[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2019
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
___________________
SUBOMMITTEE ON 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 MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama KATHERINE CLARK, Massachusetts
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Frelinghuysen, 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, Jennifer Cama, Justin Gibbons,
Kathryn Salmon, Karyn Richman, and Lori Bias
Subcommittee Staff
__________________
PART 5
Page
Department of Labor......................................... 1
Department of Health and Human Services..................... 113
Department of Education..................................... 221
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
__________________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
30-843 WASHINGTON : 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey, Chairman
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky \1\ 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
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
KEN CALVERT, California LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BARBARA LEE, California
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
TOM GRAVES, Georgia TIM RYAN, Ohio
KEVIN YODER, Kansas C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington DEREK KILMER, Washington
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
DAVID G. VALADAO, California GRACE MENG, New York
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada PETE AGUILAR, California
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
SCOTT TAYLOR, Virginia
----------
\1\ Chairman Emeritus
Nancy Fox, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, EDUCATION, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2019
----------
Tuesday, March 6, 2018.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
WITNESS
HON. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Opening Remarks by Subcommittee Chairman Cole
Mr. Cole. Good morning, Mr. Secretary, and welcome.
It is my pleasure to once again welcome you to the
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and we are looking forward to your testimony very
much.
This hearing is to review the Department of Labor's fiscal
year 2019 budget request. The committee understands that much
of the budget had already been written when Congress agreed to
increase discretionary budget caps last month. We need to be
cautious when considering this request to include both the
budget and addendum in our review of the budget.
The committee's task is to carefully consider the
Department's request and to make recommendations for the
funding of needs of critical programs, including job training,
worker safety, labor statistics, and others.
Secretary, I want to thank you and commend the dedication
and hard work of you and your staff. You have been immensely
helpful to this committee, and without it, our work here would
be much more difficult. I particularly want to thank you and
your staff for welcoming us for a visit, the staff from this
committee and, obviously, my personal staff, myself as well. It
was really helpful, honestly, to sit down and talk to your
people. I called it ``the John Kline alumni committee'' over
there, since so many of your key people worked for my good
friend and former chairman of Education and Labor. But you have
got a great team, and it was a delight to visit with them.
There are several issues I look forward to asking about
this morning. They include details on the Department's
apprenticeship initiatives, an update on the Department's
efforts and approaches in reducing the skills gap, the
reasoning behind requested increases in funding for Federal
enforcement in the Department's worker protection programs, how
additional money in the recent budget agreement might impact
your proposed cuts in various job training programs, and how
the Department intends to build upon the Reemployment Services
and Eligibility Assessments initiative and reduce improper
payments more broadly within the unemployment insurance system.
It is unfortunate that we are considering the fiscal year
2019 budget request before the final consolidated
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2018's enacted. Certainly
no fault of yours, but we are running a little bit behind where
we would like to be. However, we hope to have something done on
that soon and to move quickly after that into the fiscal year
2019 appropriations process.
I am sure members of the subcommittee will have many
questions about the budget and policy issues of the Department.
So without further delay, I would like to remind our members
and our witnesses that we will abide by the 5-minute rule so
that everyone will have a chance to get their questions asked
and answered. But before we begin, I would like to yield 5
minutes to my great subcommittee ranking member, the gentlelady
from Connecticut, for her opening statement.
Opening Statement by Ranking Member DeLauro
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And good morning to you, Mr. Secretary, and welcome to your
second appropriations hearing before this committee.
I think it is fitting that Labor is the first hearing that
we will hold for fiscal year 2019 because, and this is my view,
for the past year under this administration, working families
have been under an all-out assault, in my view, as I said. We
have witnessed both the elimination of worker protections and
the unraveling of a social safety net.
Let me quote from one of my heroes and the longest-serving
Labor Secretary in our Nation's history, Frances Perkins. She
said, and I quote, ``The people are what matter to government,
and a government should aim to give all the people under its
jurisdiction the best possible life.'' That is how I view the
mission of this Department, and unfortunately, I think this
budget request fails miserably in fulfilling that mission. It
represents the hollowing out of the Department of Labor and a
fundamental failure to govern.
Mr. Secretary, the biggest economic challenge of our time
is that people are in jobs and too many people are in jobs that
do not pay them enough money to live on. We need to enact
policies that ensure that everyone can benefit from the
economic recovery and that everyone has the training they need
to get good jobs with fair wages.
effects of new tax law on u.s. labor
In your testimony, you talk about the Republican tax law.
Yet the tax law incentivizes outsourcing. It encourages
companies to export jobs by creating a lower rate for
multinational corporations to invest abroad, nowhere near the
corporate tax rate for domestic investments.
Right now, a company that makes their wares outside of the
United States pays up to 13 percent in taxes, and yet the same
company making their wares in the United States will pay 21
percent in taxes. And several of us, and I have recently
introduced legislation striking the sections of the tax law
that create this incentive to outsource.
Furthermore, since the tax bill went into effect, the
majority of corporate tax cuts have been used on stock
buybacks, which benefit wealthy shareholders and company
executives and not our workers. The vast majority of benefits
from stock buybacks go to the richest 10 percent of American
households, according to the Joint Economic Committee.
American companies have announced more than
$178,000,000,000 in planned stock buybacks, compared to less
than $6,000,000,000 in bonuses or wage increases. That means 97
percent of the tax law's benefits have accrued to wealthy
shareholders and executives while only 3 percent of the
benefits have gone to workers.
reported worker bonuses
Even reported bonuses for workers have been misleading. I
will use Walmart as an example. Bonuses for their employees,
let us talk about the stringent requirements for being
eligible. If you worked for more than 20 years of service, you
got $1,000; 15 to 19 years, $750; 10 to 14 years, $400; 5 to 9
years of service, $300; 2 to 4 years of service, $250; and less
than 2 years of service, $200.
I think $200, getting an additional $200 is fine. It is
good. I don't decry that. I think that is fine. I don't knock
that. But spare me, my gosh, if you are going to tell somebody
they are getting $1,000, why isn't everyone getting that
$1,000, and why is it just once and not permanently?
I might also add that Walmart shuttered their doors of 63
Sam's Clubs, cutting 10,000 jobs.
cuts in fy 2019 budget request
I want to turn to the subject of today's hearing, and that
is the Department's budget request. Your request would decimate
the employment and training system by cutting $1,100,000,000,
12 percent of funding, and eliminating critical services for
Americans who need help to find a job or to move to a better-
paying career.
In 2020, two out of three jobs will require training beyond
the high school level, and it is up to us to meet this need.
Yet the budget cuts Job Corps by more than $400,000,000,
shuttering Job Corps centers across the country. Your testimony
says that the budget eliminates programs that are less
effective. Yet, in fact, it zeroes out programs that are known
to be very effective.
For example, a 2017 Urban Institute report concluded that
the benefits of the Senior Community Service Employment Program
outweigh the Federal--the small Federal investment that we
make. Migrant and seasonal farm worker job training places
participants into employment 90 percent of the time and
increases wages threefold.
At the same time, the budget proposes to redirect funding
from the successful evidence-based registered apprenticeship
model--which, I might add, I have heard directly from employers
is not onerous--to create a new, untested scheme that is
duplicative and confusing.
And while the President has claimed he will be tough on
trade, in his budget, he proposes to eviscerate the office
whose mission is to identify cheating on trade deals. He wants
to cut the Bureau of International Labor Affairs, ILAB, by
$68,000,000. That is the lead agency for investigating labor
violations and trade agreements with our trading partners. It
compiles the annual reports on products that are made with
child labor or forced labor.
In your budget request, you focus on modest increases to
compliance assistance programs, and while I agree there needs
to be a balance between compliance assistance and enforcement,
I am concerned that you plan to scale back enforcement
activities, which would result in less oversight of bad
employers that deprive workers of honest wages or expose them
to dangerous health and safety hazards.
OSHA has only enough funding to inspect every workplace
under its jurisdiction every 159 years, and yet the budget
proposes to eliminate funding Susan Harwood Training Grants
that protect and educate workers in the most dangerous jobs.
You want to cut funding for the Women's Bureau by $9,000,000.
The agency continues to serve as a critical function to
improving the work environment and opportunities for women. It
is simply unacceptable to slash its budget at a time when women
make 80 cents on the dollar on average compared to men.
That is about almost $10,500 in lost wages on average every
year. Given the Office of Management and Budget have
effectively prohibited progress toward addressing the gender
pay gap by disallowing the EEO-1 Survey of pay data, it is all
the more critical to adequately fund the Women's Bureau, its
research on pay equity.
Final note, the administration has proposed a paltry 6-week
parental-only pay leave scheme in the budget, despite the fact
that more than 75 percent of the people who take family or
medical leave do so for reasons other than parental leave. The
President's proposal does not reflect the realities that
workers face.
Taken as a whole, the President is proposing to cut the
Department of Labor by $1,200,000,000. That is a reduction of
10 percent, Mr. Secretary. We need to know today. Do you agree
that your Department should be cut by $1,200,000,000?
proposed dol regulation
I am dismayed at the administration's decision to rob
workers of fair pay by throwing the proposed overtime rule into
limbo. I oppose your proposal to hurt tipped workers by
allowing their employers to pocket their tips. This is, in
essence, legal wage theft. It disproportionately affects women.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, 80 percent of tips
per year would be taken from women.
