms of saving lives.
And that leads us--we were both on the committee, Mr.
Chairman, when we doubled the amount of money for the NIH,
along with Mr. Porter, and it was so genuinely bipartisan. If
there is an area in which we can come together and understand
the value of what we have here, that I think it would serve us
well to think through what we should do for the future.
I am going to address an issue that you know has been of
interest to me for a while, and I know it is for my colleague
Mrs. Lowey, as well, and that is the gender balance in
preclinical research. We have worked to make sure that women
were represented among the subjects of biomedical research,
including in the preclinical research studies.
I don't have to tell you that men and women differ in their
responses to medical treatments, and, oftentimes, using the
models that rely exclusively on male animals can lead to
serious harm. Women experience higher rates of adverse drug
reactions than men do, for example.
Dr. Collins, in May of 2014, you co-authored an article in
Nature with Dr. Janine Clayton, Director of the Office of
Research on Women's Health. You announced that NIH would
require applicants to report their plans for the balance of
male and female cells in animals in preclinical studies in all
future applications. And that is the quote.
You noted that the new policy would be rolled out in
phases, beginning in October of 2014. Dr. Clayton noted that,
quote, ``the exception will truly be the exception, not the
rule,'' end quote.
Let me just give you the two or three questions I have in
this regard. If you can give us an update on NIH's new policy
to require that both sexes be represented in preclinical
research? What kinds of responses have you received from the
research community? Are you seeing an immediate impact in
applications for funding in fiscal 2015?
Will you consider requiring the analysis of data by sex and
other subgroup demographics as part of grant progress-
reporting? What are you doing to encourage journal editors to
require an analysis of results by sex?
How are you holding institute directors accountable for
funding studies on sex differences and conditions that
predominantly impact women? How are the institute directors
accountable for partnering with the Office of Research on
Women's Health on studies?
And can we expect all future NIH-funded research to include
both sexes unless there is a specific reason to not include
them, such as a focus on ovarian cancer or prostate cancer?
A lot of questions, I know, Dr. Collins, but I think it is
imperative, this moment, because you are moving, and we need to
make sure that we get all of this as we move forward. I know we
have worked in the past and some things have not moved forward,
and now, I think, is an opportunity for us to address the issue
again.
Dr. Collins. Ms. DeLauro, I appreciate the question and
appreciate your leadership in bringing this to the attention of
the public. And, certainly, I can assure you of my strong
personal commitment to addressing this issue, as was documented
in that article that you mentioned that I wrote with Dr.
Clayton in Nature.
The update is, we have now had extensive conversations with
all of the institute directors, the scientific community and my
Advisory Committee to the Director, which is my most senior
advisory group, about this issue. There is generally broad
embrace for the need in preclinical studies to include males
and females unless there is a compelling reason. It needs to be
explained, what it is, not just that it is not traditional or
not convenient.
The responses on the negative side have mostly reflected
anxieties about whether this would mean that every study that
previously studied only male mice, for instance, now has to be
doubled in size in order to study males and females, and that
will cost more and it will result in fewer studies being done.
I think that is an unnecessarily negative response to this
question.
The idea that you should include males and females seems
really compelling. The idea you should analyze the data
separately is really compelling. You will have to decide in
every study how subtle a difference between the sexes are you
willing to miss, because that will determine how big your study
has to be. But we know how to do that; that is called power
analysis, and it can be applied in this situation quite
handily.
The Institute Directors, I think, are in the process now of
finalizing their approval of the way in which we are going to
implement this for NIH grantees, with much community input. So
I can assure you, this will be something which is not left
neglected. We will have definitive guidelines for all grantees
who are doing these kinds of studies about what their
expectations are.
For reviewers who review these studies, it will be made
very clear that that is part of how you are----
Ms. DeLauro. Journal editors.
Dr. Collins [continuing]. To review a grant that comes to
NIH.
Journal editors have been in conversation with us, and we
have had great interactions with them about the general area of
reproducibility. And this fits within that. If you have two
studies that don't get the same answer but one studied males
and one studied females, that is not called lack of
reproducibility; that is called interesting new data that you
would want to follow up on. So they are in this mix, as well.
I think it is fair to say that the NIH is, across the
board, fully committed to making these things happen. And it is
time. It is over time.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
And thank you for letting me go over time.
Mr. Cole. Absolutely. Thank you.
I want to go next to my good friend from Idaho, the
distinguished Member.
USE OF PRECISION MEDICINE IN COMMON CONDITIONS
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Dr. Collins and all of the other directors, thank you
for being here today.
The bipartisan nature of this subject with this committee
is pretty obvious and has been in the past, and that is good.
It would be, I think, the desire of everyone on this committee
to substantially increase the research we are doing if we
didn't have an $18 trillion debt and a $500 billion deficit
that we are having to deal with at the same time, which makes
it more difficult. But, still, it is something that we put
priority on and try to do in a bipartisan manner.
I would like to ask you a whole bunch of different
questions, but I am going to come out and visit with you for a
day and take a tour of some of the different institutes and
what goes on there, so we can get down and have some real good
discussions.
But there are a couple of things. This personalized
medicine that you are talking about, or precision medicine, is
fascinating to me. And I understand that OMNIX is the
collective use of technologies, such as genomics and petro-
protein--protein medics--or something like that--that explore
how cells and organisms are made up.
As NIH--and I understand in your testimony you said you are
going to concentrate on cancer right now. Obviously, it is a
lethal disease and so forth. Is there any plans to look at
broader, maybe not as lethal diseases or not as serious
diseases and the effects that personalized medicine could have
and the research in those arenas?
Dr. Collins. Absolutely. Again, let me maybe be more clear
than I was. The Precision Medicine Initiative has two
components: An early focus on cancer because precision medicine
is so ready for this kind of really expanded effort to
understand what causes cancer, what we can do about it; but the
other component, which is a long-term, ambitious, to be sure,
effort is this cohort of a million or more Americans which we
could be studying for virtually all diseases.
And knowing that you are a dentist, I would certainly
include, in that, such things as periodontal disease and dental
caries. We know there is an environment and genetic risk
involved in those conditions. But we haven't really had a
sufficiently large study with appropriate patient participation
to be able to get those answers. This should be a way to go
there, this is true for diabetes, for heart disease, and for
Alzheimer's disease. For virtually every common condition, with
a million people, you are going to have enough events that you
should really be able to disect what were with the biomarkers
that warned this might happen; what were the environmental
factors that played a role? We haven't had that kind of power
before. We aim to get it.
UPDATE ON NCATS
Mr. Simpson. That is fascinating stuff and could really
advance the treatment of diseases and cure diseases. I am going
to submit some questions for the record but the one I did want
to ask is in our conversations in the past, you have indicated
your strong support for the National Center for Advancing
Translational Sciences, known as NCATS. I heard from some
advocacy groups several years ago who expressed concern that
putting more resources into NCATS might come at the expense of
research. And I don't believe that to be the case. But you do
request a $27 million increase for NCATS in fiscal year 2016.
Can you update me on how things are going with NCATS and some
of the benefits we have seen from this new center?
Dr. Collins. I am happy to. NCATS, just 3 years old, was
the first new center at NIH in quite a long time and was
focused in trying to identify what are the bottlenecks in going
from basic science discoveries to clinical benefits that NIH
could address in collaboration with our partners in the private
sector. I think initially there were some concerns that NIH is
becoming a drug company. That really was never the plan and is
not happening now.
Instead, we are identifying areas of technology development
that no single company could undertake, but working with them,
we can. I will give you just one example. The effort to try to
figure out when you are developing a new drugs whether it is
going to be safe in humans or not has been a real difficult
one. We use animal studies, small animals, large animals. It is
not that accurate. It is slow. It is expensive. We probably
lose drugs along the way because some mouse got a slight liver
issue. And it probably would have had no relevance to humans,
but we sort of lose the drug at that point.
Wouldn't it be better to be able to test toxicity against
humans cells but not put humans at risk? Now with the ability
to create from a skin biopsy from you or me basically cells
that represent liver or heart or brain or kidney or muscle on a
three-dimensional biochip, we can begin to do those experiments
without putting people at risk and get very interesting data
about what drugs are likely to be safe or not at a much lower
cost. We are doing this with FDA and DARPA. It is now 3 years
along. NCATS, though, is the place where this lives. And it is
a very appropriate thing. And pharmaceutical companies are
wildly interested in this. Because if it works, it could
greatly improve the likelihood of knowing whether something is
safe before we get into an expensive clinical trial. I could go
on with many other things that NCATS is doing. They are all
quite innovative. They would not have happened without NIH
stepping into this space. We have high hopes. There is high-
risk, but I think they are going to be high-reward.
The other thing that is in NCATS now is all the CTSAs, the
Clinical Translational Science Centers, which are present in
many of your States, which is our network of 62 academically
based centers that is where an awful lot of clinical research
is being done.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you all. Thanks for the work you do and
look forward to coming out and visiting with you. And as I have
said many years, and I will continue to say it, NIH is, for
good or bad, the best kept secret in Washington, D.C., and the
American people need to know what happens out there. Thank you.
Dr. Collins. We would love to host you. Please come out.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
All of us on this committee know that our good friend, the
gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee, has been dealing with a
difficult personal situation with the loss of her mother. And
she has been in our thoughts and prayers.
And it is wonderful to have you back here with us today.
The gentlelady is recognized.
OVERVIEW OF NIH ACTIVITIES
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And let me thank all of you and you, Mr. Chairman, for your
condolences and your support and your real expressions of
sympathy during this very difficult period. And I am so glad to
see everyone here today. And I want to thank you all of you for
your work, for your efforts, really to save lives and to ensure
the quality of life for everybody in our country. My mother was
90 years old. She died of COPD, which is the--what--third
largest death by disease in this country. And I have spent many
a nights and many a days in emergency rooms and hospitals.
Because of you and the work of NIH, she lived to be 90. She
lived with COPD. And my sister has multiple sclerosis. And,
again, because of you, this work, and this committee, my sister
is 67 years old. And she is leading a very healthy life as a
result of NIH and the research and the treatment. So I have to
personally thank you all so much for the work that you do. And,
of course, I want to see your budget doubled so that everybody
can, first of all, be free of these diseases. And I wanted to
ask you a couple questions with regard to COPD research in
terms of prevention and new treatments. Also with regard to
multiple sclerosis and your BRAIN Initiative, how that will
impact people with MS. Sickle cell, you know, I have been
working for many years now on looking at the A1C test as it
relates to diabetes and the correlation between sickle cell
traits and diabetes and the A1C test and see how that--are
doctors and labs fully aware now that that could give a false
positive, and what you are doing around that in terms of the
research? Also, just in terms of your budget as it relates to
HIV/AIDS, I am really pleased to see the increase. I want to
see if you are coming up or if we are close to a vaccine; what
types of new treatments do you envision with this increase of
$52 million?
And, finally, just as it relates to the National Institute
on Minority Health and Disparity, really pleased, once again,
to see an increase of $14 million in funding and want to look
at how you are focusing on or looking at social determinates of
health care because we know many of the health disparities in
minority communities directly relate to the social determinates
and how this is being framed and researched within the NIH. So,
once again, personally, I just have to thank all of you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members for your
support during this period.
Dr. Collins. Well, Ms. Lee, those are great questions and--
--
Ms. Lee. I am going back to medical school now as a result
of my family.
COPD RESEARCH
Dr. Collins. Sure. Maybe I will ask Dr. Gibbons first to
say something about COPD. And then we will try to work through
as many of these as we can.
Dr. Gibbons. Sure. As you mentioned, chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease is the third leading cause of death in this
country, one in which NHLBI has provided clinical trials that
have provided a better course of life, particularly the
nocturnal oxygen trial. But we need to do more. The challenge
is that we often diagnose and treat the disease toward the
latter stages. And a lot of the damage has already been done to
a lung. It is primarily supportive. This is really an
opportunity for precision medicine where we can diagnose and
start to develop interventions earlier in the course to really
prevent a lot of that deterioration that occurs.
We are excited about the opportunities that come from
genomic medicine. We are starting to understand the pathways
that are promoting that inexorable progression of disease
toward death. And we have some exciting opportunities to
develop some new therapeutics in that regard, which is very
exciting.
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS RESEARCH
Dr. Collins. And maybe I will ask Dr. Fauci to say
something about a new trial on multiple sclerosis which his
institute supported and, while he has the microphone, say
something about HIV/AIDS.
Dr. Fauci. Thank you, Dr. Collins.
Thank you, Ms. Lee, for this question. As you are probably
aware, just a few weeks ago, there was published a very
exciting study, one of the most important studies we have seen
in multiple sclerosis, in which 25 subjects were involved in a
Phase 2, open-label study of stem cell transplantation in
individuals who had rapidly aggressive, progressive multiple
sclerosis. You would expect by historical control that these
individuals over a period of months would have continued to
deteriorate.
The study was a resounding success. Greater than 80 percent
of the individuals survived without any progression of their MS
for a period of up to 3 years, which is really quite
unprecedented. Now, it is important to note that this an open-
label study that was not controlled in the classic sense. But
the historical control is so compelling because those patients,
they almost invariably progress, and the patients in the study
did not. We are very excited about it. And we are going to move
on to the next phase of the study. I would say of all of the
things we have been doing with multiple sclerosis over the last
several years, in my mind, this is the most exciting.
You also asked about HIV. There are so many important
aspects of HIV, as you well know, throughout the world and in
this country. We are seeing several countries approaching a
tipping point, where the number of new infections are less than
the number of people who are going onto therapy, to the point
where we are starting to see a deflection in the number of HIV
infected people. The things that would prevention and the
treatment as prevention programs that you are very familiar
with, in which you can decrease by 96 percent transmissibility
from an infected to an uninfected person by, in fact, treating
them and getting their viral load to below detectible level.
There have been several studies that came out at the CROI
meeting in Seattle last week that showed that preexposure
prophylaxis of individuals at high risk, particularly men who
have sex with men, superimposed upon treatment as prevention,
has provided a substantial decrease in infection rate in
certain areas.
VACCINE RESEARCH
And, finally, with respect to the HIV vaccine issue, there
are two major parallel pathways that are being pursued. One is
the follow up of that very exciting, though modestly
successful, Thai trial from several years ago that I reported
to this committee, the RV144 trial, that was 34 percent
effective--not enough to pursue this vaccine candidate but
enough to give us some insight into the next stage of what we
are going to pursue. We started a trial in Africa. And it looks
like the response in Africans is quite similar to those in the
Thais, which means that that is a hope of potential success in
the African trial. And then there is a wide variety of research
that is led by our Vaccine Research Center at the NIH, as well
as a number of centers throughout the world, in looking at the
ability to induce broadly neutralizing antibodies. These
antibodies are difficult to induce with natural infection, but
we are making headway in being able to induce them with the
right immunogens. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
Dr. Collins, you can see your colleagues may be brilliant,
but mine are very crafty at loading up questions. But they are
great questions. They are great questions. And the chair is
going to be as generous as he can with the clock.
With that, I am going to move to my good friend, the
distinguished member from Arkansas, Mr. Womack.
COLLABORATION WITH CDC ON OPIOID ADDICTION
Mr. Womack. I will try to be quick. I know I will use my
time. I have got two or three questions. And I, too, was one of
the people that went up on the tour. And thank you. I am in awe
of the presentation that is being made here today, just as I
was the day when we toured the National Institutes of Health.
And I am grateful that you guys and gals are doing the great
work you are doing. I want to follow up on the question from
the overall chairman from earlier.
When you said you need to make sure patients can access new
medications and treatments coming out of the NIH to combat
prescription drug abuse, I completely agree with that. But,
right now, SAMSHA's regulations for medication therapy for
opioid addiction prevent this and only push two medications,
buprenorphine and methadone. Can you follow up on what the NIH
is doing to make sure patients can access these medications?
Are you working with other agencies, such as SAMHSA, to ensure
they aren't detracting from but instead complementing the
efforts of the NIH?
Dr. Volkow. Yes, indeed. Thanks very much for your
question. For us to succeed, we have to work in partnership
with our sister agency, SAMHSA, so we have mechanisms by which
we actually bring together the researchers and the clinicians
to ensure that developments, in this case, in the area of
medications for opioid addiction are implemented in the
treatment setting.
Having said that, there are always problems in terms of
ensuring that the patients have access to these medications,
and that is why I had made the point before, including the need
to ensure that insurances will be covering and providing access
to them.
There is a third medication that is also available,
Vivitrol, which was also developed through the NIH, with very
good outcomes. And as of now, we know that not only are these
medications effective in treating substance abuse, they are
effective in preventing overdoses, and they are effective in
preventing HIV. So they work. We need to implement them.
IDEA FUNDING
Mr. Womack. Dr. Collins, you would expect that I am going
to have a question about IDEA funding because Arkansas is one
of those States that benefits. We have a lot of underserved
population. And I know a lot of our applications go wanting.
And we would like to improve that.
We are pretty much a rural State, places like Dermott,
Arkansas, Dr. Gibbons.
In your fiscal year 2016 budget, you ask for a 3 percent
increase over fiscal year 2015. However, the budget requests
level funding of $273 million for the IDEA program. I would
like to know why the program that helps States like mine--the
other 22 States that help this secure this funding are not
prioritized. Can you walk me through that process?
Dr. Collins. NIH is the big fan of the IDEA program. And I
appreciate your question. Certainly the things that have been
accomplished through this program in States like Arkansas are
truly exciting and a great opportunity for research and for
training. In terms of the budget issue, there was a $50 million
increment that the IDEA program received in 2011, which means
that it actually over a 5-year period has grown more rapidly
than the rest of NIH. This particular year did not change in
its total dollars. But over that 5-year period, IDEA has been
doing pretty well.
I do want to ask Dr. Lorsch, because IDEA is now managed in
NIGMS, to say something about this program, which I know he is
also quite enthusiastic about.
Mr. Lorsch. Thank you very much, Mr. Womack, for this
question. As Dr. Collins said, the IDEA program is now housed
within NIGMS. We are very proud to have it here and are
completely committed to the goals of the program. I think the
key is that whatever the budget, we are going to do whatever we
can to make sure that those goals, that is increasing the
geographic distribution and ensuring that all 50 States in the
Union have cutting-edge biomedical research going on, are met.
I recently traveled to Arkansas, to Little Rock, and saw some
of the amazing research that is going on there and in the
Southeast region of IDeA, including in your district, the
University of Arkansas. We have a COBRE center there, a Center
of Biomedical Research Excellence, that is focusing on
determining the three-dimensional structures of proteins from
viruses and bacteria and using that information to try to
develop drugs to treat a variety of different diseases. What I
can assure you is that we will continue to push the goals of
this program forward as best we can.
Mr. Womack. I know I am out of time. We will submit other
questions for the record. Let me just finish by saying this--as
I said in my opening, I am grateful for the work that is being
done by this agency. And it gives me a great deal of pleasure
to be associated with a panel of experts like we have here
before us.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Womack.
Next, we go to my good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Fattah.
JOINT PROGRAM IN NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES INITIATIVE
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And let me thank the panel. Let me ask first about the
Joint Program in Neurodegenerative Diseases initiative the EU
has created. They have participation from Canada and Israel. I
know there have been some discussions about American
participation. Could you tell the committee whether we plan on
engaging in terms of broader clinical trials on degenerative
diseases through JPND?
Dr. Collins. Mr. Fattah, I really appreciate your strong
leadership in the area of neuroscience. I am going to ask Dr.
Insel, who is colead on our BRAIN Initiative and also a major
figure in neuroscience at NIH, to respond to your question.
Dr. Insel. Thanks very much.
And thanks for all you are doing in this area. The JPND,
this is the joint program that you talked about, is really an
EU program. They reached out to us. What has evolved more
recently is something that is going to be sitting under the G7
authority around dementia more specifically. That is really the
piece we have become most involved with. So we do have a series
of joint meetings. I suspect, there will be some joint
initiatives. That hasn't happened yet. But that is very much in
the discussion. And we are looking forward to working closely
with the other G7 partners around dementia.
PSYCHOSIS RESEARCH
Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
I know that Prime Minister Cameron initiated that. I met
with Dr. Gillings from the World Dementia Council. But I would
like to get a particular review of whether the JPND program is
something we are or we are not going to join. And so you can
provide that at some later point for the record.
Dr. Insel. We will get that for the record.
Mr. Fattah. Let me ask a question right in your alley while
I have you. In the omnibus, we have put some additional dollars
in for the SAMHSA mental health block grants and directed that
SAMHSA work with your institute to help States implement
programs that have proven effective in terms of preventing the
first episode of psychosis. So I understand that in this way,
research funds from your institute have come to be called
RAISE, Recovery After Initial Schizophrenic Episode, and are
being readily applied in communities so that patients are
benefiting quickly from research findings. Can you tell us
where we are right now and what the future holds?
Dr. Insel. Sure. Thanks for that question. The RAISE
program, Recovery After Initial Schizophrenic Episode, is a
program that has been going on, actually originally really
bolstered by the ARRA funding from 2009, 2010. The study was
completed in terms of its feasibility in December of 2013. And
this Committee saw fit soon thereafter, January of 2014, to ask
SAMHSA to implement the findings of that study in all 50
States. It is a most extraordinary story of science to service
or science to practice. Usually, it takes many years. But, in
this case, it happened in just 6 weeks in 2014. There are pilot
programs that were developed in collaboration between NIH,
SAMHSA, and all 50 States. We are watching that now as it
continues to grow in 2015.
What we would like to do now is to build on that in a very
specific way. We want to be able to create a learning
healthcare system out of these kinds of programs that would be
really not so much research to practice but now practice to
research, learning from the experience in where the care is
being delivered, how to improve outcomes for people who have a
first episode of psychosis, and, most importantly, how to
prevent that first episode. So we are trying to actually move
earlier in the cycle to make sure we reduce the number.
BRAIN BUDGET REQUEST
Mr. Fattah. This has a great potential of preventing some
of the tragedies we have seen around the country. And I know
the committee will have a continuing interest as we go forward.
Let me to 30,000 feet up in the air. I know you co-chaired the
Interagency Working Group, which I established through language
in the Commerce, Justice, Science bill, where I am the ranking
member. Here I am in the junior chair. But the fact that I can
just be in the same room with Tom Cole, I am happy.
You co-chaired the working group, and the BRAIN Initiative
is a major inspiration thereof. But there are a number of other
things in terms of imaging, in terms of the pharmaceutical
industry.
I know that, Dr. Collins, you have launched the Accelerated
Pharmaceutical Partnership. And there is just a lot of things
that are germinating. If you could help us understand the
budget requests, Dr. Collins or Dr. Insel, in terms of the
BRAIN Initiative this year and how those dollars will be
meaningful in terms of you moving forward, that would be
helpful. Thank you.
Dr. Insel. Sure. I will take that on. I should say at the
beginning, that every time I go anywhere, I find out that
Congressman Fattah has just been there--Stanford, MIT, you name
it--at every neuroscience lab. I suspect you will get an
honorary Ph.D. pretty soon in neuroscience.
The BRAIN Initiative, when it was first set up, we asked a
group or Dr. Collins asked a group of experts to sit down with
us and to give us the best idea for how to develop this. And
they created this 10-year plan, which is called BRAIN 2025: A
scientific vision. And in that, there is a budget. And the
budget will grow to roughly $400 million a year by 2019 and
will, ultimately, over 12 years, be about $4.5 billion, pretty
much like the human genome project. We are not there. So in
2015, we will be around $80 million, with the President's
request next year of another $70 million that will take us up.
But I have to say that the question that gets asked of us over
and over again, seeing how spectacular the scientific
opportunities are, people look at that report and they say you
have got a great road map, but is there any gas in the car?
People are really concerned in the community that we have this
opportunity that is unprecedented that may be underfunded. So,
we are hoping that with the funds that we have got now, that we
will be able to do 10 RFAs this year. We only did 58 projects
last year. We would like to have another 50 or so come out this
year. But going forward, whether we will be able to build this
in the way that we had originally envisioned is going to depend
a lot on your support.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are tens of millions of Americans counting on your
work in this regard.
I thank the chairman.
Mr. Cole. The gentleman's gracious compliment got him extra
time. It may not get him extra money. We will have to see about
that.
We next go to my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee,
Mr. Fleischmann.
PEDIATRIC LOW-GRADE ASTROCYTOMA (PLGA)
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Dr. Collins and to all the Directors, I just want to
say, thank you. You all fight the maladies that face so many
millions of Americans. And your research and your commitment to
medicine and science is incredible. So I thank you very much.
As you all know, I have been a very vocal, outspoken advocate
with the fight against cancer. I lost both my parents to
cancer; my mother when I was very young. And I thank you for
all your endeavors in that regard.
But one of the particular sad things about cancer is
children with cancer. And my question today, and I hope you can
help me, a little boy came to see me. He was blind. He had had
a brain tumor. And he and his dad came to see me and sat with
me. I was not even his Congressman. I believe he lives in
Maryland or Virginia. But I sat with him, and I spoke with him
about his cancer. So I hope you can help me with this.
Pediatric low-grade astrocytoma is a slow-growing children's
brain cancer that impacts over 20,000 children every year. And
there is over a thousand new cases, apparently, diagnosed every
year. Existing treatments for PLGA brain cancer are invasive,
highly toxic, and so far relatively ineffective. The treatments
themselves can cause serious permanent damage and are often
life-threatening. What research is being currently conducted by
the NIH on PLGA? What treatments and therapeutic alternatives
are on the horizon for PLGA patients? And are there any
clinical trials currently being conducted by NIH for PLGA? I
would really like to respond back to this little boy.
Dr. Collins. Thank you for the question. Dr. Varmis, who is
the director of NCI, is currently out of the country or he
would be here and I am sure would be answering your question.
But I will see what I can do. I agree with you, PLGA is one of
those pediatric cancers that we desperately need better answers
for. That it is slow-growing, it doesn't respond particularly
well to the kind of approaches that attack cancers that are
growing rapidly and that have made so many advances possible in
pediatric cancers of other types. Clearly, there is a
connection here between what we were discussing a little bit
ago in terms of the cancer focus of the Precision Medicine
Initiative. And as part of that, the Cancer Institute aims to
enroll something like a thousand pediatric patients in this
earlier stage of trying to understand what drives malignancy.
And I would be very surprised if some of those are not, in
fact, PLGA patients to try and understand more about the
disease.
Obviously, one of the very difficult problems is access to
tissue here. Because it is not an easy thing to imagine just
doing a biopsy of a tumor growing in such a vulnerable place.
But there are potential ways that one can begin to look at that
actually by looking at DNA that is floating around freely in
the blood circulation. We are learning that cancers, because
they do turn over, release their DNA. And one can discover it
by looking in the circulation for free DNA that is not inside a
cell, in a cancer, that may tell you what is going on without
having to do a needle biopsy, a so-called liquid biopsy. That
would be one area of focus.
In terms of clinical trials for PLGA, I do not know right
off the top of my head what is there. I am sure if I was
looking, I would go to clinicaltrials.gov and see what is
listed. I can certainly get for you for the record an
indication of what kinds of trials are not only going on but
what might be planned for this terribly difficult condition.
And we share your concern about needing better answers for that
boy who came to see you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Doctor.
I believe I have some additional time, so I will ask a
follow-up question on something else.
Dr. Collins. Please.
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH
Mr. Fleischmann. Our country prides itself on being at the
forefront of research and development. And biomedical research
is no exception. You have expressed some concern about the
amount of money going toward international research. Could you
please share with us why, with the budget the size of NIH's,
you have these concerns? And let us know, in an effort to
maintain American competitiveness, while working to make the
largest strides possible to finding cures for the diseases that
have the greatest impact in our population, what are you doing
to take advantage of the research being done in other
countries?
Dr. Collins. That is a great question. Science is an
international effort. And certainly many major programs,
including the human genome project that I had the privilege of
leading, was international. Six countries were involved in
that. And all the data was made immediately accessible. But it
is very clear that the country that leads in biomedical
research enjoys other benefits rather directly, especially in
terms of commercial spinoffs. And those are wonderful ways to
create jobs. America's leadership has led to the fact that we
are not only great in academic biomedical research; we also
have the most vibrant community of small businesses, biotech
companies, and pharmaceutical companies. We would not want to
lose that benefit.
And yet when you look at the trajectory that our funding is
on compared to other countries, there are deep concerns. We
have lost at the NIH about 22 percent of our purchasing power
for biomedical research since 2003, a very substantial downturn
in terms of what we can support. And other countries, on the
other hand, are going the other way. China, in particular,
increasing their support of biomedical research by 20 percent
per year over multiple years.
The consequences of that, I would refer you to an article
by Economist Hamilton Moses in JAMA, which was just published
about a month ago, has a lot of data in it, pointing out a
number of things that are quite alarming if you really care
about the U.S. Maintaining that leadership, including the fact
that China is now filing more patents in biomedicine than the
U.S., not just as a proportion of their GDP but absolutely more
patents. And the consequences, I think you can imagine, are
going to be significant.
The final conclusion of this article, and I think this is a
distinguished group that wrote this, is given the national
trends, the United States will relinquish its historical
international lead in biomedical research in the next decade,
unless certain measures are undertaken. They see the pathway,
and they don't like what is happening.
We could turn this around. What NIH desperately needs and
what would be such an inspirational moment for our community,
especially those early stage investigators we were talking
about, is a sense of stable trajectory, that we have a chance
to be able to plan, to take risks, to do innovative research
without the uncertainty about what will happen one year or the
next. Maybe a doubling would be actually a nice thing. But what
would be even better would be an opportunity to see a path
forward that keeps up with inflation, plus a little bit, and
that we could count on and that people could basically then
flex their innovative muscles, and take advantage of this
amazing talent that we have in this country.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Dr. Collins, and everyone.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. I now move to recognize my
good friend, the gentlelady from California, Ms. Roybal-Allard.
NATIONAL CHILDREN'S STUDY
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me just associate myself with the
comments that were made by my colleagues about the tremendous
work that you all do and what a positive impact it has had on
the quality of life of so many people, not just in this country
but throughout the world.
But I do have some concerns that I would like to address.
Dr. Collins, in 2000, this Congress authorized the National
Children's Study to investigate how the environment influences
a child's development and health. And over the last 15 years,
Congress has appropriated over $1.5 billion to plan and pilot
this study. Given the huge investment, Congress fully expected
that the study would be carried through to its completion. And,
in fact, in almost every fiscal appropriations report from the
year 2000 to 2014, there have been specific instructions from
both the House and Senate directing the continuation of the
study.
And, in March of 2013, Congress requested a review of the
revised study designed by the Institute of Medicine. And the
IOM concluded that there were conceptual, methodological, and
administrative challenges that must be addressed. But that the
NCS still offered--and these are their words--``enormous
potential.'' The IOM also concluded that when the study was
completed, it would, and again I am quoting, add immeasurably
to what we know about children's health in the United States.
So after reading the IOM's summary report and given the
billion and a half dollars that have been spent, I was frankly
very, very surprised by your announcement canceling the
National Children's Study. And I am sure I am not alone in
believing that a better outcome for the $1.5 billion investment
should be a completed study.
So my question is by what authority did you use to disband
the study whose authorization is still in current law and for
which Congress has spent $1.5 billion over the last 15 years
and for which this committee in fiscal year 2015 in the omnibus
bill put in language that said, and I quote, the NIH Director
is expected to use this framework, meaning the framework coming
out of the IOM report, to ensure the mission and goals of the
NCS are realized, to generate the anticipated returns from the
years of taxpayer support. So I just would like an explanation
as to what happened here.
Dr. Collins. Well, I appreciate the question. And this has
been one of the more difficult decisions since I have been NIH
Director over the last almost 6 years. The National Children's
Study was designed in various pieces over quite a long period
of time. And I think, as that time passed, some of the design
issues, in retrospect, maybe were not serving the need of
getting the information, which we all agreed was crucial--that
is, to understand environmental impact, factors that occur both
during pregnancy and beyond that influence child health. We all
agree, those answers need to be found. The problem that
increasingly seemed clear was that the design of the Children's
Study, which carried with it a certain historical legacy, was
not fitting with the way in which technology was developing
over the course of the last almost 20 years.
The IOM study that you mentioned was, in fact, quite
critical about those issues and about administrative issues.
And because of that, I asked a working group of my advisory
committee to look closely at all the aspects of the Children's
Study and to make a recommendation to me about whether it was
still feasible. They came back and said, frankly, they did not
believe that it was and that it was more responsible at this
point to try to make sure that the data that had been collected
through the Vanguard Studies, which were the pilots for the
Children's Study, were made available and kept in place for
those who could learn from it, but that we really ought to
think about coming up with a new strategy to get answers to
these same questions.
The Congress, in the omnibus bill, basically gave us the
opportunity to take the $165 million that is in the fiscal year
2015 budget and think of new ways that we could, in fact,
obtain answers to these questions about environment in
pediatric health. And we have been vigorously engaged in that
effort over the course of the last 2 months and will in the
very near future announce what the programs will be in fiscal
year 2015, which I think you will find to be quite innovative.
I believe the silver lining here is that this gives us a chance
to step back from the legacy of the last 14 or 15 years and
say, okay, now, in 2015, with all the technology that has
advanced in the interim, what could we do that would get better
answers perhaps for less cost than what was originally
contemplated for a 21-year study? So look at the next things we
put forward. We are quite excited about it. The Institutes have
all gotten very engaged in this opportunity to rethink this.
And, ultimately, I think we will get to where we need to be,
but in a different way than was imaged back in 2000.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Because it is my understanding,
according to a Bloomberg Business report, that Dean Baker, who
was a researcher at the University of California, Irvine, who
ran the pilot and was one of the lead investigators of the
study, said that the IOM report, and I quote, that they did not
conclude that the enterprise was beyond saving and that that
was a decision by NIH. And we know a study of this nature is
feasible and even identified a pathway. So that was a decision
that was made by NIH, not based on the outcome of the IOM
report. So just very quickly, I know my time is up, but what is
the period of time and the amount of funding now that would be
needed for NIH to address the recommendations that were made in
June?
Mr. Cole. I would ask the gentleman to be brief. Or if you
care to take it, make a quick comment.
Dr. Collins. Very quickly, just in terms of the process, if
you read chapter 5 and chapter 6 of the IOM report--not always
well reflected in the executive summary--it is actually very
critical of some aspects of the study, my advisory group, led
by Phil Pizzo, former dean at Stanford and a pediatrician, and
a Russ Altman, a distinguished epidemiologist and computer
scientist, came to a very strong and unanimous conclusion that
the Children's Study was no longer feasible. I had to accept
their conclusions because they were so well-founded. In terms
of where we go, please look at the next proposals, which will
be coming forward very shortly, about how we will address these
issues. We do have a lot of things to talk about, though, I
think, in terms of going forward, where should this kind of
research go in the outyears. And we need to have that
conversation.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I would like to follow up.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. You are welcome. Now I want to go to the one
member on our team up here that might actually have the
intellectual firepower to stay with your team down there, Dr.
Collins.
I recognize Dr. Harris.
DRUG ABUSE
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all for coming and appearing. First, I am
just going to start with a rhetorical question first. Since the
last time you were before this committee, you probably know my
wife passed away from heart disease 3 days before her 58th
birthday.
As you also know, the NIH and in general we have really
underfunded research into heart disease on women over the
years. So I went back and looked at the chart by disease
breakdown what the NIH spends on. And 84 million Americans have
heart disease. And yet the amount we spend per death is 100
times less on heart disease than it is on HIV/AIDS, 100 times
less per death. That kind of discrepancy just needs to be
justified. And this is going to be a rhetorical question. I
mean, it is stunning what that discrepancy is. And the fact
that we dedicate as little as we do to heart disease, the most
prevalent disease in the country, you now, how that will affect
the population. Anyway, rhetorical question on that one.
Dr. Volkow, I am going to ask you a question about drug
use. There is obviously ongoing discussion about legalizing a
dangerous, addictive drug called marijuana. Some people may not
think it is dangerous or addictive. It is dangerous or
addictive. It affects the human brain, including memory,
motivation, a lot of things that are probably not good for
people, especially our youth. Do you know what the economic
impact of marijuana use is, including its effect on workforce
preparedness, on education? Do we have these answers? Are these
important things to study? And do you have the resources to
study these things before we go willy-nilly into just
legalizing a dangerous, addictive drug?
Dr. Volkow. Dr. Harris, thanks very much for your question.
And, indeed, there have been many studies that have evaluated
specifically the consequences of use of marijuana among
teenagers vis--vis their educational achievement. And they have
consistently shown that it actually decreases, smoking
marijuana in adolescents, it decreases the likelihood that you
will finish school and that you will get a degree.
With respect to what is the impact in the workforce, the
data there is much less clear. The studies have not been done
as extensively as for education. We know in general that the
use of drugs in the workforce is responsible for 30 percent
less productivity on an individual that takes drugs. But that
has not been distinguished with respect to whether it is
marijuana or cocaine or methamphetamine. So we really do not
have a precise number.
Mr. Harris. And just a very quick follow up, you would
imagine that since marijuana actually affects motivation,
something that might be important when you go to work, you
would imagine it might actually have quite an influence on the
workforce, wouldn't you?
Dr. Volkow. Yes, I would predict so. And what is shown is
the contributions of the decreasing productivity, absenteeism,
not showing; but when you are there, presenteeism, you are
there, but you are not really working. And the same as the lack
of motivation may account for the very poor outcomes in
education.
Mr. Harris. And we should probably answer these questions
before we go on. I mean, we should expect scientific answers I
imagine.
Dr. Volkow. I completely agree.
LEVERAGING OUR INVESTMENT IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
Mr. Harris. Dr. Collins, let me follow up with you, again,
about some things that are being said about internationally
what is going on and what is going on in our biomedical
workforce. Again, the 50,000-foot view, because, you know, I
think you actually sent something around, your article in JAMA,
I guess, in January of this year, suggesting that perhaps China
will actually overcome the United States in 2022, which, yes, I
guess if you look statistically and you assume, you know,
exponential growth continuing, things like that.
But what is interesting is the growth in China is actually
in the private investment, the industry investment. There is a
little bit of growth in the public investment. But the real
growth is in the private industry. And as you also noted, one
worrisome trend in the United States is that the industry
investment in biomedical has gone down. That is not your, that
is not where you have the ability to directly impact, maybe,
maybe you don't. But I think that that is an important key in
this that we are not talking about. And there are certain
policies that do impact that.
For instance, we are undergoing aTTP negotiation where
patent protection of American-manufactured biologics actually
will be hindered. That doesn't help our biomedical industry
here when we are negotiating a trade treaty that will actually
hurt our biomedical industry because of the nature of
biologics. What is the strategy? Because we can go on ad
infinitum. You know, one interesting thing is the
administration, in spending $35 billion additional dollars we
don't have on nondiscretionary spending, decided to send only
$1 billion to the NIH, only a 3 percent increase. I think that
is a drop in the bucket if we don't get the larger picture of
the entire biomedical research effort in the United States.
So what can we do or what can you do at the NIH to
implement a strategy where we can promote industry investment,
so that you have partners in industry, so we are leveraging NIH
dollars, greatly leveraging them, as it appears China is doing?
Mr. Cole. Again, to be fair, try to be brief. And I would
remind the questioners, let's not jamb them right up against
the end of the time and then leave them hanging. That is a
tough position to be put our guests in.
Dr. Collins. Well, very quickly, I agree that we have a
responsibility and an opportunity to bring together the public
and the private sector investments in biomedical research like
never before. One example is this Accelerated Medicines
Partnership that I spent three years working with a number of
heads of R&D in big pharmaceutical companies, particularly
Michael Dolsten at Pfizer, to put together, and which is now
with shared expenses being covered 50/50 by the private and
public sectors, doing something never attempted before for
Alzheimer's disease, for diabetes, for rheumatoid arthritis,
and lupus, putting the scientists around the same table,
designing the experiments, holding themselves accountable with
milestones, and making all the data accessible to others who
might have good ideas about it. This is unprecedented what AMP
is trying to do. We are 1 year into this. We are ahead of
schedule. I am looking for all those opportunities that I can
find where those traditional firewalls that sort of got in the
way of making progress weren't really making any sense. We have
to be clear about conflicts of interest, and we are. But that
shouldn't be a reason not to think about creative endeavors
that fly in the face of such great opportunities that we now
see in front of us.