And I oppose the Department's push for association health
plans, which will lead to higher premiums in the individual and
small group markets, more Americans with junk health insurance,
and more Americans without any health insurance at all.
It is the obligation of this subcommittee to ensure that
the working men and women of this country are not harmed by
reckless cuts and a disregard for their well-being. Should this
budget proposal be implemented, it is my view that the harm
would be irreparable.
Mr. Secretary, I look forward to hearing why exactly you
think working people should bear the brunt of cuts while
millionaires, billionaires, and corporations reap the benefits
of this administration's agenda.
Thank you, and I look forward to the discussion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, I am advised we are going to be joined at
some point in the hearing by the full chairman of the full
committee and the ranking member. And at that time, I am going
to allow them not to interrupt your statement, but to offer any
opening statements they care to make.
But with that, since they are not here right now, if we
can, we will proceed with whatever opening statement you care
to make to the committee.
Opening Statement by Secretary Acosta
Secretary Acosta. Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking Member
DeLauro, members of the subcommittee.
First, let me say thank you for your invitation to testify.
I am pleased to appear to discuss the very important work at
the Department of Labor and to discuss its proposed budget for
fiscal year 2019. I am honored to lead the Department in its
important work.
At the beginning, let me just say that in the first year,
the Trump administration has delivered strong opportunities for
American workers, American job seekers, and American job
creators. 2017 was a year of growth for the American workforce,
for the American economy, and we can look at any variety of
economic indicators--I am not going to go through those right
now--but those are the facts.
dol accomplishments in fy 2017
2017 was also a busy and productive year at the Department,
and I would like to just present some facts. The Employee
Benefits Security Administration recovered nearly $700,000,000
in enforcement actions. It obtained nearly 100 criminal
indictments and recovered an additional $437,000,000 on behalf
of nearly 400,000 plan participants and beneficiaries.
MSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, fulfilled
its statutory mandate to inspect all underground mines four
times and all surface mines two times per year and, in
addition, conducted nonmandatory inspections. In total, it
conducted over 40,000 inspections.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration conducted
more than 30,000 inspections. And I would note that last year,
2017 marked the first time in 5 years that the inspections
increased year-over-year despite a suspension of enforcement in
certain areas immediately following the hurricanes because of
hurricane recovery efforts.
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs reached
the largest pay discrimination settlement in more than a
decade, where a company agreed to pay $5,000,000 in back wages
to settle allegations of discrimination against 300 women.
The Office of Labor-Management Standards investigated 121
union officer elections after complaints of violations and
conducted 265 criminal investigations, according 82
indictments.
The Office of Workers' Compensation Programs implemented
aggressive program integrity and pharmaceutical cost control
measures that resulted in expenditures--in a reduction of
expenditures of $221,000,000, as compared to the prior year,
largely attributed to decreases in opioid prescriptions.
The Wage and Hour Division recovered more than $260,000,000
in back wages for nearly 250,000 employees and conducted more
than 29,000 investigations in cases.
continuing enforcement efforts
Looking forward to this year, our intention is to continue
this enforcement effort, and I would like to highlight two
programs in particular that we are in the process of
announcing.
The first involves MSHA, and the point here is simple. Mine
operators must pay their health and safety fines. Now Americans
across the country understand that if you have a fine, you have
to pay, and anyone that has received a ticket knows that quite
well. Yet if you look back over the last decade, $67,000,000 in
fines have accrued in MSHA that have gone uncollected, and that
needs to stop.
And so beginning immediately, we are notifying individuals
that have not paid their fines, and they need to pay their
fines. And we have legal methods at our disposal that we can
implement if they have not paid those fines. Sixty-seven
million in uncollected fines, if you want to talk about
enforcement, over the last decade.
Secondly, in the Wage and Hour Division, we are
implementing a program called PAID, the Payroll Audit
Independent Determination system. Right now, if a company is
aware of a mistake, there is no simple mechanism for them to
come forward and say, ``We made a mistake. We want to
voluntarily come forward and pay our back wages.''
And so the Wage and Hour Division through this program will
assess the amount of wages due and supervise payments to
employees. Employees will receive 100 percent of back wages
owed without costs of fees, without attorney's fees. This will
happen much faster than through litigation.
The program will include important safeguards. If a company
is under investigation, it will not be eligible for this. This
will be reserved for companies that realize their mistakes and
come forward. And the intention is to get the money that is
owed to hard-working men and women faster without attorney's
fees, 100 percent.
dol regulatory efforts
Finally, I wanted to highlight some regulatory efforts that
I know you are all familiar with. The small business health
plans or association health plans, there is a proposal--I
believe today is the last day for public comment on the
proposed rule. And it is so important that we look at this.
Eleven million Americans may be uninsured because they or a
loved one works for a small business that does not offer
insurance. Many small business owners would like to provide
health insurance for their employees, but they find it too
expensive. In fact, less than a third of employers with fewer
than 50 employees offer health insurance.
And so the proposed rule is aimed at a fix that would allow
more small employers and small proprietors to band together to
create an association. And we can discuss, and I am sure
questions will come up, about the overtime rule, the fiduciary
rule, the cranes rule, and the tip pooling rule.
And a final word about tip pooling. I have followed the
public discussion on this issue, and let me just say I think it
is unfortunate that basic facts are being misportrayed, and I
say this without any antipathy as I recognize that we are in a
time where, unfortunately, overstatement sometimes triumphs
over a desire to solve a problem. And so in the spirit of
problem-solving, let me just make something clear.
No one is looking to take tips. There are simple problems
to this. This is a question of law and a question of policy to
some extent, but primarily a question of law. And so, as we
discuss this today, I hope we can focus on problem-solving, and
we can focus on what is actually allowed by law and not allowed
by law, recognizing that this committee really has the
authority to implement a solution to this matter.
And so I look forward to your questions. I look forward to
working with you not only today, but as we go forward. I know
that--I would note the chairman mentioned that the budget is an
ongoing effort, and that many--many of the rules that inform
the budget are changing on a continual basis, and so I think
that this is the first of many discussions.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
apprenticeship program
Mr. Cole. I want to thank you for your testimony, Mr.
Secretary, and again, you hit it right on the nose. I am sure
we will be having a lot of discussion back and forth as the
budget continues to take shape for fiscal year 2018.
Let me move to an area that, frankly, the President has
been very strong on, and that is the apprenticeship grant
program at the Department. The committee has historically had
some concerns about the underlying authorization, but Congress
has provided 2 years of funding for the program, and I would
like to, frankly, build on what the President has proposed in
your budget.
So I am going to ask two questions related to it. First,
can you describe the current status of the Department's
apprenticeship initiatives and how the Department would like to
build upon and expand these initiatives in fiscal year 2019?
And second, because we do have extra money, if we were able to
find money above the $95,000,000 that the fiscal year 2017
budget authorized for the fiscal year 2018 year, would you
still have time to deploy that money efficiently, in your
opinion, if we went above your current budget fairly
substantially?
Secretary Acosta. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
Let me take them in reverse order. First, as you are aware,
the fiscal year 2019 budget asked for an increase to
$200,000,000 above the $95,000,000 because we believe and the
President believes that this is a very important initiative. We
are looking at several measures currently to further
apprenticeships generally, and certainly, if for fiscal year
2018 additional money was put in that line, that is something
that I believe we could make very efficient use of and would
certainly welcome.
Let me go to your first question, which is what is the
current status of apprenticeship programs? And you know, and I
note the ranking member's comment about registered
apprenticeship programs. And for some industries, registered
apprenticeship programs work. But I have been in many meetings
with dozens of companies that have said quite bluntly, ``We are
not participating in the registered apprenticeship program. We
find the registration requirements too onerous. We find that it
is too decentralized, and we are not interested.''
And they have--they have been very, very clear on that, and
as I--and Ranking Member, as I said, that is my--my
observations, and so that is what we have been told.
industry-recognized apprenticeship program
And so, without taking anything away from the registered
apprenticeship program, recognizing that it works for certain
industries, the construction industry being one of them, the
President's proposal is to have a second apprenticeship
program.
He has directed that a task force be set up. That task
force has been set up. That task force is in the process of
adopting recommendations. At the same time, the President has
directed that we implement an industry-recognized
apprenticeship program. And conceptually, this will be in
parallel to the registered apprenticeship program and will work
like this.
The registered apprenticeship program requires a lot of
registration. It requires significant reporting, and it has
access to certain advantages under WIOA as by operation of law.
That is the registered apprenticeship program.
The industry-recognized apprenticeship program requires
less registration. It would not require registration, per se.
It would require less reporting, but it would not have access
by operation of law to those benefits that Congress has deemed
to provide to the registered apprenticeship program.
So you have got one program that requires heavy
registration, that requires heavy reporting, and that has
access by operation of law to WIOA. You have another program
that doesn't require those and that doesn't have access by
operation of law to the WIOA funding. And that is a balance
that we are establishing between one program and the second
program.
JOB CORPS FUNDING REDUCTION
Mr. Cole. I appreciate that. Finally, I have the time for
one more and won't be able to give you too much time. But your
budget proposed significant reduction in Job Corps funding.
Again, we know we are in a different situation now. We are
going to have additional money. We may well be able to, you
know, plug that particular hole.
So, number one, your thoughts as to what we need to do
funding wise going forward, and if we were roughly the same
kind of number that we have been at, would that--how would you
deploy that? Would you still go ahead with changes, or are
there things that you would maintain that, again, your original
budget forced you to abandon?
Secretary Acosta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So there are two issues to Job Corps perennially. You know,
I was--I was speaking to the Labor Secretary going back many,
many years, and I asked him about Job Corps, and he said that
he had attempted to implement changes and had found that to be
a challenge. And this is going back decades.
And so I think this is a perennial issue. I recognize
Congress' interest in Job Corps, and I understand why Congress
has that interest because it serves a population that benefits
greatly from job training. And so if Congress, in its judgment,
funds Job Corps at the same level, we will continue the Job
Corps at the same level.
Let me say also this in the brief time remaining. There are
some issues in Job Corps that need to be addressed. We have a
certain level of discretion to look at alternative mechanisms
to conduct pilot programs within Job Corps. And irrespective of
funding, it is my hope that we can engage in a discussion where
we can look at the way Job Corps operates; and we can say,
``How can we improve the operation of Job Corps?''
Because irrespective, I think at a bipartisan level, there
are a number of issues that need to be addressed. We have
gotten very, very strict on safety issues. There are ways that
we can create efficiencies and that we can improve the program.
The funding level is for Congress to determine. We will
implement the funding level that Congress determines.
Mr. Cole. Thank you. And thank you for your indulgence.
And I want to go to my good friend the ranking member from
Connecticut for whatever questions she cares to pose.
REGISTERED VS. INDUSTRY RECOGNIZED APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Just a very quick point on the apprenticeship program, Mr.
Secretary. Registered apprenticeships, that model has expanded
over the last several years about 42 percent since 2013.
Twenty-four hundred new apprenticeship programs established in
2017 alone. I have spoken with industry groups as well, and
different story.
Our standards are consistent and clear. Standards, where
they do not make sense for a newer industry, the Department is
Labor is flexible. It can and does negotiate.
Also I held a panel on apprenticeships, and Bridget Gainer,
who is vice president of Aon Corporation, commented on the ease
of registration. ``It was not an overwhelmingly or overly
onerous process.'' And they are in the insurance business. So
there are differences of opinion, Mr. Secretary.
TIP POOLING RULE
Let me move to the tip sharing rule, which is where you
ended your testimony, and the Department has proposed a rule
allowing employers to pocket really their workers' tips, as
long as they are paid for. Your testimony, you emphasized your
commitment to providing regulatory ``clarity'' to the public.
The Department declined to release a study of the estimated
impact on the tip sharing rule on worker wages, alongside a
December notice in the Federal Register. EPI, Economic Policy
Institute, developed its own estimate, suggesting that tipped
workers will lose about $5,800,000,000 in stolen wages. Women
alone lose $4,600,000,000. Sixty-seven percent of tipped
workers are women.
Three or four questions. I will pose them, but I want
answers to each one. Why does the proposed rule not explicitly
prohibit employers from pocketing their employees' earned
tipped wages? Did the Department conduct a quantitative
analysis for this proposed rule? That is a yes or no answer.
According to a report by Bloomberg BNA, Department
officials directed staff to withhold the disclosure of
estimates which show the proposed tip sharing rule would cost
workers' money in lost tips. Is that report correct? Were staff
directed to withhold this information? And can you explain why
the data estimating the impact of the tip sharing rule was not
included in the original rulemaking notice?
How can the Department claim a commitment to providing
clarity to a regulated public but deny the public a chance to
comment on the full effects of the proposed tip sharing rule?
And will you withdraw the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
Let us start with why employers are not prohibited from
taking the earned tips.
Secretary Acosta. So, Ranking Member DeLauro, I appreciate
the questions, and let me say this, as I said at the beginning.
No one wants establishments to keep--if you will--I will answer
all your questions if you will allow me to do so.
Ms. DeLauro. Okay. Sure.
Secretary Acosta. No one wants establishments to keep tips.
I wouldn't frequent such an establishment. My guess is that no
one here on either side--Ranking Member, if you will allow me
to finish, I will answer all your questions.
Ms. DeLauro. You know, I have a limited amount of time, and
the chairman will bang the gavel. So why are employers not
prohibited from pocketing their employees' earned tipped wage?
They are allowed to do that under this rule.
Secretary Acosta. Ranking Member, if you would like a short
answer, I would refer you to the Tenth Circuit's decision that
struck down the prior rule established by the Department on the
grounds that it lacked statutory authority. If you will allow
me to walk through this, I am happy to explain why we are
proceeding, why this is important, and at the end of the day,
this is a legal issue where the Tenth Circuit has made clear
that the Department lacks statutory authority. And so we are
not in a system where we can----
Ms. DeLauro. So let me be clear. The fact of the matter is,
is that, in fact, employers will be allowed to pocket the tips
of their employees, yes or no?
Secretary Acosta. Ranking Member DeLauro----
Ms. DeLauro. Yes or no?
Secretary Acosta. The Department lacks statutory
authority----
QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS FOR TIP POOLING RULE
Ms. DeLauro. No, the answer is yes. They can pocket those.
The second question is did the Department conduct a
quantitative analysis for the proposed rule, yes or no?
Secretary Acosta. Ranking Member DeLauro, when the rule was
initially written in 2011, there wasn't a quantitative analysis
published. The Department looked at whether or not a
quantitative analysis could be conducted. There are assumptions
behind----
Ms. DeLauro. Was there an analysis conducted?
Secretary Acosta. Ranking Member DeLauro----
Ms. DeLauro. I know my name. Was it--was there an analysis
conducted, yea or nay?
Secretary Acosta. Ranking Member DeLauro, if you will allow
me to answer, and I know we are over time----
Ms. DeLauro. You know, Mr. Chairman, I will continue
because I can't--I am asking for short answers. I have asked
short questions, and I am not here to filibuster. Just tell me,
yes or no?
Secretary Acosta. Mr. Chairman, may I answer?
Mr. Cole. Absolutely.
Secretary Acosta. So as I was saying, Ranking Member
DeLauro, we looked at whether or not we could conduct an
analysis that had assumptions based on data. We can establish
at a national level what the level of tips and overtime are
that are paid to all workers. Once that is established, we have
to make assumptions as to what percentage of restaurants will
actually have a tip pool, and of that percentage, what
percentage of restaurants will actually make a decision that
they would like management or others to keep a portion of those
tips.
Depending--Ranking Member, I am now on my own time. So--
so----
Ms. DeLauro. Was staff directed to withhold the
information?
Secretary Acosta. Ranking Member DeLauro, I am now on my
own time. So if he will allow me--or I am on the chairman's
time, so if he will allow me to answer?
Ms. DeLauro. The chairman is not going to allow me all this
time, and I don't blame him.
Mr. Cole. I will allow him to answer.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
Secretary Acosta. So once we establish the level of tips,
there are assumptions that have to be made. Will 100 percent of
restaurants choose to share with management, or will zero
percent of restaurants choose to share that with management?
Depending on that assumption, we can generate pretty much any
number. And so at the end of the day, the determination was
that the draft lacked sufficient data to be meaningful.
Ms. DeLauro. So there was really no quantitative analysis
to deal with what you were doing, in addition to which this was
information that when the rule was promulgated, this
information estimating the impact of tip sharing rule was not
included in the rulemaking notice? Is that correct?
Secretary Acosta. I believe I have answered your question.
It was a qualitative, not a quantitative analysis.
Ms. DeLauro. It was a qualitative, not a quantified. And if
you can't quantify anything, you really don't have much of an
analysis.
So we have established that employers can pocket their
employees' tips. We have also established that there was no
quantifiable analysis, and in fact, I don't know what the
answer is, were staff directed to withhold the information? And
you talk about providing clarity to a regulated public, but you
then deny the public the chance to comment on the full effects
of the proposed tip sharing rule.
WITHDRAWING THE TIP POOLING RULE
Finally, will you withdraw the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, yes or no?
Mr. Cole. Go ahead and answer.
Secretary Acosta. No.
Ms. DeLauro. What I assumed.
Thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. We are joined by the chairman of the full
committee.
Opening Statement by Committee Chairman Frelinghuysen
The Chairman. I guess I am glad to be here, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cole. I see you have taken a seat well away from----
The Chairman. Yes, I know. I started my career on the end
of the podium, actually at the children's table.
But, Mr. Secretary--thank you, Mr. Chairman--obviously, I
want to welcome you. Apologies, we have Secretary Mnuchin
across--across the corridor here so I was with him. Just
obviously want to thank you for your work, and I want to
highlight, if I may, and ask you to respond very briefly.
I know there are a lot of hot-button issues. I think you
have taken some initiatives to address the needs of our
Nation's veterans. Can you talk a little bit about what
positive things you are doing here?
VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT INITIATIVES
I think all of us at the podium here, maybe this will give
an opportunity for the temperature to be lowered just a little
bit for a few minutes. Could you give us sort of an update of
some of the initiatives you are undertaking to make sure that
those who have done so much for our country have the jobs that
they need in order to look after their families, if the
chairman would allow me to ask that question?