Mr. Harris. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
If I can, I am going to go to my very patient friend from
Virginia, who was here early and has waited a long time, Mr.
Rigell.
POST TRAUMATIC STRESS SYNDROME (PTSD)
Mr. Rigell. Thank you, Chairman Cole.
And I appreciate Dr. Collins and your colleagues being here
today. And I am learning a tremendous amount. And I, too,
respect the work that you are doing. I want to first frame this
not as a question because I will get to a question, but I did
take note of your comment about how helpful it would be to have
confidence in continuity of funding. And I transitioned from
House Armed Services to this committee. And I was struck in my
service on that committee where our senior uniformed and
civilian officials would say the same thing about just how
beneficial it would be for us to be on regular order.
I know Chairman Rogers and Chairman Cole and really all of
us on the committee have been strong advocates for this. So I
am going to continue to fight for that. And I know my
colleagues will as well. But I just took note of what you said
and I just wanted you to know that. I have an incredible
district, highest concentration of men and women in uniform in
the country, Virginia's Second Congressional District and, by
the nature of the commands that are there, a disproportionate
loss.
So I want to talk for a moment about PTSD. Now, I know that
there is some funding for it included in your budget, $79
billion. And I believe it is to go to $81 billion, excuse me,
million. I better get that right. Okay. All right. But my point
is this, help me to understand--by the way, from the President
on down to the First Lady, this is a shared American value. I
do not question, I do not question for a moment anyone's
commitment to this.
That said, I didn't see it mentioned in your budget
justification. And I know that the Department of Defense and
also the VA is working on this as well. But help us to
understand where this falls in the priority level. And is it
getting the attention even within your own internal documents
that I think it merits?
Dr. Collins. I appreciate the question, Mr. Rigell. Let me
ask Dr. Insel, who directs the Mental Health Institute, where
PTSD research is particularly a strong priority, to respond.
Dr. Insel. Very quickly because of the hour, our
institute--NIMH--was actually founded in 1946 and charged in
1949 to deal with the problems of veterans. So, this is
something we have been at for a long time. It is part of the
DNA of the institute to try to figure out what causes PTSD and
how best to treat it and how to prevent it. We have been
working really closely with DOD. And this is one of those areas
we were just talking about regarding the relationships with
industry. This one we have really taken on in a very joint way,
especially with the Department of the Army. And so the Army and
NIH have worked together on the Army STARRS Initiative, 100,000
soldiers partnering with us to try to understand over time what
causes not only PTSD but depression, high-risk behavior, and
suicide, which is the worst outcome here. And I must say that
having worked as closely with DOD as we have over the last 3 or
4 years, it has been a great inspiration. That study has now
just completed its first phase, moving into its second phase.
Already I think we are getting some insights about both the
cause and the best interventions to make sure that people who
develop mental health problems don't go on to suicide.
ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES
Mr. Rigell. The question of allocation generally, how much
is allocated to one disease or a particular challenge that we
face, Dr. Collins, could you help me to understand, especially
when things need to be reallocated, because whatever your own
experience has been, and we, like most American families, we
have had loss due to Alzheimer's and cancer and things like
this. But how is all that structured? Because I would like to
see, you know, a higher allocation for the topic just
mentioned, what our servicemembers are facing. How is that
process unfolding?
Dr. Collins. That is a question that many people ask, and
they should. And it is an ongoing, organic process of looking
at what is the public health need, what are the scientific
opportunities, what does the current portfolio look like, and
do we have gaps that we need to fill? And we are constantly
doing that kind of analysis. We have more tools now than we
used to, a whole series of ways that we can look at our
portfolio and figure out whether we have the balance out of
whack in terms of where our dollars are going and where the
public health need is.
But sometimes there are rare diseases that we could learn a
lot from about common illnesses or which simply affect a few
people who desperately need help. If we did everything on the
basis of public health need, we would probably neglect the rare
diseases. In other situations, Alzheimer's comes to mind, where
the burden on individuals and their families and the cost to
society is so daunting that we feel we have to push even harder
as long as the scientific opportunities are there. So it is a
constant sort of recalculation. And, of course, all of this
would be easier if we were not in an circumstance where,
frankly, we are underfunding virtually everything we do versus
what we could be able to do given the talent that is out there.
Mr. Rigell. Thank you for your comments.
And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
Just for informational purposes, as my colleagues here know
and as our witnesses know, we do have time constraints this
morning.
So I am going to go to Mr. Dent, so he has an opportunity
to ask his questions. I will then go to Ms. DeLauro, so she can
close us out of committee if that is all right with everybody.
So, Mr. Dent, you are recognized.
LIVER CANCER RESEARCH
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you all.
And thank you for receiving us a few weeks ago at the NIH.
It was a very interesting program, and I got a lot out of that.
So thank you for that.
And, Dr. Collins, I just wanted to mention that an analysis
of the National Cancer Institute data, from 1975 to 2005, found
that liver cancer incidents rates increased by more than 300
percent, from 1.6 to 4.9 cases per 100,000 persons per year. In
fact, liver cancer has seen the second largest annual percent
increase in incidents of any cancer in the U.S. other than
thyroid cancer. Historically, the survival rates in liver
cancer have been pretty dismal. The 5-year survival rates of
person diagnosed between 2003 and 2009 is only about 16
percent. These survival rates are the second worst among all
cancers, only slightly better than those for pancreatic cancer.
And yet the NCI has no dedicated specialized program for
research excellence on the liver or liver cancer project. Can
you tell me why? And wouldn't this accelerate the pace of liver
cancer discovery?
Dr. Collins. I appreciate the question. Certainly liver
cancer is a condition that many components of NCI are involved
in working on. Whether there is a specific division focused to
it, certainly there is attention to it. And, of course, liver
cancer is particularly likely to appear in those who have been
infected with hepatitis C, which is one of the great, wonderful
success stories of the last few years, in terms of coming up
with the therapeutic that can actually cure people with that
disease and should, therefore, reap some rewards in terms of
reduction of liver cancers downstream.
Again, I will have to take for the record the opportunity
to respond about the organizational part of NCI and liver
cancer. And I can no doubt fill you in on where that work is
going on and how it is being coordinated if that would be
helpful.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Dent. That would be very helpful. Thank you.
STATUS ON ANTIBIOTIC-RESISTANT BACTERIA RESEARCH
And also this question to you also, Dr. Collins--and maybe
Dr. Fauci wants to jump in on this one too--I recently met with
CDC Director Dr. Frieden. And one of the issues we discussed
were the recent fatal outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant
bacteria across the country, including my home State of
Pennsylvania. This threat posed by antibiotic-resistant
bacteria, also referred to as superbugs, is so serious that,
last September, President Obama issued an Executive order
declaring that combatting superbugs is a national security
priority. And, of course, superbugs are highly contagious,
untreatable infection that spreads easily in the hospital
setting particularly.
And can you tell me if NIH is collaborating with the CDC to
study, contain, and trying to find a treatment or cure to these
antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Dr. Collins. Yes, intensively. But let me ask Dr. Fauci to
say a word.
Dr. Fauci. Thank you very much, Mr. Dent. We are very
intensively involved in collaboration with the CDC, as you
know, with the President's strategic plan and the Executive
order or Combatting Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, or CARB. And
the CARB program is a multi-agency U.S. Government program,
involving the CDC, the FDA, the Department of Agriculture, HHS,
and NIH. Our fundamental mission in that multi-agency approach
is fundamental basic research to understand the pathogenesis,
particularly now with the new high-throughput sequencing
capability that we have to examine a wide array of quasispecies
of microbes that are resistant. These developments have put us
into a situation where we can do things that were really not
imaginable years ago, where we are able to pinpoint the
mechanism of resistance.
Number two, we started a few years ago and have now
amplified with the President's request of $100 million more for
NIH antimicrobial resistance research in the 2016 budget, what
we call an Antibiotic Resistance Leadership Group, or ARLG. The
ARLG is part of our broad network of clinical trials to conduct
studies that you can't do in a given individual institution
because an incidence of one or two cases makes it very
difficult to get good clinical data from just one institution.
So we now are collaborating with the CDC on all aspects at the
CARB program. They are doing mainly surveillance, and we are
doing fundamental research.
In addition and finally, we are developing vaccines for
some of these very difficult microorganisms that are highly
susceptible when you think in terms of people, for example, who
have transplants or are immunosuppressed, not only Methicillin-
resistant Staphylococcus Aureus, or MRSA but some of the others
such as CRE, or Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae. So the
NIH, in summary, is very heavily involved in the CARB program
in collaboration with the CDC.
Mr. Dent. So you have a request for an additional $100
million and that will be sufficient?
Dr. Fauci. In the President's 2016 budget, there is a $100
million request for antimicrobial resistance research at NIH.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. I will submit the balance of my
questions for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ANTIBIOTIC-RESISTANT BACTERIA
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much.
And let me just follow up on my colleague Mr. Dent's
questions on antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
There is a significant increase in the budget. And can you
take a moment to talk about Teixobactin as a new technique that
has been discovered to deal with this?
And, also, there is some misunderstanding of how long it is
going to take to be able to use that. Can you give us an idea
about how long--a timeline for the potential availability of--
and I don't know if I am pronouncing it right, but Teixobactin?
And recently I was in Haiti, and I met a doctor who
described the devastating effects of the antibiotic-resistant
tuberculosis. Are there any drugs in the pipeline to treat
drug-resistant TB?
And, again, finally, I understand you are dealing with
looking at a database for this effort, antibiotic-resistant
infections, but there are many of them, to put it simply, in my
simple language on this. But if the database was going to hold
all genome sequence data for the 10 deadliest antibiotic-
resistant pathogens, what kind of an effort would that entail?
Dr. Fauci. Three questions. I am going to do them quickly--
--
Ms. DeLauro. I wanted to get you on--so talk about what is
happening in Liberia.
Dr. Fauci. All right. I will go quickly, Congresswoman.
Ms. DeLauro. Please, Liberian ZMapp.
Dr. Fauci. We will discuss that.
Ms. DeLauro. All right.
Dr. Fauci. Teixobactin. The NIH is very pleased with this
because this was an entirely NIH-funded NIH effort,
approximately $20 million, and we now have a new class of
antibiotics that was developed from the soil.
We have to be careful it is not going to be tomorrow or
next month when teixobactin is going to available on the
market, because we still need to do preclinical studies in
animal models before we can get into human testing. I would
like to say it is going to be around the corner, but it likely
will be over a year before we think about clinical testing.
The good news is that it is a brandnew concept for an
antibiotic that essentially skirts the resistance mechanisms
that other types of microbes use against common antibiotics. So
it will likely be effective against microbes that are multidrug
resistant. That is the good news.
Tuberculosis, or TB, there is good news here also, because
we partnered with drug companies, with several of them,
particularly Johnson & Johnson, to develop now new drugs that
are good against multiple- and extensively drug-resistant
tuberculosis. We do have at least one or two drug candidates in
the pipeline. If you had asked me that question last year, I
would say we really don't have anything new.
The sequence database--and this is something we do very
well. We have phenomenal sequence capabilities now. We are
going to be able to do that. In fact, that is one of the things
that we put as a high priority, to use our technologies to get
databases of essentially all of the various versions and
iterations of antimicrobial-resistant microbes and be able to
share them. And as we always do at NIH, it is always open
access, so everything we do is open to the general public.
EBOLA TRIALS
Ms. DeLauro. Ebola and the trials that have started in
Liberia?
Dr. Fauci. Right.
Ms. DeLauro. And then ZMapp trials, as well.
Dr. Fauci. Yes.
Ebola vaccine trials started February 22 in Liberia in
Monrovia. My deputy is there now overseeing the trials.
We started off with a phase two trials for 600 individuals,
where we will proceed slowly to make sure the vaccines are safe
and immunogenic. And then, by the end we are going to go to the
full total of 29,000 people.
The vaccine that you mentioned either was developed by
Nancy Sullivan in the Vaccine Research Center. It is being
targeted together with the VSV vaccine, on which we
collaborated, actually, with the Department of Defense, in a
Phase 1 trial.
So those two are ongoing. I mean, it is up and rolling.
ZMapp is--again, ZMapp looked very favorable in animals. We
don't know if it works in humans.
We have started a comprehensive protocol that was announced
3 days ago by the Ministry of Health in Liberia, actually, at
the same time that the President of Liberia was meeting with
our President here, right here in the United States. It started
a few days ago. And the protocol is going to do is to compare
standard of care--namely, intravenous replenishment of fluid--
against standard of care plus ZMapp.
ZMapp is a cocktail of three separate antibodies directed
against the Ebola virus. And, as I said, it looked very good in
animals, but we need to prove definitively if it will work in
humans.
Both of those are NIH-driven trials, and both of them are
ongoing in Liberia right now.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
Just, first of all, Dr. Collins, thank you very much and
your colleagues for being here this morning. I have no doubt
this is not only the most brilliant panel we will see all
session, it is the most popular panel we will see all session
long. So thank you very much.
Ms. DeLauro. We need to have a group hug.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 4, 2015.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
WITNESS
HON. ARNE DUNCAN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Introduction of Witness
Mr. Cole. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Good to have you
here. And it is my pleasure to welcome you to the Subcommittee
on Labor, HHS, and Education to present your budget request for
fiscal year 2016 for the Department of Education. We are
looking forward to hearing your testimony.
Opening Statement by Chairman Cole
The education of America's children is critical not only to
prepare them for the workforce, but to strengthen the economic
health of our Nation as a whole. While the vast majority of
funding and responsibility for public Pre K-12 education lies
at the State and local level, the Federal Government plays a
limited but important role in supporting educational
opportunity for those students most in need, including students
with disabilities and from low-income families. Similarly, the
Department is a key partner with States and public and private
institutions in making higher education more accessible and
affordable.
Providing for a high-quality education for all improves
these students' employment prospects and allows the U.S. to
maintain its international competitive edge. Therefore, it is
essential that we conduct proper oversight of Federal education
programs and ensure that we are using our resources in the most
strategic and effective way.
There are many things in your budget that I think we can
all agree are priorities and that we can collectively support.
There are others where we may disagree. The challenge facing
this subcommittee is to support the most critical programs with
the limited resources that will be available to us.
I also sit on the Budget Committee--something, by the way,
no appropriator really likes to do, you are generally forced to
go for some unknown sin you have committed against the chairman
at some point--but, anyway, I sit there. And the grim reality
is that sequester is, indeed, the law of the land. It is not a
policy or a choice. It is the law. I expect we will have to
appropriate in accordance with this law because I am not
convinced that we can get out of it by the time we mark up
these bills.
However, I continue to hope for a larger budget deal
between Congress and the Administration so, hopefully, we can
have a more realistic allocation when the time comes. Hopeful
for a bigger deal, but the President, again, in my view, has to
engage in some process, as does the Congressional leadership.
Absent negotiations at a higher level, sequester is where we
are at.
We will have tough choices for every agency, and I think we
need to start sitting down and talking sooner rather than
later. I look forward to having a discussion with you this
morning to identify your top priorities for the year so that we
can invest American taxpayer dollars in the wisest way given
our funding constraints.
I would like to yield now to my ranking member, my good
friend, the gentlelady from Connecticut, for whatever opening
remarks she cares to make.
Opening Remark by Ranking Member DeLauro
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome to you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you. You are here
just before the snow hits. And God only knows, Washington will
shut down.
And good to see you, Mr. Skelly, as well. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, as you know, I share, and as I think you
have just heard from the Chairman, we share your commitment to
ensuring that all children have equal access to high-quality
education. When I spoke on the House floor last week, I quoted
Lyndon Johnson who said that, quote, ``Education is the only
valid passport out of poverty.'' Decades later, he is still
right. College graduates are less likely to find themselves
unemployed. They earn on average 80 percent more than their
peers without college degrees.
I believe that the Federal Government has the
responsibility to help everyone to gain access to a quality
education, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Children in high-poverty neighborhoods need our help the most.
Kids in schools with fewer than 10 percent of students in
poverty come first in the world in reading. Those in high-
poverty schools rank second from the bottom, between Chile and
Mexico.
ATTACKS ON FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR EDUCATION
Helping those kids is exactly what Congress set out to do
50 years ago when it passed the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) and the Higher Education Act, two landmark
laws that swung open the gates to the middle class for millions
of poor children. But last week the majority introduced a bill
that I believe threatens to throw it all away. The Student
Success Act would, in effect, gut the ESEA and steal funding
from the schools that need it most.
And this is just the latest in a series of attacks on
Federal support for education. Since 2010, setting aside Pell
Grants, we have cut the Department of Education's budget by
$6.4 billion, or 13 percent. That is after adjusting for
inflation. We have also made shortsighted eligibility cuts to
the Pell program. We have eliminated around 50 critical
programs altogether, including programs that supported family
literacy activities and student access to mental health.
Funding for Title I, vital support to low-income kids, remains
more than $100 million below pre-sequestration levels.
The madness of sequestration has hit Labor, HHS programs
funded by this committee especially hard. After adjusting for
inflation, the Labor, HHS, Education bill has sustained cuts of
almost $20 billion since 2010. These cuts could not have come
for a worse time for America's children. The number of school-
age children living in poverty increased from 8.5 million in
2010 to 11.1 million in 2014. Nearly three-quarters of States
are providing less funding per student than they did in 2008.
It is in this troubling context that we consider the
President's budget proposal for 2016. Instead of making
damaging cuts, we should be putting our resources into
universal preschool, quality afterschool activities, and the
training of good teachers. That is why I applaud this request
for beginning to chart a path out of austerity. We still have a
long way to go to meet our obligations to America's students,
but I am pleased that the request includes a significant
increase of $1 billion for Title I. It increases other vital
formula grant programs that serve our most vulnerable children,
including an additional $175 million to help educate kids with
disabilities through Individual with Disabilities Act (IDEA)
State grants.
The President's budget also contains other welcome
increases: $500 million to help States provide high-quality
preschool to low-income children, $93 million for Promise
Neighborhoods, a program to address the profoundly negative
effects of poverty on learning, and $20 million for the Now is
the Time initiative to help keep schools and communities safe,
$13 million for physical education for our kids.
So there is a lot of good in this budget. I don't agree
with everything in it. I am disappointed that afterschool and
summer school programs were only level funded. I believe they
are critical in supporting learning beyond the school day.
Similarly, I have wanted to see an increase for elementary and
secondary school counseling.
HIGHER EDUCATION
Turning to higher education, I strongly support the
President's goal of improving access and completion and reining
in college costs. We have to do better by our low-income
college students. Only 9 percent of students in the bottom
quarter of the income scale have earned a bachelor's degree by
age 24. For those in the top quarter, the figure is more than
eight times that.
There is much to like in the President's request. Most
importantly, I commend the proposal to ensure free community
college tuition for responsible students. That would take us a
long way toward equal access to higher education. I also
support the increase for TRIO, which helps low-income first-
generation college students access and complete college. But I
am concerned by the fact that most other higher education
programs are only level funded.
Overall, this budget request is a step in the right
direction. These investments cannot happen unless we undue
sequestration. In the meantime, as I have said repeatedly,
sequester caps are damaging vital programs. All the while, we
spend--and it is spending, and I will just briefly show this
chart, Mr. Chairman--we spend close to $1.5 trillion every year
on tax breaks. That is spending and loopholes and other tax
expenditures. It is more than we spend on Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, and defense discretionary spending.
If we are to live up to our duty of providing every
American with equal access to education, these tax expenditures
must be on the table and we must be prepared to ask our
wealthier citizens and our corporations to do more to support
hard-working families.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your advocacy on these issues,
and I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, your full statement will be entered into the
record, and you are recognized for whatever opening remarks you
care to make.
Opening Statement of Secretary Arne Duncan
Secretary Duncan. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member DeLauro, and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased
to talk with you today about how we can continue the vital
progress that America's students are making and expand
opportunity so that every child in this country has access to a
world-class education.
HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE ENROLLMENT
Here is what is happening right now thanks to the hard work
and commitment of America's teachers, principals, students, and
their families. For the first time ever, four out of five
students are completing high school on time. Dropout rates are
at historic lows after steep drops for minority students. With
high school graduation rates up and dropout rates down,
African-American and Hispanic college enrollment is up by more
than a million students just since 2008. Finally, more students
than ever are actually graduating from college.
Getting to this point has required huge changes in our
schools. These changes haven't been easy, but they are working.
To build on this momentum, it is imperative that we give
schools and educators the support and resources they need. This
is not the time to turn back the clock on progress. There is
simply too much at stake.
Providing students with a quality education is both the
best way to ensure more Americans achieve their greatest
potential and the best way to promote and secure economic
growth for our Nation as a whole. And we know that we can do
more.
REVERSAL OF SEQUESTRATION
At the end of 2013, policymakers came together on a
bipartisan basis to partially reverse sequestration and to pay
for higher discretionary funding levels with long-term reforms.
This agreement, while limited, allowed us to invest in areas
ranging from research and schools to strengthening our Nation's
military.
In education, Congress was able to restore some of the
sequestration cuts to Title I and IDEA in 2014. The President's
2016 budget builds on this progress by reversing sequestration
and paying for it with a balanced mix of common sense spending
cuts and by closing tax loopholes. The President's budget also
proposes additional deficit reduction and would reduce debt as
a share of the economy.
The President has made clear that he will not accept a
budget that locks in sequestration going forward, which would
bring both defense and non-defense funding to their lowest
levels in a decade. As the Joint Chiefs and others have
outlined, that would damage our national security. It would
also damage our economy in the near term and long term by
preventing pro-growth investments in many areas, including
efforts to ensure that all students are prepared for college
and career.
The reality today is that States and districts and families
need more, smarter resources to prepare all students for the
future. This isn't spending money for its own sake. It is about
making prudent investments to expand opportunity and improve
outcomes.
FY2016 EDUCATION PRIORITIES
To that end, our 2016 budget reflects four main priorities.
One, ensuring equity in opportunity for all students, including
the $1 billion increase for Title I. Two, helping States expand
high-quality early learning. Three, supporting educators,
including by investing $2.3 billion to improve teacher and
principal effectiveness. And four, improving access,
affordability, and outcomes in postsecondary education, most
notably through America's College Promise, which makes 2 years
of community college free for responsible, hard-working
students.
Throughout all of these areas, we would commit to
supporting and spreading locally developed innovations through
programs like Investing in Innovation, the i3 program, and
First in the World. We want to focus on using and developing
evidence to maximize results both for taxpayers and for our
Nation's students.
Mr. Chairman, you and I have discussed the urgent need to
do more in Native American communities. To that end, we have
included $53 million in our budget to improve college and
career readiness for Native youth, and we will continue to work
with the Department of the Interior to expand the Bureau of
Indian Education's capacity to provide desperately needed
support.
Since we released this budget, people from all over have
written to us to explain what Federal support means for their
communities and to describe the change that it made possible.
One school leader explained how Federal funding allows her to
give teachers the tools they need, helping them to incorporate
evidenced-based approaches into their daily work. In her words,
and I quote, ``Funding goes towards imparting the knowledge
necessary for teachers to do their jobs the way it should be
done.''
But there is more to discover about what does work, and
especially in our highest-need communities, teachers and
students need more support to continue to accelerate the pace
of change and progress. Our students' future is at stake and
together we cannot let them down.
I thank you so much, and I look forward to working with you
to create more opportunities for our students and their
families. I look forward to your questions now. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Arne Duncan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
EFFECTS OF SEQUESTER
Mr. Cole. Again, it is great to have you here.
Interesting enough, as I reflect, all three of our comments
focused a little bit on the whole issue of sequester, which is
the elephant in every appropriator's room right now. But it is
indeed the law, passed by Congress, signed by the President. I
actually agree with you and my distinguished ranking member, I
hope we have a negotiation some time to actually deal with it.
I was actually part of the team that did that, working with Mr.
Ryan on our side of the aisle, and had a very productive
negotiation with Senator Murray. But that process came late. It
came really after most of the Appropriations Subcommittees had
been at work. But we were able to go back, as you rightly point
out in your testimony, and undo some things that we all believe
would have been damaging.
I suspect the same thing will happen again. If it comes, it
is likely to come late. I would encourage those above my pay
grade and in the Administration above your pay grade to
actually engage in that negotiation sooner rather than later. I
think we would get a much better work product out of our
various Appropriations Subcommittees if that happens. On the
sad likelihood that it probably won't happen until the last
minute, most things around here seem to, you know, for Congress
deadlines are alarm clocks, so we are probably going to be
there again.
EDUCATION PRIORITIES
If you had to look at your budget and we were in a flat
funding situation, what are the things from your standpoint you
think really are the most critical? You lay out five priorities
in your excellent statement. But pick some programs, pick some
things in your view that are absolutely essential that this
committee really ought to focus on no matter what.
Secretary Duncan. Let me first back up again and appreciate
your willingness to look at a bigger deal and to work together.
On the idea of Congress always using deadlines as alarm clocks,
I am always an optimist, and, hopefully, that could change and
we could actually get ahead of the curve at some point.
Mr. Cole. There are 200 years of history that would argue
that you and I need to reconsider our optimism.
Secretary Duncan. Next 200 years. I am always looking
forward.
Let me just say that if things remain flat, the need
doesn't remain flat. We have more children living below the
poverty line than ever before. Our Nation's school system for
the first time ever this year is majority minority. That is not
going to change. This isn't just doing the right thing for the
black community or the Latino community. This is the right
thing for our Nation. And as Congresswoman DeLauro pointed out,
when you don't have enough poor children being successful
academically, we perpetuate cycles of poverty and social
failure rather than sort of increasing upward mobility.
So there is increasing need. This is, obviously, a huge
priority both for individuals and families, but ultimately for
our Nation's economy. And as you all know so well, we are
competing for jobs in a globally competitive world now, and
those jobs will either go to your communities and your States
and our Nation ultimately, or they will go to Singapore and
South Korea and China and India and other places that are
investing and innovating. So the stakes here are really, really
high and I want folks to understand that. I think we have to
educate our way to a better economy.
In terms of priorities, I tried to lay out what was very
important. I say everywhere that if I had one tax dollar, the
best investment we can make is in high-quality early learning,
getting our babies off to a good start and stop playing catch-
up. We have to continue to raise the bar on the K to 12 side,
making sure that young people are truly graduating college-and-
career ready.
We love that high school graduation rates are at an all-
time high, and dropout rates are at an all-time low. But I am
nowhere near satisfied. Our dropout rate is still unacceptably
high. Again, when you drop out of high school today there are
no good opportunities out there.
Then, ultimately, the goal today can't simply be to
graduate from high school. There aren't good jobs with just a
high school diploma. I think this idea of a minimum of
community college being the expectation, the norm, is hugely
important.
PRE-K THROUGH 14 SYSTEM
The final thing I would say, Mr. Chairman, is I think for
the past 100 years or so the K to 12 system has worked pretty
well for the country and for most families. I think the world
has changed and our vision is a pre-K through 14 system of
compulsory education--not of compulsory, but of opportunity.
Without that, our children start too far behind and we don't
catch up on the front end. On the back end, without those 2
years of community college, the job prospects are very low.
So it is a fundamentally different vision of what the
necessary education, the prerequisite for success is, and it
has to go, I think, from pre-K through 14.
INVESTING IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES
Mr. Cole. Let me ask you this, and I don't have a lot of
time left so I am going to try and force the clock, so we may
come back to this issue. But on your community college issue, I
share your concern about getting people beyond high school and
getting them into a higher education program. Community college
is actually fairly reasonably priced in this country compared
to 4-year institutions. I think the average cost is a little
bit over $3,000 a year. We have Pell Grants to cover that and
can go beyond that.
I am a little mystified why that is the focus of so much
resources, as opposed to bringing down the longer-term cost of
a more extensive education, because it seems to me we are more
or less adequately funded. But if you disagree, please knock my
theory down.
Secretary Duncan. Well, no, these are really thoughtful
questions. I think there are two things. I think the reality is
financially, while it does not seem that overwhelming, just a
couple hundred dollars here and there literally is the
difference between staying in school or not, whether it is
taking care of kids at home or whether it is a car breaking
down. The margin for error is so small for so many of our
families that are on the edge.
Some of my most inspiring visits have been to community
colleges. I travel the country, and, as you know, it is not
just 18-year-olds, it is 38-year-olds, it is 58-year-olds who
are retraining and retooling. The jobs where they worked for 25
years, at the plant or factory, are gone. The fields of green
energy and IT and health care and advanced manufacturing are
where I see great community colleges have become regional
economic engines. They are literally driving economic activity
and growth in their communities.
This is not our idea. It actually came from Governor Bill
Haslam of Tennessee, of whom I am a huge fan. What he saw in
their first year, my numbers are not exact, and you will
probably have better numbers, they are thinking they might have
25,000 applicants and they had something like 75,000 or 90,000
to apply which is wildly disproportionate.
So it is important on both the financial side, but also
psychologically for young people to understand that this is a
possibility, that despite my family's lack of money or despite
my family's lack of education this can be my dream. And so, on
both sides making that the norm, rather than something for
wealthy folks is very important.
Mr. Cole. We may explore that a little bit more. I
appreciate very much that answer. And with that, I want to go
to my ranking member, Ms. DeLauro.
TAX EXPENDITURES
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to make one comment, but I am going to give Mr.
Fattah his time and he can take some of mine. He has to chair a
hearing in a moment. But my one comment is, I too believe that
if we can get to a consensus on the spending issues and take a
look at where we need to go with regard to sequester, I think
the chart, it is not one that I made up, this is a CBO
projection, this is 2015. These are the tax expenditures, $1.5
trillion Social Security, Medicare, defense, discretionary
spending, and non-defense discretionary spending. If we are
unwilling to look at those tax expenditures in terms of cuts
and the corporate loopholes and do something on this side of
the equation and not regard it as spending, we are not going to
be able to come to a consensus, which I think it is imperative
for us to do.
With that, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fattah.
MAKING 2 YEARS OF COLLEGE ACCESSIBLE
Mr. Fattah. Thank you. I have to help lead a CJS hearing in
a few minutes. But, Mr. Secretary, all of this for us as a
country is an aspirational thing. When we allowed States to
make submissions to join the Union, each were required a long,
long time ago to lay out a plan for free education. So the
fundamental building blocks of our Nation was built on the
notion that we were going to produce educated citizens. And you
have done an extraordinary amount of work in this regard. I
want to congratulate you.
I was out in the Chairman's district years ago at a center
at a university there called the K20 Center in Oklahoma, and it
is an aspirational deal. It is about pointing young people, not
about K to 12, but about college and graduate school. They were
doing some remarkable work. I am sure the Chairman would
remember, they were building some of these games that these
young people love to play, but building into them messages
around educational achievement.
I think when the Administration says free college
education, the way I look at it, and I am a big supporter of
it, is that you are really saying the same way we have made
high school a part of the social contract, you now want to make
2 years of college part of the social contract. And when we are
competing with China, which is going to have 280 million
college graduates, and they have built 100 science-only
universities, they are seriously focused on our economic
competition. They are competing against us. Even small
countries, like Singapore, are in many ways competing with us
every day.
So I think that when we talk about this as a budget item,
we have to see it as whether we want America to remain number
one in the world. And if we do, these kids in the shadows, they
have to be moved and given an opportunity.
So I want to thank you. I am sorry I can't stay for the
whole hearing. But we will be working together. And I do
appreciate the support for GEAR UP. I authored the law that
created GEAR UP years ago in a Republican majority Congress and
Senate. And, I thank my Republican colleagues. It was
bipartisan from day one. It has helped 13 million young people
to prepare themselves and to go on to school after high school.
So thank you.
And thank you to my ranking member.
Mr. Cole. Care to make a response to any of that?
Secretary Duncan. Amen.
Mr. Cole. Amen? Okay. Pretty good.
Okay. With that, I will go to Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks for being here, Secretary. It is good to see you
again now that I am back on the committee.
First, let me ask you, I know it is here somewhere, you
mentioned that since you had released your budget that you had
phone calls from all of the country about the importance of the
Federal Government and Federal contributions to delivering the
services and education and so forth.
IMPACT AID LEVEL FUNDED
Let me ask you about one in particular. Impact Aid is
important in Idaho, as well as most western states that have
public lands. Those dollars go to support school districts that
don't have the tax base to keep their schools running. As you
know, your budget is a $3.6 billion increase over last year,
including increases for early childhood, teacher quality,
community college initiatives. However, not a penny to increase
Impact Aid.
It is kind of frustrating to many western states that have
tax-exempt Federal property, military bases, or Indian lands,
not only because the Administration touted the importance of
Impact Aid when funds were being cut via sequestration, but
because Impact Aid is the Federal Government's obligation. As
you know, these funds could be and are in some cases used for
the very initiatives the Administration prioritizes. Can you
please explain the reasoning behind your decision to level fund
Impact Aid?
Secretary Duncan. I will turn to Tom Skelly in a minute.
But, first of all, I appreciate your interest and your
commitment. As I have visited military communities, it is so
interesting to find that the folks who are serving their
country and veterans never ask for anything for themselves. All
they ask is we do a good job with their kids. I think that is
the least we can do for them.
We want to continue to keep this program strong. We want to
continue to invest. You are right, we are level funding. But
the commitment and the importance of that work is
extraordinarily high on my list of priorities. I want you to
know how much that means to me.
Tom, Do you want to talk through the specifics on that?
Mr. Skelly. Impact Aid is important and is level funded, as
are many of our programs. There wasn't room to increase
everything, even at the increased level that the President is
proposing above the sequester limits. In the past couple
budgets, we did propose a decrease in Impact Aid. So in
relationship to the past couple years' budgets, it is an
improvement for Impact Aid.
Mr. Simpson. Well, it is interesting to note that when
sequestration was the law of the land and we were trying to
write budgets to sequestration numbers before the Murray-Ryan
budget deal, one of the things you all touted that would be
impacted would be Impact Aid, and, boy, we can't do that. So
now that when we are proposing a $3.6 billion increase, Impact
Aid is just kind of left on the table as it is.
Mr. Skelly. We talked about that Impact Aid reduction from
the sequester when it was very immediate. Impact Aid is a
current-funded program and the funds go to the school districts
that have a high need for it. The impact of the cut is
immediate. In the budget where we are proposing to remove the
sequester caps, we think there wouldn't be as much of a need to
be worried about that immediate impact.
TRIO-STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES
Mr. Simpson. Well, we will have a discussion on all this as
we put together a budget I am sure.
One other question that I would like to get into. In fiscal
year 2015, the Department completely mishandled the TRIO
Student Support Services competition. This included a late
release of the initial grant application, followed by a
reissued application that prioritized experimental competitive
preferences over actual student needs. Ultimately, this
committee, along with our counterparts in the Senate, added
language to the Cromnibus to ensure timely handling of the
competition.
What assurances can you give me that the Department will
meet the statutorily established deadline of August 10, 2015,
for delivering notification of the results of the Student
Support Services grant competition? Additionally, how will the
Department avoid similar missteps in the upcoming competitions
for TRIO's Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Centers
during fiscal year 2016?
Secretary Duncan. I disagree a little bit with the
characterization, but that is fine. Hold me accountable. We try
to do a really good job of managing a large agency. We don't do
it perfectly. We are always trying to do better. And where we
don't do things as well as we would like, we try to improve.
And so hold me personally accountable for making sure we do a
good job there and in all our competitions going forward.
Mr. Simpson. Do you support TRIO?
Secretary Duncan. Absolutely. It is a fantastic program. We
are asking for a budget increase there.
Mr. Simpson. And the reason I ask that is in the last
Administration the Secretary kept coming up, telling us that
TRIO wasn't a successful program, and they consequently tried
to blend it in with a whole bunch of other grant programs and
everything else like that, which we resisted.
Secretary Duncan. No, again, we are asking for an increase.
But to be clear, for TRIO, like every other program, we are
holding ourselves accountable and asking what is the evidence
that we are having a real effect and how do we continue to
improve. TRIO is a great program, but we try never to be
satisfied. We try to always be self-critical and look in the
mirror on where we can get better outcomes and where we can
have an even bigger impact on the students who need the
support. We want to challenge ourselves to get better every
year, not just to do the same thing.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
If we can, we will return now to our ranking member, who
was generous to give up her time to Mr. Fattah.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
associate myself with my colleague, Mr. Simpson's remarks both
on TRIO, but also on Impact Aid, because not only the west, but
the east coast is reliant on that funding as well.
TEACHER QUALITY AND TRAINING
Mr. Secretary, this is an issue that I know you know that I
have been interested in. The Congress temporarily extended a
provision in the continuing resolution to allow teachers who
are participating in an alternative route to certification be
labeled as highly qualified for purposes of complying with No
Child Left Behind. We know that of all the school-related
factors, teachers matter the most. Unfortunately, the research
shows that these teachers-in-training are less effective than
those who enter the teaching profession fully prepared. They
are also inequitably distributed, primarily assigned to low-
income and minority students.
To shine a light on the issue, Congress also required the
Department to submit a report by the end of 2013 on the extent
to which students in four subgroups--students with
disabilities, English learners, students in rural areas, and
students from low-income families--are taught by these
teachers-in-waiting. To date, the Congress has not yet received
a final report. What work has the Department done to provide
Congress with this critical information? When will we receive
the report? And let us know about what you have done to make
sure that the information from all of the States is included in
this.
Secretary Duncan. Yes. We have been a little frustrated by
this, as have you, and we would love to have gotten this report
out a while ago. We have five States--I have looked around, I
don't think it is any of you guys, and Mr. Fattah left, so I am
not going to fuss with you about it--but there are five States
where we haven't received data, frankly. They are Texas,
California, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. And
those five States account for almost half the Nation's teachers
with alternative certification.
I was pushing to just put the report out, but the Coalition
for Teaching Quality asked us to wait a little longer, to see
if we could get this data in and be more comprehensive. I am
hoping we do. We will have to figure out if the data is not
forthcoming what our action is.
Ms. DeLauro. What will we do? The information, when is it
going to get to you.
Secretary Duncan. They pushed me and I listened and agreed,
to wait a couple more weeks. So we will see if it is
forthcoming shortly. If it is not, we have got to figure out
what we do to move forward. And I apologize.
Ms. DeLauro. Okay. So as soon as we can, it would be
useful.
Secretary Duncan. It is overdue, and we try not to have
things be overdue.
ABILITY-TO-BENEFIT
Ms. DeLauro. I will just mention this, but my hope is, that
what we will do is have the opportunity to get a briefing from
all of you. This is on higher education, the Ability-to-
Benefit. That is an area that we addressed in the Omnibus. What
we want to do is to look at how the Department is dealing with
implementing the change, how will the information be shared
with financial aid advisers at community colleges, how will
students be notified that they are now eligible for Pell
Grants?
Secretary Duncan. We are working on it. Mr. Skelly can walk
you through the detail on where we are on that.
Mr. Skelly. We have an internal working group.
Ms. DeLauro. And I understand that you will come in and
brief us on this effort and my staff on this effort as well. So
I am appreciative of that.
Mr. Skelly. Be glad to do that.
Secretary Duncan. What is the time on that?
Mr. Skelly. It is over the next couple months. It is about
2,000 students, not a lot of students, who will benefit from
the Career Pathways Program.
Ms. DeLauro. But it is critical. We were very glad to be
able to restore that Ability-to-Benefit to those youngsters. So
we will keep in touch on that issue.
FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES
Let me just mention for-profit colleges and the 90/10 rule
if I can. I strongly applaud the Department's effort to protect
students from debt, worthless degrees, and looking at this
area. For the record, the schools enroll just one out of eight
students, receive 1 out of every 5 dollars spent on Federal
financial aid, account for almost one out of two student loan
defaults. The budget proposes the needed reform to protect
students, and especially veterans, by closing down that 90/10
loophole.
So I am supportive of the Department's efforts. I think it
is unconscionable that we continue to subsidize an industry
with taxpayer dollars that leaves students, and especially
veterans, with high debt and no degree. I want to know some
more about what your proposed reforms are. If I can just, and
maybe I will have to come back to this, I saw this information
that is recruiting documents from for-profit colleges. And this
is entitled ``Emotion.''
``We deal with people that live in the moment and for the
moment. Their decision to start, stay in school, or quit school
is based more on emotion than logic. Pain is the greater
motivator in the short term.'' The profiles of people they look
for are welfare moms with kids, pregnant ladies, recently
divorced, people with low self-esteem. And the list goes on.
This is a boondoggle.
When you come back on the next round, when we have a
question, and I applaud the reform, I want to know how this is
going to work, because we are shortchanging so many of our
students because of the money that these colleges are getting.
And it should stop.
Mr. Cole. Go next to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Good to see you.
Good morning, Mr. Skelly.
AMERICAN TECHNICAL TRAINING FUND
As you all know, I represent the Third District of
Tennessee. It is a wonderful east Tennessee district. I know
the Secretary has been in many times and I thank you for that,
sir. Great, hard-working people. My constituents and I are
steadfastly committed to workforce development. I hear from
employers all the time that we need more skilled workers.
Mr. Secretary, as you know, the skilled trades are the
hardest jobs to fill in the United States. Recent data cites
that 550,000 jobs are open in the trade, transportation, and
utility sectors and 246,000 jobs open in manufacturing. Career
and technical education, we would know it as CTE programs,
assist businesses in closing the skills gap by educating and
training a competitive workforce to fulfill these 21st century
demands.
In the Career and Technical Education State Grant program
the Department makes formula grants to States to support these
activities. This year, your budget proposes an increase of $200
million for a new American Technical Training Fund, ATTF,
within the CTE Innovation Fund. Through this new fund, the
Department would make grant awards to institutions of higher
education, local educational agencies serving high school
students or non-accredited training employers, workforce
investment boards, and economic development agencies.
Mr. Secretary, I have two questions, sir. Could you please
tell us more about the American Technical Training Fund and why
the Department didn't propose to put the funding in the formula
grant to allow States more flexibility? And my second question,
can you explain the quantitative criteria used to measure
success and efficiency of these programs, sir?
Secretary Duncan. I am going to get to that in 1 second.
First of all, I just want to commend Tennessee for the
improvements your State has made. And, again, I wish Congress
could work in a more bipartisan way, in the way we have worked
with many governors. As you know, your Governor is a strong
Republican, Governor Haslam. But he has done an amazing job and
has been an amazing partner.
Tennessee on an absolute basis has a long way to go, but
Tennessee, by every measure, is the fastest improving State in
the Nation. And that is not easy. It is hard. There is pushback
every single day. But we have been thrilled with the leadership
and courage coming out of there and thrilled that we have been
able to be a small part of that success and try to support
that.
On CTE--and I will have Tom sort of walk through the
technical side--first of all, I am just a huge fan of voc-ed,
CTE, there are lots of different names for it. We need better
programs at the high school level. I think many students drop
out of high school not because it is too hard, but because it
is too easy and they don't understand the relevance of what
they are doing in school to the real world. I think we need to
do a better job of introducing these students to potential
careers that are high wage, to high skill programs in middle
school and give the students a sense of what is going on.
We have tried to partner very closely with the Department
of Labor with the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College
and Career Training, TAACCCT, grants for community colleges and
really, again, making sure that real training is leading to
real jobs. Some high schools do an amazing job of this, where
real training, has real application to jobs in their community.
In other places it is a little outdated, frankly, where they
are training young people for jobs that disappeared a while
ago. So we are always trying to spur innovation. We are always
trying to look for evidence of what is working.
In terms of what we look for in terms of metrics, where is
there employer demand in the local community? Where are
employers helping to shape what is going on there? I would love
to see all high school students graduate not just with a high
school diploma, but with some AP credits or early college or
industry certification, and with a high school diploma being
like a baseline, but not as far as we can go.
So Tom is going to walk through the specifics of what we
are funding and why. But we are trying to increase resources.
We are trying to drive innovation. We want to make sure real
training at the high school and the college level, community
college level, are leading to real, in-demand jobs in local
communities.
Mr. Skelly. The $200 million increase, Mr. Congressman, for
the American Technical Training Fund would be a competitive
program. The CTE program provides formula grants to States. The
idea is we would have a competition and award somewhere between
20 and 60 individual awards to partnerships of colleges,
businesses, others in the area who are aware of what are the
high-demand fields. There would be job training opportunities
for people at those individual sites.
Again, competitive versus formula, we have a lot of
discussion about that. A competitive grant would target funds
more directly to just the projects that are doing the work
under the American Technical Training Fund. A formula grant
program tends to disperse money out more broadly, so it is
thinner. The idea is to concentrate funds on just a couple of
projects.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you very much. And I sincerely look
forward to working with you all on this workforce development
issue because I think it is not only great for my great State
of Tennessee, but for the Nation.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
I know my friend from Maryland, Mr. Harris, is trying to
juggle getting back and forth between various committee
assignments. Normally, it would be Mr. Rigell. But if it is all
right with my friend, we will go with Mr. Harris next.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for appearing before the
committee.
And you can get back to me on this, but on page 2 of your
testimony you talk about our spending not adjusting for
inflation, being less than fiscal year 2008. Well, first of
all, you exclude Pell Grants. Pell Grants are part of the
discretionary funding in the Department. I mean, that is a
priority decision, right? The Department has a budget, it
decides where its priorities are. So with Pell Grants, that
statement is not true, is that right?
Mr. Skelly. That is right. If you include Pell Grants,
since 2008 it would be slight--but it would be an increase.
Mr. Harris. A slight increase? $59 billion to $67 billion
is a slight increase?
Mr. Skelly. When we do the adjustment for inflation----
Mr. Harris. No, my question was not adjusted for inflation,
because that is what it says here, without adjustment for
inflation. So that is absolutely not true, without adjustment
for inflation, is that correct?
Now, my figures for fiscal year 2008 actually, without Pell
Grants, is 42.9. This year was 44.6. Now, this may be new math.
But not adjusting for inflation, that is actually an increase.
So could you just get back to me about the correctness of
your testimony, top of page 2? Rhetorical question, you are
going to need to answer for the record, because I have other
questions. Just go over your math. And maybe we need more
Common Core or something. I don't know. But the math doesn't
work out. It is not true.
Mr. Skelly. I will share the numbers with you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Harris. It is just plain not true, what your testimony
was.
D.C. OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
Let's talk about the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program,
because that is my annual question to you. Is it a success or
not?
Secretary Duncan. The results from the evaluation that was
conducted a couple years ago is mixed, and it is largely
similar to the results we have seen in other places. My sense
is that test scores are relatively flat compared to those who
had Opportunity Scholarships versus the control group.
Graduation rates were up some.
Mr. Harris. Okay. Graduation rates were up some? Ninety-one
percent versus 70 percent? Mr. Secretary, that is your idea of
graduation rates up some? That is pretty dramatic, isn't it?
Secretary Duncan. I don't have the numbers front of me. I
thought it was 10 percent.
Mr. Harris. Dr. Patrick Wolf conducted the study for your
Department.
Secretary Duncan. Okay. That is fine. As I was saying,
graduation rates are up. Parental satisfaction was good.
Mr. Harris. Well, how the heck do you measure success? If
graduation rates are up 30 percent and parental satisfaction is
good, what is your yardstick for success? I mean, aren't we
here to serve constituents and to serve the children, get their
graduation rates up?
So let me ask you, do you intend to ask somewhere--because
we can't find any money in the budget to provide these
Opportunity Scholarships for new students. I don't think it
exists, does it?
Secretary Duncan. No, the money does exist.
Mr. Skelly. It is not before this subcommittee. It is with
Financial Services.
Mr. Harris. And there is a request for new scholarship
money before Financial Services?
Secretary Duncan. There is an annual appropriation that
goes both for that and for traditional D.C. Public schools and
for charter schools. There are three different buckets there.
Mr. Harris. Okay. So your testimony today is that before
the Financial Services there actually is an administration
request for new scholarships, not continuation, new
scholarships?
Secretary Duncan. There are additional dollars in the
budget.
Mr. Harris. Mr. Secretary, very clearly, I am not talking
about administration costs, I am not talking about evaluation
costs. I am talking about actually parents getting to have
their children take advantage of D.C. Opportunity Scholarships,
new scholarships.
Secretary Duncan. Yes.
Mr. Harris. I am very happy and to relieved to hear that
there are new ones.
Now, you have an RFP for a new administration, I believe,
is that right, to manage the program, for a new grantee to
manage the program?
Mr. Skelly. A new grant, right.
Mr. Harris. That is right. And the application is due by
April 24. The deadline for intergovernmental review June 23.
Getting pretty close to the end of the year. Are you pretty
convinced your new manager is going to be able to have a smooth
transition for the next year?
Mr. Skelly. There will be a year where they overlap. So
there should be no problem with that.
Mr. Harris. Excellent. Because I think that is a great
program and I don't want to shortchange it.
COLLEGE RATING
Now, my final question is about higher education and the
desire in the Department to rate our Nation's colleges and
universities. And I don't know what criteria you are going to
use, but I will tell you, I have a daughter who went to college
and decided 1 year into it that she wanted to major in
theology. I don't think she is going to make a whole a lot of
money. I don't think she is going to have a great job based on
a major in theology.
So if you use a criteria of what someone earns when they
are done or what their balance is of what they earn versus what
their scholarships are, I might find that she actually didn't
go to a college that was worth very much because of the major
she chose.
Allay my fears that we are not going to use criteria that
supersede the ability of a parent and a student to decide which
college is best for their child based on what they feel is a
good college, not what the Department of Education feels is a
good college.
Secretary Duncan. Obviously, we want parents to choose the
right college for their child or older adults to come back to
school for a whole host of reasons. What I think, Congressman,
is that there has been a huge lack of transparency. There has
been a lack of ability to navigate an extraordinarily difficult
situation--what is a grant, what is a loan, what are the
graduation rates? I am a sociology major who has tried to work
in public service all my life. We love teachers. We love Peace
Corps members. And we will do nothing that would sort of
provide disincentives for folks to do the public service work
that all of us are committed to.
Having said that, we think there is a whole series of
information that would be great for young people and their
families to have. We want to make sure that folks have a chance
to make a living wage and not come out broke and no job
prospects and huge default rates on loans.
And so this is complex. It is hard. But we think, given our
collective investment of close to $175 billion each year to
provide access to higher education, virtually all of that is
based upon inputs, almost none of that is based upon outcomes.
I don't think that is as wise as we should be with scarce
taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Harris. Well, my only comment, and I will close, Mr.
Chairman, is I worry when the Department defines what a good
outcome is, because they might not define a theology major
degree as a good outcome. I will leave it at that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Skelly. About D.C. Choice, we don't have a request for
new dollars in the budget this year. It is carryover money that
is available. So no additional funds were needed.
Ms. DeLauro. Is that in Financial Services?
Mr. Skelly. Financial Services.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.
Mr. Cole. To the patient and long-suffering Mr. Rigell.
Mr. Rigell. I think there are some advantages to being on
the end. I always have these nice introductory comments from
the chair.
Mr. Cole. I am sorry, I am sorry----
Mr. Rigell. I will defer again, gladly.
Mr. Cole. I am sorry, I didn't see you come in.
Mr. Rigell. No. I am really fine, if the chairman wants to
follow order. So please.
Mr. Cole. I thought I was losing control there in the last
exchange a little bit. So we are going to reassert regular
order, if we may. But under regular order, Ms. Roybal-Allard
is, indeed, next. So the gentlelady is recognized.
ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION ACT
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Duncan, as the author of the Achievement Through
Technology and Innovation Act, which is better known as the
ATTAIN Act, I have been advocating for Federal investments in
digital learning since about 2007. The ATTAIN Act would provide
education technology resources to underserved schools and would
train teachers to effectively use that technology to prepare
underperforming students for today's competitive workforce.
So I was very pleased to see that the President's budget
request includes $200 million for Educational Technology State
Grants. This money, as you know, is needed to complement the
FCC's recent $1.5 billion increase in the E-Rate program, which
will ensure that all schools have adequate broadband and wi-fi.
Unfortunately, the ESEA reauthorization does not include the
dedicated funding through the education technology.
For the record, could you please elaborate on why this
dedicated funding for digital learning, specifically
professional development for teachers on how to use that
technology, is so important, not only to the individual, but
especially to the future of our country? Because I witnessed in
my own district where the hardware was there, but it was just
sitting there because the teachers did not receive the training
that they needed to effectively use that hardware.
Secretary Duncan. Let me come at this a couple different
ways. And you mentioned it, and it is important for folks here
to understand, the FCC's investment in E-Rate is a huge, huge,
huge step in the right direction. Technology can drive equity.
Technology can drive excellence. But where you have unequal
access to technology, it actually exacerbates the divide
between the haves and the have-nots, the digital divide. And
with the FCC's investment, over the next couple years, whether
it is in Native American communities or rural communities or
inner-city LA, children who have not had access historically to
high-speed broadband are going to get it. And this is I think
really a game-changer, this is extraordinarily important.
So, first, I just want to thank the FCC for understanding
the potential power here. Children, wherever they live, should
be able to learn anything, anytime, anywhere, and the chance to
take advanced placement classes, the chance to learn a foreign
language, the chance to have access to things that may not be
in your school, in your community, again, just literally opens
up a new world of opportunity. So we are very, very excited
about where this can go.
It is empowering to teachers. It engages students in their
own learning. We are asking for the $200 million, to answer
your question directly. Sometimes our students are a little bit
ahead of our teachers, and we want to make sure teachers have
access to the training they need to make sure technology is
really driving instruction and making a difference in the
classroom. We think, there is huge potential here, but we want
to make sure it is used wisely, thoughtfully, and the teachers
are learning from each other. I think so much of this good
professional development is not listening to some outside
expert coming into a hotel ballroom, but it is teachers working
with other teachers and working with their principals.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I just want to emphasize the point that
this is also important to the future of our country. We are not
just talking about the individual students and the importance
of them learning, but in terms of the future of our country.
Secretary Duncan. Well, if young people don't have these
skills and exposure to these careers we do grave damage to them
and to our Nation. And, again, if we don't take this seriously,
I promise you other countries are.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes, they are. Definitely.
EFFECT OF PROPOSED PORTABILITY PROVISIONS
Last week the House debated H.R. 5 to reauthorize the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and one of the
provisions in that bill would allow States to implement Title I
portability. My understanding is that it would shift
significant amounts of funds from high-poverty schools and
school districts to wealthier schools and districts with much
more lower levels of poverty. The Los Angeles Unified School
District, our Nation's second-largest school district, would
lose over $80 million if portability is implemented.
Can you explain in more detail why portability harms high-
poverty school districts like LAUSD, including which school
services would be impacted by portability?
Secretary Duncan. First, the administration has been
extraordinarily clear that we could not begin to support H.R.
5. And, again, it is not too late for the House to work in a
bipartisan way to fix No Child Left Behind. No Child Left
Behind is broken, it is outdated, it needs to be fixed, but it
needs to be about policy, not about politics. Any time it is
simply about politics we are not really thinking about kids.
There are lots of educational challenges that we can all
agree on and talk about the best ways to solve. What I have not
had is a clear answer, frankly, from anyone on what education
problem we are solving by taking money from poor kids and poor
communities and poor districts and moving that money to more
affluent districts. In many communities those more affluent
districts are already better funded on a per-pupil basis. So a
sort of reverse Robin Hood thing just simply doesn't make any
sense to me.
And, again, I just would love someone to tell me what
problem they think they are solving. What is Title I money
supposed to do? It is supposed to give poor children a real
chance in life. And we go back to what Congresswoman DeLauro
talked about, while we are seeing some improvements, far too
few children who start out below the poverty line end up
graduating from college. So what is the ultimate goal? To give
them the skills, the knowledge, the ability to not just
graduate from high school, but go on to some form of higher
education.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you. I see my time is up.
Mr. Cole. It really is your turn, Mr. Rigell.
Mr. Rigell. Here we go. Okay. Thank you so much, Mr.
Chairman.
Secretary Duncan. Does he get any extra time?
Mr. Cole. If he needs it, yes, sir.
Mr. Rigell. I appreciate that.
Secretary Duncan, thank you, both of you, for being here
this morning. We appreciate it.
STEWARDSHIP OF PUBLIC FUNDS
Mr. Secretary, I read carefully your statement, and I
realize that it is just a cursory overview of a very large
department, a lot of funds are flowing through it. But I was
struck by something. I didn't do a search on the document, but
the two words ``increase'' and ``increasing,'' those words are
just all throughout, more funding, more funding.
We are all so often put in these boxes, that Republicans
don't support this and our Democratic friends support something
else or education, for example. But we know--we know--that this
is a shared value, it really is, the next generation of
Americans. But I would also say that there is another shared
value, and that is stewardship, just how we are using the
funds.
PELL GRANTS AND FRAUD
I want to call attention to one thing in particular, Pell
Grants. Let me first say they are essential, they are helping a
lot of young people, and, I guess, some middle-age folks too
perhaps that need help. But it is a good program. But I want to
call your attention to something, that is the fraud and the
abuse that is in this program. And I want you to know, these
are not talking points from Heritage, they are not coming from
some Tea Party organization. I want you to know who brought
this to my attention and said, please, look into this. And I
use this with her permission.
Dr. Terry Sullivan, the president of the University of
Virginia, walked me through a few years ago just how bad it is.
And I said, Dr. Sullivan, is it okay with you, this is very
powerful and it is troubling to me, and is it okay if I
reference you publicly? And she said yes. And we have looked
into it. And I don't have all the stats here today. It has been
a really busy week. But there is abuse in the program.
The way I look at it, and we have talked about this on
other things as well, someone who is misusing this is stealing
from the American people and indirectly, but in a very real
way, taking away from someone who does need the support because
we are in such a tight budgetary environment.
I need to give you some time to respond to all this. But
this is something I am going to remain focused on in my service
on this fine committee. I think it is constructive. It is done
for the right reasons. But please let us know.
I would actually like, in the future, just blend in some
wording that lets all Americans, not one party or another, but
all Americans know that you are looking out for every dollar,
to make sure that the support is getting to those who need it
and it is not getting to those who are going to steal from us.
Secretary Duncan. I think your point is extraordinarily
well taken. And please know how seriously my team and I take
our role as trying to be good stewards of scarce taxpayer
dollars.
We actually have in the budget proposal resources to
continue to challenge where there is fraud. I can give you the
weekly report I get from our Inspector General of folks that we
lock up for fraud rings and other things around Pell and other
areas, not just limited to Pell.
So we take that extraordinarily seriously. We could lay out
for you what we have done, what our budget proposal is, what we
have done to put people in jail who have chosen to do the wrong
thing. Every single day we try and use scarce tax dollars
wisely.
To your point, for me, these are not competing values. We
should be working as hard as we can there, and we should
support hardworking Americans who desperately need to go back
to school full-time. These values are not in competition and
actually reinforce each other.
So know how seriously we take that responsibility. Know
what we have tried to do. And if there are concrete suggestions
of things that we could do better than we have, we are more
than open. None of us have any interest in seeing scarce
dollars being used by folks who are perpetuating fraud.
Mr. Rigell. Thank you.
And some of the best advice I was given when I got up here
is, ``Look, there is so much going on. Become an expert on just
a few topics and then kind of stay on it.''
And, Mr. Chairman, absent maybe you directing me in some
other direction, I am going to stay on this and we are going to
work on it on the staff level.
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS IN EDUCATION
Let me transition just for a moment in the little bit of
time we have left and maybe a second round, if time permits, to
talk about something so positive and I just think is just a
real jewel within the educational system, and that is
Achievable Dream in Newport News, Virginia. You have actually
been there in 2009 with Congressman Scott. This was life-
changing for me, really, in my view of education.
Time does not permit me to describe it to all who are here
in the room, but it is a public-private partnership that is
having remarkable results in taking our children who are most
at risk and guiding them all the way through high school to
have a remarkable outcome on the other side.
And, again, we will probably have to follow this up over
time. But help me to understand what programs--or how does the
Department view these public-private partnerships and
organizational--educational opportunities like Achievable
Dream?
Secretary Duncan. Do I have time to try and answer?
Mr. Cole. You certainly can. We were pretty----
Mr. Rigell. Your time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. If you can satisfy Mr. Rigell, go right ahead.
Secretary Duncan. Very quickly, what I saw there was
extraordinary. It is not unique. I see amazing schools beating
the odds all over the country as I travel. And there are lots
of people who want to tell you that somehow poor kids can't
learn or black and brown kids can't learn, and schools like
that put the lie to that myth and that stereotype every single
day.
So we have tried to do a lot to incentivize and encourage
public-private partnerships. I am a big believer in innovation.
That is one of the things I talked about. In our Investing in
Innovation Fund, we actually required a 20 percent private
match to our dollars. So there is no free lunch, and local
communities have to buy in. In all the grants we made, that
obligation was fulfilled.
So it is not just our dollars and our resources going in.
It is a community really buying in to what they are doing. We
have done that in many of our competitions, and there has been
tremendous interest. Again, folks told us it wouldn't work in
the inner city, it wouldn't work in rural communities. It has
worked. And people have stepped up big time.
So we can give you lots of examples of public-private
partnerships that we have encouraged, we have supported and
invested in, but to be very clear, the leadership and the
vision is not coming from us. It is coming from great local
educators in the large communities.
Mr. Rigell. Well, that is common ground right there. Thank
you very much, Mr. Secretary.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Cole. We will go next to our ranking member for another
round.
ADDRESSING FRAUD IN STUDENT AID
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In apropos of my colleague's comments with regard to fraud,
my understanding is that the Education Department Inspector
General has determined that the biggest problem was at the
University of Phoenix, which is one of these for-profit
colleges, and they found 750 fraud rings involving about 15,000
people.
So I would love you to answer the question that we didn't
get time for in which the reform proposal and dealing with
these for-profit colleges that are ripping the system off and
taking the money away from kids and others who need it. And
then I want to move to another question.
Secretary Duncan. Just quickly, we want to lead the world
in college graduation rates. A generation ago we did, and today
we are 12th. So we need to get better faster.
We need more universities of all types--nonprofit, public,
private, faith-based, and for-profit--where they are doing a
good job in providing real training and real skills that lead
to real jobs.
Where that is happening, we think that is a good investment
of taxpayer dollars. When they are leaving disadvantaged folks
in a worse financial situation than they started and using our
public dollars to do that, that is untenable.
So we have challenged the status quo extraordinarily hard
in a number of different ways. That has not been without
pushback from some of your colleagues, quite frankly.
Ms. DeLauro. Yes, indeed. And that is wrong, that pushback.
Secretary Duncan. But we feel we have done the right
things.
In terms of the 90/10 rule--and it gets a little
technical--but, basically, the simple premise that came to us
from Congress was that there should be some individual
investment. If there is real value here, it shouldn't all come
from taxpayer dollars.
And 10 percent, I think, is not an insurmountable challenge
there. When folks were using the GI benefits to go beyond that,
that is just more additional public dollars.
I don't know how people sleep at night when you are taking
folks who have served their country, who are coming back,
trying to train and retool and then giving them huge debt and
inadequate training or phony training. I don't know how you can
sleep at night.
So we are going to challenge the status quo where it is
abusing individuals, leaving them in worse financial
situations, and taking advantage of taxpayers. Where folks are
doing a good job, we are supportive of that.
Ms. DeLauro. And I will just say, Mr. Secretary, it is my
intent to be very vocal on this issue because there are scarce
dollars and they shouldn't be going in that direction. They
should be going where they are needed.
TEST SCORES AND TEACHER EVALUATIONS
Let me move to another area, and that is test scores and
teacher evaluations. We know how important it is to identify,
remediate, and, if necessary, remove teachers from the
classroom who are persistently ineffective.
The Department's policy reflects a lot of confidence in
value-added metrics and encouraged districts to use them as an
important factor in evaluating the effectiveness of teachers.
There is a consensus and there are independent experts who
have warned against using such data for high-stakes decision-
making because of what, in their view, is a lack of reliability
across years, classes, subjects.
But this is Rand, National Research Council of the National
Academies of Sciences, Educational Testing Service at
Princeton, the American Statistical Association, the American
Educational Research Association.
Given that there is a growing and a kind of consistent body
of research that demonstrates unreliability and inaccuracy of
value-added scores, are you prepared to rethink the Federal
requirement that value-added data be included in teacher
evaluation for those States that receive a waiver from No Child
Left Behind?
Secretary Duncan. Well, your question is actually
incorrect. We never say you have to use value-add. What we say
is that student learning, student growth, needs to be a part of
that.
What we are challenging in many--not many--in some States--
when we came to Washington, I was a little stunned to learn
that it was actually against the law to link student learning
to teacher evaluations. I would say the goal of great teaching
is never just to teach. It is to have students learn.
And so, to be clear, we always say multiple measures. There
are a whole host of things that need to be there. We want to
elevate and strengthen the teaching profession.
Ms. DeLauro. So there is no emphasis on testing, on the
test scores?
Secretary Duncan. There is no requirement on value-add.
What we are saying is student learning needs to be a part of
teacher evaluation and one of multiple measures, never one
thing.
So people take this to the extreme. Focusing only on test
scores I think is a problem. Anyone who says that student
learning is irrelevant to teaching doesn't make sense. And to
be really clear, what I am interested in is growth and gain,
how much are students improving each year.
What I hated in No Child Left Behind--not to go on too
long--if a teacher took a child that was a couple years behind
and caught them up under No Child Left Behind, they are labeled
a failure if they are still not at grade level.
But if a child makes 2 or 3 years' worth of growth for a
year of teaching, that teacher is not a failure. They are a
hero. They have done extraordinary work. We want to look at how
much students are improving each year.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, but the issue as well is that most of
the VAM studies find that teachers account for about 1 percent
to about 14 percent of the variability in test scores and that
the majority of opportunities for quality improvement are found
in the system-level conditions.
Ranking teachers by VAM scores can have unintended
consequences that are negative consequences. The whole issue of
poverty, the issues that you and I have talked about many, many
times that need to go into the debate, and the discussion about
the evaluation of teachers and that it has been viewed as the
test scores have been a primary measure, metric, if you will.
TEACHER EVALUATIONS AND STUDENT OUTCOMES
Secretary Duncan. Just to be very clear, we have never
advocated ranking teachers by test scores. But just to
challenge your--you know, children who live in poverty, in very
difficult circumstances, have huge challenges, and we need to
do everything we can to overcome them, which is why we all come
to work every single day. It is where we get our passion from.
Having said that, even among poor children, we see
tremendous variations in outcomes. And we see examples like
Newport News that we talked about where poor children are doing
amazing work. I have been to Native American reservations with
70 to 80 percent poverty. Some are heartbreaking educational
situations. Some are getting amazing results.
And so where there is huge variation there, I think we, as
educators, need to learn from that and we need to understand
what is working for children who have challenges and how do we
take to scale those things that are helping to transform their
life chances.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, it continues to be my hope that we will
not focus continuously on the test score because children in
high-poverty areas are dealing with serious, serious
consequences, and we need to focus more time and attention on
training the teachers to be able to deal with those youngsters
and be able to address those noncognitive skills, as you are
trying to do in other parts of your budget.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Well, actually, my friend, having watched
Republicans argue with Republicans for the last 3 days, it is
nice to watch Democrats argue with Democrats a little bit.
Secretary Duncan. We are not arguing.
Mr. Cole. I have enjoyed the rhetoric today.
Ms. DeLauro. We always are in discussion. It is a good
thing.
Mr. Cole. No. It is a very good thing.
But I actually want to pick up and maybe add a little bit
on your theme. This gets down to an area where I think there is
always room for legitimate disagreement.
COMPETITIVE VERSUS FORMULA GRANTS
But, Mr. Secretary, in previous years, your budget request
for fiscal year 2016 invests pretty heavily in competitive
grant programs that allow the Federal Government to dictate how
States and school districts operate. Actually, when I was a
freshman on this committee back in 2009, there was
considerable--I wouldn't say frustration, because, again, this
is an important tool. I am not trying to suggest it is not.
But particularly then, when we had school budgets
collapsing all over the country, there was a lot of concern,
``Why aren't we doing more of this stuff within the formula?
Why aren't we allowing school districts to have more
predictability?''
And, again, you are using this approach to try and inspire
some innovation in the field. We talked about that yesterday. I
get that. However, States and school districts are constantly
striving to provide quality education, and I think they are
free to innovate on their own within formula grants.
So, given that, talk to me a little bit philosophically
about the value of competition in the grant system, which I
think runs through your budget, because the counterargument is
that leads to micromanagement up here, that, frankly, by using
a grant system, we are dictating a lot at the State and local
level as to which directions they go.
So I want to see how you find that balance and what you
think is appropriate.
Secretary Duncan. It is a great question.
We have lots of both internal discussions and debates with
other folks. Just for the record, to be clear, the overwhelming
majority of our budget is formula-based. It is actually 91.6
percent. Only about 8.4 percent of what we are proposing is
competitive. So just to have the facts. Most people think it is
like 50/50 or something. It is not even close. The overwhelming
dollars are formula, actually more in Title I.
Having said that, having a piece of our budget spur
innovation and support innovation we think makes tremendous
sense. And, Congressman, the thing for me that just sort of
comes through here is there is tremendous unmet demand. So if
we were trying to sell something that nobody was buying, I
would listen to that very, very closely.
On the preschool development grants, we were able to fund
18 States. We had 36 States applying, again, across the
political spectrum. So there is huge interest there.
Under the Investing in Innovation Fund, we were able to
fund 1 in 20 of the applications. So 5 percent, basically, of
what we got in from communities around the country we were able
to fund. Promise Neighborhoods, we funded 1 in 10. First in the
World, 1 in 20.
So quite to the contrary that we shouldn't be doing this.
There is desperate need. There is huge creativity and
innovation. There is a lack of resources. There is a lack of
ability to scale.
I think so many of these lessons--what we are learning
through some fantastic work in rural Tennessee has applications
to rural Appalachia and maybe to Native communities as well.
I think it is a very appropriate role for the Federal
Government, whether it is us or whether it is the National
Institutes of Health or whether it is the military through
DARPA, spurring innovation and scaling what works.
So if I look at--not to go on too long--if I look at some
investments we have made in Appalachia in Ohio, huge increases
in those students taking and passing AP classes. My
understanding is in those districts, their graduation rates are
now ahead of the rest of the State. So for all the poverty, for
all the challenges, and the very real--they are ahead of where
the State is.
I look in rural Tennessee. Huge increases in the number of
students who are taking and passing AP classes, the vast
majority first-generation college-goers. I visited east L.A.--
Congresswoman Roybal-Allard is gone--but the Promise
Neighborhood there, where it is a multi-generational education
system, they are educating babies and their parents.
The demand, frankly, far exceeds our ability to support
this work. My hardest conversations were conversations with
folks like Governor Bryant in Mississippi, who is a very
staunch conservative, who desperately wanted our resources to
expand early childhood education, and we simply didn't have
enough dollars.
We know the huge unmet need, the desperate need, in
Mississippi. So I felt horrible about it. He was
extraordinarily frustrated. But we simply didn't have enough
competitive dollars to put behind States like Mississippi,
trying to do better for their babies.
Mr. Cole. You know, I think it is a challenge. And,
frankly, thank you for your long and thoughtful and nuanced
answer.
The concern I have quite often is the fact that, yes, there
is this huge unmet need and a lot of people are then spending a
lot of time that have very worthy proposals and are not going
to be able to get there. I hear a lot of frustration on the
other end when you can only fund 1 out of 20 grantees.
I suspect there was a much higher percentage of that that
you would have liked to have funded. But they have gone to
considerable expense and a lot of effort. And there is
certainly some good to be had there, but there are some
difficulties in hitting the right balance.
I want to move next to the ranking member of the full
committee, the gentlelady from New York.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you very much.
SHORTAGE IN QUALIFIED WORKERS
It is always a pleasure to welcome you. I apologize that we
have four hearings at the same time. So some of us wish we had
roller skates around here. But I know how important your work
is, and I appreciate your leadership.
A couple of questions. First of all, one of my main focuses
in my district: Hearing from employers who say they have jobs
to fill primarily in the high-tech and medicine fields, but
there are not enough people with the skills needed to fill the
positions. Just recently one of the hospitals was telling me
they had 2,500 jobs and they can't find people to fill them.
The disparity between the skills job-seekers have and the
skills employers need to fill available positions, known as the
skills gap, hinders employers from expanding, innovating,
improving productivity. It prevents workers from obtaining
well-paying jobs in demand industries.
This is widespread, facing employers across the country, as
more than two-thirds of manufacturing executives report
shortages of qualified workers.
In addition, the demand for skilled workers is increasing.
I understand that, by 2020, two-thirds of jobs will require
some post-secondary education and training. The budget includes
$200 million for a new American Technical Training Fund that
will fund up to 100 centers at community colleges to support
job training programs.
How would these grants help meet employee needs while
providing a path to the middle class for low-wage workers?
Secretary Duncan. You have identified a theme that so many
folks have, and that I have seen consistently as I have
traveled the country. We have to provide, not just young
people, but folks coming back to retrain and retool, with the
skills to obtain high-wage, high-skill, middle-class jobs.
There is tremendous unmet need, whether it is in your
district or around the Nation; the historic disconnect between
what educators are providing and what CEOs and employers are
looking for is pretty staggering. So you hit the nail on the
head.
I am a huge fan of these programs. We are going to continue
to invest in community colleges and in high schools, and I
would go so far as to say in middle schools as well. They are
helping to expose young people to the jobs of the future.
We want to only invest where the education sector is linked
to the private sector, to where the real jobs are and that real
training is leading to real jobs, and that is how we want to
hold ourselves accountable. We are seeing fantastic innovation
in many, many of the community colleges we visit, but we can't
do enough of this.
And while we are very committed, we are not doing this
alone. The Department of Labor has been a fantastic partner,
particularly on the community college side, and over the past 4
years has invested about $2 billion to make sure that real
training is leading to real jobs on the back end.
Mrs. Lowey. Could you share with me some kind of evaluation
that you are doing with the Labor Department. Because I know we
are investing, but I still see these tremendous needs out
there. And maybe we could do another briefing.
Secretary Duncan. We can go through that, and I can have
Secretary Perez reach out and walk you through it. But, for me,
the accountability on this stuff is pretty simple. We need to
hold ourselves to the highest standards. The simple question
is: Is this training leading to real jobs in the community?
Mrs. Lowey. Is it?
Secretary Duncan. In many places, it absolutely is. In some
places, we have to continue to get better and we have to
continue to encourage people to come to the table and talk this
through.
So I think there has been significant progress. Is there
still tremendous unmet demand? Absolutely. And it is incumbent
upon all of us to help folks who are trying to hire.
I can't tell you how many CEOs that I have met with and the
President has met with, saying, ``We are trying to hire right
now. We can't find folks with the skills.'' That makes no
sense. It is mind-boggling. They want to keep jobs in the
communities and in our Nation.
So without looking at a formal evaluation, my sense is we
are making real progress, but we have a long way to go and we
have to get better faster.
Mrs. Lowey. I would be interested to know what kind of
support, what kind of actual dollars, the corporations with
which you are interacting invest. I mean, the profits are huge,
not for all of them. What kind of partnerships are there?
Secretary Duncan. So, again, the good ones--and not
everyone is good--the good ones are helping in a couple
different ways.
Some are actually providing the high-tech equipment to the
community colleges because it helps to train. Some are helping
on the curriculum, what gets taught and having their employees
help to teach. And many are providing summer jobs and
internships so they can start training young people while they
are in school are getting the skills they need to go to work.
So those are sort of high-caliber, high-quality programs.
Not everyone is doing that, but there are some fantastic
examples out there.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I see my red light is on.
But I would love a further briefing on that because our
chairman, I know, is committed to many of the issues that were
discussed today, but we really have to look at the dollars and
see what is working, what is not.
And maybe the private sector could do more in training and
work with the high schools preparing people, or the community
college, depending on what level the jobs are.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Certainly.
We will go next to the gentlelady from Alabama.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, great to see you. Mr. Skelly.
I have appreciated the interactions with you over my short
time in Congress, and even though many times we don't see eye
to eye, I do appreciate having the opportunity to talk with you
today.
As you know, I first met you when I was on the Education
and Workforce Committee, the authorizing committee, and now I
am excited to have this place on Labor-H Subcommittee for
Appropriations.
FEDERAL INTRUSION IN EDUCATION
When I was on the authorizing committee, I introduced a
bill called Defending State Authority Over Education Act, and
it sought specifically to prohibit the Secretary of the
Department of Education and future Secretaries from using
grants and policy waivers to coerce States into adopting
certain policies, including preferred standards and curricula.
And so we were successful in both last Congress and this
Congress in getting this bill language into the Student Success
Act.
And whereas that bill has not been passed by the House yet,
I believe that there is a broad agreement in both the House and
the Senate that the executive branch has exceeded its reach
when it comes to State education policy and allowing the local
control--the local school board, States, and parents to be in
the driver's seat of making decisions.
And we all agree. I mean, I want Alabama, my State, to have
the highest standards and challenge students and build critical
thinking skills. I am a mother of a fourth grader in the public
school system, and I am glad that our State has made efforts to
raise its standards in recent years when we have lagged behind
for so long.
But however welcome the collaboration between States may
be, the intrusion of the Federal Government into that process,
directly or indirectly, is inappropriate and it invariably
comes with a political agenda from here in D.C.
And as I have stated in numerous speeches, those that are
up here making decisions about how children in Alabama should
be educated when they have not even been to Alabama and we know
that schools differ from school district to school district and
even can be vastly different in their population within a
district--I think that those parents and principals and
teachers and local elected officials should be the ones in the
driver's seat of determining the best policy.
So as we are here today to consider your budget request, I
just want to hear from you about how the Department under your
leadership plans to deal with these issues moving forward. And
what can we expect to come down the pipeline as it relates to
the Department, the U.S. Department, setting policy for States
when I clearly don't believe that that is the right way to do
things?
Secretary Duncan. Words are important. I think in your
statement--some stuff I agree with, and some stuff you conflate
or, frankly, confuse.
What we asked States to think about and encourage is for
States to have high standards. The idea that so many States
actually dummied-down standards under No Child Left Behind, and
reduced their standards to make politicians look good, is one
of the most insidious things that I think has happened in
education.
Children who have worked hard and played by the rules who
graduate and are woefully underprepared for college and have to
take remedial classes and burn through Pell Grants, I don't
know who that serves well. It doesn't serve the individual
well. It doesn't serve taxpayers well.
And I would ask you what your State's college remediation
rate is in their 2- and 4-year universities? I don't know it.
My strong bet is that over a third of young people in your 2-
and 4-year public universities have to take remedial classes.
And so where States are raising standards, we think that is
fantastic. We are not setting those standards. We have provided
waivers to States under No Child Left Behind because No Child
Left Behind is broken and Congress has been dysfunctional and
has not been able to fix it in a bipartisan way.
STATE STANDARDS AND WAIVERS
We have worked with States across the political spectrum on
that. We have provided waivers to States that have done their
own thing. And our only question we ask of Alabama and Texas
and every other State is, ``Will your institution of higher
education''--not ours, institution of higher education in your
State-- ``say that students who are at this standard don't have
to take remedial classes?''
So we don't see much controversy there. We don't see much
issue. We have given waivers to States--sort of more
traditional States on the right, like Texas, and we have given
waivers to States on the left, like Minnesota, which have done
their own thing.