Secretary Acosta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And let me say that the needs of the veterans are very
important and very much a focus of our work. And I would like
to highlight two programs in particular.
The first is one that the Congress passed and authorized to
begin, I believe, one fiscal year from now, but we were able to
find a little bit of funding--actually, I think appropriated
one fiscal year from now, but it is authorized. And we were
able to find a little bit of funding to start it early, which
is a recognition of companies that have a particularly strong
record of hiring veterans.
And we have already put out an invitation to apply, and we
look forward to starting that recognition under pilot project
authority. This year, we didn't receive funding, but we just
thought it so important that we get ahead of the game and get
going before the funding that was appropriated--start to
recognize these companies.
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING
The second issue that I would like to highlight is
occupational licensing. You know, if you are to look at various
studies from Federal Reserve-sponsored studies to Brookings,
there are 1.5 million to 3 million people right now that could
hold jobs that aren't holding jobs because they are moving to
States that don't recognize their current licenses. And this
affects veterans in a particular way.
A man or a woman may serve their nation, and they literally
could be driving a truck with explosives in Fallujah and then
discover that when they end their service to the Nation and
want to come back to the U.S., they are not licensed to drive a
milk truck in their home State. And that baffles me. I just
don't understand why States are not willing to recognize
military licensures and military qualifications.
And so we are working very much with States through the
National Governors Association. The Western Governors
Association has been incredibly helpful in particular, and I
want to single them out. And we have been working with them on
a bipartisan basis because this is something that I think, you
know, I would like to have someone explain to me why it has to
be the way it is. It makes no sense.
The Chairman. In closing, it is amazingly frustrating.
Because when we travel to the Middle East and other places,
people are looking at retiring, they express their frustration
that they have spent their time, they have these
qualifications, and these barriers remain.
So I want to commend you for your effort. I am sure members
of the committee feel very strongly, as I do, that this issue
needs to be addressed as quickly as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Acosta. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
We will now resume the normal order of questioning. So, Mr.
Womack, based on time of arrival, you are next. The gentleman
from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. Womack. I thank the chairman.
TAX CUT AND JOBS ACT
And before I ask a couple of questions of the Secretary, I
feel a bit compelled to respond to my friend the ranking
member's tirade a minute ago about a company near and dear to
my heart, Walmart, since it is headquartered in my district.
I find it interesting that too often my friends on the
other side of the aisle cherry-pick the issues that they would
like to complain about with regard to the Tax Cut and Jobs Act.
And specifically to Walmart, it is true that bonuses were given
to people on a tiered basis based on--based on how many years
that would make them eligible.
But you fail to point out that Walmart also raised its
starting wage to $11 an hour. That was not--I mean, apparently,
that is something good, and I wouldn't expect you to comment on
something like that because it would defeat the narrative that
you were presenting to this committee.
An expanded parental and maternity leave policy, providing
full-time hourly associates with 10 weeks of paid maternity
leave and 6 weeks of paid parental leave. Salaried associates
also receiving the same benefit. And that Walmart will provide
financial assistance to associates adopting children, with a
total of $5,000 per child for expenses such as adoption agency
fees, translation fees, and legal or court costs.
So if you are going to pick on Walmart, then tell the whole
story. To impeach a company, arguably the world's largest
company, the way you did I think was disrespectful. And let me
also add that just in the State of Connecticut, the benefits
totaled nearly $7,000,000 to associates, to people in the State
of Connecticut.
Ms. DeLauro. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Womack. No, I will not yield.
Ms. DeLauro. Okay.
Mr. Womack. Because I have got a limited amount of time,
and our committee is now shortened of time because of the 7 or
8 minutes that you took. So I am just telling you----
Ms. DeLauro. I don't apologize.
Mr. Womack [continuing]. It is absolutely incredible to me
that you want to be so critical of a company that employs over
a million people benefited from these from these----
Ms. DeLauro. One hundred fifty-five people in Orange,
Connecticut, lost their job when Sam's Club closed down.
Mr. Womack. Mr. Chairman, the committee should be in order.
Ms. DeLauro. It is in order.
Mr. Womack. So I won't belabor the point. But to be fair,
you should tell the whole story.
COLLABORATION WITH DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ON SKILLS GAP
Mr. Secretary, it is great to have you here today. We
appreciate your testimony. In your testimony, you talked about
the ongoing collaboration with Secretary DeVos to ensure that
American workers receive the highest-quality services
available. And I am very pleased that we are beginning to
address what we all know is the skills gap.
Everywhere I go in my district, I have job creators telling
me that they need people. They need people with certain skills.
And I am pleased that our Congress is beginning to take steps
to address these skills gap. And personally, I believe that we
made a mistake by trying to convince so many people that over
the last generation or so that their only path to success would
be with a college education.
So we have got a lot of things. So would you care to
elaborate on the cooperation that you have with Secretary DeVos
and touch on how Congress can be of assistance? And I know I
have got a limited amount of time left.
Secretary Acosta. Sir, thank you. Thank you for the
question.
And first, let me note that, you know, your State's
unemployment rate is below the national average, and so the
skills gap is a particular issue. And I believe it is your home
State that has a program called ``Go Pro, Go Proud.''
Mr. Womack. It is.
Secretary Acosta. And I have seen the videos of that, and
let me just commend that because I think it does a great job of
exposing young adults to the full array of their career
options. And this is what Secretary DeVos and I are really
focused on.
As young adults go into high school, are they being given
the full information? Are they being told these are all your
career options? You can go in this direction. This is the
amount of higher education that you will need. This is the
expected salaries, and this is the expected student debt. Or
you can go in this direction, and this is the amount of
additional education you will need, and this is the additional
student debt.
And I would contend that our counselors, particularly at
the high school level, are not doing a very good job of that. I
was in one State where I was speaking with the vice chancellor
of a State school system, and I raised that. And he said, ``Mr.
Secretary, you are absolutely right. We are focusing far too
much on the top-end students, and we should be focusing more on
SAT prep and ACT prep.''
And I kind of looked at him, and I said, ``You just
completely lost my point.'' The vast majority of Americans
don't get their jobs based on SAT and ACT prep. And we need to
encourage high schools to provide the full array of options to
the students, and that is something that the Secretary and I
have been collaborating on.
And let me just say it is a great collaboration. So thank
you for the question.
Mr. Womack. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Appreciate
your testimony. Keep up the good work.
Mr. Cole. Thank you. Again, based on order of arrival, we
will go to my good friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Pocan.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
I am trying to get to four areas. I am already predicting I
am going to fail, but I am going to do my best. And I will try
to--if we can be brief in both ways----
Secretary Acosta. Fair enough.
DECLINE IN OSHA INSPECTORS
Mr. Pocan [continuing]. I would appreciate it. The first
question on OSHA. There was a news report earlier in the year
there is a 4 percent decline in OSHA inspectors since the
President has taken office. They lost at least 40 inspectors, I
think is the number, through attrition, and no new hires had
been filled as of October.
Can you tell me, one--hopefully, they are all easy--have
you hired the new OSHA inspectors to fill those 40 slots? Two,
are all the OSHA inspector positions currently staffed, and
three, have we maintained the total number of inspections from
2016 to 2017 to 2018?
Secretary Acosta. So, Congressman, thank you. Thank you for
the question. Let me try to address those briefly.
You are correct that there was a decrease in the number of
OSHA inspectors. I became concerned about that decrease last
summer, and so although there was a general hiring freeze in
place, I provided OSHA an exemption to start the process of
hiring inspectors.
And currently, I believe there are 65 recruiting actions in
progress at various stages of the recruiting process. There is
an onboarding procedure for OSHA. They have to undergo physical
examination. They have to undergo others.
In addition, I have encouraged the agency to hire more than
is currently--than the current FTE, understanding that we need
a continuous pool.
Finally, on the number of inspections, I believe I said it
in my opening. This is the first time in 5 years that the
number of inspections has actually increased year-over-year. So
despite this, there have been no decreases in the number of
inspections.
Mr. Pocan. And just real quick then, do you know of those
empty slots, how many--you had 65 actions, how many of the 40
slots have been filled, or are they part of that in the process
of?
Secretary Acosta. It is in the process. I don't know
where--where it is as of today.
Mr. Pocan. Fair enough.
Secretary Acosta. I know that I authorized them to begin
hiring this past summer, and they have proceeded in the regular
process, and we could provide that information.
Mr. Pocan. Okay. No problem. Thank you.
WAGE THEFT
I would also like to submit into the record two stories, if
I can, about Federal contractors driving down wages for workers
and routinely committing wage theft while not seeing their
Federal contractor status even reviewed. One, the headline is
``Workers Who Really Do Support Our Troops Are Getting Their
Wages Slashed.''
I would just ask if you could take a look at those and if
you could give them a little extra attention. You know, I am
just a little bit concerned that some of our compliance
assistance versus enforcement may not be working as well, and
these are just two recent articles.
Mr. Cole. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pocan. Thank you very much.
Secretary Acosta. And we will have--we will make sure that
our staff communicates with yours to receive those.