There hasn't been controversy there. We think that is the
right thing. If States want to lower standards, they have the
right to do that. We can't stop them. We just don't think that
is something that we are going to support.
We are barred by law from touching curriculum. So we have
never done that. Never have. Never will. That should always be
determined by local educators and parents and board members. We
just think there should be a high bar for students. How you
help students achieve to that higher bar is always best
determined at a local level. And we have been 100 percent
consistent on that from day one.
Mrs. Roby. Well, my time is expired.
Let me just say, again, my position is that the U.S.
Department of Education ought not to be able to tie funding to
coercion of State and local school boards to have to do certain
things, and that is what has happened in the past.
And it is my sincere hope that this Congress can get it
together and pass the Student Success Act so we won't see any
further processes like that.
So thank you again for being here.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Cole. Certainly.
The gentlelady from California is recognized.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Sorry I missed your testimony.
I will look at it. I was in another committee hearing, also.
But I am really pleased to see you, and I have a few questions
I would like to ask you.
SERVING AT-RISK YOUTH
First of all, we all know that children in poverty are
often the ones most susceptible to dropping out. It is very
difficult to learn when you are hungry. It can ultimately lead
to poor grades. Poor grades, of course, can lead to
discouragement and, ultimately, dropping out of school. Many of
these young people end up in juvenile hall. We can't afford to
let this happen. We can't afford to lose the brain power. And
so many of our young people, unfortunately, are lost after they
drop out of school.
So I was wondering if you have any--and we have a model
program in California--or an example of a program where the
coordination between, say, the Department of Justice and the
Department of Education to make sure that at-risk youth are not
at risk as a result of what is taking place due to the dropout
rate. So I want to see if there are any joint efforts between
yourself and DOJ on that front.
Secondly, as it relates to the proposed increase for TRIO--
I think it is $20 million for TRIO funding--it would use for a
demonstration initiative, I want to ask you a little bit about
what the demonstration projects look like. Multi-year
initiative or activities that would take place only in 2016?
IMPACT ON HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (HBCUS)
Also, I am pleased to see the community college initiative,
and I want to make sure that the funding doesn't put HBCUs and
any of our minority-serving institutions at risk. With regard
to HBCUs, you know, I noticed in your budget that you didn't
restore the sequestration cuts to the capital financing program
and want to know what that is about. I know there was a drop in
loan activity last year. So I would like to ask you to kind of
flesh that out for us.
And, finally, let me just ask you, as it relates to HBCUs
and the whole effort to--I guess you flat-funded minority-
serving institutions this year. It is very important to
recognize and remember that HBCUs graduate about--the
graduation rate is almost 40 percent, 39.9 percent. African
American students at community colleges, the graduation rate is
12.5 percent.
And so we have to, going back to what I said earlier, make
sure that the community college initiative is fully funded
because, you know, people need to be able to go to school and
gain the type of education that community colleges provide.
Peralta in my district is a great example of that.
But I don't want to see HBCUs put at risk because, again,
going back to California, many of our young people now--because
of the end of Affirmative Action, they are not at the
University of California anymore. They are at HBCUs. So just
coming from a California perspective, I want to make sure that
both budgets are fully funded and we don't rob Peter to pay
Paul.
Secretary Duncan. I think there are three or four questions
there. I will try and get to them all quickly, and if I miss
it, let me know. I will follow up off-line.
So, quickly, the good news, which I talked about before you
got here, is that dropout rates are down significantly. African
American dropout rates are down 45 percent. Latino dropout
rates are down 50 percent over the past decade. That is huge.
That has translated to all-time-high high school graduation
rates and, between 2008 and 2012, 1.1 million additional
students of color are not just graduating, but going on to
college.
SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE
So while we are thrilled with that progress, we are not
satisfied. There is a long way to go. The dropout rate is still
unacceptably high. We have partnered with the Department of
Justice in lots of different things, and we can work through
that or show you what we have done.
One of the big things that we have done together is really
tried to address the school-to-prison pipeline. I learn
something every single day, but I tell you I was stunned to
learn that across the country we were suspending and expelling
3- and 4-year-olds from preschool. And we know who they are--
black and brown boys. I had no idea.
So along with my good friend, Eric Holder--I am sorry he is
departing--I wish him well--we put out very clear guidance
saying you have to look at these things. Lots of 3- and 4-year-
olds have challenges. I had a couple 3- and 4-year-olds myself.
Putting them out of school, suspending, expelling them, I don't
know what problem that is solving.
We have tried to be very self-reflective and look in the
mirror, and we have seen places like L.A. significantly reduce
suspensions and expulsions and move towards more restorative
justice and peer juries and those kinds of things, and the
Attorney General and DOJ has been a great partner there. That
is one example.
TRIO DEMONSTRATION INITIATIVE
On TRIO, we want to put more resources there. We want to
give folks who run these programs more room to do some things
differently, try some new approaches, be a little bit more
innovative and give them flexibility. If somehow our rules are
hampering or preventing them from doing something they think
would help more students, we want to give them more latitude
there.
COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND HBCUS
Finally, this investment in community colleges I think is
actually a huge deal for HBCUs. And this is not one versus the
other. I think that is absolutely the wrong mentality. We need
a heck of a lot more students of color to not just graduate
from high school, but go on to higher education.
Many HBCUs are community colleges to begin with. So they
would be funded directly. But if we can open up community
colleges to a lot more young people and first-generation
college-goers African Americans, and Latinos, they will not
just graduate from colleges, they will go on to 4-year
institutions, and we will significantly increase the pipeline.
So anyone who thinks this is one versus the other, I think
totally misses what is possible here by expanding access to
community colleges. If we increase the size of the pie,
everyone is going to benefit, and I think HBCUs could
potentially benefit disproportionately because so many
community college students happen to be students of color. If I
have missed some stuff, let me know. We will come back.
Ms. Lee. We will come back around.
Mr. Cole. We will certainly give you another opportunity,
but you got quite a few on the Secretary's plate there.
ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS IN TRIO PROGRAM
I do want to pick up where my friend, Ms. Lee, left off on
TRIO. Because while you do have an increase there--and I think
there is really strong bipartisan support for this program.
Certainly in my district I have seen the difference it makes in
helping first-generation college students actually succeed.
And as we discussed when you and I had the opportunity to
meet, one of my big concerns and I know this Committee's big
concern is just the dropout rate in college, the number of kids
we lose that, number one, walk out with debt maybe that they
didn't have before and, much more importantly, I think they
walk out sometimes with a sense of failure that nobody in their
family has been able to do it. They tried but they were not
able to do it. It is just really something that I think bears a
tremendous amount of focus.
Given that, I mean, what you have added is about $20
million. It is for another program, as you have said, an
innovative program, but it doesn't expand what is already an
underused program. And these are pretty competitive programs.
As it is now, you already are going through a lot of
application processes.
When I am dealing with local TRIO programs, they are quite
often wondering, ``Are we going to make it this year? Are we
going to be funded this year?'', that sort of thing.
So tell me, if you will, number one, why not more money in
that program? If you have concerns, I am delighted to hear
them. I would really want to know what they are.
I know we have put a lot on your table and we are asking
you to do everything from preschool to make sure that nobody
drops out of college. And I do worry sometimes, when we have
programs that I think are working at least, we are stretching
you so far maybe we are not putting enough focus on those
areas.
So talk to me a little bit about what your plans are for
TRIO and anything else that you want to throw in that would,
again, reinforce the ability of children or young people, once
they enroll in college, to stay there and actually get through
with that degree.
COLLEGE ACCESS AND COMPLETION
Secretary Duncan. I am happy to have a conversation about
more resources for TRIO and other programs. That is music to my
ears.
I should also come back, Congressman Lee, to your point.
We don't just have one funding source trying to help first-
generation college-goers. So, obviously, TRIO is a big part.
GEAR UP is a big part. Clearly the community college thing is a
huge push to have more at-risk students graduate.
The other one that I failed to mention in answer to both of
your questions is First in the World. That is all about--more
competency-based, speed to degree, better remedial, better
developmental work. We have seen, again, huge interest there,
real innovation.
HBCUs did a great job, disproportionately got significant
resources in First in the World, which is one reason we didn't
bump up the bottom line, because there are more resources in
First in the World for HBCUs. I failed to mention that.
So it is a longer conversation, but we should sort of lay
out for you not just this one funding stream, but here are the
three, four, five things we are doing to try and help more
young people graduate. And we know we have much further to go.
We know we have to get better faster. So if there are thoughts
of things we can do to accelerate the rate of progress, I am
all ears and happy to have that conversation.
I will also say that long term, one of the most important
things I think we can do to help more young people not just go
to college, but to graduate, is to make sure they are going to
college and not having to take remedial classes. Again, I saw a
study, I think from Oklahoma, that was like 40 percent. This
supports the idea of having high standards, again, those should
be set at the local level, by States, not by us, to be very
clear, to our friend from Alabama.
But where States have historically lowered standards, we
can do all the TRIO, we can do all the catch-up, but we are
setting kids up to be less than successful. This idea of making
sure students are graduating across the Nation truly college-
and career-ready with a simple definition, meaning, if they
graduate, they don't have to take remedial classes. I think
that is a very simple, but powerful, idea that long term will
help to boost the college completion rate that we are all
concerned about.
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
Mr. Cole. Let me move to the other end of the spectrum, and
I know I am about to run out of time.
But, again, as we talked, early childhood, I know, is a
very, as you made clear here, very important emphasis for you.
Right now I think, if you look at Early Head Start and Head
Start, we are almost a little bit of an inverted period. We
include more people as they get a little bit older, and I
understand that.
But I am curious if dollars--I have read research that says
the best time is zero to 3. I mean, you have got to get in
there early, not 4 and 5. You are almost jeopardizing your 4
and 5. Is that true, number one? And what are you proposing to
do at that very entry level in terms of early education?
Secretary Duncan. That is a very thoughtful question. You
raised it the other day. Again, these are long conversations.
My short answer is I always want to look at a zero to 5
continuum. And we know learning doesn't start in kindergarten,
at 5. We know learning starts at birth. And whatever we can do
in that zero to 3, whether it is Early Head Start or home
visiting programs--and I have seen some fantastic programs in
rural Kentucky and other places that parents who were not lucky
enough to have a huge amount of education themselves, with some
help and support, are doing a fantastic job of raising their
kids and helping to give them some opportunities that exist.
But, for me, it is always not this versus that. It has got
to be both. If we look relative to other industrialized nations
in terms of access to preschool, we are like 28th, again, just
nothing that we can be proud of or should be proud of.
And the fact that we don't lead the world in providing
access to high-quality early learning opportunities doesn't
make sense. And, again, outside of Washington, this has become
an unbelievably bipartisan issue. From the left to--you know,
Governor Abbott in Texas just said last week his first
priority--strong conservative governor--his first priority is
increasing early childhood education. It is beautiful. It is
music to my ears.
We just have to get folks here in Washington to listen to
what is going on back home. And I don't say this lightly. I
think your State, Oklahoma, has done this as well or better
than any other State. It is a strong, conservative State,
Governor, House, and Senate. And if every State was doing some
of what Oklahoma was doing, our Nation would be in a much
better situation.
So whether it is Oklahoma on the early childhood side,
whether it is Tennessee on the community college side, I think
they are fantastic examples that we should be learning from and
throwing politics and ideology out the window.
Mr. Cole. Well, thank you.
And a word to the wise. Anything you can find in rural
Kentucky that is working will be well received on this
committee.
So, with that, I will go to my good friend, the ranking
member.
PRESCHOOL DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And when you spoke, Mr. Secretary, and the Chairman asked
you where would you spend the dollars, so this is the
continuation of this issue on preschool, on early childhood.
I want to say to the chairman that, in the HHS budget,
there is a $1.5 billion increase in Head Start, and that is the
money that deals with zero to 3 and a number of the wraparound
services, Mr. Secretary, that you speak about with other
countries that deal with early childhood education. It is the
education plus the wraparound services which are found more in
the HHS budget.
But I want to again--the pre-kindergarten programs, it
levels the playing field. It really does. You have an
extraordinary program in Oklahoma, Mr. Chairman. And there you
are looking at--and we were talking about some of these issues
before. It is academic, cognitive, emotional skills that are
being viewed, and there are very high standards.
We had $250 million for the preschool grants, and the first
round of grants are out, Mr. Secretary. And I am proud to tell
you that you know that Connecticut received a grant, and it is
going to be 400 additional kids.
Can you give us information on the implementation of the
program, how the grants are, what they are looking like, how
they are improving standards and providing some comprehensive
services.
Secretary Duncan. And, again, I just appreciate so much
your compassion and commitment on this issue. And just to say
again, if we could do one thing together, if we could increase
access to high-quality early learning, it is life-transforming.
And, you know, folks who are a lot smarter than me, people
like James Heckman, who is a Nobel Prize-winning economist at
the University of Chicago, talks about a 7-to-1 return on
investment. So for every tax dollar, we get back $7, less
incarceration, less dropouts, less teenage pregnancy, more
folks graduating, going on to college, getting a job, becoming
productive citizens.
When I think of all the tax dollars we have spent, how many
can we honestly say we are getting a 7-to-1 return on
investment? I don't know how often we can do that.
Ms. DeLauro. How is the implementation, though?
Secretary Duncan. We are trying to do two things. We are
trying to increase access and make sure it is high quality. The
goal is not just more slots. It is more children entering
kindergarten with those social and emotional skills and
academic skills they need to be successful.
One thing I just want to add: All these good early
childhood programs, it is helping children, but it is
strengthening families and it is helping parents become better
parents as well. And so we should come back with a report sort
of State by State where folks are at and what they are doing.
We loved what we saw. As the chairman said, I wish
desperately we could have funded a lot more States than we had
dollars. We just simply funded down. Felt thrilled for children
in Connecticut. Was heartbroken that I didn't help kids in
Mississippi. That didn't feel great. And so we should walk you
through State by State.
And we are doing annual report cards of what they are doing
and what progress they are making. But to see so much interest,
again more Republican governors and Democrats now investing, it
is a beautiful thing.
Ms. DeLauro. And we ought to be able to take those--it
shouldn't be that your success is based on geography. We ought
to be able to move these, you know, to scale. Nationwide we
ought to be able to----
Secretary Duncan. That is the final thing, is for all the
hard work and innovation we are seeing across the country,
virtually, in every single State I travel to, there are still
waiting lists. So for all the work that local political leaders
and educators and governors and mayors are doing, there is
still extraordinary unmet needs.
And for us to say to 3- and 4-year-olds, to your point,
that somehow because you don't live in the right place or
because your parents don't happen to be wealthy, we are going
to deny you the opportunity to start to get some education
before you turn 5, who are we helping there? Who are we
helping?
NON-COGNITIVE SKILLS
Ms. DeLauro. I want to follow up with the noncognitive
skills where you have moved from a request of $2 million to $10
million.
The investment, again, in my view, is so worthwhile. I will
not go through the reasons for that. But I want to know that--
you have got Investing in Innovation. First in the World are
considering prioritizing the noncognitive skills piece as well.
Can you give us any information on how funding through the
competitions can help to mitigate the effects of poverty on
students. And can you talk about the plan to spend the
increased funding request in 2016.
Secretary Duncan. First, again, thank you for being a
champion here. Secondly, I hate the name noncognitive skills.
No one knows what the heck that means. We need to all come up
with a better name.
But what it gets to, it gets to not just babies, Mr.
Chairman, but it gets to how we help more first-generation
college-goers be successful. It is a mindset.
And we have been meeting with experts from, Stanford and
Duke and Pennsylvania and other places who are showing actually
some really interesting data at the community college side
where some interventions are helping young people understand
that, when they struggle, that is okay and that is not a sign
of failure, it is actually their mind improving--the brain is a
muscle and it is expanding and getting better with exercise.
Seeing some real significant increases, same children, same
challenges, same poverty. Starting to get very different
outcomes. Fascinating research that Carol Dweck and others are
doing that you should see. So, again, it doesn't say that
poverty doesn't matter. It is saying poverty matters a lot. But
with these commonsense innovations that, frankly, are not very
expensive, we are starting to get much better outcomes.
This is a hugely important emerging body of research. We
need to invest more. We need to be doing more than what we are
doing. I am glad we are increasing. We should, frankly, be
doing a heck of a lot more than where we are. And just from a
lifetime of working with kids in a disadvantaged community and
understanding how powerful it is, that there is now a body of
research that sort of confirms sort of what I believed all my
life.
It is extraordinarily powerful. We had a set of experts in
last Friday, and we just shared the research. It is still
early, still not at scale, still not national, but very, very
encouraging about what young kids who have not been born with a
silver spoon in their mouth can do with better support.
The last thing I will say is they are not just working on
young people on their own psychology around this. They are
trying to change the cultures of the institutions that serve
them. So if you have a college professor who says there are
three of you sitting here and one of you will not make it, who
is going to internalize, ``Well, he is talking about me.'' It
is that child who is first generation.
Mr. Cole. It will be that guy. No question.
Secretary Duncan. So there is a lot here. We want to do
more. And we should share with you what is coming out.
Ms. DeLauro. Absolutely. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. Next we will go to the gentlelady from
California.
Ms. Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, let me just ask you this: Within this fiscal
environment of sequestration and austerity, as you move around
the country, how are teachers and educators faring in the
classroom?
MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTIONS
Secondly, with regard to the First in the World initiative,
I went back and double-checked because you indicated that you
set aside $60 million for minority-serving institutions under
this. Whatever the number is, is it part of the reason for
flat-funding HBCUs.
I am double-checking this, and it is my understanding only
one successful HBCU received any of the grants under this
initiative. So can you kind of explain that.
CHARTER SCHOOLS
And, finally, just with regard to charter schools, you
know, I am still really very leery of what we are seeing with
charter schools in terms of accountability, in terms of what is
taking place, especially in California. And I know you are a
big fan of charter schools. So you may want to tell us what is
going on here.
Secretary Duncan. Well, let me be clear. I am a big fan of
good charter schools.
Ms. Lee. There are a lot of bad ones.
Secretary Duncan. There are good charter schools, and there
are bad charter schools. There are good traditional schools,
and there are bad traditional schools. And what I just want is
to have every child to have access to a great school.
And where we are supporting the replication of charter
schools, we are trying to only invest in high performing ones.
And where there are bad ones, I have been very public and gone
to the charter school and asked the Convention and said they
should close them down. They shouldn't exist.
But where you have charter schools that are getting
fantastic results, particularly in disadvantaged communities,
and extraordinarily high graduation rates and high college-
going rates, we should learn those lessons and we should have
more students have those kinds of opportunities. So we are only
trying to invest not in random charter schools, but in places
that are doing a great job for kids.
On the First in the World Program, again, we think there
has been significant interest and great work coming from the
HBCU community, and we want to continue to support that.
You had a third question.
HBCU CAPITAL FINANCING
Ms. Lee. Well, on the capital financing--and that was part
of the first question I ask you--why we are not funding--you
are not adding----
Secretary Duncan. We did not request an increase in funds
for capital financing.
Ms. Lee [continuing]. On the capital financing.
Mr. Skelly. We can actually make $286 million in new loans
there. So we don't need to have more money in the----
Ms. Lee. Is that what the HBCUs are telling you, though?
Mr. Skelly. Well, that is how much we calculated we could
make in loans.
Ms. Lee. Yeah. Well, I would say you should double-check
with them first or at least check with me and I can give you
some additional information on why I think that that is not a
good number.
But the other question I wanted to ask you was the
austerity and the sequestration.
What is going on in the classrooms now, given the strain on
teachers and educators?
TEACHER TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT
Secretary Duncan. That is a key question. And I talked
about it a lot earlier before you got here.
But teaching has never been more important. It has never
been harder. It has never been more complicated. In our budget,
we are asking for $1 billion for a Title I increase. We are
asking for $2.5 billion for teachers and to support them and to
train the next generation of teachers or principals and to help
with technology.
Great teachers, great principals, as we know, transform
students' lives. Nothing is more important in school. Whatever
we can do to better attract and retain great talent,
particularly disadvantaged communities, be that inner city
urban or rural or remote or, again, Native American
communities, we have a lot of hard work to do there.
When resources are down, when classes sizes are up, when
there are fewer social workers, when there are fewer
counselors, when there is less after-school programming, again,
I fail to see who we are helping in those situations.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. You are welcome.
We will go next to my friend from Arkansas.
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LINKING EDUCATION TO CAREERS
I apologize to the Secretary and Mr. Skelly because I am
running late, but we have got the SecDef and the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs across the hallway and I have got dual
purposes here this morning.
Mr. Secretary, when I tour my district and I talk to my
job-creators, I have become a bit overwhelmed over the last 4
years when I talk to them about jobs. And almost to the person,
depending on the type of employment they offer, but
particularly where it concerns technical-type skills, I am
taken aback by how many of them, nearly 100 percent, say, ``We
have jobs, but we are having difficulty finding qualified
people to work.''
Now, the other side of it was a lot of them say they have
trouble finding people that can pass a drug test. We know that
is a whole other issue facing job creation.
It is my opinion--and maybe you can convince me that I am
wrong--but we have kind of misled, I think, an entire
generation of young people to thinking that the only means of
success is to make them a college graduate. And maybe I have
got a jaded view of it.
But a lot of people that have college degrees are still
having difficulty finding work related to their specific
degrees. But a whole lot of very high-paying, good-paying jobs,
you know, welding and fabrication and those kinds of things,
highly technical-skilled jobs, are just not able to be met.
So what is your vision for the career and technical piece?
Because I have got a lot of places in my district where they
are recognizing that and community colleges are now working
with local employers. It is amazing how this is happening. And
I will let you answer in just a minute.
But this is what The Manufacturing Institute says: ``Half
of companies rely on word of mouth for hiring. Fewer than 15
percent use educational institutes like technical schools and
community colleges for hiring.''
So it tells me that we have missed something there, and I
want you to help me understand how we can do a better job of
linking people that are career, technical bound-type students
as opposed to trying to push them all into a college
environment.
Secretary Duncan. We talked about this a lot this morning
prior to you getting here.
One thing we are doing is we are asking Congress to give us
an additional $200 million to invest more in this space. There
is tremendous unmet need, tremendous demand that you talked
about and you see in your district. I see it all over the
country as I travel.
Where I would disagree a little bit is we don't need less
college graduates. We need every measure of long-term earnings.
We need more college graduates. Always both.
And what I say is for that every young person who graduates
in this country, a high school diploma is insufficient. It is a
great starting point. It is not enough. Some form of education
beyond that--4-year, 2-year, trade, technical, vocational--some
form of education beyond high school has to be the aspiration,
the dream, for every single young person.
There are some places where there are fantastic
partnerships between employers and community colleges and high
schools, other places where they don't talk. I think what we
are trying to do is use our resources to bring people to the
table.
If employers are just pointing the finger at educators,
that doesn't work. If educators say employers are the problem,
that doesn't work. Where folks say, ``We all care about the
community. We want to keep good jobs here.'' Let's figure out
how we can help train young people for real jobs, real training
that will lead to high-wage high-skilled jobs, we will try to
do a lot to incentivize those collaborations and partnerships.
TRACKING STUDENTS
Mr. Womack. Some countries overseas do a pretty good job of
being able to identify in the pipeline where these students
need to be--the track that they need to be on, whether it is a
vocational track for a student that tests appropriately in
certain categories as opposed to the kid that is obviously
going to be a college-bound-type student to a 2-year or 4-year
institution.
Is that something we should be doing? Should we do a better
job of trying to figure out at an appropriate age the track
these kids should be on?
Secretary Duncan. Let me say no, and I will come back to
that.
But there are other nations that do a much better job of
providing vocational and technical training, and we need to
learn from that. At the high school, at the community college,
and, I would argue, even at the middle school level, we need to
do a better job of providing that.
What I don't agree with is tracking kids. I don't think at
13 or 14 or 15 any of us should have the arrogance to say,
``You are college material'' or ``you are not.'' There are so
many folks I have talked to who have gone on to be CEOs who
were told by some counselor, ``You should be a TV repairman.''
It is great to be a TV repairman, but they had other
aspirations and dreams.
So, for me, it is always about providing choices. It is
about providing options and letting young people figure out
what their passion is, what their interest is, what their skill
is.
So yes to much better training, yes to better ties to the
world of work, yes to doing it earlier, but saying, ``You are
college material, college-bound, versus you are not, that is
not something I would ever support.
Mr. Womack. One follow-up and then I will yield back.
CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION
And that is: Should we then kind of retool our message to
make career and technical education cool?
Secretary Duncan. Absolutely. Can't do enough of that. We
have done a lousy job of that for, I would say, a couple
decades. And, for me, it is not just educating young people. It
is educating their parents.
And so I have talked to these CEOs where the starting
salary is $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 and they can't find people.
I say, ``What are you doing to bring in''--not the students--
``What are you doing to bring their parents into your
facility?'' They have not thought about those things.
But absolutely there is an image challenge, a branding
challenge, whatever it is, and these are great jobs, middle-
class jobs that have huge dignity that require real skill, and
we need to let young people and their families know the
possibilities that exist there. I agree with that 100 percent.
Mr. Womack. Mr. Secretary, I always appreciate you coming
for us. Thank you so much.
Mr. Cole. Mr. Secretary, we are going to draw our hearing
to a close. But, first, I want to thank you very much for this
generous allocation of your time.
And I want to thank you, too, for your patience. We had, as
everybody knows, quite a few hearings going on and members
coming in and out, and you were very generous in dealing with
that and suffering through that a little bit.
So, again, thank you very much. I look forward to working
with you as we go forward.
And we are adjourned.
Secretary Duncan. Thank you so much. Thank you for the
spirit in which you have lead this hearing.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, March 17, 2015.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WITNESS
HON. THOMAS PEREZ, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Introduction of Witness
Mr. Cole. Okay. I am going to call the hearing to order.
And just ahead of time, Mr. Secretary, as I am sure you are
aware, we will have a lot of members coming in and out because
we have got an awful lot of hearings going on this morning. I
know we will be joined later by, we like to call him ``the big
chairman,'' will be here. And, at that point, just so everybody
knows, when he comes in, I will allow, once we finish whoever
is questioning at that point, certainly go to the chairman,
immediately allow him to make any statement he wants to make.
Certainly do the same thing for Ms. Lowey if she has a
statement she cares to make when she arrives.
So, good morning, Mr. Secretary, and welcome. I want to
thank you for your service to our country and certainly the
administration and want you to know this committee recognizes
the demanding role you have at a very difficult time. And I
appreciate your work on behalf of the American people. We may
have some areas where we disagree, but I certainly appreciate
the effort and the commitment and compassion you display in
your job.
For the first time in many years, we have had some
encouraging news on headline unemployment numbers, but the data
belie the challenges faced by the long-term unemployed and by
involuntary part-time workers, who I know you have concern with
both those categories. Improvement in the unemployment data is
also due in part to labor participation rates that remain at
the lowest level in many decades. For too many Americans, the
Great Recession doesn't feel over.
Equally concerning is that despite the recent improvement
in unemployment data, job openings continue to rise. There were
5 million job openings at the end of January, the highest level
in 14 years. And, in some ways, of course, that is good news,
but despite billions of dollars the Federal Government invests
in job training each year, the skills gap continues to grow.
Employers can't find enough qualified candidates to fill the
jobs they have while millions of Americans remain unemployed
and underemployed. This indicates to me that there are some
real structural deficiencies in the workforce training system.
And I would like to hear your view on those during the course
of our hearing.
I would also like to cover a lot of subjects at today's
hearing.
Mr. Secretary, your budget far exceeds any realistic caps
on spending. While you may have the luxury of proposing
increases for virtually every program, we likely won't have the
ability within our allocation to meet all those requests. With
proposed increases across the board for the Department of
Labor, I am having some difficulty in determining exactly what
your priorities are. So I would certainly like you to make
those clear to us today.
WORKFORCE INNOVATION ACT
I would also like to discuss the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act, which Congress overwhelmingly passed last
summer. A good example of bipartisanship, quite frankly. The
committee is excited about many of the improvements WIOA makes
to workforce training programs. However, I am concerned the
Department is missing statutory implementation deadlines and
delaying the benefits this reauthorization might make to
millions of Americans.
Finally, I would like to ask about the Department's
regulatory agenda along several lines. I have got questions
about the regulatory process that the Department is following.
For example, you are developing a respirable silica rule that
is relying on a small business advocacy review completed more
than a decade ago even though industries that will be impacted
by the rule have changed significantly since that time. Nothing
is more important than worker safety, but we want to make sure
we are using the latest information that we have. And so your
thoughts in that area will be deeply appreciated.
And I have some questions about the timing of your
regulations. For example, the home healthcare rule being
implemented now seems contrary to policies many of us have
supported to encourage goals like aging in place and home care
for people with disabilities to help reduce healthcare costs
and improve the quality of life for millions of Americans.
H-2B VISA PROGRAM
Finally, Mr. Secretary, I am deeply concerned that the
Department has stopped processing H-2B visas in the wake of a
recent court ruling although I understand you may have some
news for us and a recent filing in your testimony. And I would
be delighted to hear that because I know there is a bipartisan
concern. To avoid significant economic losses to thousands of
seasonal businesses, ranging from seafood harvesting and horse
training to amusement parks and stone quarries, the Department
of Homeland Security should immediately issue an emergency rule
to allow the resumption of H-2B processing, and the Department
of Labor could continue to participate in a consultive role in
the program.
I want to be assured the Department is pursuing ever
recourse in order to restart the H-2B visa program as soon as
possible.
Thanks, again, Mr. Secretary, sincerely for being here. I
would now like to yield to my good friend, the ranking member,
for any comments she cares to make.
Ranking Member DeLauro Opening Statement
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Once again, I apologize for holding up the start of the
gathering.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us this morning.
Most of all to thank you for your leadership on behalf of
American workers and their families.
If you don't mind for a moment, I would just like to say
hello to Dan Zeitlin, who you took from our office as a
legislative director. Thank you very much. That was a good
recovery, Mr. Secretary.
The Department of Labor exists to represent the tens of
millions of families who form the bedrock of our society and
the engine of our dynamic economy. It helps provide them with
stability by protecting their wages, their working conditions,
health benefits, and retirement security.
The economic picture for these hard-working families is
decidedly mixed. On the one hand, the unemployment rate has
dropped dramatically. At the height of the recession, it peaked
at about 10.2 percent. Today it is at 5.5 percent. In each of
the past 12 months, the economy has produced more than 200,000
new jobs, the longest streak of job creation in two decades.
Yet the rewards have not been shared equally. Average hourly
pay has risen only 2 percent per year, barely enough to keep up
with inflation.
Meanwhile, corporate profits and the stock market are at
record highs. In fact, economist Justin Wolfers and many others
have noted, all of the financial gains of the recovery have
gone to the richest 1 percent.
This is just not good for our country. We cannot settle for
an economy that benefits only Wall Street and a select few at
the top. What we need to do is to build one that boosts wages,
improves the lives of hard-working families. That is the recipe
for a true long-term growth. And that is why the Department's
mission of fighting for working families has never been more
important than it is today.
Recently the Department has made progress. It has been
instrumental in raising the minimum wage for Federal
contractors and prohibiting retaliation when workers share pay
information. Both moves Congress would do well to emulate for
all Americans. And it has taken steps toward requiring
financial advisors to give advice on retirement savings that is
in this best interest of their clients as opposed to their own
interests.
I applaud these efforts, and I encourage you, Mr.
Secretary, to press even harder over the next 2 years to
strengthen worker protection.
FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
That brings me to the topic of today's hearing, the fiscal
year 2016 budget request for the Department of Labor. I am
pleased to see the request for an increase of nearly
$300,000,000 for job training, including increases for State
grants under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, and
a new program to boost registered apprenticeships. These
investments are critical to building the high-skilled workforce
that is necessary for employers to fill job openings and expand
their operations in the high-tech and globally competitive
economy.
I strongly support your request for an additional
$500,000,000 to fund career services for unemployed workers,
particularly veterans. High-quality career counseling helps
workers reconnect with employers. We can all agree that
military veterans deserve to have a job waiting for them when
they make the transition back to civilian life.
And I am pleased to see your proposal to help States
develop paid-leave policies. At some point in our working
lives, nearly all of us will need time off to deal with a
serious illness or care for a child, yet only 40 percent of
American workers have access to paid medical leave, and only 13
percent can access paid family leave. It should not be like
this. Paid leave should be a fundamental right for all
Americans, and your proposal would move us in that direction.
On the worker protection side, your budget includes a
request for an additional 300 investigators at the Wage and
Hour Division to protect low-income workers against wage theft
and funds for the Office of Federal Contract Compliance to
address racial and gender pay discrimination. I applaud you for
making this a priority.
I also applaud you for the funding for the Women's Bureau
as well.
I do not agree with every proposal in the budget. I am
disappointed to see level funding for the Senior Community
Service Employment program. It is a great way to help low-
income older Americans earn a paycheck while contributing to
their communities.
Overall, this request moves us in the right direction. The
investments in this budget are necessary to help the millions
of Americans who continue to be left behind in this recovery.
The problem, of course, is that you are starting from a base
budget that has been cut by an inflation adjusted
$2,700,000,000 over the past 5 years. Around $1,200,000,000 has
been taken from the job training programs that serve workers
who have been laid off as well as disadvantaged adults and
young people. The employment service, which provides universal
access to counseling and intensive services for job seekers
looking to learn new skills, has been cut by 13 percent. Worker
protection agencies have lost 6 percent. The TAACCCT program,
which helped train displaced workers for good-paying jobs in
high-demand industries, has not been extended.
Because of this year's scale of these setbacks, the present
request, for all its good points, would replace less than half
of the funds the Department has lost since 2010.
We need to do better. We need to eliminate the
sequestration caps once and for all. We need to find new
sources of revenue, including by shutting down tax loopholes
and ending tax breaks for special interests. And we need to
return to adequate levels of funding. Our Nation's working
families cannot wait any longer. I thank you, and I look
forward to your testimony and our discussion.
Mr. Cole. Thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Secretary, you are now recognized. Your complete
statement will be placed in the record, and you are recognized
for whatever opening remarks you care to make.
SECRETARY PEREZ OPENING STATEMENT
Secretary Perez. Thank you, Chairman Cole. It is an honor
to be here.
Ranking Member DeLauro and members of the subcommittee, it
is always good to be back. And thank you for allowing me to
testify about our fiscal 2016 budget.
I appear before you today with a great sense of optimism
about the direction of our economy and the role that the Labor
Department can play in sustaining and further accelerating this
recovery. The United States has experienced 60 consecutive
months of private-sector job growth, the longest streak on
record: 12 million jobs created during that period. There are
now more than 5 million job openings as we sit here today, the
most since January of 2001.
During the depths of the Great Recession, there were
roughly seven job seekers for every available job position.
Today the ratio is less than 2 to 1, but we have more work to
do, undeniably. The challenge is ensuring shared prosperity for
everyone, making sure that everyone willing to work hard and
play by the rules can benefit from this recovery.
So we still have more work to do on the long-term
unemployed. We still have more work to do to raise real wages.
And we need to make sure that we have a steady pipeline of
skilled workers so that our economy remains competitive in the
21st century.
This proposed budget invests in evidence-based programs
that support an economy that works for everyone, an economy
that creates opportunities for workers to upgrade their skills,
work in safe conditions, support their families, and protect
their hard-earned retirement savings. Each year, on average,
our network of roughly hundred 25 American Jobs Centers serves
about 14 million people, including 1 million veterans through
our core workforce services. And we are serving them well: 55
to 60 percent of those who come to AJCs without a job are
working within 3 months of leaving our programs. The outcomes
are even better for those who get training through the
workforce system. Almost 80 percent of them find work within 3
months.
In 2014, we put approximately $1,000,000,000 in job-driven
grant money on the street. These are competitive grants. All of
it designed to help people up-skill in a way that helps them
move into in-demand jobs that are available now or will soon be
available.
We are also doing more to coordinate and integrate our
workforce programs with those at other Federal agencies. We are
imploding stovepipes to make our governmentwide efforts that
much more efficient and effective. We want to strengthen this
work with continued investments in proven training strategies
that will enable more people to punch their ticket to the
middle class. For instance, this budget includes $100,000,000
for apprenticeship, an effective learn while you earn training
strategy that benefits both employers and workers.
Apprenticeship is a proven gateway to the middle class. I have
met graduates of programs who are earning $50,000, and over 90
percent of people are employed within 3 months after completing
an apprenticeship program. Every Federal dollar spent on
apprenticeship has a return of roughly $27. As I say to many
people, it is the other college, except without the debt.
We also propose an increase of $400,000,000 for employment
service State grants to support in-person services that help
unemployed workers access the training and other resources they
need to find a good job. And to help the long-term unemployed,
we are proposing more investments in the combined Reemployment
Services and Reemployment Eligibility Assessment Program, the
RES/REA, through the UI Program. The combined services will be
offered to all veterans in the Unemployment Compensation for
Ex-Service Members Program, as well as those unemployment
insurance claimants who are most likely to become long-term
unemployed. People who receive these combined services are much
less likely to exhaust their UI benefits and more likely to
have a shorter UI duration, returning to work more quickly with
higher wages and job retention rates.
Last July, as Chairman Cole correctly pointed out, Congress
in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion passed WIOA, and we
appreciate your leadership, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
DeLauro, on this bill. This is the most significant reform of
the workforce system since the late 1990s. I worked at
workforce issues from the local government level, from a State
government level, and now at a Federal level, and this was
indeed a very, very important development and proof that
getting people to work and cultivating our human capital, it is
not a Republican idea or a Democratic idea; it is a
quintessentially smart idea. It is an American idea, and it is
something where we have so much in common.
WIOA aligns with everything that we have been doing in the
administration, and it provides a clear blueprint moving
forward. It allows us to continue our transformation in the way
we prepare people for the careers of today and tomorrow, and it
allows us to continue to building what I call a skill
superhighway with onramps and offramps, where people can pick
up skills and credentials on the way to their destination,
which is a good middle-class job. With WIOA, we are able to
strengthen our job-driven approach to training and build
unprecedented partnerships with employers, connecting
businesses that want to grow with workers who want to punch
their ticket to the middle class.
I refer to us, Mr. Chairman, as match.com. We match job
seekers who want to punch their ticket to the middle class with
businesses who want to grow using the secret sauce of community
colleges and other partnerships along the way. And, as someone
who has worked in this issue, I recognize the remarkable
importance of what we are doing.
I want to mention one other issue that I know is of great
importance to you, Mr. Chairman. Plagued by high unemployment
and barriers to success, people in Native American communities
too often don't get a chance to reap the rewards of a thriving
economy. And the Department is working very hard to change
that. We have requested an increase to our Division of Indian
and Native American Program budget to allow us to reach more
participants, but we also want to see tribes competing for the
various competitive workforce grant programs. That is why we
recently issued a very important memorandum directing DOL
agencies to include tribes and tribal organizations in their
grant solicitations. We heard this in our listening sessions,
and we have put what we heard into action.
Training and skill developments are just one aspect of the
work that we do at the Department of Labor. And I want to shift
briefly to some of the other work we are doing.
Our budget for--request for fiscal year 2016 includes
$1,900,000,000 for our worker protection agencies, enabling
them to meet their responsibilities to safeguard the health,
safety, wages, working conditions, and retirement security of
American workers. That includes an additional $30,000,000 to
hire Wage and Hour Division investigators who protect
vulnerable workers and ensure they receive fair wages. It
includes $990,000,000 to MSHA, OSHA, and our State partners to
keep workers safe and to strengthen whistleblower protections.
And it includes funding to ensure that our Employee Benefit
Security Administration can provide protection for the pension
and health benefits that folks have so earned throughout their
careers.
I believe there are a number of opportunities in this
budget, Mr. Chairman, where we can find common ground, work
together to help people, and I also am prepared to answer
questions about H-2B because we have been working 24/7 on that
very important issue.