PROPOSED REGULATION CHANGES
Mr. Pocan. So issue three, we are doing pretty well. On a
lot of the efforts that you and both the President have talked
about around deregulation. There has been a lot of deregulation
in your Department around things that protect workers' wages,
overtime, health and safety, pensions, healthcare, civil
rights, and other areas.
Yet we have ramped up regulation at the Office of Labor-
Management Standards, specifically a 22 percent increase,
including $2,800,000 to restore the International Union
Compliance Audit Program, which has been used in the past to
actually harass labor unions. I am just wondering why unions
are the only group that seems to be singled out for more
regulation when everything else has been moving toward
deregulation?
Secretary Acosta. Congressman, first of all, I think we are
referring to the budget because we haven't had new regulations
issued----
Mr. Pocan. The budget proposals.
Secretary Acosta. But the budget on the enforcement
agencies is pretty much the same as it has always been. The one
office that you have referred to was--unlike other offices, was
substantially reduced over the prior years, and so this is an
attempt to bring it up to what are historical levels.
Mr. Pocan. But the only one that you are adding to
regulation. So which two are you getting rid of? Because isn't
it if you add one, you have to take away two? Isn't that the
informal rule your administration has?
Secretary Acosta. We are talking budget here, and we are
not talking--I am not aware of----
Mr. Pocan. Okay. So you can budget more regulation, just
you can't----
Secretary Acosta. Congressman, as I have gone through, you
know, I think the enforcement record, and I went through the
facts to address the narrative, which I think is a false
narrative of any decrease in enforcement. And if you look at
the budget proposal, even though--if I could?
Mr. Pocan. I understand. I think I understand. If I can get
my last in, I would be so successful. So if I can just get my
last and I will try to do it really quick.
Secretary Acosta. Fair enough.
PROTECTIONS FOR GIG ECONOMY WORKERS
Mr. Pocan. Thank you. Just some concerns around you talked
about reevaluating the laws around the Labor Department for the
gig economy. You referred to it as entrepreneurialship. We have
some concerns that the direction you might be going could take
away protections for people like Uber and Lyft drivers, Amazon
delivery drivers, that they might not get paid minimum wage and
other things.
Can you just talk very quickly about that? I appreciate it.
Secretary Acosta. Congressman, certainly. And I think what
I have said, to just put on the record, is the Bureau of Labor
Statistics is coming up with a--is going to be issuing a study
on alternative work arrangements on the gig economy, the
entrepreneurial economy. And I think that study is an important
marker to start a national discussion on what is a larger
percentage of the economy.
And so I think--let us start with the agreement. We all
should be having that discussion. It should be a fulsome
discussion, and it should look to assure that there are
protections in place while at the same time there is access to
benefits that are not traditionally afforded these individuals
in these work arrangements.
Mr. Pocan. Great. And thank you for helping me be
successful.
Mr. Cole. Well, you got a little help here, too, my friend.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cole. If we can, I next want to go to my great friend
from the State of Tennessee, Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for appearing today and
for your testimony.
I represent the great people of the Third District of
Tennessee from Chattanooga to Oak Ridge, 11 wonderful East
Tennessee counties. A personal note of thanks not only for the
rhetoric and policies of this administration in regard to the
Department of Labor, but to the successes that you have had,
and I think you have aptly stated those. So I thank you for
that.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE
Several years ago, right after my first term, I began a
workforce development initiative in my district. I was trying
to find something that not only Republicans and Democrats could
sit around the table, but we could have employers, employees,
educators, and civic leaders, and there was a need for that,
and there still is. So that has really been my main focus in
this area of jurisdiction.
So I want to applaud you for your efforts in that regard,
and I want us all to continue to work forward as Americans. I
think when employers and employees can work together, America
does move forward, and I come at the process in that regard.
MATCHING JOB CORPS TRAINING WITH IN-DEMAND JOBS
I do have a question. Mr. Secretary, there are 4.9 million
Americans, American youth between the ages of 16 and 24 who are
neither in school nor employed. As you know, the $1,700,000,000
Jobs Corps program at the Department of Labor is the Nation's
largest residential job training program for at-risk youth
between the ages of 16 and 24. And yet there seems to be a
mismatch between the training that is offered at Jobs Corps
centers across the country and the actual jobs that are in
demand and expected to grow in the market.
For example, in 2015, the Department of Labor issued a
joint jobs report with the Department of Transportation and
Education that found the transportation sector will need to
hire 4.2 million new workers by 2022 and that the trucking
industry in particular has by far the largest number of
projected job openings at over 2 million jobs that need to be
filled in that spot.
Yet according to the Department of Labor's website, only 4
out of the Nation's 122 federally administrated Job Corps
centers offer any type of training in heavy-duty trucking.
Mr. Secretary, do you know why truck driver training is
limited to only four Job Corps centers, and would you kindly
consider expanding the number of Job Corps centers that offer
truck driver training, sir?
Secretary Acosta. Congressman, thank you for the question,
and let me address it on a few levels.
First, I do not know the why, but I will gladly consider.
More broadly, this goes then back to the point that I mentioned
with military, you know, training, if you are licensed to drive
a truck with explosives in the military, why can't States
recognize that license when these servicemembers come home? You
know, that is a no-brainer.
Let me say more broadly on Job Corps, you know, I would
very much like the opportunity to sit down with individual
Members and start discussions about the Job Corps center in
their particular States. Right now, Job Corps is a very large
national program, and it is operating the same way it operated
as far back as the '70s.
YOUTHBUILD PROGRAM
You know, I had the opportunity to visit a very different
model. I was in Nevada, and I had the opportunity to go to I
believe it was Truckee Meadows Community College, and that
community college was working with a program called YouthBuild.
And I talked to some of the students in that program, and then
I asked the administrators to sort of leave the room.
I put on my old prof hat and just talked to the students
directly, and I was really moved. One of the students said that
they had been on the streets, that they had been taking drugs,
that they seriously thought about ending their life. And then
they found the YouthBuild program that is working with this
community college that is also working with businesses, creates
a partnership between education, business, and YouthBuild.
And here is what they were doing. He was learning to be an
HVAC certified repair person. For the first time, he had an
apartment. He rented an apartment, and he was really proud of
that. And this program per capita is a lot less expensive than
Job Corps.
EVALUATING JOB CORPS SERVICES
And so one of the questions that I think we need to ask is
not an elimination, but in asking are we--is the way that
educational services for Job Corps were provided in the '70s
the best approach, or should we be looking at alternative
mechanisms within the Job Corps system, perhaps changing what
is taught, perhaps changing the age range, perhaps changing the
length of study? And it doesn't have to be the same for every
Job Corps center around the United States.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, I believe my time is up. So I yield back.
Mr. Cole. Done better than anybody else so far. Again, we
will go to my good friend from Massachusetts, Ms. Clark.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here today.
POTENTIAL ISSUES WITH TIP POOLING RULE
I want to go back to the issue you were discussing with the
ranking member around tips. And I was struck by what you said
that you wouldn't frequent a restaurant or a place where
management was taking the tips from tipped workers. How would
you know that was happening?
Secretary Acosta. So in the era of Yelp and the Internet,
I--you know, I think it would get out very quickly. And
personally, I don't think many restaurants would do this
because they would lose their workers, and they would lose
their customers.
Ms. Clark. Have you ever--have you ever worked for a tipped
wage?
Secretary Acosta. No, I have not.
Ms. Clark. Well, I think--I have. And I can tell you that I
doubt very much you would know because there is a lot that goes
on. But you are in the unique position to help because the
tipped wage in 18 States is only $2.13. That is also the
Federal tipped wage. Excuse me.
It is double the rate of poverty in States where that is
the tipped wage for working people who are working for tips.
And if you are wait staff, that is over double. It is 18
percent when it is typically 7 percent for working people in
poverty. So we are talking often about the working poor.
So as you go through this in your role as Secretary, beyond
Yelp, and you are looking at doing, I hope, a quantitative,
since you found the qualitative not to be good enough as you go
forward, what are your plans for assessing the impact on this?
And if you are finding that it is not working out as you hope
and that these tips are being pocketed, what is the plans for
the labor?
Secretary Acosta. So, Congresswoman, if you will allow me
to answer and perhaps offer a fulsome answer because I think
with about 2 minutes, we will get to a point where we might
agree. No----
Ms. Clark. I have other questions. So we may have to go
faster.
Secretary Acosta. Well, I will try to go fast. No one wants
or believes that establishments should keep tips. To many, in
many ways, this is a fundamental issue of law. The Tenth
Circuit has struck down the prior regulation that was
promulgated. The Ninth Circuit has upheld it over a vigorous
dissent, and this issue is now pending in the Supreme Court.
AUTHORITY TO REGULATE TIP POOLING
And so the question is, has Congress authorized the
Department of Labor to regulate in this space? And we can have
a legal debate, which I don't want to have. But personally, I
find the Tenth Circuit decision persuasive. I believe that
Congress has not authorized the Department to fully regulate in
this space.
Ms. Clark. So let me synthesize this so that we do come to
some understanding on this. There is a split in the circuits on
this. But is my understanding that your position is now that
you have put this in place, removed protections for tipped
workers, that you are not going to conduct any further analysis
of this because you feel the Tenth Circuit has blocked you from
doing that?
Secretary Acosta. Congresswoman, if you will allow me to
finish? And so we have already----
Ms. Clark. Can you answer that question? Do you feel the
Tenth Circuit has blocked any further analysis of the impact of
this rule?
Secretary Acosta. Congresswoman, I will answer questions if
you allow me to finish.
Ms. Clark. Yes or no? Yes or no?
Secretary Acosta. Ultimately, I have already said publicly
that any final rule will have a quantitative analysis. I have
invited the public to provide data for that quantitative
analysis. But let me say this. There is a real simple solution
to this, which is that this committee could simply legislate
our authority to prohibit this.
And so if we are all concerned about this, why don't we
just add a simple sentence to the law that says that
establishments, whether or not they take a tip credit, may not
keep any portion of the tips. I don't know of a single person
that would oppose an--a law that says that an establishment may
not keep part of a tip.
Ms. Clark. So you would support us----
Secretary Acosta. A hundred percent.
Ms. Clark [continuing]. In a law that said--so you feel you
are totally bound by the Tenth Circuit right now?
Secretary Acosta. Well, the Department of Justice would
determine whether I am totally bound. My personal view is I
find the Tenth Circuit persuasive.
Ms. Clark. I am asking your view as Secretary----
Secretary Acosta. My personal view, my personal view is I
find----
Ms. Clark [continuing]. Of the Labor Department, would you
support a law coming out of this Congress----
Secretary Acosta. Absolutely.
Ms. Clark [continuing]. Saying that tips belong exclusively
to those who earn them?
Secretary Acosta. Absolutely. OMB put that on the list of
items to be looked at as part of the appropriations process, I
believe about a week ago. And so that has already been on the
list that has been transmitted by OMB.
And the point that I was trying to make that I think we can
find agreement and problem-solve on is no one wants this. This
is a question of statutory authority. So I fully support a
provision that says establishments should not be permitted to
keep any portion of a tip.
Ms. Clark. But yet you are siding with the Tenth Circuit
and taking our entire policy in a different direction, which I
am running out of time. So we can have this legal debate later
on. But I think that we need some assurances from you, one,
that you would support such a law, which you just gave, and
two, that you will continue to conduct a robust analysis of the
real impact because this affects working people and their wages
in a profound way.
Secretary Acosta. Assured and assured. What I have been
trying to say is assured and assured. Yes.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. And just for the
gentlelady's information, we actually had this discussion. The
Secretary has requested that we put something like this in
language.
I certainly would be very supportive of doing that, and I
think we will probably be able to get there on this. So,
anyway, I want to thank everybody involved in a vigorous
discussion.
With that, I want to move to my good friend from Maryland,
Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. And it is good to see you,
Mr. Secretary.
Let me just clear up a couple things. And just one thing on
the tip thing, and I agree. I will be onboard with that, but
did you say that there was no quantitative analysis when the
last administration did the rule?
Secretary Acosta. That is correct.
Mr. Harris. Oh, okay. Oh, I get it. All right.
OSHA INSPECTIONS
All right. Now, the other one is that OSHA, let me get your
testimony right, that OSHA, for which we are hearing complaints
that this OSHA can't do the job, you actually increased the
number of inspections, which hadn't been--gone up for the last
4 years of the last administration?
Secretary Acosta. For the last 5 years, they hadn't gone
up.
Mr. Harris. Oh, I am sorry. For the last 5. I have to
change my notes. It is 5 years, not 4 years of the last
administration.
EEO-1 RULE
Okay. I want to thank you for the EEO-1 rule. The EEO-1 was
a boondoggle. I mean, that form that the Department held up, as
you know, this committee has taken a position against
implementing that. Please think it out better. There have to be
better ways to get the information than that--than the EEO-1
suggestion.
OVERTIME RULE
I want to thank you for taking a second look at the
overtime rule. As you know, the real people who get squeezed
are the people who are kind of in that--who are on that job
ladder, who are climbing the job ladder, going--they have to
prove that they are worthy of getting up to the top. And I
think it impeded them getting up to the top. So thank you very
much for that.
ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS
Now let me talk a little about health insurance. It is
something I think frequently about, and you know, the
Affordable Care Act individual exchange is collapsing. Look, we
all have to admit it is collapsing. Congress can't fix it. I
mean, we just didn't have the will or whatever to fix it. You
know, things stalled over in the Senate. So it is going to be
left up to the administration and to States to solve this
problem.
Now in Maryland, we have bills before our legislature right
now doing what we had proposed, which is set up either a
reinsurance pool, which is what is going to be done in
Maryland, a high-risk pool. But until you get there, I think
the association health plans are the way to go. I think that
the fact I think your testimony was that less than a third of
employers with 50 or less employees actually offer insurance.
And I think employer-based insurance actually has a lot of
things to say for it. So it would kind of move--it would give
the ability of small employers to actually offer insurance as a
benefit of working for that individual, and I think that is a
good idea. It would remove some of the--these are not junk
plans. I mean, most people who get insurance through employers
are very happy with the plans.
You know, to call anything except an Affordable Care Act
plan a junk plan would say that before the Affordable Care Act,
every plan was junk plan because no plan in America, no plan in
America would have qualified under ACA before the ACA was
implemented. So I want to thank you about that.
H-2B VISAS
But you know the issue that I am most interested in because
you were nice enough to take a meeting with me in the office,
and that is the H-2B issue, the issue of temporary work visas.
You know, on the front page of your testimony--and it is
correct--the good news is, is that we got a lot of jobs. We got
a lot of people working in this country, and our unemployment
rate is very low. The number of workers is high.
The bad news is, is that your last point in November 2017,
the number of job openings was 6 million, near an all-time high
of 6.2 million. We got a lot of job openings. We don't have
people to fill those jobs.
In my district, H-2B workers fill a vital role in seasonal
employment, whether it is in beautiful Ocean City, whether it
is in the tourism industry, whether it is in the seafood
industry. People, you know, you go to meetings around here,
they love to have those little crab cakes. You know, somebody
has got to pick that crab, and the experienced workers are H-2B
workers.
And unfortunately, as we have discussed, there are 33,000--
the quota is 33,000 for the second half of the year, which is
the summer season coming up. Eighty-eight thousand applicants.
That means 55,000 workers could not have been hired. And I am
hearing on a daily basis--I had a telephone town hall last
night--two calls. You know, please do something about it
because it is so vital to my neck of the woods.
Could you outline where you see these temporary worker
programs going in a setting of full employment?
Secretary Acosta. Congressman, thank you for the question.
Let me in 1 minute offer maybe three ideas. One, the
current H-2B program is limited by congressional mandate to
33,000 in this 6-month period. In the first day alone, we
received applications for more than 80,000 of visas. If you
break it down by industry, I particularly feel for the small
businesses in districts like yours that have highly seasonal
businesses, where the local workforce demand cannot be met by
the local workforce population. And to me, that is the core of
what H-2B is about.
If you look at the businesses that are making use of H-2B,
I am not sure that all the businesses that are using the
program are as highly seasonal as the ones that you have cited,
and--but I don't have discretion to pick and choose between
businesses. I process as they come in. And so Congress is going
to have to make a decision whether or not to address this
issue.
One final word. Last year, we asked for a fee as part of
the budget. We are asking for that fee again as part of the
budget to simply streamline the process. We are literally using
snail mail right now for the application process to go from
agency to agency, and this is a simple good government solution
that would benefit everyone, regardless of caps.
And so I know, as a general matter, Congress dislikes the
fee-based process as opposed to the standard appropriation
process. But for the sake of all the individuals, and I can
describe the process in more detail later, that use this
process, it is time to modernize, and so I would ask that the
subcommittee look at the fee request again.
Mr. Harris. I thank you very much, and I hope you work with
us on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Absolutely. Let us go to my good friend from
California, Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, good to see you, Mr. Secretary.
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES IN MINORITY GROUPS
I want to hear your understanding of why President Trump
touted the supposedly low unemployment rate in the black
community that he claims is only because of his policies. I
want to hear what those policies were because this statement
couldn't be further from the truth.
Let me put this in for the record. Black unemployment is
double that of whites at 6.8 percent, which is the highest
among all racial groups nationwide. Latino unemployment is also
high, around 5 percent, compared to 4 percent nationally and
3.7 percent for whites.
It is not just unemployment, Mr. Secretary. Black full-time
workers earn less than 60 percent of what white workers earn
every year. The median net worth of white households is also 10
times higher than that of black households.
And so here we have a President really trying to take
credit for the lowest black unemployment and economic gains,
but this happened long before he took office in terms of the
trajectory. Black unemployment has been declining since 2011.
For the record, black unemployment rate fell from 16.5 percent
to 7.8 percent from January 2011 to January 2017.
Now the Kerner Commission issued an updated report citing
what is taking place now 50 years later as it relates to income
and racial justice and inequality. Fifty years ago, African-
American unemployment rate was 6.7 percent. Now, today, it is
6.8 percent.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask if I could insert this
updated report into the record?
Mr. Cole. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
KERNER REPORT
Ms. Lee. It is called ``Healing Our Divided Society.'' And
let me just read one paragraph.
`` `In Healing Our Divided Society,' Fred Harris, the last
surviving member of the Kerner Commission, along with
Eisenhower Foundation CEO Alan Curtis, they reexamine 50 years
later the work still necessary toward the goals set forth in
the Kerner Report.'' That is 50 years ago.