I look forward to talking to you about WIOA implementation
because that has been an all-hands-on-deck partnership with
Republicans, Democrats, and our team. And I look forward to
answering any other questions that you and other members of
this committee have for me today.
Thank you for your courtesy and thank you for your
commitment to getting Americans back to work in good jobs that
pay good money.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
The chair wants to announce that I will be enforcing the 5-
minute clock, but the Secretary got extra time because he
followed the chairman and the ranking member and has green on
today.
So, for those of you that don't, I will be much tougher on
the clock.
Let me start with an area that I mentioned and I know that
you are focused on and talk to you a little bit about the
skills gap. As I mentioned in my comments and you reflected in
your own, we have got a lot of job openings out there, which I
think is very good news for the American people, but our labor
participation rate remains low. And there are simply too many
workers looking for work that have dropped out of the
workforce. And employers are having a tough time finding the
workers that have the skills that they need. The skills gap is
a bipartisan concern on this committee. I have heard it
mentioned by Members on both sides. I particularly hear it when
I talk to employers in my own district. They have got jobs.
They want to be able to hire people. They are having a tough
time finding folks that have the skills they need.
SKILLS GAP
Can you quickly detail what you are doing at the Department
of Labor to address the skills gap and why we haven't seen more
results, why we keep having this persistent problem, because we
have spent a considerable amount of money over the years on a
bipartisan basis to try and train up the workforce to get them
ready for, you know, different jobs as they emerge.
Secretary Perez. Thank you for your question, and we have
spent a lot of time on this, and I am actually very proud of
the work that we have done. And the ``we'' in that sentence is
everyone in this room and in this administration.
LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION
On the issue of labor force participation, the good news
about the decline in the unemployment rate is that over the
last year, for instance, the labor force participation rate has
been essentially flat so you know, sometimes the unemployment
rate goes down for a bad reason; sometimes it goes down for a
good reason. When you have basically flat labor force
participation over the last year, the primary reason we have
seen the reduction in unemployment is because more people got
jobs. A substantial percentage of those were long-term
unemployed. Our long-term unemployment rate is still too high,
and we still have work to do. We have had an all-hands-on-deck
approach to this.
The 5 million jobs, even in the depths of the Great
Recession, in any given month, you had roughly 2 million job
openings. In the churn of a 140-million-person economy, in
terms of jobs, you always have some job openings at one point
or another.
But your point is absolutely spot on in the sense that
everywhere I go I have--it is Groundhog Day. I have the same
conversation, and it is a good one. You know, I want to grow my
business, I hear from business owners. I am bullish about the
future, and one of my biggest challenges is, how do we build
the skilled workforce?
BUILDING A MORE SKILLED WORKFORCE
That is what WIOA is doing, is we are taking partnerships
to scale. You know, we have a number of different agencies that
have training dollars, and we have imploded stovepipes. We have
created a skills cabinet, and I have the privilege of chairing
it. I will be traveling later this week with Tom Vilsack to
Georgia. We are working together to get SNAP recipients
pathways to in-demand jobs so that they can get off of food
stamps by having a good job with a career pathway. So we have
been imploding stovepipes that way.
Our investments in apprenticeship are another example.
Apprenticeship is something that, as a Nation, we have
regrettably devalued over decades. I go to Germany. It is not a
surprise that their youth unemployment rate is less than half
of ours because apprenticeship is something that has stature.
It is a proven pathway to the middle class. We have a
$100,000,000 competitive grant proposal that is designed to
lift apprenticeship right now and not only in the skilled
trades, but it has application in IT, in health care, in
cybersecurity, and in logistics. There is a UPS training
facility 15 miles from here that does great training for
apprentices working at UPS.
Of the 5 million job openings right now, 500,000 are in IT.
So we announced a tech hire initiative last week, and we are
putting $100,000,000 in a competitive grant proposal helping
people to up-skill. So when I talk about match.com, a big part
of what we are doing, for instance, in the manufacturing
context, through these manufacturing hubs that started in
Youngstown, OH have had support on a bipartisan fashion, is we
are taking those folks who used to work at the Bethlehem Steel
plant who have lost their jobs, and we are retooling them and
putting them to work in advanced manufacturing in places across
this country. It is very exciting to get out there.
The challenge moving forward, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me
is to sustain the momentum of TAACCCT. So we had four rounds of
$500,000,000 a year, and I can take you to communities across
this country where they have built pipelines to healthcare
jobs; they have built pipelines to IT jobs. What we need to do
is sustain and scale that momentum. We know what works.
Partnership works. Building what I call that skill superhighway
where you have onramps for apprenticeship, where you have
onramps for veterans, where you have onramps for people with
disabilities, and where you are redefining, as we have done
through our grant making in partnership with the Department of
Education. We are creating 6-year high schools, where people
come into those schools; they have a partnership with, for
instance, in Chicago, IBM. These kids have mentoring
opportunities and externship opportunities, they leave with
either a 2-year degree, or some leave after high school, and
they are going to 4-year college because they are dreaming big.
So the key moving forward, I think, we know the ingredients of
success and we are going to----
Mr. Cole. Secretary, don't push the green tie too far. You
exhausted my time.
Secretary Perez. I just--I get really excited about this
because there is a lot of stuff----
Mr. Cole. I can tell, and I appreciate that.
Secretary Perez. And I apologize.
Mr. Cole. No. You don't have to apologize, but I will have
other questions. So if we can scale it down a little bit, that
would be helpful to me. But let me move now to my ranking
member, the distinguished lady from Connecticut.
TAACCT PROGRAM
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I am pleased that you talked about the
TAACCCT program. I will say that, in Connecticut, it is a
partnership between community colleges and the healthcare
industry to train veterans, dislocated workers, for new
careers.
I wanted to--how are you recruiting the working with the
community colleges, the apprenticeship grants? What is the
process of the linkage between H-1B grants, community colleges
that build on the TAACCCT program? Because, as you know, the
TAACCCT program is not offering any new awards now. So I want
to know what the follow-on piece is with regard to H-1B
apprenticeships, how you are linking with the community college
aspect of it.
I am going to just do a second question at the same time.
That is--I know that, Mr. Chairman--I have learned from your
experience.
REA/RES
Your budget request is a $181,000,000--it is about
$101,000,000--to enhance the reemployment services for UI
claimants who have gone back to the workforce. This is REA with
reemployment with RES, and that combination. Talk about that
model a little bit and dealing with reemployment and preventing
long-term unemployment. And if you get a chance, the P2E
program, where you have provided Federal funds in Nevada and
how is that helping with long-term unemployment.
Secretary Perez. Well, REA/RES is a proven model. We
learned many reasons from the Great Recession. When you get
these services early to people----
Ms. DeLauro. How is it working? How does it work?
Secretary Perez. We work at our American Jobs Centers
through our UI offices with face-to-face interactions with
people who are job seekers, getting them connected to what they
need to succeed. Some people just need a resume dustup and some
job leads. Other people have other structural barriers. So, you
know, one of the basic principles of effective workforce
development is you take the job seeker where you find them.
Some folks have a Ph.D.; they lost their job. Some folks are
eighth grade educated. The workforce system must be able to
address and help everyone.
REA/RES does exactly that, giving the array of tools so
that you can have early intervention. It is a proven model, and
it has had bipartisan support in this Congress during, you
know, a number of periods. So the key is it reduces the
duration of UI benefits. When you can reduce duration by
getting them back into work, that is critically important.
AMERICAN TECHNICAL TRAINING FUND
As it relates to your other question about----
Ms. DeLauro. Just a second. How does it relate to what--the
Department of Education has the American Technical Training
Fund. Is there a relationship with that effort?
Secretary Perez. That was my second part of the question
because the American Technical Training Fund is basically
TAACCCT 2.0. We have been working very closely, and under that
proposal, we would co-administer it. It is funded at the
Department of Education, but we have been attached at the hip.
We have imploded that stovepipe quite a long time ago, we are
working together with them, and we want to continue the
momentum of bringing community colleges together to serve as
that secret sauce of job creation and skill development for so
many people.
These are all linked, our apprenticeship grants, our other
H-1B grants, our tech hire. These are all bringing together key
stakeholders around vision of creating pathways to in-demand
jobs that pay a good middle-class wage.
Ms. DeLauro. Just add to that, if you will, how the
expanded program works with your request for an additional
$400,000,000 for employment service offices in the One-Stop
Career Center network. I am trying to--what is that----
Secretary Perez. That is the epicenter. You know, during
the Great Recession, the American Job Centers were the
emergency rooms for job seekers. They were seeing 15 million
people, and they continue--actually, I believe last year 14
million people came through American Job Centers, and so when
Chairman Cole asks the appropriate question, how do we scale
this work, that is how we scale this work, by getting more
resources so that more folks can be helped because the demand
continues to be there.
Ms. DeLauro. Just to the committee, I would say this. In
two other areas of the Labor/HHS bill we have something known
as a cap adjustment. It is a budget designation for programs
that create savings in mandatory programs, Medicare, Medicaid,
Social Security. We used to a partial cap adjustment for REAs
because they save money in the UI program. Unfortunately,
Budget Control Act eliminated the cap adjustment for REAs.
I believe it is shortsighted. I would like to work with my
colleagues to reestablish that cap adjustment if we can help
veterans and other unemployed workers return to the workforce
while at the same time we save money. I don't know anyone who
would not want to do that. So I look forward to talking to you
about that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Look forward to the discussion.
Distinguished Member from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And good to see again, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Perez. Good morning. Good to see you,
Congressman.
H-2B
Mr. Harris. I am going to just briefly ask a couple things
about the H-2B because it is coming to my attention that, you
know, on March 4, I guess it was a district court judge in
Florida struck down the ability of the Department of Labor to,
I guess, issue rules and regulations, which in my mind would
just return the DOL to the consultative role they played before
2008, before the 2008 rule. So I have got to ask you, why in
the world did--why didn't the Department just return to the
consultative role? Why did they shut down H-2B applications?
You know because you are from Maryland. I mean, that is
devastating to my district. You know, closing down H-2B
applications is devastating, and the first domino was DOL shut
them down on March 4, and then DHS shut them down March 5
because they can't do it without DOL without the consultative
role.
What was the thinking behind the decision to just shut down
applications instead of just returning to a consultative role?
Secretary Perez. Well, we are doing much more than just
shutting down the program, Congressman.
Mr. Harris. You did shut down the program on March 4. Is
that--Mr. Secretary, I am right, though. The program right now
is shut down.
Secretary Perez. We were told by a court that we lacked the
authority to issue rulemaking and run the program, and so----
Mr. Harris. Correct. So my question is very specific: Why
didn't you return to the consultative role that was present
before 2008 and continue to allow the applications to be
processed? It is a very simple question.
Secretary Perez. Because we don't have the authority to
process applications if we don't have the authority to issue
rulemaking or issue guidance, and so here is what we did do.
We have been working very closely with the Department of
Homeland Security. Last night we filed a motion with the court
with the approval--or the lack of objection on the other side
so that we can immediately get the order of the court stayed so
that we can open the program back up. We have made a commitment
to have an interim final regulation in place by the end of
April.
I am acutely aware, having been the labor secretary in
Maryland, of the importance of the H-2B program. I have had
many conversations over many years with Senator Mikulski and
others.
Mr. Harris. So did--and I am not--and, again, I am limited
to 5 minutes here.
So did you in fact, I mean, concurrently with this--
because, look, you are depending upon the court to stay the
order. If the court doesn't stay the order, we are shut down.
So are you trying an interim--an interim emergency rule with--I
mean, is that in the process? Because my understanding is DHS
can come up with an interim emergency rule, could go into
effect immediately upon publication, that would reopen the
process.
Secretary Perez. Again, we filed a motion last night to
stay the proceeding, and we have made a commitment to an
interim final rule to have in place by the end of April. We are
working 24/7----
Mr. Harris. No. Why is it going to take a month and a half
to do an interim final rule?
Secretary Perez. Congressman, this----
Mr. Harris. It will be 2 months, actually, after March 4.
It will be 2 months to do it.
H-2B PROGRAM LITIGATION
Secretary Perez. This program has been the subject of
litigation since the Bush Administration. To put a rule in
place in a program that has had the complexity--this is a
Lawyer's Full Employment Act, the H-2B program. That is
something I am confident we can agree on.
Mr. Harris. I got it.
Secretary Perez. Every time we do something, whether it was
the Bush administration--they got sued by someone--whether it
is the Obama administration. One thing that is a constant in
the H-2B context is litigation, and so----
Mr. Harris. So you didn't see this shutdown coming, this
potential court ruling? You really thought that since the court
already ruled on the 2012 rule and invalidated it, the 2012
action, you didn't see this coming? Were there plans for this?
Secretary Perez. We didn't think the court had the
authority to do this. I just outlined our plan, which is 8
weeks to put--or 6 weeks to put an interim final rule in a
program of the complexity of this nature is about--is warp
speed, I would say.
Mr. Harris. Mr. Secretary, and that is just because you
just didn't think the court was going to rule the way it was.
So there was no plan B in case that court issued that ruling.
Secretary Perez. Well, of course, we have a plan B, and the
plan B is we are doing an interim final rule because what we
were doing up until the court ruled was we were working 24/7 to
process all the applications. That was the appropriate use of
our resources. When the court told us we no longer had the
authority to process those applications, we immediately went to
determine how can we get this program running as fast as
possible.
SILICA RULE
Mr. Harris. Thank you. And, again, I just have one final
question that brings up some things about the silica rule,
which I think I asked you before last year. You know, I am very
concerned because, you know, one of the greatest driver of jobs
and economic growth right now is in fact the energy industry.
And, you know, the major change in the energy industry is that
we do horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing, which uses a
lot of sand. Sand is silica, and, you know, the disappointment
is that it is unclear that OSHA are making its determinations
of how to measure silica on a scientific basis, about whether
the collection process is valid. And then I just have to ask
the question, because I didn't get an answer in a letter I
wrote in 2013 to--Chairman Kingston and myself--to Dr. Michaels
is why doesn't the rule permit as primary dust control the most
advanced and effective form of engineering control, a personal
air-filtered helmet, which I know very well from the operating
rooms; they work kind of great. I would imagine they work well
in silica.
Can you enlighten me on why we are not making it easier to
use--to do hydraulic fracturing and open those job
opportunities and not more difficult?
Secretary Perez. Well----
Mr. Cole. Before you respond, real quickly, I am going to
certainly allow you to answer the question, but I would advise
members, please don't push the Secretary right to the red light
and then--because then you are----
Mr. Harris. I am not wearing green. I had to.
Mr. Cole. Well, I know. So I might just cut you off, but I
have such great affection for the Member of Maryland, and I
want to allow the Secretary to respond because I think it is a
very important question, but I just ask Members going forward,
please give the Secretary enough time to respond.
Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Perez. We have known, Congressman, that silica is
deadly for decades. Literally, Frances Perkins--there is a
recording of Frances Perkins in 1937, long before hydraulic
fracturing was out there, talking about the dangers of
silicosis and silica exposure.
The OSHA rule went to great lengths to ensure that we
considered the interests of the hydraulic fracturing industry
in our rulemaking process. We devoted a lengthy appendix to the
preliminary economic analysis to assess the impacts of the
proposed rule on the hydraulic fracturing industry.
Representatives of this industry have provided written comments
on the proposed rule, we had a series of public hearings
because we know how important this rule is, and we wanted to
make sure that everybody had an opportunity to be heard. We are
in the process of taking all of the comments and all of the
public hearing to understand what that means in the process of
crafting a final rule.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
My good friend, the gentlelady from California, is
recognized.
WORKFORCE INNOVATION AND OPPORTUNITY ACT
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today, but
I also thank you very much for your tremendous work and your
leadership at the Department.
Secretary Perez. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. I wanted to also just mention how impressed I was
that, with regard to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act, you went around the country and took input from State and
local workforce leaders and practitioners. I think that is
going to really prove to be part of the success of this entire
implementation.
Also I want to thank you for your focus on STEM and high-
tech jobs. I think your request has a large increase for IT
modernization, from approximately $18,000,000 in recent years
to a total of $120,000,000. This is surely needed, sorely
needed, and I want to know what you are doing as it relates to
expanding diversity in STEM workforce, including women and for
opportunities for people of color.
And let me just read to you some of these statistics,
because you know we have been pushing to get these Silicon
Valley companies to release their data on work--on the
workforce.
You have Apple: 11 percent Hispanic; African-American, 7
percent. Google workforce: 3 percent Hispanic; 1 percent
African--no, 2 percent Hispanic; 1 percent African-American.
Facebook: Hispanic, 4 percent; African-American, 2 percent.
Twitter: African-American, 2 percent; Hispanic, 3 percent. When
you look at eBay, you are talking about African-American, 7
percent; Hispanic, 5 percent. When you are talking about
Microsoft, you are taking about African-American, 3.5 percent;
Hispanic, 5.1 percent. Yahoo: African-American, 2 percent;
Hispanic, 4 percent. LinkedIn: African-American, 2 percent;
Hispanic, 4 percent. Pandora: Hispanic, 7 percent; African-
American, 3 percent.
I could go on and on. But you see the picture, and I hope
you understand why I am concerned that the solicitations for
these new apprenticeship programs and for your IT modernization
have requirements in there that you seek--that organizations
applying for these funds have a strategy to address and target
the populations that are most underrepresented in the IT field.
And I will give you an example. This $100,000,000 that you just
announced, the partnership, which I think is a great idea, but
just coming from my area, the area where the population of
underrepresented minorities are you didn't include in that
overall strategy. And so I want to make sure that, as you move
forward on this, you don't forget that, you know, given
unemployment rates in the African-American and Latino
communities and what is taking place in terms of the high-tech
industry, you have got to figure out a way that we direct and
target and require these proposals to address the
underrepresented people of color who have been shut out, quite
frankly, from the IT world.
Secretary Perez. Congresswoman, first of all, thank you for
your leadership in this area. I enjoyed our visit we did that
day with the upscaling program in your district.
I wholeheartedly agree that opportunity needs to be
available to everyone, and it can. And I was with a guy named
Freeman Hrabowski the other day. I encourage you to spend time
with him. He is the President of the University of Maryland,
Baltimore County. They have produced more minority scientists
and engineers than just about anyone in the country. He has
figured this out. It can be done. That is exactly what we are
doing through our investments.
The apprenticeship, $100,000,000----
Ms. Lee. Mr. Secretary, the companies aren't hiring them.
APPRENTICESHIP GRANT PROGRAM
Secretary Perez. Well, actually, Freeman is doing a great
job of that. It can be done, and what we need to do is show the
best practices and show it to others, and I have watched him in
action, and so those who say there is not a pipeline out there,
there is a pipeline, and we need to expand the pipeline.
In the apprenticeship program, just to give you an example,
and I did want to correct something here, the apprenticeship
grant program, you will not get a grant if you do not have a
plan for making apprenticeship accessible to historically
underserved communities. That is very explicit in the grant
proposal because our goal is to make sure--and when we
announced this grant, I was with Mayor Nutter in Philadelphia.
We were at an IT institute that is taking kids of color from
the Philadelphia public school system and providing them
through the Earn While You Learn model with Pathways to
Prosperity in IT. The Tech Hire Program, which is going to be
accompanied by another $100,000,000 competitive grant proposal
is all about getting employers to commit to providing pathways
to opportunity. There are 500,000 tech jobs right now, IT jobs,
and this grantmaking is directly targeted at making sure that
everybody has an opportunity to succeed. I think we can do it.
And these grants are going to help us learn best practices.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
Just by going by order of arrival, actually, Mr. Dent is
next. So we will get the gentlelady from Alabama coming back
after Mr. Rigell.
Mr. Dent.
ESOLVING H-2B LITIGATION
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Secretary, good to be with you.
On the H-2B issue, we have gone to the--I appreciate this
interim fix. Are you dedicated to trying to find a permanent--
oh, I am sorry. Just turn that on--are you dedicated to finding
a permanent resolution to this issue? That is my main concern.
And what steps are you taking to move in that direction?
Secretary Perez. Absolutely. We are absolutely dedicated to
that, sir, and what we are doing is we have committed to having
an interim final rule by the end of April, which would go into
effect immediately but have a comment period. During that
comment period, we will obviously listen and learn a lot from
the key stakeholders and turn an interim final rule into a
final rule. This has been the litigation machine here, and the
H-2B context has been ongoing literally since the Bush
administration.
As someone who has been very involved at a State level in
H-2B, I recognize the importance of the program, and clearly
the importance of having a long-term fix. So I look forward to
getting whatever ideas that you and your constituents have
toward that end.
COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE
Mr. Dent. Yeah, it is a very important issue where I live
just as it is in Maryland and many other places.
Most small employers do not have a dedicated employee to
track changes in statutes and regulations of--and the business
owners end up doing this work after hours in terms of
compliance. Unfortunately, due to the avalanche of Federal
regulations currently smothering small employers, the employer
can often be unaware of what is expected of him or her. Instead
of penalizing job creators, the Department should instead try
to help them.
At present, your agency has approximately 1,500 individuals
enforcing OSHA standards and approximately 250 individuals
tasked with compliance assistance for companies that want to
follow the law.
Mr. Secretary, with a need for safe workplaces, why have
you requested funding for additional enforcement employees but
not for employees devoted to compliance assistance?
Secretary Perez. We have had a program, not simply in OSHA
but really across our agency, whether it is OSHA, OFCCP, Wage
and Hour, compliance assistance is a very important tool in our
tool kit. In fiscal year 2014, OSHA's field offices conducted
more than 5,000 outreach activities for workers and employers
to help promote compliance. OFCCP conducted 580 compliance
assistance activities; Wage and Hour, 2,300. I am a big
believer in an ounce-of-prevention theory.
I am also a believer that you also need to enforce, and I
believe that because I talk to employers who play by the rules
who tell me, you know, I am competing for Federal contracts. I
don't get them. I know the guy who got the contract is
cheating. They need to be held accountable. So I think we--it
is never an either/or. It is a both and then some.
OSHA COMPLIANCE RATE
Mr. Dent. Thank you.
OSHA has admitted it has only been able to achieve about a
70 percent compliance rate with the existing silica standard.
So why is OSHA going a step further with the scarce budget
resources it has to develop a new standard that is
technologically and economically infeasible? And shouldn't OSHA
instead use its limited resources to improve compliance rates
for the existing standard, which has resulted in a 93 percent
drop in silicosis deaths?
Secretary Perez. Well, I would respectfully disagree with
the notion that it is technologically or technically
infeasible. I would simply point out that we are trying to save
lives here. Exposure to silica kills. I met a guy who actually
is from Buffalo, where I grew up, a guy named Alan White, and
he can't walk from one end of the room to the other without
having to sit in a chair for a little while and help himself
because of the effects of silica.
I think that everybody who goes to work in morning ought to
be entitled to know that they are coming home safe and sound,
and the effects of silica have been well documented for
decades. We have had a very, very long and appropriately
inclusive rulemaking process so that we can get all of the
input from the various stakeholders, including holding
hearings.
Mr. Dent. The only thing I would say is that, you know,
what is left of the existing foundries in this country are very
much at risk right now. And we may lose that capacity all
together. We all want to deal with silica, but I think there
are ways to deal with this in a technologically feasible
manner.
PROPOSED SILICA RULE IMPACT ON CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
And contrary to OSHA's own analysis, independent estimates
show that the agency's proposed rule to regulate worker
exposure to crystalized silica is expected to cost the
construction industry over $4 billion a year to comply with it,
a new lower permissible exposure limit, and costs the
engineering control solutions, which may not even be feasible
to achieve the lower protection level. And due to the
uniqueness of the construction industry with its transient
workforce, ever-changing working environment, and vast numbers
of tools and trades involved, will OSHA commit to instituting
alternatives which are technologically and economically
feasible for construction industry that meets OSHA's goal of
protecting workers from silica exposure?
I mean, it is the foundries. It is construction workers. I
am hearing this from all sorts of folks, and I just would like
to hear your comments on this.
Secretary Perez. Well, part of the rulemaking process is
the economic analysis, the cost-benefit analysis. We have
received voluminous amounts of comments toward that end, and we
appreciate all those comments, and that is part of what we are
doing right now is processing those comments, taking them into
account. I am very pleased that we slowed that process down so
that we could have all the public input that we have gotten.
Mr. Cole. Again, I am going to ask members, you know, give
the Secretary a break. Don't ask your question right when the
light goes red. Okay?
Mr. Dent. I have green in this tie.
Mr. Cole. I know. That is why it is only a mild reproof.
FULL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
As I advised the committee earlier, when the chairman
arrived, we would interrupt so that he could make whatever
statement he cared to make. We will certainly do the same for
the ranking member when she arrives, if she has a statement to
make as well.
So, Mr. Chairman, you are recognized.
Chairman Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that
courtesy.
Secretary Perez. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary, I apologize for being late. We
have got three hearings this morning I am trying to bounce
around from. But thank you for yielding me this time, and I
will be brief.
FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST
Secretary, we are pleased to have you with us this morning
to talk about the President's request for Labor. Your
Department, of course, plays an essential role for the American
worker, ensuring that jobs are plentiful, and sustainable, and
safe.
Unfortunately, many Americans are still struggling under
the weight of our lagging economy to find meaningful
employment. In my district alone, Mr. Secretary, as you know,
we have lost about 9,000 coal-mining jobs in the last few
years.
With the DOL's focus on workforce training and development,
your Department has a lot to offer in areas confronting similar
situations across the country, pockets of poverty, if you will.
I particularly appreciate your engagement with the
bipartisan SOAR initiative in eastern Kentucky, Shaping Our
Appalachian Region, SOAR, and I look forward to working with
you as we strive with the Governor of the State to strengthen
and grow the economy in that region.
While I do very much appreciate your partnership, I,
unfortunately, find many aspects of the budget request somewhat
troubling. The fiscal 2016 request includes discretionary
spending--funding of $13,180,000,000. That is over 10 percent
of an increase over current levels. That includes billions for
new proposals and assumptions that Congress will sign off on
shifting programs and activities from discretionary to
mandatory budget authority.
The job-driven training proposals, totaling $21 billion in
mandatory spending, is larger than the entire Labor
Department's discretionary funding request.
This administration and your Department need to work on
reducing the problem of mandatory spending, not adding to it.
This runaway spending, if we allow it to continue on
autopilot--mandatory--threatens to squeeze out all of the
worthwhile programs that many of our constituents care for,
including a number of critical programs under your charge.
Besides the huge increase in mandatory spending, the fiscal
year 2016 request requests significant discretionary funding
for new programs and sizeable increases for others. The request
for information technology provides a good example. In your
request, we see $61,000,000 for a new digital government
integrated platform initiative. A total of $120,000,000 for IT
modernization. That is a 677 percent increase. And multiple
requests of $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 for agency-specific IT
improvements throughout the Department. Technology is certainly
important in today's society, but these increases appear to be
out of line in light of tight budget constraints, and I look
forward to hearing from you at some point in time about why you
feel these investments are absolutely necessary to that extent.
WIOA REGULATIONS
Finally, in July 2014, the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act, WIOA, was enacted. An aggressive timeframe for
the Department of Labor and the Department of Education to
publish a set of regulations is plainly laid out in this
legislation. One of the requirements of the act was the
publication of the proposed regulations by January 18 of this
year. Instead of working diligently to meet the deadline
required by law, your agency decided to set its own deadlines
and plan to publish the proposed regulations in the spring of
2015.
Mr. Secretary, for an administration that is overly fond of
regulation, it amazes me that this process wasn't completed on
a more timely basis. I hope you can shed some light on that.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with you us today. The
committee takes seriously our role in overseeing the budget
policies of the Department of Labor, and I appreciate your
continued engagement with us. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
Ranking Member Lowey
Again, following what I had laid out earlier, I see we have
been joined by my good friend, the distinguished ranking member
of the full committee. So we will go to her next for any
comments she cares to make, or if she wants to make some
questions. We know you two have a very busy schedule today.
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
And it is certainly a pleasure, Secretary Perez, to welcome
you here. I really thank you for joining us, and I apologize
for missing your testimony. As you know, the chairman and I
are--wish we had roller skates on--running around to various
hearings.
But this is a good opportunity to mark 60 consecutive
months of private-sector job growth, an increase of 12 million
private-sector jobs, and an unemployment rate dropping to 5.5
percent. So we are making good progress.
FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
But I have a real question, and I don't understand why we
can't get this done, and it is about paid leave. As you know,
the Family Medical Leave Act covers 60 percent of the
workforce. However, the law only covers unpaid leave, which
millions of working families can't afford to take. With most
children living in homes with either a single parent or with
parents who both work, parents face an impossible choice
between caring for a loved one and their jobs.
Not only does paid leave result in healthy outcomes for
children and parents, but, frankly, it is good for business. It
improves worker retention, helps employers save money through
reduced turnover costs. And I am happy to see the fiscal year
2016 budget request prioritizes paid leave with $35 million
provided through this subcommittee to assist in the startup of
new programs and an additional $2.2 billion in mandatory funds
to expand paid leave in up to five States.
I recently had one of my treasured employees on paid leave
because I think it is so important to her, to her family, to
our office. I am shocked when I keep hearing the number of
businesses that don't provide paid leave. So I am really happy
about this.
How would the budget request to expand paid-leave policy
strength our economic competitiveness? How many States--and
this I would be interested in--how many States have expressed
an interest in exploring paid-leave policies? Would your budget
request be sufficient to help those States develop policies
that are right for them? Frankly, it shocks me that more
States, more employers, don't do this on their own just to get
the best employees.
But if you can respond, that would be helpful.
Secretary Perez. Great. Thank you to both Chairman Rogers
and Ranking Member Lowey for being here. It is an honor to have
you here.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that we got snowed out for our
visit, but I promise you that we have a rain date. I look
forward to going there. I appreciate your leadership and the
work that you and Governor Beshear are doing are remarkable
examples of bipartisanship in action. I think broadband does
hold a key to helping eastern Kentucky to soar into the 21st
century, and I look forward to using every tool that we can do,
use at the Department of Labor to be an important player in
that.
I have met people from eastern Kentucky who are
multigenerational coal miners. I met a guy who is now studying
to be an EMT, and I understand the adjustment, as a guy who
grew up in Buffalo and watched some legacy industries go away.
So I have a real appreciation for what you are doing.
WIOA
I do want to mention WIOA for a moment because I am very
appreciative, and I noted that in my----
Mrs. Lowey. Is there on my chairman's time?
Secretary Perez. I was going to answer both your questions
together if I could.
Mrs. Lowey. I am just teasing.
Secretary Perez. Because he asked a couple questions--Mr.
Chairman, asked a couple questions as well, and I wanted to
make sure I responsive to everybody.
Mrs. Lowey. That is quite all right as long as our
distinguished Chairman Cole gets it too. I am always, first of
all, I am always happy to yield anytime to our big chairman of
the committee.
Secretary Perez. I very much appreciate it, and I noted it
in my opening statement the bipartisan spirit surrounding WIOA.
It is a game changer, and I am very excited, as someone who
worked in local and State government on these issues, to be a
part of it.
There was about 18 months' worth of work that Congress
directed us to do in about 6 months. With all due respect, our
folks didn't take Thanksgiving break; they didn't take
Christmas break. They were working through the holidays. What
they did was, as Congresswoman Lee noted before--they went
around the country to take input because we want to make sure
when we do rulemaking that we have listened and we have
incorporated the input of state and local governments because,
having worked in those areas, I often felt like--bless you--my
voice wasn't being heard. We wanted to make sure those voices
were heard.
We are literally a week or two away from having a proposed
rule out. It will be over 1,000 pages. It will reflect the
input that we got, and we got great input from all of the
Republican and Democratic Members who were involved in this. I
think you will see that it reflects a voluminous amount of
work. I appreciate the dedicated career staff who basically
haven't been on vacation since then. I am confident that you
will see in that proposed rule, which is literally, a week or
two away from being published, that a lot of thought and effort
have gone into it. And we are hearing what you are saying.
PAID LEAVE
And on paid leave----
Mr. Cole. Can I ask the gentleman to address the
gentlelady's question----
Secretary Perez. Yes. And on paid leave----
Mr. Cole [continuing]. As quickly as you can.
Secretary Perez. I have traveled the world talking about
paid leave and learning about paid leave. The thing I have
learned, Congresswoman, is that it is not a Republican or a
Democratic issue around the world. You know, the Conservative
ruling government in Australia won election on a platform of
expanding paid leave. Canada, U.K., other places that have
Conservative ruling governments are doing the same. California,
Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York,
D.C., Los Angeles, New York City are among the areas that have
these laws.
We are seeking to help other States. When we put out a
$500,000 or $1,000,000 grant last year to help States along, we
got over a dozen applications. And so there is a lot of demand
out there in State and local governments for this. I think it
is part of our competitiveness as a Nation that we need to do
this. I think it is part of getting more women in the workplace
because you compare our labor force participation with Canada,
we have fallen because we haven't led on leave.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, I appreciate that. And I appreciate your
time. And I just want to make one other statement about paid
leave because there are some families that have two paychecks
coming in. And with the two paychecks, they can't still survive
if one of them didn't take the paid leave. So whatever we can
do to encourage paid leave, to encourage more private-sector
companies, States to put in policies, I think is really very
important.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. You are most welcome.
The Secretary is very wise to pay appropriate attention to
the major chairman and the ranking member. But I want to go now
to the long-suffering Mr. Rigell and Ms. Roby next so they have
an opportunity to participate in this first round of
questioning.
STATUS OF H-2B PROGRAM
Mr. Rigell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for being here. We are
going to go back to the H-2B program. This is of great concern
to me. And I would like to clarify, first, what the exact
status of it is now. The unopposed motion to stay, the court
order, until April 15, that you filed, which I appreciate, I
just want to clarify that did not open up immediately the H-2B
program, is that correct?
Secretary Perez. That is correct until the court rules.
Because it was unopposed, I expect the court and hope the court
will rule----
Mr. Rigell. I understand. I don't question for a moment
your commitment to getting this thing back on track. So we are
on solid common ground there. That said, I believe after
careful review of the actual, the court's decision that there
has been a misinterpretation of that, and it has resulted then
of actions by the Department which were not necessary. And they
are really harming certainly Virginia families, and I know from
other States as well. Our seafood industry right now is reeling
as a result of this. And however many days are between now and
whenever the resolution would be under the plan that you are
pursuing, each day is a day of pain, economic pain.
And I would like for you to consider the following, that in
that Perez decision that was recently announced there, it found
that the Department of Labor lacked authority to issue formal
notice and comment rules under the APA. There are a lot of
things it didn't do though. It did not prohibit the Department
of Labor from complying with its statutory role of consulting
with Customs and Immigration on H-2B petitions. It did not
prohibit the Department of Labor from operating under informal
internal guidance in doing so. It neither directed nor
prohibited Immigration and Customs from doing anything
whatsoever. And really, most importantly, it did not require
nor did it intend--certainly as I read it and as others read
it--it did not require, nor did it intend that the H-2B program
be shut down.
I have a full appreciation for the need to respect and
comply with the third branch of government. But I really am
convinced that you have gone, you have taken it too far. And,
as a result, businesses and families and Americans are hurting.
So I would ask that you reconsider this in light of what I am
sharing here and that we give some relief to hard-working
American families and businesses.
Secretary Perez. Congressman, I would love to be able to do
that. I can tell you that I worked on the ports issue because,
I saw that suffering that the delay out on the West Coast was
causing to innocent folks.
Mr. Rigell. We appreciate that.
AUTHORITY ON H-2B RULEMAKING
Secretary Perez. And on two different occasions in related
H contexts, visa contexts, the Department has tried to do
exactly what you have suggested. In both cases, courts struck
down our efforts to say we can issue subregulatory guidance and
run the program even though we don't have rulemaking authority.
Once the decision was issued, the first question I asked
was, well, do we have additional authority through which we can
run the program now because every day is an important day?
Again, on two occasions in related circumstances, we tried to
do exactly what you are outlining. In both cases, a court then
said, ``No'' means no; you don't have the authority to do the
rulemaking. I have seldom seen a context where we get more
litigation. It is what it is. That is why I really agree with
Congressman Dent's question about having a long-term resolution
to this. We certainly want to try and get there. But, in the
short term, our options are limited.
Mr. Rigell. I am convinced that the court never intended
for the program to be shut down. If you look back at the 60
years the Department of Labor has been consulting with USCIS on
H-2B petitions, it doesn't comport really with just common
sense that the court would prohibit the H-2B program from going
forward. And I would think you would have the full support of
certainly Congress, at least from this Member. And the entire
premise that we have got to shut this thing down and hurt
American families is just not right.
Now, let's move on. I have made my point there. And we are
going to disagree. And I would like to think there are some
lawyers that were on the other side of this in your briefing
that would give you a counter view. And a good case and an
ethical case could be made for the path that I was just
discussing. In trying to be respectful of the chairman's time
here--I think my red light is on--but we have got to revisit at
some point the application process itself. It is also delayed
and hurting our businesses in general.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you. Despite the green tie, I appreciate
the consideration.
My good friend, the very patient gentlelady from Alabama,
is recognized next.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Perez. Always a pleasure.
Mrs. Roby. I have some very young family members that are
here watching our government work. And I am proud to have them
in the hearing room with us today. So it is always good to be
able to share these experiences with our young folks.
OSHA COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE
So, Mr. Secretary, you know I am particularly interested in
the way that OSHA prioritizes its resources. And to expound a
little bit on what my colleague, Mr. Dent, talked about in his
line of questioning, I believe it is wise that we invest our
limited resources on the front end, helping employers comply
with safety requirements before we launch aggressive penalties.
OSHA has consultation programs that help small employers comply
with OSHA standards and work to improve their injury and
illness prevention programs. And, in Alabama, we are very proud
of the University of Alabama-based consultation program called
Safe State, which is helping small companies who might not have
a lot of compliance resources achieve the Safety and Health
Achievement Recognition Program, otherwise known as SHARP. Safe
State is good for workers. And it is good for business. And I
know you agree with me because I have heard you say it here
today, that improving worker safety on the front end is the
ultimate goal.
But OSHA issued a policy memo on November 24 of last year
that established strict entry requirements for these
consultation programs. And specifically they have made it
almost impossible for small companies that are part of a larger
holding company to have access to programs like Safe State to
make sure that their workplaces are safe and compliant. So, as
we consider your budget request, the President's budget
request, I want to count on you to see that such policies are
reversed and good programs like Safe State are allowed to do
their jobs and keep workers safe.
Secretary Perez. Sure. There are two programs that OSHA has
that relate to providing the compliance assistance that you are
talking about. One is the SHARP program, the Safety and Health
Achievement Recognition Program. The target audience for that
program are small businesses. We also have a voluntary
protection program for whom the target audience are larger
business.
The memo that you referred to was an effort to make sure
that--what we were finding in the SHARP program is that there
were a number of large businesses who had affiliates that may
be smaller, but they were part of a larger business were part
of the SHARP program. In an effort to deploy our limited
resources, we wanted to make sure that the SHARP program was
focused on small businesses that didn't have access to a bigger
footprint. So, in response to some feedback we got, we have
announced that everybody who is in the SHARP program will stay
in the SHARP program. What we are doing for the small
businesses that are part of bigger businesses, moving
prospectively, is working with them through our VPP
program,which is a very similar program. However, that one is
targeted more at larger businesses. In 2016, our effort is to
make sure that we have more businesses that are in that
program. So I share your view that compliance and prevention,
as I mentioned before, are very important. I think both of
these programs can get us there. I look forward to working with
you to make sure that they are operating effectively in Alabama
and elsewhere.
Mrs. Roby. I appreciate that. And, again, we have got to
prioritize our resources. As you have stated, we have limited
resources between, putting that prioritization on compliance
rather than aggressive penalties. And I think that is very
important. I would miss an opportunity to not mention the
Working Families Flexibility Act as the discussion of paid time
off.
WORKING FAMILIES FLEXIBILITY ACT
I have introduced again in this Congress the Working
Families Flexibility Act, Mr. Chairman, that is an amendment to
the Fair Labor Standards Act that provides that private
employers and employees can voluntarily enter into an agreement
for compensatory time, where that employee can use their paid
time off. And rather than take the cash payments, they can have
paid time off in lieu of those cash payments.
I think this is something that we can work on collectively.
And I hope that we will be able to have these discussions. This
provides real flexibility for folks where both parents work
outside of the home, want to take care of their children, want
to have that opportunity to coach a soccer team, and also may
have to be taking care of an aging parent at the same time.
It is a very simple amendment to the Fair Labor Standards
Act. And I hope that we together in a bipartisan way can reach
this goal.
I am not wearing green, I yield back.
Mr. Cole. The gentlelady would be given extra time anyway.
I look forward to the introduction of her legislation. I was
happy to support it last time. Look forward to doing so again.
I am going to yield my time to the chairman again since he
has a very tight schedule because I know he had some questions
he cared to ask.
Secretary Perez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
EMPLOYMENT RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT, ERISA
Chairman Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, the Department of Labor is proposing a new
rule to change the definition of fiduciary, which would govern
personal investment accounts. SEC, of course, oversees the key
participants in the security world, including securities
exchanges, securities brokers and dealers, investment advisers,
and mutual funds. Labor exercises jurisdiction over Federal
pension laws and regulations through the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, ERISA.
In 2010, DOL proposed the definition of fiduciary rule. It
was withdrawn after a big backlash from the business community
and numerous investment groups. In 2015, you are preparing
another conflicts of interest rule, again attempting to
regulate the type of advice broker-dealers can give their
clients. Your Web site says that SEC staff provided significant
technical assistance in developing this new proposal.
However, in a recent article, SEC Commissioner Daniel
Gallagher is quoted as saying, DOL has not formally engaged the
SEC Commissioners in the process. Past appropriations bills
from this subcommittee, including the fiscal year 2014 omnibus,
have contained provisions that have prohibited DOL from using
funds to promulgate the definition of fiduciary regulation.
Mr. Secretary, the ERISA was designed to govern pension
plans and 401(k) investment plans provided by an employer. The
SEC's mission is to protect investors and regulate the
financial industry, including broker-dealers. Any regulation in
this space could have wide-reaching implications for the
financial industry. And this committee, on a bipartisan basis,
has prohibited Labor from moving into this space in recent
years.
Please explain to us how ERISA gives DOL jurisdiction over
an individual's relationship with a personal investment
adviser.
Secretary Perez. ERISA, has overlapping jurisdiction with
the SEC. We handle ERISA. The SEC handles another set of
statutes. We sent a letter yesterday, Mr. Chairman, in response
to an inquiry from Chairman Kline that gets into basically
everything that you asked and outlines in great detail the
significant collaboration we have had, including I think eight
or nine meetings I have had with Chairwoman Mary Jo White in
this process. We have a shared interest in making sure that
people's hard-earned money goes to them. That is why we have
been working so hard.
When I was confirmed, the first thing I did was I slowed
this process down because I wanted to learn from what happened
before. I wanted to make sure we listened and engaged various
stakeholders, including in the industry. I have participated
personally in as many meetings on this proposal as any other
initiative in my tenure as the Labor Secretary. The Department
of Labor has a very important equity through the enforcement of
ERISA in protecting folks, who have their hard-earned money--to
make sure that when they are getting advice, it is in their
best interest.
As I have said a number of times, three of the most
important decisions people make in their lives are legal,
medical, and financial. I am a lawyer. I have got four
siblings; they are all doctors. We all have an obligation to
look out for and put our client or patient first. So many folks
who are in this space, including the person who provides
financial advice to my wife, holds himself up to a fiduciary
obligation. What they tell us, including people like John
Bogle, the founder of Vanguard, is that when you take care of
your customers and put your customers first, it helps your
customers and it helps your business. So it can be done, and so
that is what we have been doing throughout this process is
considerable outreach because the law gives DOL the authority
to define a fiduciary under the tax laws in the same way as the
ERISA definition. So that is what we are doing right now.
We have done a significant amount of outreach. We have sent
a proposal over to OMB. There will then be another round once a
proposed rule comes out of formal comment. We look forward to
hearing that advice. We have heard from a number of people,
including folks who manage pension funds, employers who say,
you know, I want my workers to make sure when they retire, they
get as much money as possible. So I think we can do this. I
look forward to working with you toward that end. I will make
sure you get a copy of the letter that we sent to Chairman
Kline because it outlines all of the interactions between the
Department of Labor and the SEC.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DOL AND SEC COORDINATION
Chairman Rogers. SEC Commissioner Daniel Gallagher, in
speaking of his work with you, your Department, said, quote, I
believe this coordination has been nothing more than a, quote,
check-the-box exercise by the DOL designed to legitimize the
runaway train that is their fiduciary rulemaking, end of quote.
Pretty strong.
Secretary Perez. I couldn't disagree more, sir. My
interactions have been with the chair. When I deal with an EEOC
issue, I deal with the chair. When I deal with other
independent agencies, I start with the chair. Again, we have a
very lengthy letter that outlines the--I personally
participated in something like nine calls or meetings with Mary
Jo White. Our career staffs have been working together
consistently for over a year on this.
Chairman Rogers. What steps have you taken to remedy the
concerns of the SEC Commissioner?
Secretary Perez. Again, we have a proposed rule that will
be issued in the near future. That will reflect input that we
have received from industry. That will reflect input we have
received from the SEC. That will reflect input we have received
from consumer advocates. Then, once that propose does rule is
out, we look forward to the next period of comment.
Chairman Rogers. Will Gallagher be happy with it?
Secretary Perez. You will have to ask Mr. Gallagher. I have
never met Mr. Gallagher. I have dealt with Chairwoman White in
this effort. We have dealt with the career staff. I have not
dealt with either, Chairman, Mr. Gallagher or other members.
The only person that I have dealt with in connection with this
rule has been the chair, which I think is the appropriate way
to address these issues.
Chairman Rogers. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. I will go to the gentlelady from Connecticut
next.
REGULATORY FUNCTIONS
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to ask some questions about some of the
regulatory functions.
Mr. Secretary, you talked about Frances Perkins, who was a
hero of mine. If I could model myself on anyone and the work
that she did and the accomplishments, it would be Frances
Perkins.
But on the silica issue, I think it is important to note
one of the things that you were saying. In 1937, Secretary of
Labor Perkins announced findings of a report linking silicosis
to workplace exposure. In 1938, she held a national silicosis
conference and initiated a campaign to stop silicosis, stating,
Our job is one of applying techniques and principles to every
known silica dust hazard in American history. We know the
methods of control. Let us put them into practice.
And with the rule that we are talking about here, the
proposed rule is expected to save close to 700 lives and
prevent more than 1,600 cases of silicosis each year. It would
seem to me that that is a worthwhile endeavor. And I applaud
you for continuing your efforts.
FIDUCIARY RULE
With that, let me just ask about a couple of other areas. I
would just site, on the fiduciary rule, I think it is important
that we see the new rule before we draw any conclusions and
start a process of, again, of fear mongering there.
EQUAL PAY REGULATIONS
I wanted to mention two areas, regulations on equal pay and
pay secrecy. Last year, we talked about the OFCCP work in
identifying and addressing wage discrimination based on gender
and race. I had also suggested that President Obama issue an
Executive order to prohibit Federal contractors from
retaliating against employees who disclose salary information.
When will the Department issue a notice of proposed rulemaking
on equal pay regulations? The Department has said they thought
it would be issued in January. That hasn't happened yet. When
will we see the final regulation for the Executive order on
nonretaliation for disclosing salary information? The comment
period for the nonretaliation Executive order closed in
December. When do you expect to issue a final rule?
And I have one more regulatory issue.
Secretary Perez. We are working on both of those now. We
are currently reviewing the comments on the equal pay report.
Our goal is to draft a final rule as soon as possible. We want
to make sure we get it right. On pay secrecy. I share your
passion for both of these issues, we are in the process again
of analyzing those comments as well. I know your continuing
interest, the interest of others. But our goal is always to
make sure we get it right first and foremost. That has been
what has motivated us throughout this process.
Ms. DeLauro. Do you have a time period, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Perez. One thing I learned when I was a
prosecutor is people would always ask me, ``When are you going
to finish your investigation?'' When I was a young prosecutor,
I once answered that question. Then when I was wrong by a
factor of three, like our general contractor, who does the work
on the house, I learned that I should be a little more careful
about giving precise estimates.
I feel very confident that we are going to reach our goal
of April 30 on the H-2B or else I wouldn't say that. I am a
little bit less confident of a precise date here. So I would
hate to say something and then fall short.
Ms. DeLauro. That means I have to keep asking you the
question.
FAIR PAY AND SAFE WORKPLACE INITIATIVE
Secretary Perez. And I welcome that.
Ms. DeLauro. Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, this is about
Federal contractors. We know the majority of our Federal
contractors play by the rules, and they treat their workers
well. But I don't think it is appropriate for taxpayer dollars
to go to a Federal contractor who violates Federal laws,
discriminates, or puts workers in danger. As far as I can tell,
the administration's Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces initiative is
straightforward. Most contractors should simply have to just
check a box in order to comply. Nonetheless, there seems to be
a lot of misconceptions about the problem. Can you just help us
understand the realities of what you are trying to do and to
stop the fear mongering here? And why do critics think it is
outrageous for the Department to ensure that Federal contracts
are reserved for contractors that abide by the law?
Secretary Perez. Well, I think Federal contracting is a
privilege. It is not a right. You don't have a right to a
Federal contract. I also think that when people are engaged in
chronically bad behavior, they should not be allowed to compete
for Federal contracts. I also wholeheartedly agree with you
that the vast majority of contractors play by the rules. So,
under this new provision, what they will do is there will be a
question, do you have any issues that fall within this
category? They check the box no, and they move on. So for the
vast majority of folks, the requirement will be checking no.
For those who have labor issues, we have set up and are
setting up a process where we have labor compliance officers
that will work with folks because the goal here is to work
through these issues. The goal is not to, at the end of the
day, play the gotcha game. The goal is to promote compliance by
making sure that if you have chronic OSHA violations--like the
company in Washington State in 2010, they had--it was an oil
refinery--seven fatalities, like 44 OSHA citations in the
aftermath. Two years later, they get a Federal contract. There
should have been a better process leading up to that. And this
is what this does is make sure that we have a process that
ensures that our scarce taxpayer dollars are going to companies
that play by the rules.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Perez. Good morning, sir.
Mr. Fleischmann. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for
being with us.
Secretary Perez. Glad to be here.
PROPOSED SILICA RULE
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. Mr. Secretary, I would like to
ask you a few questions about the Department of Labor's
proposed silica rule. I understand that the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, OSHA, significantly underestimated
the cost employers will bear in order to implement this rule.
In addition, doubts have surfaced that reducing exposure to the
levels OSHA exposes is technically not feasible in some cases,
sir. My first question is, do you plan to revisit the cost of
this rule?
Secretary Perez. Well, every rulemaking, you do have an
economic analysis. And we have had a robust hearing process and
comment process, and we received comments from a wide array of
stakeholders in the tens of thousands of pages. As part of the
final rulemaking process, a demonstration of cost/benefit is
always part of that economic analysis. So that will include
addressing questions and concerns, including, but not limited
to, questions and concerns along the nature of what you have
asked.
Mr. Fleischmann. Okay, sir. Specifically, the Department
has stated on several occasions that it will not undertake a
new small business advocacy review. Given that so much time has
passed since the first review in 2003, will you consider or
will you conduct another business advocacy review prior to
finalizing the rule, sir?
Secretary Perez. Well, a number of small businesses were
invited to provide written comments and were invited to
participate in last year's public hearings. We held public
hearings over the course of a period of weeks. Many of those
small businesses that you are addressing had that opportunity
to weigh in then. We are always concerned about the concern of
all businesses owners, large, small, and in between. We take
those concerns very seriously. That is why this rulemaking
process has proceeded slowly because there is a lot of folks
who have a lot of questions. And so we want to make sure that
every voice is heard.
GOVERNORS' RESERVE
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir. I am going to switch my
questioning now to the Governors' Reserve issue. Governors of a
State are authorized by the Workforce Investment Act, the WIA,
to withhold up to 15 percent of appropriations to that State
for statewide employment and training activities. This set-
aside was reduced to 5 percent fiscal year 2012, which was
intended to be a one-time reduction to help reduce the level of
carryover balances and was not a reflection of the services
that States were provided to the workforce delivery system. The
fiscal year 2015 Appropriation Act partially increased this
set-aside to 10 percent. Based on the evidence and performance
data available, what in your view is the optimal level for the
set-aside? And what is the basis for your conclusions, sir?
Secretary Perez. Well, as someone who did this work at a
local and State level, I am intimately familiar with what we
used to call the 15-percent dollars. In Maryland, we did a
number of important things with them. I have spoken to
workforce investment boards and States about the importance of
this. I really appreciate what Congress did last year in
reaching a 10-percent level. In order to get from 10 to 15
percent, it was our judgment that what would end up happening
is you would have to take money from the formula and that would
have the impact of hurting folks at a local level.
So, as someone who has worked at a local level, if you go
up to 15 percent, then the formula dollars for everyone
decrease. In our judgment, that is not overall in the best
interest of moving the program. The budget request that we have
is for increases in that formula funding, which will help
everybody, including States. I am a big believer in this
Governors' Reserve. I certainly look forward to working with
you to identify ways that we can, you know, continue to
innovate and continue to use either this fund or other formula
funds or other investments to meet our shared goal of getting
more folks back to work.
Mr. Fleischmann. Yes, sir. And I appreciate your answer.
But can you give me a figure? What is your view? What is that
optimal number?
Secretary Perez. I mean the 15 percent was the authorized
amount. I certainly look forward to working with this committee
to figure out how we can create a roadmap to 15 percent. I
think it is important, as we draw that roadmap up, to recognize
the consequences that sometimes enure from going to 15 percent
because if it is 15 percent at the expense of other dollars
that go into the formula, then I think it is very important to
have sort of a conscious conversation, understanding how one
decision can impact the ability of the system to serve other
folks. Certainly the 15 percent authorization is something that
I think is a good thing. I think the conversation we are having
is, how do we draw a roadmap so that we can help get there?
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for answering my
questions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back, sir.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
H-2B VISAS
I want to cover a couple things quickly. As you noticed,
there is quite a deal of interest in H-2B visas. I am not going
to ask you to revisit your testimony, which I think is clear. I
would ask you, we learned about the legal decision, the stay
that you have gotten or, excuse me, were requesting through the
Department of Homeland Security. So given the interest on this
committee, I would just ask you to keep us abreast as you move
down the line trying to address it. We have got considerable
bipartisan interest in resolving this, which I know you are
trying to do.
Secretary Perez. I will absolutely do that. We will keep
you posted on a regular basis.
Mr. Cole. I appreciate very much on that, Mr. Secretary.
AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION
I also wanted to touch on something the chairman mentioned
in passing. For your fiscal year 2016 budget, you provided some
detail about several proposed mandatory programs. Those are
obviously beyond the jurisdiction of this particular committee.
But I am curious, have you actually submitted authorizing
legislation to the committees of jurisdiction for that at this
point?
Secretary Perez. I am not sure if we have gotten that
together yet. We have been working with some folks on some
aspects of that. But I don't know that it has been translated
into bill language.
Mr. Cole. Okay. If you do that, again, we would request to
be involved because, actually, what happens there obviously
reflects back on our own budget.
Secretary Perez. You have been very, very inclusive. I want
to make sure we are always respectful of your interest and
role.
BCA LEVELS
Mr. Cole. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary.
One other area--and, again, this touches a little bit on
something that the chairman of the full committee brought up--
you have a very robust increase requested. And the debate over
the merits of that aside, our challenge here is obviously our
allocation is likely to be a lot lower than your request. Your
request is appropriately based on the President's budget. That
is what you ought to be doing. But, frankly, that budget is not
likely to become law. The Republican budget that is going to be
rolled out today is not likely to become law. They are both
competing plans. And there will probably have to be some
negotiation down the road. But, in the interim, we are probably
forced to appropriate to BCA levels and absent a larger deal at
a level above our own. So, given that, what would be your most
important priorities if we were stuck in a sort of flat-line
situation as we are working through the appropriations process?
Secretary Perez. Well, that is somewhat akin to asking who
your favorite child is.
Mr. Cole. That is exactly right.
Secretary Perez. What I would say, as a father of three, I
love all my children, and I love them equally. Similarly, we
talked a lot about effective workforce development that gets
folks back to work. We have talked a lot about the need to have
robust enforcement of worker and retiree protection laws. We
administer benefit programs. The Navy Yard tragedy of a year
and a half ago, we processed those claims lickety-split to give
dignity to a family who had to confront the unimaginable. Our
BLS and other data sources, they enable us to do so much work
as a Nation, not just in government but in the private sector.
So these are all important things. That is why, frankly, you
know, the sequestration caps are unrealistic. We were able to
serve less people who needed jobs last year as a result of some
of the caps. That is unfortunate. I know you have recognized
that in the past, so I appreciate that.
Mr. Cole. Again, Mr. Secretary, I do recognize that.
Although I always like to point out, sequestration was passed
by Congress, signed by the President. It was actually a
proposal of the President.
Secretary Perez. Absolutely.
Mr. Cole. And, you know, to a degree, it has worked in the
sense that it has lowered the budget deficit. And that is a
good thing. On the other hand, I would rather address some of
the mandatory problems. My friend would probably rather address
some of the revenue problems. But, in any event, there has got
to be some sort of discussion at some point. And it makes the
budgeting exercise very difficult. I won't press you to choose
between your children. Although, I actually got Secretary
Duncan to choose his favorite child. He likes early childhood
development a lot. But Secretary Burwell was equally adept at
not choosing between her children. You guys might straighten
this line out. I will say this, we are going to have to have
this discussion at some level in some way going forward. And I
say that with all due respect because I care a lot, given your
expertise and your Department's expertise, about what you think
really is the most important thing. We are not likely to have
what we would all like to have when we are making some of these
decisions. So, in the course of our discussions, I hope I am
able to discern the things that you really do think make the
most difference, particularly in terms of helping people get to
a job that I know we all want them to have. And I will give you
a chance to answer that because I don't want to shut you off
with a red light since I have chastised everybody else for
doing that.
Secretary Perez. I look forward to working with you. Thank
you.
Mr. Cole. Okay. Very good.
I will move to my friend, the distinguished lady from
Connecticut.
STREAMLINING DATA COLLECTION
Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Chairman, it sounds like Sophie's Choice
here. So I would just add that to what the Secretary said. I
would also make this comment, that I think it is also important
when we take a look at the budget, it is about
$1,500,000,000,000 that is spent on tax cuts. About 17 percent
of those tax cuts go to the wealthiest 1 percent. And probably
it is the 1 percent of the 1 percent who are getting the
breaks. I think that has to be regarded as spending. And that
is part of the equation that we don't look at. So it has got to
be part of the discussion when we sit down to talk about
dealing with sequestration.
Mr. Secretary, in yesterday's Washington Post, there was an
article about Federal labor data could help stem unemployment.
The President's 2016 budget proposal includes a $5,000,000
request to study and test approaches to modernize and
potentially streamline data collection for O*NET. The measure
seeks to improve up-to-date coverage of occupation skills,
particularly for high-growth changing industries. Can you just
talk about that a bit?
Secretary Perez. We sit on a treasure trove of data. You go
to Monster.com, you go to all the private-sector companies that
are job aggregators, and they are building off of the
foundation of our data. We want to make sure that we are far
better positioned as a Nation as we talk WIOA and its vision of
demand-driven jobs, we want to drill down into sectors so that
we have a better understanding of what the demand needs are and
we can measure it. So that is why we have this request. I think
information is power. We sit on a ton of information now. But
we could be even more powerful if we were to take it to data
3.0.
Ms. DeLauro. To move in this direction, thank you very
much. It is a great article. I am sure you read it.
Secretary Perez. I agree. It was music to my ears.
NEW PILOT PROGRAM FOR YOUTH EX-OFFENDERS
Ms. DeLauro. This is a question that I think my colleague,
Mrs. Lee, would like to ask, but she had to leave. The budget
request includes an increase of $13,000,000 for the
reintegration of ex-offenders, for that program. She is a
strong supporter of this program, which helps to prepare adult
and youth ex-offenders to find jobs in their communities. It
provides comprehensive career assistance, supportive services.
In the budget request, the portion of the increased funds will
be used for a new pilot program for youth in coordination with
the Department of Justice. Can you just speak about that a
little bit?
Secretary Perez. Well, having come from the Department of
Justice to the Department of Labor, you know, as a prosecutor,
I always thought that if you wanted to be smart on crime, you
needed to recognize that the best way to avoid recidivism is to
get people access to the skills they need so that when they get
out, they have access to a good job. That is what this program
is about.
The two agencies that have the most robust investments in
the reentry space are DOJ and DOL. It has been a pleasure to
work with our DOJ colleagues. We have been doing a lot of
braided funding and synergistic grant making. We have a
proposal on the street right now to replicate a model that
started in the Montgomery County Jail where we have an American
Job Center in the county jail. The return on investment on that
is remarkable. You prepare people while they are there
incarcerated for jobs that are in demand. The warden will tell
you that it made jail safer. The business community will tell
you that we got a good pipeline of folks. These are the smart-
on-crime initiatives that I think are really important. We are
now seeing the crime rate and the incarceration rate drop last
year for the first time in 40 years. That is a remarkable
development.
And I think these sorts of investments--and I appreciate
your leadership, Mr. Chairman, because you believe in second
chances. Your leadership on this, this is an area, as I
mentioned in my opening remarks, there is a lot of overlap in
terms of our values and things we can work on together. I think
this is a really robust example.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
WORKER MISCLASSIFICATION
I don't know if we will have a final--I wanted to ask about
the misclassification of workers and your efforts in dealing
with that through the initiative, where 19 States have been
awarded funds to help address the issue. If you could provide
us with an update on the initiative, how the States are faring
with misclassification, a few examples of how the initiative
has restored legal protections and benefits to workers.
Secretary Perez. Well, this initiative basically--by the
way, the initiative, the 19 States where the MOUs are, it is
not a blue-red thing. We have an MOU with Utah. We have MOUs
with Massachusetts because misclassification is everywhere.
Ms. DeLauro. Everywhere, right.
Secretary Perez. Misclassification has three victims. It
has the worker him- or herself, who is not getting protections
and getting lower wages. It has the employers who play by the
rules because they compete, and they can't compete against
someone who is paying someone under the table and isn't paying
their UI and their workers' comp. Then, the tax collector is
getting cheated because people aren't paying into workers' comp
funds. That is why this has not been a partisan issue in my
experience in Maryland or here. Our MOUs are with a multitude
of States that we would describe in our clunky colloquialism as
red and blue. We are doing that because we are able to help
workers get access to the wages they deserve and create a level
playing field for employers. We are now actually up to 20
States, from Iowa to Alabama to Utah to Louisiana. And we are
going to keep moving on this.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
I want to go to my friend Mr. Harris, who has gamely tried
to go from hearing to hearing. Thank you very much for coming
back.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. Let me just follow up--and
I won't go up to the red light this time, Mr. Chairman.
OSHA STANDARDS AND METHODS TO COMPLY
The specific question I asked was about OSHA and the
standards and the methods to comply, that various companies
that do hydraulic fracturing can comply. It just puzzles me why
these personal air-filtered helmets are not--and you can get
back to me, you know, subsequently if you don't know, but why
aren't personal air-filtered helmets considered an effective
form to comply with the OSHA silica standard? I don't get it.
Again, I work in an operating room where these are used all the
time, these kind of air-filtering helmets. They work. They work
on bacteria. So they are going to work on silica. Why isn't
OSHA willing to say that, yes, if you use these, you can be in
compliance?
Secretary Perez. I am happy, Congressman, to have the OSHA
staff meet with your staff to discuss this. Dr. Michaels has
met with many Members of Congress on these issues.
Mr. Harris. He didn't answer me, we sent a letter to him,
Chairman Kingston and I, back in 2013, and he didn't provide a
satisfactory answer to that letter.
Secretary Perez. If it wasn't satisfactory, he is happy to
come up and answer any additional questions you have.
REGULATORY AUTHORITY UNDER INA
Mr. Harris. I hope so. I hope this time it is a more
satisfying answer. Let me go back to, because H-2B is so
important in my district. Let me get the construct straight. I
mean, DOL has twice now been rebuked by the courts, which have
vacated their rules, the 2012 rule first and now the 2008 rule,
saying that DOL just doesn't have regulatory authority under
the INA. So why doesn't DOL just say, Okay, we will go back to
the pre-2008, where we merely consult and DHS is the primary,
really the only rule maker? That would solve the problem,
wouldn't it?
Secretary Perez. There have been a number of decisions,
including but not limited to the decisions that you referenced.
The courts have been all over the map on the issues of the H
programs that we administer. The April 30 interim final
regulation that I mentioned earlier will be a joint regulation
of DHS and the Department of Labor because each agency has
equities, each agency has expertise. That is why it will be
joint.
Mr. Harris. Mr. Secretary, why should we believe that that
joint rule, that the courts wouldn't treat it the same way and
say, Look, DOL doesn't have regulatory authority. I mean why
not just come up----
Secretary Perez. But the current rule was a DOL rule. The
IFR will be a DHS-DOL joint rule. The decision from the court
was that you should do it together. We are doing exactly what
the court told us to do. So, in the end of April, it will be a
joint rule. And I am confident that the issue that was
addressed by the court will be addressed in our rulemaking.
H-2B RECRUITMENT REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Harris. Okay. Let me just ask one final question--it is
pretty brief--why, when this ruling came out, did the DOL
instruct the State Workforce Agencies to stop accepting H-2B
job orders? I don't quite understand because that would just
have returned it to the--I mean, the court ruling was the 2008
rule is vacated. To me that returns it to the pre-2008 status
temporarily because the 2008 rule doesn't exist. And the State
Workforce Agencies were empowered before 2008 to actually
publish the H-2B job orders. Why would the Department go out of
their way to tell State Workforce--specifically to employers,
do not post H-2B job orders?
Secretary Perez. When a court tells you you don't have
rulemaking authority, then you don't go around what a court
says. The identical question was asked before, and let me tell
you what I told the Congressman, which was we cannot process
them for the H-2B purposes, but they can still post the job to
hire U.S. Workers. So that is part of the H-2B requirement is
that you have to post the job. So anyone who is going through
this process as we speak can still post job openings for H-2B
workers.
Mr. Harris. Okay. That is not what the DOL communication to
the State Workforce Agency reads. It says, You can no longer
accept or process such job orders in the H-2B program for the
purposes of complying with the H-2B recruitment requirements.
So there may be a disconnect in what they think the Department
has said. But I don't want to get to the red light.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I learned.
Mr. Cole. You have made brownie points for the next one
now.
Just so you know, Mr. Secretary, I am going to have just
one question. The gentlelady from Connecticut is going to have
one. And we will mercifully let you go.
IT MODERNIZATION FUNDING REQUEST
The question that I have, you have a very robust request,
677 percent increase for funding for IT modernization. I would
like you to run through the justification for that. I know you
are dealing with a lot of legacy systems. I know you are trying
to make the great change. What sort of efficiencies would you
see? Again, that is a very robust increase in a tight budget.
Secretary Perez. I don't disagree with you that it is a
robust increase. Our Deputy Secretary was in New York recently.
We both go out and we visit our staffs. He was with the OSHA
staff--he sent me a photograph of their technology that they
use out in the field. The technology consisted of a flip-top
phone. I mean I haven't seen one of those in about 20 years. We
are only as productive as our IT. We had external audits that
were done to see, you know, how do we fare vis-a-vis the rest
of the Government? We are not faring well in terms of our IT
capacity. Information is power. When you are an investigator
out on the street--I have seen other agencies, and I have
helped do this in other agencies where you can basically type
in all of your data. If you have to take a photograph of
something, you can take a photograph and now it is on your iPad
or whatever device you have. You don't then have to go back to
the office, take what you had on an 8\1/2\ by 11 and write it
in. So you do more cases that way. I want to skip the nineties
and skip the first decade of the 2000s, and then try and maybe
jump from the eighties to 2014. And it is really about, when I
think about what we are doing, this is one of the biggest
barriers as a Department to our being what we need to be and
what I think we both would want the Department to be.
Mr. Cole. I won't ask you if it is your favorite child, but
I will tell you it is a very expensive child.
With that, I yield to my friend from Connecticut for the
final question of the hearing.
RECRUITING U.S. WORKERS
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. And it is probably more of a
comment. There has been so much discussion today about the H-2B
program. And I believe that what we ought to be doing--and I
would say this to you, Mr. Secretary, and in so many ways
implore you with this effort is to ensure that Americans have a
fair shot at taking a job before we begin to bring in workers
from other countries.
I talk about this because I am concerned that some
employers use the program as a way to keep wages artificially
low. I will give you two or three examples: H-2B construction
workers earn $10.85 an hour. The national average is $16.84 an
hour. Landscapers earn $9.16 an hour. The national average
equals $12.65 an hour. H-2B maids earn $8.14 an hour. And the
national average is $10.64 an hour. This is a tough economy. It
is a tough economy. The biggest single issue that we have today
in the United States is that people are in jobs that just do
not pay them enough.
The Department's inspector general says he is concerned
that employers don't do a good job in recruiting U.S. workers
to fill open positions. I don't know what the final disposition
of all this is going to be with regard to H-2B workers, Mr.
Secretary, but I do, as I said, implore you to please make sure
we have a program that supports American workers and allows
them to achieve the kind of economic security that they need
for themselves and for their families. Thank you.
Secretary Perez. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
And, Mr. Secretary, again, I want to thank you for your
generous time today.
Secretary Perez. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. I appreciate your testimony very much and look
forward to working with you as we go forward and develop your
budget.
Secretary Perez. I do too. I apologize if I went on on a
couple of my answers.
Mr. Cole. Oh, no. I appreciate the enthusiasm. It was
actually more our members setting you up than it was you
overusing your time.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 18, 2015.
OVERSIGHT HEARING--CLOSING THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP IN HIGHER EDUCATION
WITNESSES
GAIL MELLOW, PRESIDENT, LA GUARDIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
AARON THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICER,
KENTUCKY COUNCIL ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
BENJAMIN L. CASTLEMAN, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION AND PUBLIC
POLICY, THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
CAROL L. FISCHER, PH.D., POST-DOCTORAL FELLOW, THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
BRIAN K. FITZGERALD, ED.D., CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE BUSINESS-
HIGHER EDUCATION FORUM
Mr. Cole. Good morning. And just for informational
purposes, President Mellow is stuck in the Metro or someplace
in traffic, something that we are all familiar with around
here. So as soon as she gets in, she will be joining the panel.
And we are trying to get her here as quickly and as easily as
possible.
I am going to have my prepared statement here for a second,
but I just want to open, as I visited with you privately
beforehand, and I want to tell you how pleased I am that we
have each and every one of you here. I was so thrilled reading
your testimony last night. I appreciate collectively your
efforts to make sure that folks that often don't have
opportunities or that have slipped through cracks find ways to
move forward and this focus on helping particularly first-
generation college kids succeed. And not always kids, as Dr.
Fischer will tell us a little bit later. But I am just
extraordinarily pleased with your work.
Again, this is a committee where we sometimes have some
spirited differences. This is actually one of the topics that
tends to bring us together across partisan lines. So, again, I
am really thrilled you are here.
And my pleasure to welcome our witnesses today to the
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
to discuss closing the achievement gap in higher education.
Looking forward to hearing your testimonies.
Our country's system of higher education is unparalleled in
the world. Our institutions of higher education have produced
advancements in science, technology, and the humanities, and
have been critical in making the United States economically
competitive. Our higher education system has also made a
difference in the lives of millions of Americans by helping
individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to improve their
economic prospects and enter the middle class. And they have
educated tens of thousands from around the globe, while setting
a global standard in access and excellence that is the envy and
inspiration of much of the world.
Despite its many successes, our higher education system
faces challenges. Minorities and children from low-income
families are less likely to attend college compared to their
wealthier counterparts. Additionally, entering college does not
guarantee success. Students from these same groups are also
less likely to persist in higher education and eventually
obtain a degree.
While the cost of higher education is certainly a factor,
it is not the only factor. Often these students lack a network
of family and friends who have attended college and are
familiar with the in and outs of applying for aid, choosing
classes, and preparing for a career after graduation.
There is a role for the Federal Government to play in
helping disadvantaged students to be successful in higher
education. A more educated populous strengthens our workforce
and our international competitiveness. Individuals who complete
their course of study and obtain a degree are more likely to be
employed and earn more than their counterparts who were not
able to do so.
The Department of Education's loan and grant programs make
higher education a possibility for millions of Americans, and
programs such as TRIO and GEAR UP help students to make use of
these financial resources. Through these programs, the Federal
Government partners with States, school districts, institutions
of higher education, nonprofits, private industry, and tribes
to help develop students to prepare for, enroll in, and
complete a higher education. This preparation is essential for
helping these students make use of the financial aid and
educational opportunities that are available to them.
Today we look forward to hearing from our witnesses about
ways in which the efforts I have mentioned can improve college
access and completion among first-generation college students.
Today I am pleased to welcome--and she is not yet here but
will be, so I am going to go ahead and mention her--Dr. Gail
Mellow, the president of La Guardia Community College in Long
Island City, New York, who will testify about successful
interventions that have been piloted at La Guardia and
elsewhere to help students succeed in completing their chosen
degree programs.
Dr. Brian Fitzgerald, CEO of the Business-Higher Education
Forum, who will testify about private sector partnerships to
increase educational attainment for underrepresented
populations, particularly in areas aligned with workforce
needs.
Dr. Ben Castleman, assistant professor of education and
public policy at the Curry School of Education at the
University of Virginia, who will testify about his research on
the impact of relatively low-cost interventions providing
information on financial aid on keeping disadvantaged students
in school.
Dr. Aaron Thompson, executive vice president and chief
academic officer of the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary
Education and professor in the Department of Educational
Leadership and Policy Studies at Eastern Kentucky University,
who will testify about efforts in the State of Kentucky to
develop partnerships to improve higher education.
And Dr. Carol Fischer, postdoctoral fellow at Dows
Institute for Dental Research at the University of Iowa and
adjunct professor in biology at Kirkwood Community College in
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, who will testify about her experience with
the McNair Program, a part of TRIO, which helped her overcome
obstacles as a first-generation college student and obtain a
Ph.D. I must add she also is a former resident of the district
that I am privileged to represent.
So it is very wonderful to have you here. And that is a
program at East Central I am very, very familiar with, and it
has just done a great job for literally thousands of students
over many decades now.
So I look forward to hearing all of your testimony. I would
like to yield now to my ranking member for the day, at least
for the outset of this hearing, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Fattah, for any opening remarks he cares to
make.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think that this is a critically important hearing. And,
obviously, as our country economically competes with billion-
plus populated countries like China and India, the question
about how we make sure more and more of our young people live
up to their potential and have the opportunities to be
productive, both entrepreneurs and part of our workforce in the
country, is critically important.
For far too long these discussions have centered around the
challenges that these young people and their families face. But
I think more and more now we see that the country faces a
significant challenge because, as the President said, we have
fallen so far in the list of nations with adults with a college
degree. And we see emerging economic powers like China, which
is going to graduate 280 million people. We sit here in a
country with just a little over 300 million people. And if we
are going to remain the leading nation in the world, every one
of these young people are going to have to have the opportunity
to achieve.
This discussion of an achievement gap is somewhat
mislabeled because a lot of it is an opportunity gap. These
young people don't get the opportunity in the K-12 circumstance
to prepare themselves to adequately matriculate at a higher
education level.
So I am concerned about the achievement gap from the
terminal degree down. I think we have challenges at every
particular sector in our country in which we need to be
producing more and more college-educated adults. In our federal
workforce, for national security purposes, we do not now have
the replacement persons that we need to go into critical
infrastructures, like maintaining our nuclear weapon stockpile.
And so we have a lot of challenges.
And so at the base of this, obviously, I have been very
interested over the years, from GEAR UP, TRIO, Upward Bound,
the Opportunity Tax Credit, I mean, we can go through the
laundry list. But the country will have to come to grips with
this. And I am so pleased that the chairman is hosting this
hearing.
I spent some time a few years ago, I came out to Oklahoma
City, I went over to Oklahoma University. At that time, it just
opened up a new engineering school, and they had some GEAR UP
kids there. And you were looking down over this overhang
balcony to see them doing the work, and you could see future
Dean Kamens right there. And we need engineers to solve
problems, and in order to produce them we need people like
those presented here.
So, Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, my friend.
And I had not looked out in the audience but, look, I see
some proud East Central and Oklahoma. So get up. These are
people from my district. So I am going to exercise the
chairman's prerogative and ask you just to stand up and let us
recognize you and express our appreciation for all you do.
Pretty proud of your alum that are here. So thank you guys very
much and appreciate you being at the hearing.
With that, we will go to the testimony. Obviously, as I
mentioned, when President Mellow gets here we will sort of
insert her in the lineup. But if we can, Dr. Fitzgerald, we
will start with you.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. As a first-generation college grad myself, I
thank you for inviting me to speak with you this morning about
the need to close the achievement gap at all levels in higher
education and how the Business-Higher Education or BHEF
projects are addressing this challenge. Now in its 38th year,
BHEF is the Nation's oldest membership organization of Fortune
500 CEOs, college and university presidents, and other leaders
dedicated to advancing innovative higher education and
workforce solutions and improving U.S. Competitiveness and
national security.
Far too few students who enroll in postsecondary education
persist to complete an industry-valued credential within a
reasonable period of matriculation. The causes are well
documented, but the result is unmistakable. Far too many first-
generation, low-income, and underrepresented students leave
postsecondary education with neither the credentials nor the
skills to succeed in an increasingly competitive global
economy.
BUSINESS-HIGHER EDUCATION
BHEF's signature initiative is designed to address this
gap. Through the collaboration of its business and academic
members, BHEF has launched the National Higher Ed and Workforce
Initiative, a 6-year effort that includes regional projects
focused on business-higher education partnerships to improve
degree completion. It also includes a national effort to
disseminate learning from the projects and scale effective
practices. These partnerships are scaled with other businesses
partners, including the Aerospace Industries Association and
the Business Roundtable.
The regional projects demonstrate how to meet emerging
workforce needs, increase undergraduate interest and
persistence in key disciplines, and help students graduate from
community colleges and universities workforce ready.
BHEF has a history of developing groundbreaking simulation
tools to demonstrate the impact of scaling evidence-based
practices on college completion. BHEF's original P-16 STEM
Education Model provided insights into how degree completion
represents a key leverage point in a national workforce and
competitiveness strategy.
BHEF and the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research
collaborated to develop the U.S. STEM Undergraduate Education
Model to show how the Navy's investment in cutting-edge student
retention strategies can have the strongest impact on its
future workforce needs. Although the modeling focused on
students enrolled in STEM majors, it provides a window on the
broader completion challenge.
The modeling demonstrates that strategies like providing
summer bridge programs before matriculation and offering early
research internships boost persistence in degree completion.
However, the modeling showed that multidimensional programs,
those that combine strategies and continue over time, have a
far greater impact on degree completion. Examples include the
Meyerhoff Scholars Program, the Louis Stokes Alliances for
Minority Participation, and the Freshman Research Initiative.
Many first-generation students begin their postsecondary
education at community colleges. However, less than 10 percent
of all students who start community colleges in STEM majors
earn a degree in STEM within 6 years. NSF has provided BHEF
with a 5-year grant to launch the Undergraduate STEM
Interventions with Industry Consortium, a group of BHEF member-
led sites that will engage business and apply combinations of
evidence-based interventions designed to increase student
persistence and completion.