``This timely volume unites the interests of minorities and
white working and middle-class Americans to propose a strategy
to reduce poverty, inequality, and racial injustice. Reflecting
on America's urban climate decline, this new report sets forth
evidence and policies concerning employment, education,
housing, neighborhood development, and criminal justice based
on what has been proven to work and not work.''
And so, Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you, would you review
the recommendations in this report and provide the committee
your feedback on these recommendations and which ones you think
could be adopted by this administration?
PROPOSED CUTS TO JOB TRAINING PROGRAMS
And secondly, just with regard to your budget that slashes
a lot of the critical job training programs, we talked about
the 24 percent cut for Job Corps, 34 percent cut for Dislocated
Worker National Reserve funding, $10,000,000 cut, that is 11
percent for re-integration of ex-offenders back into the
workforce. So don't you also believe we need targeted
investments in communities of color where this unemployment
rate is still twice the national average?
So I want to hear what you intend to do, what you are
doing, and why in the world are you--is the President at least
misrepresenting the facts?
Secretary Acosta. Congresswoman, thank you. And let me try
to take those seriatim.
So I will gladly review the report, and perhaps you and I
can even sit down and talk about this.
Ms. Lee. I would love to do it.
Secretary Acosta. And I would very much enjoy the
opportunity to sit down maybe with you and talk about it in
more detail.
With regard to the second question, I understand all the
concerns, and then I certainly understand your points. But the
fact is that since this series has been kept, I believe it was
either in November or December, it did hit the lowest level
since the series was initiated back in I believe the '70s. So
that is just a factual statement, which is 100 percent
accurate.
Ms. Lee. But that was not under this President's policy.
CURRENT ADMINISTRATION'S ROLE IN RECENT ECONOMIC GAINS
Secretary Acosta. And I would add because I have heard--I
have heard statements that, you know, President Trump is not
responsible for--I have heard statements that I think are
inaccurate that President Trump is not responsible for the
economic gains. But if you look at the breakdown of the
industries where we have had the greatest acceleration in
growth, those industries tend to look like construction and
manufacturing and all those industries that the President has
focused his energy on.
And so the acceleration in growth has been highest in those
industries, which I think points to the fact that, in fact, it
is the change in policies that has spurred the economic----
Ms. Lee. But in those industries, you have very few African
Americans and Latinos, Mr. Secretary. All you have to do is
look at the workforce in those industries.
Secretary Acosta. Happy to engage in discussion.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Do we have a second round, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Cole. If we cobble it down in the first round, we will
do our best.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Okay, okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I look
forward to sitting down with you.
Mr. Cole. Thank my friend from California, and I just want
to note for the record, Fred Harris is from the Fourth District
of Oklahoma. Before he was a United States Senator, he served
as a State senator for the second-largest city in my district.
So proud that you quoted him.
With that, I want to move--the ranking member of the full
committee has arrived, and we are delighted to have her here as
always. We consider her really a member of this subcommittee.
She is of all subcommittees, but we know we are her favorite,
and so we are delighted to have her here, and we recognize her
for any comments or questions she cares to offer.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, you are very kind, and this is probably--
this is--oh, I better be careful. This is a very important
subcommittee. I have been part of it for a long time. So it is
always an honor to work with you and to all the outstanding
members.
DISABILITY COVERAGE FOR GROUND ZERO FIRST RESPONDERS
I really want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for joining us
today. We have many multiple hearings this morning. I am so
sorry I missed your testimony. I know that important Federal
investments in worker training, apprenticeships, and more have
been discussed, and I would like to raise a matter of great
importance to one of my constituents.
In 2001, Special Agent Terry Opiola was serving in the U.S.
Customs Service, where he was part of the rescue and recovery
team deployed after 9/11. Mr. Opiola spent nearly 600 hours at
Ground Zero and the Fresh Kills landfill, digging through
rubble in search of missing case evidence, exposing him to
toxins that have caused great harm.
Mr. Opiola was diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukemia,
or CLL, in 2015 by physicians at Mount Sinai's World Trade
Center Health Program. The physicians at Mount Sinai categorize
CLL as a form of cancer and a recognized category of World
Trade Center related health conditions.
Mr. Opiola is now being treated by the World Trade Center
Health Program affiliated oncologists at New York's Memorial
Sloan Kettering Hospital. And yet the Department of Labor has
denied his application for disability, stating that the
Department has not found a causal relationships between his
cancer and 9/11, even though the experts at the World Trade
Center Health Program, OPM, and the Department of Justice
Public Safety Office's Benefit Program all recognize the
relationship.
In November, I led a bipartisan letter with the original
sponsors of the 9/11 health bill to bring this matter to your
attention, and we are yet to receive a response. In recent
months, Mr. Opiola has been going back and forth with the
regional Department of Labor office who have asked him for
documents he has already provided and given unclear
instructions, which have amounted to unnecessary delays.
This man gave everything he could to our country in a time
of crisis, and it is, frankly, unfathomable to me that his case
would be stuck in a bureaucratic mess. So I implore you to fix
it.
A few questions. Why is the Department of Labor not
recognizing a causal relationship between these types of cancer
and 9/11 when the medical experts and other Federal Government
agencies have already determined the cause? And if you can
respond about what you are going to do to fix it?
Secretary Acosta. Ranking Member, thank you very much for
that question.
I can't respond to the specific case, but I think I can
address the point that you are making. First, if we haven't
responded to you, I feel very strongly that we should respond
in a timely manner and will make sure we get a response to you
this week.
Secondly, I have been disturbed personally by the confusion
in the standards in various programs that the Department
administers, particularly as it affects first responders. I
have asked staff to look at this and to give me an explanation
because the questions that you ask, I have asked myself of
staff. And as we have looked into this, we have seen that as
Congress has developed the various programs over time, each one
has a different standard, a different causal relationship that
must be established, a different set of discretions for
presumptions that we can make.
Personally, as I look at this, you know, these are
individuals that have served our communities, that have served
us, and I think, to the extent that we can, we need to help
them. I would very much welcome the opportunity to sit down on
a bipartisan basis, and you know, there are several statutes
with several different standards that must be met. And I think
it is incredibly confusing because the American citizen out
there that is applying doesn't understand that if you apply
under this statute versus that statute versus that statute,
there are different requirements.
And I think it would be a wonderful thing for Congress to
look at these and let us bring some sanity to the different
standards by maybe harmonizing the standards so that first
responders, irrespective of what program they fall under, can
all have the same access to benefits and the recognition that
as a statistical matter, much of what they are suffering is
because they actually acted as first responders serving the
people of our Nation.
Mrs. Lowey. Let me just say this. I am glad you are going
to do a lot of studies, and I am glad you are going to fix all
the programs. But right now, the relationship has been
established. So just fix it, please.
Thank you.
Secretary Acosta. Congresswoman, if I could? I have to
follow the law. You set the law. I will gladly speak with you
about harmonizing the statutory standards. I don't have
authority to change statutory standards, and that is the
problem.
Mrs. Lowey. I would be delighted to have a discussion with
you anytime about statutory standards, but the relationship
with this man's illness clearly has been established. So I
would hope you would take your executive action and fix it, and
then I am delighted to have meetings with you at any time.
Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. I thank the gentlelady.
We next go to my good friend from the great State of
Alabama, Mrs. Roby.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
PROPOSED RULE EXPANSION FOR ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS
Dr. Harris touched on the topic I want to talk about. The
Department of Labor's fiscal year 2019 budget request provides
expanding access to health coverage by allowing more employers
to form small business health plans or association health
plans. This initiative is supported by increasing funding for
the Employee Benefits Security Administration to develop policy
and enforcement capacity to expand access to small business
health plans.
So as you know, Obamacare is currently the law of the land
on healthcare, despites numerous attempts by my colleagues in
the House to completely repeal and replace this ill-conceived
law. However, we were able to repeal the individual mandate
required under Obamacare so that individuals will no longer be
assessed a penalty if unable to maintain coverage.
While this is a step in the right direction, more reforms
are necessary. Obamacare is riddled with burdensome regulations
that hinder States across the country in providing affordable
healthcare options to their citizens. Many from Alabama and
throughout the country have shared their stories of insurance
policy cancellations, skyrocketing premiums or copays, and new
limitations on what physicians they can see. In my State of
Alabama, there is only one healthcare--health insurance
provider. There is no question that America's healthcare system
is in need of dire reforms.
So, Mr. Secretary, it is my understanding that the
administration and in your testimony, you mentioned the
proposed rules expansion of association health plans will
increase access and provide more affordable options. Could you
provide this committee with a little bit more detail about how
the proposed small business health plans or associated health
plans will work and how they will help relieve some of the
strain caused by the burdensome Obamacare regulations?
And then also how much flexibility will these small
business health plans allow for?
Secretary Acosta. Congresswoman, thank you. Thank you for
the question because this is a very important issue.
And so under ERISA, the Department has regulatory authority
to determine what is a commonality of interest so that
businesses can associate in providing things like healthcare.
And so the concept behind the association health plan or the
small business health plan is that businesses that have a
commonality of interest can come together, and they can
negotiate for health as a group, for health insurance as a
group. And so, you know, I was talking to a small business
person about this that went from 60 employees to 40 employees,
and they pointed out how much more expensive the small group
market is than the large group market. The same health plan,
but an increase in premiums.