Business engagement with first-generation and low-income
students before they transfer to 4-year institutions is
essential. When business plays an active role, it helps ensure
that students will complete their postsecondary education and
are provided with opportunities to pursue high-skill, high-wage
jobs.
FEDERAL AID
The effectiveness of BHEF's initiatives, however, is
dependent on a healthy higher education system and adequate
financial aid for its students. BHEF believes that maintaining
the health of the Pell Grant program and the purchasing power
of the Pell Grant maximum award, as well as other Title IV
programs, are critical components of a national completion
strategy. Federal student aid should remain a priority to
ensure that all Americans, regardless of their economic status,
have the opportunity to attend college, improve their knowledge
and skills to excel in a 21st century economy.
BHEF recommends funding the Pell Grant program at least at
the 2015 level and increasing the Pell maximum award. Congress
also should support the Federal SEOG, Work Study, TRIO, and
GEAR Up programs to serve more disadvantaged and low-income
students. Each of these programs plays an important role in
preparing first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented
students for college, encouraging persistence and ultimately
degree completion.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. Cole. Appreciate that very much, Dr. Fitzgerald.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cole. President, welcome. We introduced you and
explained that you have, like all of us, encountered traffic
problems in Washington, D.C. So if you are ready, we will move
to your testimony if that is okay.
Ms. Mellow. I am. Thank you so much, Chairman Cole. And I
did have every form of possible delay, airplane delay, someone
sick on the Metro. It was a wonderful morning. So I am just so
delighted to be here. And I am so honored to give you testimony
today. And I am sorry for not having heard my colleagues.
I am going to speak as a community college president. So
there certainly are major national issues, but I wanted you to
hear it from the street level, if you will, from what my life
is like.
LAGUARDIA
So at LaGuardia we have about 60,000 students. About 20,000
of those, are going for a degree. About 40,000 of those are
getting workforce development training with us. But like most
community college students, beer blast is not a problem that I
have at LaGuardia.
These students are majority female. Over half are over 25.
They all commute. About 60 percent of them work. Of my females,
about a quarter of them are mothers. Sixty-eight percent of
these students, and this is true nationally, are working over
20 hours a week. And when you look at who community college
students are, I think you see these are the individuals who
want to make it in America. They believe in the American dream.
And they are doing everything that they can to get there.
When we look at the kinds of things that we want to do to
help them, I think back, so I am revealing my age, I graduated
from high school in 1971. When I graduated, 28 percent of the
jobs needed something beyond a high school diploma. Now it is
60 percent.
And so at community colleges we have to be relentlessly
pragmatic in two ways. One is that there are really necessary
technical and near-term skills that our students need because
they are poor and they need to work. And so we want to make an
investment in skills that will really allow them to immediately
enter the workforce. And that is why our relationship with
business is so important, and I will speak to that in a minute.
But we also want to make sure that we give students what I
will call the general competencies, the longer-term skills,
because those are like patient capital. Those will really pay
not immediate rewards, but long-term rewards. And I think
together what we all want is an economy and a society that is
filled with people who are living the American dream. So I want
to speak just a little bit about four ways I have found as a
college president that really make a difference in the lives of
students.
Before I do that, and because I am in front of a
congressional panel, I couldn't help but do one line of
reference to funding. And I will just point out that for
community colleges in our country, we serve now over half of
all undergraduates and we get about two-thirds of all the
public funding. So that relationship between what we get and
what others get for the hardest-to-serve students is a big gap.
But the four areas that I wanted to speak to you about that
are sort of on the ground, if you will, one is investing in
helping faculty be better teachers. We do this all the time in
K-12. No one pays any attention once that student walks across
the graduation stage when they get out of high school.
INVESTING IN FACULTY
And so what we have found at LaGuardia is investing in
helping these faculty teach better is essential. They are
facing students unlike any we have ever seen before. And what
we have found is that while most of the technology is focused
on teaching students, we have to also use that technology to
teach the teachers. They need better skills. And we have got to
do that, because if we could get those faculty to help just two
more students pass their class in every class, we would raise
graduation rates by 7 percent without any additional dollars.
And so we have to be smart about technology. LaGuardia is now
working with community colleges in Arizona and in Florida to
really use technology to help faculty get better.
We have also found the same to be true when we look at
getting students from a high school equivalency, adults who
didn't make it out of high school, up to and through college,
because the high school equivalency isn't enough. We did a
random control trial study in our Bridges to Career and College
Program and we found when we had full-time faculty, well
trained, we could make a huge difference, double the
graduation, triple the number of students who went to college.
CONTEXTUALIZE EDUCATION
But we also had something very important, and that is the
segue to my second issue, which is that we contextualize that
education for these adults who have not made it out of high
school. It is wonderful to read ``Moby Dick.'' I love that. But
if you are going to be a healthcare worker it is also pretty
important for you to read some medical records, to understand
the kind of language that will be used within your occupation.
And that is where the connection with business is so
important. We need to know realistically what is needed in the
workplace. And we have found, for example, in working with
Weill Cornell, which is a major hospital conglomerate, if you
will, in New York City, that they were hiring bachelor's degree
students for their front office staff. They were bright, they
were wonderful, and they stayed about 6 months, because they
wanted to do other things.
When they worked with us and we customized a 17-week
program to train students who were in their first year of
college and who had not yet entered college to learn the skills
that were really necessary, two things happened. One is that
those individuals stayed longer. And the second is that they
are now eligible for Weill Cornell's tuition reimbursement. So
we are really taking people on a ladder step by step.
But business had to put some skin in the game. It took them
time to really identify what were the skills that were needed.
So that relationship with business is essential.
APPLIED LEARNING
The third, leading me to my third point, which is that
applied learning is essential. Many of my students have never
met one of us, never met a person who went to work in a suit.
They never met a professional, much less worked in a
professional area. So internships and applied learning is so
important. But to do that is hard. It is hard for the
businesses. It actually costs time to have volunteer help. And
it gets harder. Our students are so poor at the community
colleges that they can't give up their second or third part-
time job in order to do a free internship.
So I think as a country we need to really think of a
tripartite relationship where education and business and
government come together and give students support for working
in companies where they then can understand what it is like,
what the job is really like. And the companies, frankly, get to
see these students, who, they are not from Princeton, they are
not from Yale, they are not from Harvard, but, boy, they are
going to make a difference in the American economy.
INTENSIVE SUPPORT
And the last thing that I would say is that we have found
that intensive support for these students really makes a
difference. At the City University of New York where LaGuardia
is one of seven community colleges we have a program called
ASAP, which is an intensive program that through intensive--it
is actually intrusive advisement, you don't get away without
talking to your advisor every other week--with full-time
status, with support for tuition, whatever tuition gap there
is, for things as simple as a Metro card, and for really
focusing on what you should be doing, going to school all the
time, we have found that we are able to double the number of
students who graduate in half the amount of time.
It is a wonderful program. The challenge is it is an
expensive program. It has to be an investment. So we find in
ASAP we need an additional about $4,000 per student per year.
It is not cheap. But the end, to get that student through in 3
years means they begin a lifetime of earnings.
And so, Chairman and the rest of the committee members, the
way to think about community colleges, I think, is to really
understand that this is a different group of individuals who
really want to make a difference. They don't need a lot. They
need a little bit of a helping hand. And then the results are
pretty extraordinary.
Thank you so much for asking me here for my testimony.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cole. And now bear with me here. I didn't say this, we
have a 5-minute rule. When the light goes red, it is up. But we
are going to be very generous. I don't want you to be
intimidated by that. I just try to keep our testimony moving
along. Your full statements will all be entered into the
record. But say what you want to say because this committee is
extraordinarily interested in it. And particularly given how
far and hard you had a trip to get here, we appreciate you
arriving.
So if we can, I will move next to Professor Castleman.
Mr. Castleman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the subcommittee. I am honored to be here with you
today to testify about low-cost, scalable strategies to
increase college persistence and success, particularly among
economically disadvantaged students.
We have made considerable progress over the last decade
increasing the share of the populous that pursues postsecondary
education. At the same time that we have witnessed improvements
in college going, however, gaps in college completion between
low- and high-income families have only widened over time.
Recent innovations highlight the potential for low-cost,
scalable strategies to reduce these inequalities. These
innovations stem from the growing recognition that targeted
information and advising about college and financial aid can
play an essential role in helping students and families
navigate critical junctures on the road to and through college.
SUSTAINED ADVISING
Policymakers and educators have long recognized that a lack
of access to advising can prevent talented students from going
to college, and a wide variety of college access programs have
emerged over the years to address this gap. Until recently,
however, what we largely failed to recognize is how important
sustained advising is for students even after they successfully
navigate the college and financial aid application process.
During the summer after high school, for instance, high school
graduates who have been accepted to college and plan to enroll
still have to complete a complex array of financial and
procedural tasks in order to successfully matriculate, yet they
typically lack access to professional assistance during these
months.
In a phenomenon that we have called summer melt, my
colleagues and I find that 20 to 30 percent of college-
intending high school graduates from urban districts fail to
enroll anywhere in the year after high school as a result of
challenges they encounter completing these tasks.
The good news is that we have developed a variety of
innovative and inexpensive solutions to help students navigate
these complex processes and continue on the path through
college. Much of my own work has leveraged text messaging as a
strategy to provide students with personalized college
information and to make it easy for them to connect to
professional advising when they need help. We can use texting
to deliver consolidated bursts of information about tasks that
students need to complete with the confidence that at least for
a moment in time that content will reach students and grab
their attention.
TEXT MESSAGING
My colleagues and I have run a series of text messaging
campaigns to help reduce summer melt. These texting campaigns
cost less than $10 per student, which includes hiring
counselors to work over the summer, but can increase the share
of college-intending high school graduates who make it to
campus by over 10 percent, with the biggest impacts among the
lowest-income students.
We have also applied these text-messaging strategies in a
pilot study to encourage college freshman to successfully renew
their financial aid. Community college freshman who received
these messages were 25 percent more likely to persist through
sophomore year than students who didn't receive the texts.
I think we are just at the cusp of seeing how technology
can be creatively leveraged to help students more effectively
navigate what has historically been very complex and
challenging decisions. For instance, there is broad recognition
of the need to provide students with better loan counseling so
they can make informed borrowing decisions. Work is now
underway at the Community College of Baltimore County to use
text messaging as a channel for connecting students to one-on-
one loan counseling from a financial aid professional.
OTHER APPLICATIONS
Texting is not the only form of interactive technology that
we can leverage to connect students to high-quality advising.
With support from Bloomberg Philanthropies, several prominent
college access organization are reaching out to tens of
thousands of high-achieving high school seniors to offer them
sustained virtual college advising. By leveraging interactive
technologies, like screen sharing and video chat, these
advisers can from thousands of miles away provide the kind of
personalized advising to which these students wouldn't
otherwise have access.
What sets text messaging and other interactive technologies
apart are their low cost and scalability. Any organization with
access to students can collect cell phone numbers and consent
to message them. I am proud to be collaborating with the
Institute for Education Sciences and Abt Associates to
investigate how digital messaging can be leveraged to help GEAR
UP students make a successful transition from high school into
the first year of college.
Federal student aid is similarly well positioned to use
personalized digital messaging to help students and their
families navigate various stages of the financial aid process.
The FAFSA and the loan entrance counseling process both provide
ideal access points to collect cell phone numbers and other
forms of contact from millions of students who could benefit
from simplified information and access to help with these
complex decisions.
In closing, it is worth emphasizing that the success of
these strategies depends on being able to direct students to
existing resources, like the federal financial aid and college
advising programs. With these resources in place, and as long
as students continue to encounter complexities on the road to
and through college, creative leveraging of technology offers a
low-cost and scalable strategy to improve college persistence
and success among disadvantaged students.
Thank you again very much for the opportunity to testify
before the subcommittee today.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cole. Professor Thompson, if we can, we will move to
you for your statement.
Mr. Thompson. Chair Cole, Congressman Fattah, and
distinguished committee members, thank you for the invitation
and good morning. It is my pleasure being here today
representing many Kentucky students, both in K-12 and higher
education. But I am also here representing what I believe to be
one of the more powerful programs that will address and is
addressing what my distinguished colleagues have already
mentioned, that is closing the gap.
What do we know about closing the gap? We know, especially
for low-income students, they are five times more likely not to
enroll in college. We know that if they do enroll in college
they graduate at about half the rate of those that are not low
income. And many of these exact sort of demographics can apply
to students of color.
Personally and professionally, I have to tell you, I have
something to bring to the table on this issue. And, President
Mellow, I appreciate you offering that personal touch. Because
I am a first-generation high school student, as well as college
student. I am from central Appalachia. My father was an
illiterate coal miner. My mother had an eighth-grade education.
And I will tell you that the value of education was always
talked about in my home. I have to tell you that when they
talked about it, I probably interpreted it a little bit
different than what they really meant it. But that is okay.
That is about building capacity in a person.
My father talked about, boy, you get an education, you get
a chance to not be in the coal mines. My mother said you get an
education, you have a chance of actually getting money. Both of
those were very powerful items. So in the last two-plus decades
in my professional career I have been studying exactly what it
takes to reach success for those that are most disenfranchised.
To make a long story short, there are four big items, four
big pillars, four big building blocks that it takes in order to
make it happen. And even though this doesn't work this way, I
would want you to imagine these four building blocks as being
equal in power.
FAMILY
The one is the family. We know that the more input a family
member has, especially with parents, the greater chance that
that child will actually succeed, right? And that is previous
education also.
COMMUNITY
We also know that community matters. And the community, you
guys mentioned this business partnership. In Kentucky, we are
really into the partnerships with K-12 and higher ed. We know
working together we can do that.
PEERS
We also know that peers, by the time they get to be 11 or
12, may be the most powerful influence on that child. I will
tell you, my mother always said, boy, you hang out with the no-
goods, you are going to be no good. And her point is that if
you build a powerful peer relationship, it can be good.
INSTITUTION
The third is the institution itself. And this is where your
distinguished committee, with very bipartisan efforts, have put
forth the kind of programs that work. We know that that
institution may be the place that many of these folks come to
that they have to actually replicate the first and the second
building blocks. And we know that is important. And you may
have been reading, the U.S. DOE came out and said that some of
these efforts are working, we are closing some of these gaps.
But, Congressman Fattah, I agree with you, it is about
opportunity.
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY
And the fourth one is the student him or herself or the
person him or herself. We have to be able to build the capacity
of that person. There are two things that we know that we need
to build. And I will tell you, GEAR UP, what I am going to talk
about in a second, does that. We know we have to be able to
teach them how to self-actualize and recognize when they don't
have what it takes to be successful. And, number two, about
going about finding it. You have heard this before, if you give
them a fish, they will eat one time. If you teach them how to
fish, they will eat multiple times.
GEAR UP
So this is what we are talking about. GEAR UP is a
competitive 6- or 7-year grant program that funds either States
or community partnerships to collaborate and improve the
academic, social, and financial readiness of low-income
students and increase the number who graduate from high school
and enroll in postsecondary education.
What is unique about GEAR UP, we start early. We know the
earlier you start in elementary or middle school and follow
those students through in a cohort fashion, the more input that
you have across those four building blocks. GEAR UP does that
starting in the seventh grade. It provides services to its
students and families.
So we try to build the capacity of those parents and family
members to help these students get through. We do mentoring,
intrusive advising. We get them on colleges. Because much of
this we are talking about is the college-going culture. Many of
the kids still--I am from Appalachia, I have to tell you--we
still have to get them to believe that college and graduating
from high school being college ready or career ready gives them
a key towards success. We build the professional, the students,
the teachers, and the leadership of that school to be very much
a part of this creation of the college-going culture.
Why is it unique? As I said, it starts early, from seventh
grade all the way through the first year of college. It serves
all students and all grades. We believe that building together,
raising all tides, gets us to where we need to go. It creates
partnerships with businesses and community members, especially
the partnership grants build those unique partnerships that
direct itself toward the community issues.
We have a State grant. That is building a strategic agenda
throughout the State where GEAR UP is a key element, a key
portion of our overall State agenda, which my office actually
sets.
GEAR UP in Kentucky, I want to tell you really quick, when
we look at comparing the schools that were not in GEAR UP,
before they got in GEAR UP, we see those schools actually
increasing their college-going rate by 22 percent. We also see
that they actually have great success in the first year of
college. We are now in the process of tracking those students
as they go through college and see how well they do.
Berea has several GEAR UP grants, and one of the things
that they shared with us that I want to share with you is that
students are reading above grade level, they are doing math at
17 percent more than their other cohorts, and they are actually
demonstrating that students who are coming from the most
disenfranchised area can have a huge input on the opportunity
that you mentioned earlier.
So what do we need? We are asking you to continue but
expand the efforts that we know work. GEAR UP is one of the
most cost-effective programs that you have, by the way. It
serves at $547 the kind of impact that I was just mentioning.
That is per student per year.
But the need is greater. Less than one in five applicants
for new GEAR UP projects received the funding in 2014. We could
get a lot more if we could get more funding obviously. So we
are asking that you think about it along these terms. We have
$301,600,000 right now of appropriations that support over half
a million low-income students. We know that even just a modest
20,000,000 more dollars would serve at least 35,000 more
students. And then you can start calculating above that.
Mr. Chair, I apologize for going over, but I will tell you
that GEAR UP works.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cole. Well, you don't need to apologize. First of all,
as I am sure you know, you have the congressional father of
GEAR UP up here whose grin was getting progressively bigger.
Mr. Fattah. Definitely is music to my ears, Chairman.
Mr. Cole. And the only other thing I can say is your mom
clearly knew my mom.
Mr. Thompson. Moms believe in behavioral modification.
Mr. Cole. It was very similar. We seem to have gotten the
same parenting advice growing up.
If we can, next I want to move to Dr. Fischer. And just a
delight to have you here.
TRIO
Ms. Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am honored to have the opportunity to testify
today about the impact of the TRIO program on my life. I
particularly want to encourage the subcommittee to invest more
in the TRIO programs in the fiscal year 2016 so that more
students can be served. While TRIO served nearly 880,000
students in 2005, only about 785,000 students are served today.
And we very much hope that the House can move towards restoring
necessary funding for additional students.
So I grew up in a family that didn't value education at
all. My home was a very severely abusive one. I missed weeks of
school at a time because I couldn't go to school with cuts or
bruises or a busted-up face. And when I was in the sixth grade
my mom removed my siblings and I from public school under the
guise of home schooling. And as a sixth-grader I became a
teacher to my six younger siblings and two younger cousins who
lived with us. I taught them everything I knew, how to read,
write, and do math, at least as much as a sixth-grader knows,
but there was no one to teach me.
A few years later, and an abusive marriage later, I was
walking through a county fair in Oklahoma when an East Central
University recruiter stopped me and asked me if I wanted to go
to college. I never even considered going to college because I
literally knew nothing about education. I was a 33-year-old
single mother of two boys and I lacked a lot in the education
department. And then there was the issue of money. I honestly
didn't know that there was money to help people in my
situation. But this wonderful gentleman convinced me that I
could and should go to college.
So to say that attending college was a challenge is a
pretty big understatement. I hadn't been in a classroom since
the sixth grade, and I had a lot of catching up to do. Also, I
couldn't shake the feeling that I was an imposter. So I was
struggling to gather enough courage and confidence to keep
going.
And then I discovered science, something I hadn't really
experienced because of my lack of formal education, and I knew
I had found something that I could be passionate about. The
class was general zoology, and that professor kept me on the
edge of my seat. I literally wanted to go to class every day.
By the end of that semester, I had changed my major to biology,
and several professors in the Biology Department had started to
talk to me about a graduate degree and how the TRIO McNair
Postbaccalaureate Achievement program could help me navigate
that process. I had never heard of a Ph.D., and I certainly
didn't know how to obtain one, but I loved science and if it
would help me learn more about science and even be able to
teach science, I was interested.
So the McNair office became my home base for the remainder
of my time at East Central University. TRIO programs enable
low-income, first-generation students to address the
nonfinancial obstacles that they encounter to prepare for,
apply for, enroll in, and complete college.
The lack of family support that I described is certainly
not universal among low-income, first-generation students, but
the presence of major nonfinancial obstacles, together with
real financial obstacles, are almost always there. For example,
I almost always worked two or three jobs while I was caring for
two young children and full-time college, and the sense of
being different, maybe just not being ready, is so often
present for low-income, first-generation students regardless of
their aspirations and motivations.
MCNAIR
Ronald McNair, himself, encouraged students to dare to
dream, because big things can happen if you dream big and work
hard. But sometimes a person doesn't even know how to dream. I
didn't know how to dream, because I didn't know what to dream
about. I didn't know what was available.
But the McNair program helped with that. They were so much
more than program staff. They became my family and my biggest
cheerleaders, and they literally changed my life. They opened
my eyes to opportunities that I didn't know were available. And
the open-door policies of McNair mentors allowed me to keep
asking questions until I got answers. And by then I was really
hungry for answers and for knowledge.
One of the biggest impacts of the program was that students
in the program were not treated differently because of their
less than ideal backgrounds. In fact, the opposite was true.
For the first time in my life, I started to feel like an equal
citizen, capable of accomplishing anything I set my mind to.
They also fostered this community feeling among the students so
that we became a family. And we supported each other not just
in classwork, but in personal crises.
I persevered in my studies, and I ultimately did complete
my doctorate at the University of Iowa. It was in oral
microbiology. And I am now engaged in a postdoctoral research
program, and I am committed to a life of teaching and research.
And I discovered that passion through research and teaching
opportunities in the McNair program.
One of the major reasons to invest in TRIO is the profound
change it is able to make in an individual life, like mine.
Another is its reach. TRIO touched me through a small college
in Oklahoma. But with 2,800 programs in every U.S. State and
several territories, it is an ideal vehicle for introducing
effective approaches to student success, but more funds are
necessary to expand and intensify existing services.
And I thank you for listening to my story and considering
my views.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cole. Well, Dr. Fischer, I want you to know my science
teacher kept me on the edge of my seat too. But I was wondering
whether or not I could pass. I am glad yours was much more
successful.
I am going to open up. And an interesting common theme to
me in all of your remarks was, frankly, how many different
things are necessary. We look at this often as a financial
problem, but as all of you have mentioned in different ways,
there is a whole panoply of support here. And we know if we
provide it, it really pays off.
ITEMS FOR FOCUS
Now, having admitted that up front, I am also going to put
you on the spot collectively, and I will start with you, Dr.
Fischer and then just work across, and ask you, if you had to
pick one or two things that in your experience are
extraordinarily important for us to focus on as a committee,
what would those things do? Because we are usually in a
position of having to make choices up here. We never have as
much money as we would like. So if you had to say this is the
one that makes a difference, if you have to prioritize, where
you would prioritize, I would love to get your response. So if
I can start with you, Dr. Fischer.
Ms. Fischer. That is a big one because it is overall----
Mr. Cole. It is very unfair too.
REACHING STUDENTS
Ms. Fischer. It is.
I think one thing that is really important, first of all,
is reaching students as soon as possible. I discovered through
my children that they learned a lot about education through me.
And they started talking to their friends. And I actually am
able to go talk to classrooms in my kids' schools now about
this process because they are curious and they want to know.
And many of them don't think that they can do this. And so I
think that it is really important, to start reaching them as
early as possible, so that they know what to dream about.
And also, while we need money, financial things, many of us
work multiple jobs to make this happen while some of us are
taking care of kids, we also need the funding to have people
available to be there for you because we don't have the
support, a lot of us don't have the support that we need.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
BUILD CAPACITY
Professor Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Well, you probably have guessed, I have asked
that in Kentucky several times. The things that we know that we
have to do now, we have to be able to build capacity. We have
to build on those things that work. We also have to look at how
many of the folks will have skin in the game to help us to do
that. One of the reasons why I like GEAR UP so much, because it
is a dollar-for-dollar partnership in what we create and how we
do. So we get double at least the magnitude out of the federal
dollar.
But the other thing that I think is important, we have to
look at--and I would agree with you--building the holistic
capacity of a student. And it has to start early. But we also
have to look as we get them through college--and when I say
college, I mean in some cases it may just be a 1-year
certificate--but the idea that many of our students still drop
out of college because of this gap that we are talking about.
So the need for need-based aid for completion is crucial. And
we have research that is coming out on that all the time.
So the idea of being able to build holistically the
capacity from elementary school all the way through, with the
right kind of teachers, the right kind of inputs in the
schools, and all the way through having to make sure that they
are college ready and career ready when they go on to college,
but yet giving them the kind of inputs that it takes for them
to be successful in college. So holistic capacity is one of two
of the things that I would argue that I would consider.
Mr. Cole. Great.
NEED-BASED AID
Professor Castleman.
Mr. Castleman. My position is much easier coming third in
line because I can build on the insightful comments of Dr.
Thompson and Dr. Fischer.
To reiterate something Dr. Thompson said, I think it is
crucial to sustain need-based aid for college. There is a
variety of very rigorous research showing long-term benefits
from need-based aid on outcomes. I have worked with my
colleague and mentor Bridget Terry Long at Harvard University
showing that a $1,300 need-based grant offered to students at
the end of their senior year in high school in Florida
increased the share that earned a bachelor's degree within 6
years by over 20 percent. I think that is a worthwhile
investment in terms of the lifelong benefits that student is
going to get. So I think it is very important to sustain
financial aid.
I also think Dr. Fischer's point is very well taken, that
even with financial aid in place students encounter very, very
complex decisions in evaluating where to go to college, how to
access financial aid and maintain their aid. And there are
critical junctures along that pathway where students do not
complete the FAFSA, they don't apply to a broad set of
colleges, they don't renew their financial aid. Students who
have worked very hard, showed tremendous promise for themselves
and their families, but also for our country, may fall through
the cracks.
And so I think figuring out ways that we can be smart and
strategic in how we make help available to students. And as you
heard from my testimony, I think that technology offers us low-
cost and scalable solutions to connect hard-working students to
one-on-one sustained advising, even if they don't have access
to that in their households or their community.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
PELL GRANT
Dr. Fitzgerald.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of full
disclosure, I spent 17 years as the staff director of the
Federal Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. So
we have been through a lot of battles over a lot of things, not
the least of which was the FAFSA.
But I would point to, not to get too technical, but I would
point to two things. First of all, the purchasing of the
maximum Pell Grant, because without a strong Pell Grant program
virtually nothing we are talking about here will work.
The second is something that we tried to do to clear the
information barriers, and it is something we worked with
Congress to write into the Higher Ed reauthorization in 1998,
and that is the automatic zero. And the closer we can get the
automatic zero to free and reduced lunch, the simpler the
communications challenge becomes, essentially equating federal
benefit, means-tested benefit programs. Obviously, free and
reduced lunches in every school, the ability to communicate
with parents about the fact that students would be eligible for
a Pell Grant because they are a free and reduced lunch
recipient would go a long way to reducing barriers. But it is
expensive.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
And if my friend, Mr. Fattah, will indulge me, I want to
allow President Mellow to answer the question, then we will
move to him. And I will be equally generous on the time.
TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Mellow. Again, coming last, I absolutely agree with
everything that has been said and said so well. So I will just
take a slightly different tack.
I would say that the challenge of America is not just who
is in college, but who should be in college. And I see those
students who have dropped out of high school, especially in
urban areas, especially men. We are having a crisis of men who
have dropped out of high school.
So I would say let's really look at the higher education
continuum as starting with students who have not made it out of
high school and really thinking deeply about how our workforce
development dollars align with our college dollars in ways that
really make sense and hold us to a high standard. But in that,
make sure that we use all the available activities that have
just been mentioned.
And I would especially talk about technology. The work of
being like a 911, sort of like get them before they fail, could
be so helpful. I have seen students drop out of college because
they couldn't find the babysitter when their mom who used to
take care of the kids couldn't come. I have seen students walk
for 2 hours to college because they didn't have a $100-a-month
Metro card. So little things can make a big difference, and
technology can really help us see that.
And the second piece is that I would really talk about
deepening partnerships with business and industry, because the
need of our students, particularly low-income students, to work
is real. And it is real when you have two kids and you are
working two or three jobs. It is real when you are thinking
about college.
So having the ability to make that connection so that the
curriculum that I teach at our college is effective for my
local community and that students really have the experience to
join with a business really opens up extraordinary opportunity.
One of our students who grew up poor in the Bronx, single mom,
said, ``I have always had dreams, but until I had my internship
I never saw myself in those dreams.'' And that is what we want
to do.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
And I thank my friend for being generous on the time. And,
Mr. Fattah, you are recognized.
BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE
Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
I am going to start with Mr. Fitzgerald. You represent the
business community. I spent a long time yesterday interacting
with one of our leading businesses, IBM. They have been
instructive in creating what are called P-TECH high schools.
And we are bringing them into Pennsylvania, into Philadelphia.
But they have set up these schools in a number of States. A
number of States have acted. They create an early college
opportunity for the young people we are talking about who are
in challenged circumstances, 2 years of high school, 2 years
they get an associate's degree in science. And then they get a
certificate, a technical certificate, in a year.
And so I am interested, obviously we are interested in
every young person being successful. But when you think about
the country, one of the reasons that the business community is
interested in this is not on the idea of each young person
being successful, it is the fact that we need these young
people. If our businesses are going to be successful, we need
them to be part of the workforce and the leadership force. So I
am interested in what your sense is, given what we see in our
economic competitors, in China and India and what they are
doing, right, vis-a-vis all of the young people that we are
leaving behind, and what that means to American business down
the road in terms of finding the people they need.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fattah, it is huge. And IBM is a
member. Our current chair is Roger Ferguson, who is president
and CEO of TIAA-CREF in New York City.
Our strategy is to support very unique partnerships between
our business and our academic members to build new pathways,
including from P-TECH high schools, into very high-demand,
high-skilled jobs. So, for example, one of the NSF sites is, in
fact, part of CUNY, and it is taking those students from a P-
TECH high school and transferring them successfully into a
baccalaureate program in technology.
Mr. Fattah. What I am interested in is, what is the flip
side of that? What happens if we don't succeed at this effort
here? What does that mean? I have heard from Bill Gates, other
people, say, look, we need these people, and if we can't find
them here in America to hire we are going to hire them
somewhere else, right?
Mr. Fitzgerald. That is correct.
Mr. Fattah. And given the technological circumstances we
live in, X-rays that used to be read and reviewed in
Philadelphia, Hahnemann Hospital, are now being read and
reviewed in India. I got insurance companies that are sending
work via satellite overseas in the morning and getting it back
in the evening. We have got H&R Block and others who take
taxpayers' information and send it to India to do their taxes,
to do the math for Americans to file their taxes. To pony up to
their civic responsibility here.
What I guess I am trying to get you to help the committee
understand is that this is really not just about whether we are
going to help some child somewhere find their future. I see it
more that it really is inextricably intertwined with whether
America is going to remain the leading nation in the world,
whether we actually take kids that we have been kind of leaving
in the shadows and give them this shot.
SKILL GAP
Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fattah, members of the committee, every
one of my business members will tell you that there is nothing
more important to the success of their firms and the United
States than talent. And right now there is a huge talent gap.
And it is not just talents, but it is skills.
And this relates also to national security. So one of the
fields that we are working in to connect young people to is
cybersecurity. And, for example, Wes Bush, the chairman and CEO
of Northrop Grumman, and Brit Kirwan, the chancellor of the
university system, worked together to create the first honors
college in cybersecurity in the country to meet the Federal
Government's cybersecurity needs.
So in virtually every sector there are critical workforce
challenges, and we need the students from campuses like
LaGuardia to be able to see pathways to any level, whether it
is a certificate, an associate's degree, or a baccalaureate,
because my companies and I know all companies cannot succeed
without that talent. The jobs will go elsewhere.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
The ranking member has arrived, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
yield the time to Rosa DeLauro.
Mr. Cole. Okay. Well, in that case, we will go to Mr.
Fleischmann next. And we will come to you next if that is okay.
Ms. DeLauro. That is fine.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And to this distinguished panel, thank you all for being
here today.
I too am the first generation to go to college in my
family. I had two elementary schools, three middle schools, and
two high schools, all in the public education system, all
around the United States, and it was tough. But to hear the
great stories that we heard from you all today and your
commitment to education, I just want to thank you. Because we
cannot fail. I want to hear more success stories for our
Nation's youth and even some adults who go back to college and
get a shot at that great American dream. So I thank you all.
My question is for Dr. Mellow today. I see you are from
LaGuardia Community College. I know you have a great airport
there, former mayor, Fiorello.
Ms. Mellow. Yes.
Mr. Fleischmann. Great.
PARTNERSHIP WITH BUSINESS
Dr. Mellow, given your role as President at LaGuardia
Community College and your expertise with workforce development
initiatives, my question today is for you. In my district--and
that is the 3rd District of Tennessee, we have Chattanooga, Oak
Ridge, Athens, it is a wonderful east Tennessee district--there
is a growing demand for skilled workers. Educators and
businesses are working together to respond to this demand by
combining hands-on training experience with classroom
instruction.
For example, Chattanooga State's Engineering Technology
Department has formed a number of unique partnerships designed
to provide training for the local workforce that will qualify
them for high-tech positions. These partnerships include the
Tennessee Building and Construction Institute of Chattanooga,
the Institute of Material Joining and Testing, the Tennessee
Valley Authority Partnership Program, the Wacker Institute, and
the Volkswagen Academy. These programs can offer students a
comprehensive learning environment that blends classroom
instruction and laboratory instruction with paid on-the-job
training experience.
These workforce development initiatives have been highly
successful and crucial to our local economy, and we need more
like them. My question for you is, how can federal and state
officials help facilitate partnerships and collaboration
between schools and businesses to respond to the growing need
of local employers for skilled workers? And I thank you.
Ms. Mellow. What is happening in Tennessee is just so
exciting. It is exactly, I think, what can happen. And it is
very different. What is happening in Tennessee should be
different than what is happening in Mississippi or what is
happening in northern Washington. So the process that you
described, I think, is very interesting.
One of the things that happens is that, when you look at
Department of Labor, Department of Commerce, Department of
Agriculture maybe in some places, other kinds of federal
agencies that could support that, the support often presumes
that those relationships are already made, so that there will
be funding for the enactment of that program, rarely for the
creation. It is hard work to really create a real partnership.
And so part of it is let's fund the whole line of
development. Let's fund the creation of that collaboration. And
then on the other end let's really reward the companies who put
their time and effort into that, because it will be a real cost
to the companies who have worked hard.
So those would be two of my suggestions.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you very much, Dr. Mellow. With
that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Cole. If we can, I will go to our ranking member next
if she is ready.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My
apologies for being late. First of all, I would just like to
say I thank you all. I have read all the testimony, so I
appreciate your efforts, and this is an important topic for all
of us.
And, Mr. Chairman, what I will do is I am not going to make
any opening statement. I will just get it for the record and so
forth.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. DeLauro. I will just move to questions. I would just
like to say to Dr. Mellow, I thought I recalled your name and
seeing you and listening to you, and it was in November 3, 2011
where you came to the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee
sharing Reigniting the American Dream: Americas Entrepreneurial
Spirit as the Centerpiece of the Supercommittees Work, et
cetera, and where you were outstanding in terms of what is
going on at LaGuardia Community College.
I am a very, very big believer in community colleges. I do
believe that they should be front and center in our education
system; that they are the path for the middle class, and to get
the range of the students, you know, younger but older people
who self-select to get an education.
ASAP INTERVENTION
Kids reach the community college level, or older Americans
do in that regard without all the math, reading, and writing
skills, and you may have talked about this already, so we need
to deal with the kind of remedial attention that they need in
order to be able to deal with developing further their
education. My understanding is that when developmental
education students enter college, they succeed at a lower rate
than their peers, and that only 15 percent of these students
earn a degree or certificate within 3 years. A number of
reforms have been tried, and I am excited to learn about your
Accelerated Study and Associate Programs, ASAP intervention.
You have had significant success in boosting college
completion rates for these students. What was the most critical
piece of this intervention? And a follow-up is, what funding
was used to support the initiative? I know that the program in
the long-term reduces costs by getting students through school
more quickly, but it must have been a substantial investment up
front. How can this intervention be replicated on other
campuses with limited resources?
Ms. Mellow. Those are really important questions. I will
start out by why it worked. It did work because it really
eliminated the barriers that most low-income students face to
get a degree. So it eliminated the need for multiple part-time
jobs. It provided the ability to go to college full-time. One
of the reasons when we say students didn't graduate in 3 years
is, that is because they are going part-time. They went full-
time a semester, and now they are working, or taking care of
kids; and so part of the challenge is let's get the metrics
right. And one of the things that IPEDS, our national database,
doesn't do is really capture the complexity of today's
community college students.
The New York City experiment was really funded in multiple
ways, primarily, though, from the City of New York. We had
extraordinary support from Mayor Bloomberg, and now from Mayor
DiBlasio. It took a while. It really took a while to perfect
it. We are talking with other colleges in other States. But I
would say it does point to what I think is a hard truth, that
for low-income students for whom our public education system
has not been supportive for them, or for whom life has gotten
in the way, that we are going to make a serious investment.
The other thing I would say is that some of the other
experiments that have been powerful are really about
accelerating the move through developmental education. We do it
through contextualization. We do it through summer immersion
programs. The issue is it is a deficit that we want to
overcome.
I also think there is a growing national movement to
rethink the kind of mathematics that has been a barrier. What
we find is that if you go into health care, if you go into a
lot of businesses, not if you go into engineering, not if you
go into science, but into many, many other forms of very
productive professional work, statistics is as powerful a
quantitative analysis as learning to factor a quadratic
equation, which frankly as a college president, I haven't done
recently; but I use statistics all the time.
So part of it is that when we work more closely with
business and say, okay, we academics, we always thought it had
to be algebra. Working with you, what do you really need? So I
think we have to attack it in all those multiple ways, through
funding, through intensity, through the wraparound services,
the intensive advising, the support that students got, but also
rethinking our curricular structures to really make a
difference for adults and for students today.
Ms. DeLauro. I would just love to know, and you can get
back to me, you said you are talking to other States, who are
you speaking to, and how is that going and others who might be
replicating your system? Thank you.
Ms. Mellow. It is being replicated in Ohio.
Ms. DeLauro. In Ohio. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. Thank you. If we can, just by order of arrival,
we will go to my friend, Mr. Dent, from Pennsylvania next.
FREE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you for
being here this morning. It has been a very interesting panel.
I wanted to just talk a little bit about the Obama
administration's proposal for free community college. I just
heard Mr. Fleischmann make some interesting comments about the
Wacker training programs and Volkswagen which are very
targeted, very successful. I am aware of what many of the
German companies are doing in the United States, trying to
replicate to the best of their ability their very successful
apprenticeship programs here, very effective.
At the same time, I have been very much interested in GEAR
UP and TRIO programs in my district that I think have been
effective helping a lot of students who may have not had a
background, or families who have backgrounds in higher
education, help them move forward with their education and
careers. I am deeply concerned about the community college
program, because the free community college is, well, one, it
is not based on need. I have two children in college. I am
paying two tuitions. I don't think that the government should
be paying for my children's tuition at a community college or
anywhere else, given my circumstances and others like me. And I
am not complaining, but I am just saying, it is not based on
need. It is not targeted. I always thought the Federal
Government's role in higher education should be very specific
and that we should focus science, technology, engineering, and
math on need-based assistance, and programs like the ones that
some of you are representing here today.
I am concerned that we will be diluting our resources very
much, that these community colleges will no longer be community
colleges but become Federal colleges, because in my State, the
local communities have a very difficult time meeting their
obligations to the community colleges, and the States and
tuition are forced to play a greater role. If the community
colleges see the Feds are going to pay up, I suspect maybe the
local communities will invest less, and then we will have to
make up the difference, and it will almost be like the Medicaid
program, in terms of the burden that would fall on the States
at some point down the road if Federal commitment isn't there.
I would like to hear your comments on this about the idea
of free community college, and how would it impact programs
like those that you work with with TRIO and GEAR UP.
Ms. Fischer. Are you asking me?
Mr. Dent. Yes.
Ms. Fischer. Okay. Free college, I have one in college and
one that is going into college next year, and that sounds
great. But I feel like the biggest need is to find the people
who aren't in college, to access people or people who are going
to college but they are not likely to make it, and I think the
money would be better spent in programs to help those students
navigate their way through college and support them in college,
and maybe help them to move on like I did to higher levels of
education, because without that, we are not going to have
people.
And there are people like me out there who didn't know that
this was an option, and it may or may not help me to get there
without the support, and I really think the money to help
support the people while they are in there is very helpful.
Mr. Dent. So essentially, you are saying we should target
these funds much more than a broad just throw all the money out
there.
Ms. Fischer. Correct.
Mr. Thompson. In Kentucky, we don't have community support
for community colleges. It is State-supported and tuition
supported.
Mr. Dent. All State and tuition, no county governments or
school districts.
Mr. Thompson. No. Which has been very problematic to us
because I do believe that community colleges should be our low-
cost alternative to some of our 4-year institutions, and I
would have no problem with my children going to community
colleges. What I do feel that we could do is be able to help
the students that may not have money for access to go to
community colleges. I will say another item, and I am glad the
ranking member actually made this statement.
One way of looking at--many of our community colleges are,
they have students that are in remedial need. If we help K-12,
slow that down and help them, we won't have as much of that in
our community colleges or in Kentucky, many of our 4-year
institutions. My argument is that whether we have free
community colleges or not, we have got to figure out a better
way to get more students engaged and some low-cost
alternatives, and I believe community colleges could be that
direction. We could do that with financial aid, need-based aid,
and so on. But more than just access, we have got to help them
to success because it is better to keep them than to try to
recruit them again.
The last statement I will make about this is that when we
look at students that are highly engaged for a variety of
reasons, whether they have the income or not have the income,
if they are highly engaged, then they have a greater chance of
getting success. In other words, we need to target our dollars
towards that engagement, whether it is in K-12 with programs
like ours, or whether it is in the community colleges or other
4-year institutions whereby they can actually get involved at a
deeper level than we see many of them having the opportunity
now.
In Kentucky, we have almost 1,000,000 students that are
adult learners that could come back that have some college
degree. We need to target dollars toward getting many of these
students back engaged to become active members of the
workforce.
Mr. Dent. Thank you. My time is expired, and I yield back.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. If I can, I will go to my
good friend from California, the gentlelady, Ms. Lee.
SPECIAL POPULATIONS
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much. I want to thank our witnesses
and our panel for being here today, and I want to ask you a
couple questions. First, let me just preface it by saying now a
lot of attention is focused on the nontraditional student. It
is nice to see that because now I know that I was a
nontraditional student. I wondered what I was. Okay. I was a
single mom with two kids, on public assistance, receiving food
stamps, work study. I couldn't live on campus because I had two
kids. Day care was so expensive I had to take my children to
school with me, the whole 9 yards.
Now fortunately, in the day, I could stay on public
assistance while going to college, and I could stay on food
stamps. And I wanted to ask you as it relates to now the budget
cuts, as it relates to food stamps, and under welfare reform,
the time limits and the work requirements, what are you seeing
in terms of students like myself and how difficult or easy it
is now for them to complete college? That is the first
question.
Secondly, as it relates to formerly incarcerated
individuals, there is a lifetime ban on Pell grants if you have
been in jail. Once you have paid your dues, once you have
completed your time, many of us believe you deserve a second
chance. Yet this lifetime ban on Pell grants prevents people
who have already been punished, who are out trying to take care
of their families, they continue to be punished because they
can't receive Pell grants to go to college. Could you kind of
tell me what you think about that, and do you think that is a
reasonable policy? Or do you think we need to look at a change
in that to provide access to formerly incarcerated individuals,
which are primarily African American and Latino men?
Ms. Mellow. Let me start with your first question, which is
it is hard for poor people who are accessing social support to
continue in college, and yet like you, so many are. And so all
I can say is that those are hurdles that are placed in front of
people, and the extraordinary challenges are often faced, and
then we see successful role models like yourself. So I am going
to go back and tell all my students to look you up.
Ms. Lee. But tell your students also there was a safety net
in place that hadn't been gutted or cut.
Ms. Mellow. Yes, it is hard. It is hard. And many community
colleges work very hard to maximize social support so students
can really get what they need. And probably, my chancellor is
not ready for me to say this, but I feel very strongly that
looking very deeply at issues around punishment and redemption,
that looking at what should be an American role for individuals
who have both committed a crime and paid for that crime and the
punishment that we said, what should we do to bring those
individuals back into society?
I think that is an extraordinarily important issue. I think
it has to be carefully analyzed. You know, when I think of my
student body now, who do I want to invite in? Who do I want
sitting next to some 19-year-old at 9:00 at night when she has
just worked all day? Those are tough questions, but we haven't
had that dialogue in a very long time.
When I was 24 I taught in the Maryland minimum security
prisons. It was the scariest walk through the prison, I don't
know what you call it, the yard, that I have ever had in my
life; and they were the most extraordinary learners I had ever
met. And so, I think we have to engage in this, because
otherwise we have doomed generations of people to have no way
back into society, and so I very much agree that while it is
tough, and I am not sure where I would fall, that the time to
have that kind of serious dialogue is now.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Let me speak as an African American man.
Without a doubt, education is almost a cure-all for all those
things that you mentioned. Whether or not they will be on
public assistance or in prison, we know that there is a direct
correlation, some would even argue causal analysis--I am a
statistician, but it has been a few years since I have done
that, too--to say that education truly is the preventative
measure by which we might get there. But I will tell you this:
We have a crisis in society, and we have to admit that crisis.
Much of that falls around men, yes, but African American men in
particular. If we are not getting these folks engaged somehow
or reengaged, then I think we are losing a key element of who
we are as a society.
So my argument simply is this: Whether or not it is as
simple as letting them have voting rights or getting them
involved in other activities to be reacclimated to society,
whatever it takes, we better figure out a solution, because if
we keep seeing what is happening in our society based on this
disfranchisement, then I think we are going to end up having
many more issues than we could ever think about having.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope we can talk about
this in terms of barriers to accessing higher education at some
point from this committee, because there are certain issues I
think that could be bipartisan that we need to work on that I
think both sides could agree on.
Mr. Cole. I would like to work with the gentlelady on this
and find some way to do this, and a lot of this would, to me,
get down to where if we remove the ban, then what do we do to
empower you to be able to make discriminating decisions. I want
you to be able to exercise judgment in a way that we can't from
a distance, but you might be able to. But I think my friend
raises a really, really good point that we ought to continue to
look at. So thank you very much for bringing it up.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cole. If we can, I am going to go to my good friend,
the gentlelady from Alabama, Ms. Roby.
EARLY INTERVENTION
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being
here today, and thank you all for your sincere commitment to
help Americans succeed, so I really appreciate what each of you
do. Just yesterday I met with TRIO representatives from my
State, Alabama. And as you know, TRIO dollars are so important
to work with first-generation, low-income college students. We
know that there are tremendous success stories with TRIO, with
programs starting as young as the sixth grade. And so my first
question is--and any of you feel free to jump in--but what
grade do you think is the perfect time in a perfect world for
early intervention to help these children succeed? Anybody. All
of you.
Mr. Thompson. I will tell you that we know that if you are
not able to read or be at grade level by Grade 3, you are in
trouble. Right?
Mrs. Roby. Right.
Mr. Thompson. So I am going to argue early childhood
education is super important. I am going to also argue that
that has to be a continual effect, because we also know that
even high-performing 3rd and 4th grade students that are of
low-income or of color tend to lose that trajectory by the time
they get to high school because we are not having the kind of
intervention that we need to have in order to keep them going
in that direction.
Once again, we talked about GEAR UP and these TRIO
programs. GEAR UP starts in the 7th grade. My argument is we
should even back that up somewhat. But when you look at early
childhood education, we have to do something about that. We
just have to. Right? But we also know that we can't just do
that. We are going to have to have the kind of intervention
that we are trying to do with our TRIO programs and GEAR UP in
the earlier years, but I would say starting heavily once again
in the 4th and 5th grade.
Mrs. Roby. Okay. Yeah. Sure.
Mr. Castleman. Thank you very much. I think it is a very
important question. I very much agree with Dr. Thompson. I
think there is a lot of very good, long-term rigorous research
saying that investments in quality preschool education and
early learning opportunities generate long-term benefits that
affect whether students go to college and are successful, that
affect how much they earn, and that affect their health, their
criminal behavior or lack thereof. And so I very much agree
that the earlier we can make investments in education, the
longer benefits we can generate.
At the same time I imagine as a committee you are
constantly wrestling with the question of where do you direct
the scarce resources that you as a committee and we as a
country have access to. I believe that--I certainly agree with
Dr. Thompson about starting early. I think there are millions
of students across the country who have done the hard work to
be academically ready, and in many cases, socially ready for
college and struggle when they get to junior and senior year to
identify colleges that are a good match for their abilities and
interests, and that struggle to access the financial aid that
our country makes available to students if they complete the
application.
There are hundreds of thousands, if not over 1,000,000
students, who would be eligible for aid who do not apply. I
think for the committee's work, as you continue to invest in
education, broadly hopefully, I think there is an opportunity
to make very targeted low-cost investments for academically-
ready students in their junior and senior year that can lead to
substantial improvements in the share of traditionally
underrepresented students who are able to get to and then be
very successful once they are in college.
Mr. Thompson. Here, here.
Mrs. Roby. Anybody else?
Ms. Mellow. I will take a slightly different tack, and I am
going to use Dr. Fischer's words, who went to college and was
the first in her family to go to college and has young children
who watched her go to college, and she did it as a returning
adult. And the other way to think about dealing with low-income
students who are in those TRIO programs are also that
sometimes, their parents are going to community colleges and
really thinking about that as also an investment in a
community. There is nothing so powerful as seeing your mom or
dad study as a role model.
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Mrs. Roby. Sure. Dr. Castleman and Dr. Thompson, how do
colleges and universities and organizations ensure students and
student services are coordinated, especially for students with
disabilities? And I have got just a little bit of time, so----
Mr. Thompson. I think that is a crucial question. As I said
earlier in my testimony, the more you can coordinate these
efforts, the greater impact you will have. We have to start
thinking about critical mass, right. So the idea we may not
ever be able to measure exactly what inputs or formative
outputs that each of these individually have, but what we know
is that once they are coordinated under one umbrella that
focuses on particular goals and outcomes, then the greater
chance that all of them will have a larger capacity. But my
argument is just not those programs that are located within
those walls. It is also getting community resources to buy into
this.
Businesses are able to do this. Churches are able to do
this. Right? It is being able to develop peer leadership
programs that they can build. So it is taking those and then
doing a SWOT analysis, if you will, and looking at where the
holes are----
Mrs. Roby. Right.
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. To build that capacity. So in
the short amount of time I have, I will just say this: That
that is what all of us should be doing within the four walls,
looking at how they can be better coordinated and then doing a
SWOT analysis and seeing what else we can put into it from
outside the walls.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you. Sorry, my time expired. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. If you would look to go ahead and finish that
answer, please do, Mr. Castleman.
Mr. Castleman. No, sir. I don't have anything to add beyond
what Dr. Thompson shared.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Again, we will go to the other gentlelady from
California, Ms. Roybal-Allard.
YEAR-ROUND PELL GRANT
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many colleges
and universities offer accelerated degrees which allow students
to work through the traditional summer break to finish their
degrees faster, and this is particularly important, as has been
mentioned, to low-income students who are often motivated to
enter the job market as quickly as possible. It is my
understanding that these programs also help with retention as
students face a gap semester are less likely to come back the
following semester and are more likely to drop out altogether.
Unfortunately, Pell grants now only cover tuition from fall
to spring, and that means that students who wish to accelerate
their studies have to either take out more loans or skip summer
classes altogether. The year-round Pell grant offered some
relief in 2010 and 2011, but unfortunately was eliminated in
2012.
I recently spoke with President Covino at Cal State L.A.
University about the Pell grants. And based on his observations
and experiences, he found that these grants actually helped
students to graduate in a more timely manner and improved the
University's graduation rates.
Dr. Mellow, I will start with you. Did you find this to be
true at LaGuardia Community College? And what would be the
impact of restoring the year-round Pell grant for low-income
students? And what would be the benefits of reinstating this
program, say, for example, to our economy?
Ms. Mellow. It really was a wonderful program. When you see
students struggle so hard to get through a semester and the
gears are starting to turn; they are sort of getting into it,
and then Pell no longer covers summer, it slows them down. And
to build up that energy, we talked about your need to not only
do the academic work, but you have to change a mental model of
yourself. And when you go back to, you know, washing dishes or
doing luggage at LaGuardia Airport from 12 to 6 a.m., it takes
that away from you. We found that sort of sunshine that shone
on us for a little bit of time with the year-round Pell was
very important for exactly the reasons that you stated.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes?
Mr. Castleman. The other issue that I think is worth
mentioning, and I imagine many on the committee are aware of
this, is that one of the challenges I think we face in
increasing the share of students who earn a degree is the
extended time in which it takes students to complete. You all
probably know that 50 percent roughly of first-time college
students earn a degree within 6 years. The time to a degree is
actually growing over time, and I think finding ways like
students being able to takes courses over the summer can
increase the speed with which they can earn a bachelor's degree
or an associate's degree. That is certainly beneficial, I
think, to our economy to have smart, well-trained people
entering the labor market earlier and may also be very
beneficial to the student in reducing how much they need to
borrow.
I think year-round Pell is one approach to that. I think
the ASAP program that President Mellow discussed is another
very innovative and promising solution.
I want to draw attention, some of you may be aware of an
organization called Complete College America that works with
33, 34 different States to develop other innovative solutions,
like increasing the number of credits students complete during
the academic year, increasing the share of students who get
intrusive advising, to use President Mellow's phrase, and
providing students more structure and guidance around their
course-taking to choose courses that move them more effectively
towards a degree.
I think all of these strategies are very important to
reduce the time it takes students to earn a degree, so that
they can get out in the labor market, get better jobs, reduce
the amount of loan burden, and I do think that additional Pell
funding during the summer could be part of that solution.
AFFORDABILITY
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you. President Obama's America's
College Promise Initiative would help make college more
affordable for community college students across the Nation.
However, tuition is just one component of the cost of attending
community college, and many low-income students already receive
free or reduced tuition or fees in different States. The
Community College League of California has found that other
costs of college, including textbooks, transportation, and
living expenses, are far more substantial and far more likely
to prove a barrier to student success. Would there be a value
in allowing flexibility in funding for this initiative beyond
just tuition and fees, and is there a better way to target this
initiative so that it makes community college more financially
accessible to low-income students?
Ms. Mellow. I will quickly say that one of the things that
is important, I think, is to understand that so many of these
students, because they are low-income, and because community
colleges are relatively low cost, tuition is one part of the
problem; but the other thing you do when you apply with your
FAFSA is to really understand the gap. And the average gap in
terms of what a student actually needs at LaGuardia to maintain
their ability to go to college, is, on average, $7,000 of unmet
needs.
So I think what we are talking about is a huge watershed
moment in American history. It used to be that a high school
diploma was enough. We are now saying for our country to be
competitive, it has to be more, and I think the challenge is
what should we do to allow students to get what they need for
our country and for our economy?
Mr. Thompson. And let me just add, especially in community
colleges, I think this is true, life intervenes with many of
these students. And when we see students dropping out, it is
for financial reasons mainly. It is not just tuition. Very
seldom it is tuition. It is a variety of other inputs that
happen in their lives, whether it is a family issue or they
can't afford the books. We have seen students, literally, we
have looked at them--I was on a campus for many years as the
enrollment manager and the head of retention and student
success, and we were a campus that served a lot of first-
generation, low-income students from Appalachia.
We saw many of these students who had full rides, if you
will, as far as we think of full rides in college, but they
hadn't gotten their books 3 weeks into the semester, or 4 weeks
into the semester, because they didn't have the money to do so.
With that, what we found out, these students could not catch
up. So it is that. And I wanted to add one other thing to my
friend here. And even the Pell grants, we have to do more in
colleges with structured degree programs, having accelerated
opportunities, but also having developmental education figure
out a way to make those hours count better and stop the gateway
course problems or the barriers. But we also know that if we
could use financial aid in a more efficient manner toward
helping students succeed, whether its financial aid for books
or a variety of other issues, I think then we would have a
better opportunity of getting more of these students across
that barrier.
Mr. Cole. The chair wishes to advise people when you hear
the whistling, that is the wind. Okay. That is not the mics.
That is just one of the peculiarities of our building. We tried
for years to deal with this, but it quite often makes a
dramatic point. I want you to be aware. If I can, I want to go
to my friend, Mr. Harris, from Maryland.
TECHNOLOGY IN EDUCATION
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for holding the hearing. You know, as a University faculty
member on leave, I have an intense interest in making sure that
our workforce is educated and the best in the world to compete.
I am sorry we had to step out, because you know we have the
Agriculture Subcommittee meeting, and I have a big rural
district, so I was over there. But actually one of the topics
that we just discussed about over there actually is important
to this; and, again, I haven't heard all the testimony, so I
don't know if you have touched on this. But we have all been
talking about, I hate to say it, more or less traditional
approaches to education, classroom-oriented, you know, things
like that. But, you know, my teenagers learn in a very
different way. When my son had trouble with algebra, he went on
the Khan Academy, and he learned more online than he learned in
a traditional classroom, and you know what, it was free.
You know, there are these people who think given the new
technology and given the new generation, look, I probably have
enough bias that it would be hard for me to do, but my daughter
in nursing school, this semester, two of her courses are the
ones she has to actually touch patients, so she can't do that
online. The other three are online courses.
I have got to believe that the great equalizer in the world
is the Internet. If we give people access--now we will need
things like intrusive advising, so that we make certain because
people who teach online tell me that is the problem. The
student's not there. You don't know when they are falling
behind, so you do have to track it. It becomes a different way
of teaching. But, my gosh, if you want to equalize education,
this is a tremendous opportunity. I am not sure, and I want to
hear how in the areas in which you operate, how are you using
this tremendous opportunity, because you know the cost, and you
know, President Mellow, you know that once you take it outside
the traditional classroom, university and capital and all the
rest, we bring down the cost way down.
So how are we using this new technology, this new ability
to teach in order to achieve what we are talking about here
today? Because I think you can actually educate at a lower
cost, not a higher cost, if you do it right and you use some of
these new technologies.
So again, it is wide open. Anyone wants to address it. How
do we do this? My understanding is, I guess, the University of
Georgia said look, we could do this, $10,000, we could educate
someone, give them a 4-year college education if it is all
online and we do it right.
I am not sure you can do it all online. There are some
things you just have to learn in person. But, again, wide open,
what are your thoughts on this? How do we go for it? How can we
encourage this on this subcommittee?
Mr. Castleman. Dr. Harris, I very much appreciate the
question, and I agree with you that I think much of the
exciting development in higher education, and in education more
broadly, is figuring out how to leverage technology to deliver
content in at least a more cost-effective ways, but potentially
in more pedagogically-informed ways, so I think there is
interesting work with tablets, for instance, that can be
responsive to students and make learning more personalized. I
think there are a variety of programs that provide online
education that allow students who wouldn't otherwise have the
opportunity to participate in college to do so.
And so I think there is a tremendous amount of promise in
practice. I think that the quality varies substantially, and so
I think there are some online college programs, for instance,
where instead of a person lecturing in a classroom in a
building, they are now lecturing on a video, and students may
not be getting a lot of value. I think that some programs
struggle with issues of attrition and student engagement. I
should say by way of full disclosure that my mother is the dean
of a school of continuing education that certainly thinks about
these issues, and so I get to hear her perspective often on
this.
What I would suggest, from my perspective that I think the
Federal Government can do, is provide support for the further
development of innovative practices around technology-based
education or technology-infused education, but to structure
those programs in a way that the providers have to rigorously
evaluate what they are doing, because I think our greatest need
in some ways is not the development of additional innovation.
We should do that. But our greatest need is to better
understand the relative success and efficacy of the different
innovative practices that are currently on the market to help
inform policymakers and educators of where to then invest more
substantially.
Mr. Harris. Let me just add, you know, because the issue
was, a lot of students that we are talking about have one, two,
three part-time jobs. It is hard for them to schedule Monday,
Wednesday, Friday, 6:00 to 7:30 at night at the community
college. Again, with the Internet, you don't need it. My son
goes on Khan Academy at 10:30 at night until 10:45, and that is
it, and he can schedule it in, so with that----
Mr. Thompson. Let's take it one step farther. I have been a
professor a lot of decades. I won't tell you how old I am
either, but I will tell you that the sit and get is long over.
We are going to have to think of that. Don't get me wrong.
There is a need to have face-to-face interaction with students
in engagement in a variety of ways, but you can engage also
online. What we have found out in Kentucky, and our community
colleges have led the way here, is competency-based education,
the idea that many of the folk are coming to the table with a
lot of knowledge already, and we haven't been able to measure
how much knowledge that is. Now we can. I mean, with credit for
prior learning. But also that as they reach a certain level of
competency, they can move on when ready.
So it is more than just online education, and it is more
than just thinking about online education purely as a way of
delivering instruction. I think we have to get better at this.
We just got a couple of our campuses, our 4-year campuses, who,
with our community colleges, got an experimental site from U.S.
DOE to allow for caliper (ph) dollars to be used in this
approach that we are piloting.
So there are ways that we need to be thinking about this.
There are ways that we can also get interaction from the
workforce or the employers to help us to understand exactly
what are those competencies in addition to what we feel, as
professor types, that are needed in order to create the kind of
degree in a faster manner that would be more of an employable
opportunity for these students.
Mr. Harris. Thank you. I yield.
SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. I think my friend from
Maryland makes a really important point, because we are all
worried about costs, and we are worried about resources, so we
are constantly searching. But also I reflect back on my time
when I used to teach in college or my time as a student or just
being around, and so often, it is one thing to learn online if
you are used to doing that and you are at home surrounded by a
family that is supportive. It is quite another thing if nobody
in your home has ever gone to college and then you start there.
So these things work for some kids, and they just simply
don't for others. Dr. Fischer, I want to call on you, and all
of you have such wonderful, unique personal experiences, but I
found so often when I look at students, it is actually the
intangible stuff that makes the difference. It is a role model
when you don't come from a family that has them. It is, as you
mentioned in your testimony, the support system around you,
quite often from people moving through exactly similar
circumstances to you, and it is having seen somebody else
succeed, you sort of know that you can.
So I would like you to reflect both on your own career and
your interaction with students now as a professional about
those intangible things, and we can't programmatically create
those things, but we do do programs like TRIO where the odds of
that happening go way up for a student as opposed to----
When I used to teach at the University of Oklahoma as a
graduate student and an adjunct professor, I used to see kids
showing up that were living in dormitories that were bigger
than the towns they were from. And you put a kid in a dormitory
with a thousand other kids that are their age, and I guarantee
you, you don't have a socially reinforcing learning experience
going on there most of the time. Anyway, your reflections would
be most welcome, and your suggestions would be helpful.
Ms. Fischer. Okay. The non-financial aspects are huge. I
was considering your question, Dr. Harris, because in the
situation that I was in, even if online education were free and
available at the point, I would have never even considered
doing it because I didn't have the support or even knowledge or
understand that I could.
And so coming into a program where I had--McNair is very
unique, I believe, because the professors on campus serve as
advisors, and so every time I was going through the halls,
there was this connection between professors and advisors, and
they were constant support, and everywhere I was, there were
people telling me that I could do it and that I was doing a
good job, and you do learn through that process. I think that
is probably even more important than the financial, although
you can't get through it without the financial. You just can't
make it without those intangible things like people there all
the time to support you and show you that you can.
Mr. Cole. Any of the rest of you have, again, specific
strategies or examples? Again, that is just very helpful to
hear, because learning is not an easily programmable, technical
process. It is a very human process, and everybody approaches
it in a different way and usually from a different starting
point.
ATTRITION
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Chairman, one of the challenges that
we are confronting is the attrition rate in the first 2 years
of college. This is particularly problematic among STEM majors.
Fifty percent of STEM majors drop out of the major in the first
2 years, and a surprisingly high percentage drop out of
college, even though they are well-prepared.
And so one of the strategies we are using, and again, this
is in forming partnerships with our business members, as we
create these new programs in data science and cyber security,
social mobile cloud technologies, risk analysis and management,
water materials science, et cetera, is to use the company's
employees as mentors, to connect them to workforce to a career.
The honors program in cyber security at College Park is
sponsored by Northrop. Every one of those students gets a
Northrop engineer as a mentor. Each can compete for early
internships that make a huge difference. Now this assumes they
have arrived on campus, and we are focused on just preserving
human capital. But those connections, whether they are mentors
when students are in high school, and Northrop and our other
defense contractors do a lot of that through CyberPatriot and
FIRST Robotics and other kinds of programs, but encouraging
mentorships can be exceptionally powerful.
Mr. Cole. I have to tell you, I have seen a Northrop
Grumman program actually in Lawton, Oklahoma, which is a STEM
program deep into the high schools. This is a high school that
is now our highest performing high school in the State. And the
corporate involvement there--that happens to be the home of the
field artillery, and there is a big demand for computer
programmers and for people that can work on very sophisticated
weapons system. What they have done there, number one, it has
been wonderful for the community; but number two, in terms of
providing a local workforce that can move into some of the
operations they have there, it has just been absolutely
fantastic. So I appreciate your making that point. If I may, I
will go to my good friend, the ranking member from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. Dr. Fitzgerald, I would just say
that working with some of our high schools in my community with
Platt Tech and others who work with United Technologies and so
forth and some of our small businesses, our manufacturing small
businesses, who help to train these youngsters and then put
them to work after; it is an internship; it is an
apprenticeship; it is all of the above, and it has proved to be
remarkably successful.
I would just let you know this piece of information, that
there was a budget rolled out yesterday that if any and all of
you are interested in the Pell grant, the budget that was
rolled out yesterday would freeze the Pell grant dollars at the
current level, and that would freeze it for the next 10 years.
I think that is not very forward-thinking, but I mention it to
all of you as educators that you should engage in the debate
and discussion around that issue.
Dr. Castleman, a pleasure to see you. Mr. Chairman, Dr.
Castleman was an intern in my office in 1994, so yea, team
here. This is great.
Mr. Cole. Before or after you were a doctor?
Mr. Castleman. Well, well before.
Ms. DeLauro. Well before.
Mr. Cole. Well, clearly you had the appropriate role model,
and you were driven to success.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, from Madison, Connecticut. I have a
couple things on technology I want to ask you, Dr. Mellow,
about faculty at community colleges and their intermittent,
part-time, adjunct, et cetera.
TEXTING
Dr. Castleman, we have talked about technology, and we have
talked about, you have looked at this text messaging in
addressing the summer melt issue. How would that strategy work?
I won't go through all of this effort, and it is cheaper, I
might add, at about $7 a student to move in this direction. How
would that interact with something like TRIO or GEAR UP? What
are the barriers that exist to allowing this to go to scale?
Mr. Castleman. I think that is a great question. I am very
excited to be here just a week after or so it appeared in the
Federal Register that GEAR UP is directly embracing these
strategies in collaboration with Institute for Education
Sciences and with Apps Associates to launch a national
demonstration project on how GEAR UP can use digital messaging
like text messaging to provide students with personalized
reminders throughout the summer after high school, but
continuing into college as a low-cost way to support students
after they have gone through the wonderful support of the GEAR
UP program to continue to succeed in college, and so I think
that is already happening within GEAR UP.
I think there are also lots of opportunities for this to be
integrated into other dimensions of the Federal Government's
higher education-related programming, like Federal student aid,
and within the loan entrance counseling process. In order for
these technologies to scale, they are not expensive. The
messaging itself, sending students personalized messaging
requires about a dollar per student per month that we want to
send messages as a ballpark. And what we need in order to do
that is an access point through which we can collect contact
information.
The FAFSA provides a tremendous access point. We know the
FAFSA is already collecting some contact information. It could
expand to collect others, and once students have submitted the
FAFSA, we could be using that as an access point to provide
much more personalized and behaviorally informed information
that helps students understand the stages of the financial aid
process that follow completion of the FAFSA, like verifying
their income if they are required to by the Department of
Education, like considering their loan eligibility.
So we need an access point, and again I think the Federal
Government has several. I think these campaigns benefit when we
are able to make the information personalized to students. So
to the extent we can leverage information in the FAFSA that
GEAR UP has collected from students and say, Dear Aaron, here
is some messaging that is specific to you, I think that further
enhances the success.
And then finally what I would say is that I think one way
well-designed messaging can be effective, I think we also know
as Dr. Fischer talked about earlier, that many of these
decisions are made sufficiently complex. That in addition to
getting personalized reminders through technology like text
messaging that young people are engaging with, having the
opportunity to write back to a message, to connect one on one
to a college or financial aid professional can also be
important, so that may be an additional need for them to be
successful.
Ms. DeLauro. Will we have another opportunity----
Mr. Cole. We will go through one more round. I will go to
Mr. Harris, and then you and I will sort of close it out, if
that is okay. Mr. Harris, you have no questions?
UNITED STATES AND OTHER COUNTRIES
Mr. Cole. Okay. So we get to split the last 10 minutes
here. I wanted to actually make a point and then ask a
question. I want to, number one, again, thank all of you, which
I will do at the end. Each one of you has shown how much these
programs that I think are the classic hand-up-not-hand-out
programs make a huge difference for us, how important it is.
Mr. Fattah made this point, Mr. Fitzgerald, you have all made
it one way or the other, how important to us it is as a country
to simply use the human talent that we have available.
And, secondly, it is the right thing to do. There is no
question. But it is also the smart thing to do. These are
investments that ultimately really, really pay off for this
country. Looking across, because some of you think
internationally, not just nationally we have been focused here.
Give us, and I will let any of you pick up on this. Dr. Mellow,
you may be the appropriate one to kick it off. I am very
interested in where you would rank us relative to looking at
other countries and what they are doing.
I mean, there was a time when we were the unquestioned
leader in the world, and we provided more access than anybody
else. We know that has changed a little bit, but I am very
curious about where you think we are and if there are any
international strategies that you see in other places around
the world that we ought to be adopting here?
Ms. Mellow. Well, it is true, Chairman, and we could talk
for a long time about the parsing of the statistics, and there
can be a lot of conversation about that. We are academics,
right, we love that kind of stuff. But I would say America is
slipping. And for me, people of my--so I am 62. Now you know--
people of my generation are more educated and when we were
educated, than anybody else in the world. When you look at the
20 to 24, they are about 13th, and they are less educated than
our generation. So we are slipping internally; our kids are not
as educated as we are, as the budding elders. I don't know what
group I am in. But we are slipping internationally. And I think
our acknowledgement of that has to be serious. I don't think in
any way it means that Americans are less smart, less gutsy,
less committed; but I think we have to really rethink how we
imagine an education system K-12 through college, and how to
bring back in those adults.
Mr. Cole. Thank you. Any other care to address that? Mr.
Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Let me tell you, in Kentucky we have
something called Kentucky Rising now where we are taking the
best K-12 countries around the world, and we are emulating what
they do right; and we are trying to replicate that in Kentucky.
We want to stay cutting edge on reform in that area so they can
tell us that. I would agree with Dr. Mellow, but I will say
that we have--by the way, gaps are the biggest things that we
see that are creating some of the issues that make us not as
powerful in many ways in our overall growth. But I will tell
you we still have the best higher education system in the
world. This is a baseline that we can play with and build off
of. We still have some of the best intervention programs to try
to address some of our ills. We talked about GEAR UP and McNair
and other TRIO programs today, so there are hopes that we can
look at.
One other item I will add, we have also recognized, and we
are not--we are a heterogeneous Nation. I mean, so many of our
comparisons look very homogenous in many ways, and I wish I had
more time to talk about that, but you know what I mean. I will
tell you just like whether it is online education or face-to-
face, engagement still matters, so faculty still matters, so we
know we are going to have to increase the output of our teacher
ed folk to help them to engage those issues in our K-12. But we
also know the interaction with faculty in and out of the
classroom helps the retention rate. That engagement still
matters.
So we have the evidence of what to do, so our baseline is
strong. Now, whether we get the right inputs to help us to
build that baseline I think is what you guys are called to talk
about. We know high rigor, high expectations, and high inputs
all the way through the system of education helps us to
actually get back to where we need to be and where we once were
forever. I like being number one.
Mr. Cole. Yeah, we know that in Kentucky, and I think we
are going to see a pretty convincing demonstration of it in
short order, too. Anybody else care to make a comment?
TALENT RECRUITMENT
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to
highlight, I will give you two examples of the ability to find
talent, and these are two--I won't name them, but they are two
of my member companies--and it deals with computer science and
the ability to grow our own talent from K-12 on up. Two
insurance companies, both facing problems on the IT side. One
of them moved the entire operation to Bangalore. The other
imported chief scientists from India, and that was a very bold
move, because you are not just taking the chief scientists and
moving them to India; you are taking the entire stream of jobs
and moving them.
And so, if you look at who is in our graduate schools, two-
thirds of our graduate students in the STEM disciplines are
foreign students. We have the best graduate universities in the
world, but our education system is highly stratified, and if
you just look at graduation rates, research one universities
that are in the 90 percents. But we desperately need a talent
strategy that will pull all of our institutions up and give
students opportunities to access high-demand jobs that will
benefit our companies, the Federal Government in areas like
national security, and the Nation.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. I am going to turn to my
ranking member for the last question of the day.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. Just if I can make a comment on
what you have just said here. If we are not willing to make the
investment, and I listened to Mr. Thompson here about early
childhood education, K-12, we should have universal early
childhood education, or universal preschool in the United
States, K-12, high school, colleges, in a way that allows us to
be able to take from zero to 3 through higher education; and if
we view that is the way to succeed as a Nation in terms of
economic growth, then that is where our priorities ought to be.
One of the things that I really am concerned about in the
U.S. is that it used to be that education was just in the
purview of the wealthiest people who could afford to send their
kids to school. I represent Wesleyan University, Yale
University, you know, places, you know, that we have seen
educate some of the brightest people in the world. We as an
institution of the Congress, and I always view that the
Congress has what it has historically done great things. One of
them is to allow the sons and daughters of working families,
low-income families, to be able to get an education to succeed.
My dad went to the 7th grade. My mother was a garment worker in
the old sweatshops in New Haven, Connecticut. They put me
through college, graduate school. There were loans and grants
and so forth that allowed me to get an education which allows
me to sit here today.
We have walked back from that mission, and I fear that we
are looking at, once again, education for those families who
can afford it; and our low-income kids, our middle class
families' kids, are unable to be able to take the opportunity
without the grants, without Pell, without those inputs that you
speak about. The teachers, which is the question that I want to
get to of Dr. Mellow, you talked about teachers and making a
difference. Teachers that you find to be most successful with
at-risk kids, key characteristics, how do we prepare faculty to
educate these kids?
TEACHER DEVELOPMENT
Less than a third of Community College faculty are full-
time. Adjunct faculty appointments on the rise. Given that
part-time faculty spend less time on campus, what kinds of
professional development should be available so we can help our
kids who are at risk to be able to succeed?
Ms. Mellow. And this is where technology is amazing. So
what I am doing now is working with 150 faculty from Florida,
Arizona, and LaGuardia. Sixty percent of them are adjunct
faculty. And we are using technology to get people to focus on,
what are you doing right? What does it look like? We have a
mechanism to really code what faculty are doing so you can have
some rigor in that. And then surround them with professional
support so that you really think of teaching as a profession in
the same way you would a medical doctor who would do an
operation in front of other people and other physicians would
help them get better.
And so there are ways to take college teaching seriously.
And I think technology is going to be our friend in this. But
we must understand that now almost a third of the people
working in the United States, from the last figures I saw, are
entrepreneurs, they are doing it on their own. And I think we
have to understand that we are living in a different economy.
And in that, we have to find supports that go to the people
where they are. So conferences are great. It is lovely to have
a mentor. But really using technology to make a difference in
connecting with the faculty who are teaching today in our
colleges is essential.
COMMUNITY COLLEGE INITIATIVE
Ms. DeLauro. Community college initiative, is that
something, that the President has offered, not everybody got a
chance to answer, just what, good, bad, mediocre?
Ms. Mellow. I think we have to raise this conversation
about what does it take to prepare people for our world. And it
is no longer high school. And we have to really understand that
community colleges are an American invention. They are the most
democratic system of higher education in the world. Nobody else
is like us. And how to really use that to further the interests
of the country I think are essential.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
LOCAL AND STATE FUNDING
Just in conclusion, because I want to pick up on a point
that my friend the ranking member made and I agree with in
terms of resource commitment here. There is also a role, we
didn't explore it here, but I have seen States cutting back a
lot, if you look at the percentage of what they spend in their
budgets, and expecting us to fill in, which stretches our
resources. Because I think what we really want to do or focus
on, on students that, frankly, are the most disadvantaged or
the most challenged or, frankly, just have not had the chance.
And that is a very important role for us as a Federal
Government, I think, to play, and it is a national mission.
The second area, and this doesn't apply to any of you
because, frankly, you work in the kind of institutions that do
this automatically, but I watched my good friend, former
Governor Mitch Daniels, this morning talking on ``Morning Joe''
about college education. And he made the point at Purdue they
have actually frozen tuition 3 years in a row. But he said, we
are a land grant institution, our original mission was to
educate people that were not wealthy, that did not have
opportunities, and maybe we had forgotten about that a little
bit and we need to move back toward understanding what our role
is. It is different than maybe an elite private university.
And so those are things for all of us to think of, because
I think to get to where all of us want to be it is a collective
effort. There is certainly a big federal component here, but
there needs to be state and local support. In my State,
actually local communities do support community colleges with
taxation, and they do support career tech. They literally tax
themselves to have that opportunity available.
And it is up to every State to choose how they want to do
that. I can't hold us up as a model because we are not always
spending as much money in other areas as I would like. I have
watched the higher education portion of our budget shrink over
about the last 20 years in terms of not dollars, but
percentages. And the amount of the cost of education we offload
on a student is considerably higher today than it was when I
was a state senator in the 1980s. We made it tougher, not
easier. We have a lot of programs, but if you actually looked
at it en masse, it is tougher for our kids than it ought to be.
With that, I want to thank each and every one of you, not
just for taking your time to be here today, because it is
really important to help our committee understand the problems
and to create the public record so we can make some of the
decisions that we need to make going forward. But much more
importantly, just thank you for what you do each and every day
to make sure that people have an access to the American dream,
that they get that opportunity, and that we try and address
some of the inequalities and divisions and inequities in our
society and give people the opportunity.
You have all given us not only terrific information and
great suggestions, but, frankly, the telling anecdote or the
personal experience that quite often drives it home. So I can
see why you are all exceptional educators and very successful
in your field.
So it has been a great hearing, and appreciate it very
much. I want to thank the ranking member for being here as
well.
Mr. Harris, thank you.
With that, we are adjourned.
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Page
Burwell, Hon. Sylvia............................................. 1
Castleman, B. L.................................................. 507
Collins, F. S.................................................... 183
Colvin, C. W..................................................... 107
Duncan, Hon. Arne................................................ 309
Fauci, A. S...................................................... 183
Fischer, C. L.................................................... 507
Fitzgerald, B. K................................................. 507
Gibbons, G. H.................................................... 183
Greenlee, Kathy.................................................. 107
Insel, T. R...................................................... 183
Lorsch, J. R..................................................... 183
Mellow, Gail..................................................... 507
Perez, Hon. Thomas............................................... 389
Thompson, Aaron.................................................. 507
Volkow, N. D..................................................... 183