But if all the small businesses can come together and
access that large group market, a few things will happen.
First, they have an economy of scale. Secondly, most small
employers aren't in the business of negotiating healthcare.
They are in the business of running their small businesses.
And so this would allow them to come together and have an
association that they would control, if we proceed with this
proposal after notice and comment, that they could come
together and then have experts that are much more focused on
how to negotiate healthcare. And I believe that very--that very
change that creates an economy of scale and that allows an
expert to actually negotiate the plan on behalf of a large
association would be important steps in driving down the cost
of healthcare.
So small businesses can offer employer-based healthcare to
their employees and their families, nearly 11 million
individuals working for these small businesses that don't have
access to healthcare.
Mrs. Roby. And I can just say that we get calls all the
time. There are so many people in my State, and I am sure
throughout the country as well, that have an insurance card in
their pocket that they can't afford to use. So just please know
that you have my full support as you develop these policies
that will increase choices and return health insurance
decisions back to where they belong, with the doctors and the
patients.
So thank you again for your leadership. I appreciate you
being here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Secretary Acosta. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. A new champion. Under time, not even close.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cole. If we can, we will now go to my other good friend
from the great State of California, Ms. Roybal-Allard.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me just associate myself with the
concerns that have been raised regarding the rule on tips and
also with regard to the $1,100,000,000 cut to the Employment
and Training Administration.
FORCED ARBITRATION CLAUSES
Secretary Acosta, when you testified before the
subcommittee last year, I expressed concern about President
Trump's executive order to revoke the 2014 Fair Pay and Safe
Workplaces order, which prevents companies with Government
contracts from using forced arbitration clauses to keep sex
discrimination claims out of the courts and off the public
record.
Five months after that hearing, we learned of the
widespread use of forced arbitration clauses by many industries
to hide sex discrimination and sexual harassment in the
workplace, and such revelations gave birth to the ``Me Too''
movement. Last year, you noted that, as a general matter,
Federal policy favors arbitration. So I am not contesting that,
but I would like to specifically focus on forced arbitration
because there is a difference between an employee choosing
arbitration and an employer forcing arbitration to silence
victims and conceal a corporate culture where sexual
harassment, sexual assault, and discrimination may be
commonplace.
So my question to you, Mr. Secretary, is do you believe
that companies with Government contracts should be able to use
forced arbitration clauses? And since the arbitration is done
in secret and unavailable to the public, how can you protect
others from being vulnerable for the same types of abuses, and
how can you protect the rights of victims, especially from
retaliation from their employer?
Secretary Acosta. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I believe what you are referring to is an executive order
that said that companies that had violated certain rules could
not be, as a matter of law--or should not be, as a matter of
law, prohibited from engaging in the contracting process. Now
your question goes to whether or not arbitration, there should
be arbitration provisions--from what I sense, arbitration
provisions in employment contracts? Is that what your
question----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes. I am referring to forced
arbitration that some companies have.
Secretary Acosta. So when you say ``forced,'' is that a
contractually agreed-to arbitration?
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes.
Secretary Acosta. And so, so Federal policy for decades has
favored arbitration, and that includes arbitration agreements
that are part of a contract where individuals agree in a
contractual relationship that they will use arbitration.
Certainly, that is something that we can discuss and that we
can look at and whether there should be further discussion on
that. But that is something that has been part of Federal
policy for decades.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. No, I understand that in general. But I
guess what my question is, is what is your opinion with regards
to forced arbitration with companies that have Government
contracts since it has been shown that it is used to hide a
culture of either discrimination, sex abuse, and so on?
Secretary Acosta. And I guess here is where my confusion is
coming in. When you are saying ``forced arbitration,'' is that
the same as contractually agreed-to arbitration?
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Yes.
Secretary Acosta. And so, you know, when arbitration is
contractually agreed to, you have two parties coming together
and contractually agreeing to engage in arbitration as a way
to--as a recognition that the legal system can be very
expensive and that the arbitration is a less expensive, more
affordable remedy. Now there may be protections that we should
be looking at within the arbitration system.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Let me ask the question another way. Do
you think that companies that have these contractual agreements
of forced arbitration should be given Federal dollars?
Secretary Acosta. Well, Congresswoman, I believe most
companies out there have arbitration clauses in all sorts of
relationships, including employment, and Federal policy has for
decades. So that would be a drastic change from established
Federal policy that has been in place for decades and decades.
And before we go down that road, I would want to have----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Are we still talking strictly about
forced? I understand the arbitration, and I am not contesting
that.
Secretary Acosta. We were talking about contractual--yes,
yes. And I would want to have a discussion about whether there
are procedures that perhaps could address your concerns within
the arbitration process before we----
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Because my understanding is that
in order for an employee to get a job, they need to sign that
contract that includes the forced arbitration. So, again, I am
talking about forced arbitration and companies that receive
Federal money. So I would very much like to maybe talk about
this further and see if there is something that can be done
because it really just opens up the doors for abuses and leaves
employers very vulnerable to what is happening in that company.
Secretary Acosta. Happy to have the discussion.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I have asked all my questions.
Mr. Cole. Okay. I thank the gentlelady.
We now go to my good friend from the great State of
Michigan, Mr. Moolenaar.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, can you see me?
Secretary Acosta. Yes.
ADDRESSING H-2B VISA CAPS
Mr. Moolenaar. There we go. I wanted to follow up on some
of the discussion we were having on the H-2B visas. At the core
of your response, I got the sense that you said Congress needs
to take action to make changes there.
I guess one of the questions I have, is there anything you
can do unilaterally to make changes that might help this
situation?
Secretary Acosta. Congressman, this is pretty
straightforward. Congress has said that there is an annual cap
of 66,000. That is divided into two parts of 33,000 every 6-
month period. For this 33,000 period, we received 81,000
requests. Congress has given us that number, and if that number
is to change, it needs to initiate here.
One issue that I want to highlight, however, is we don't
have discretion as to how these are issued. There are some
industries that are highly, highly seasonal where, for a few
short weeks, you have a large peak in demand, larger than the
local workforce could possibly cover.
That, to me and to my mind, is what the whole concept of
that seasonal visa is about. There are other industries that
while they are seasonal, they don't have that one peak, and
they are spread over a larger geographic area so they don't
have as big a strain on the workforce because it is spread out
over large swaths of the country.
And so one of the concerns as Congress looks at this is,
are you really focusing on those highly seasonal industries,
and should there be any distinction between the highly seasonal
industry where the local workforce is simply insufficient and
other seasonal industries that are taking up a large portion of
these visas? That ultimately is a question for Congress as how
you set those standards.
And the second point that I would make is currently the
Department of Labor has a system, the Department--DHS has a
system, and State has a system. And we have asked for a fee to
integrate those three systems so that much like we see in our
telephone apps, someone can apply and track where it goes from
agency one to agency two to agency three. I think that is a
simple good government thing that everyone should be in favor
of.
And so I believe, you know, we might have the opportunity
to receive a little bit in this year's budget to start that
process, but that to be long term to fund that streamlined
system I think is something I would ask the committee to look
at again.
H-2B VISA APPLICATION PROCESS
Mr. Moolenaar. Just a follow-up question. So when you issue
certifications for H-2B workers, for instance, my understanding
is your Department, as of February 27th, had issued 59,537
certifications for H-2B visas, for H-2B workers. Does that mean
that your Department has sort of verified that there are not
employees that are available for those jobs, U.S. employees,
and that it kind of certifies that that is in the case needed?
Secretary Acosta. Sir, that is not the case. And let me
briefly walk through the process. Someone that is looking to
hire an H-2B worker would apply to the Department of Labor. We
would certify the wage rate that they are offering as an
appropriate wage rate.
We would then send them a notice, and they would then
advertise. They would show us proof that they had advertised,
and then we would then certify that they have met the
advertising requirement. At that point, the individual seeking
the visa would then send the request to DHS, which is the one
that would then process that visa. Send it back to the
individual. The individual would then send it to the Department
of State for issuance.
And so our role is to certify the wage and certify that
they have met the advertising requirements, and we will certify
all the individuals that apply, whether or not the cap has been
met. It is our policy because we don't know if Congress is
going to change the 33,000 cap. So it is our policy to certify
the individuals that have applied whether or not the visa cap
has been met.
INCREASING THE H-2B VISA CAP
Mr. Moolenaar. And for someone to come up with a new cap
number and to have that kind of support within the
administration, if we were going to work on that in Congress,
who would need to be in the room to have that agreement that
this is what is needed for--because I will tell you, in
Mackinac Island--you may be familiar with Mackinac Island--
there is one business that wasn't able to open some aspects of
their business because it is an employer that required 1,000
workers, and there is only 500 people that live in that town
year round.
And you know, it is a highly summer vacation area, and so
we are experiencing this. But how do we make that happen in
terms of with the administration? I understand how Congress
works, but with the administration. Because there are some I
think in the administration that may not feel that these visas
are necessary.
Secretary Acosta. So, Congressman, as I said earlier, I am
very sensitive to the needs of those businesses that are highly
seasonal where the local workforce demand, and you gave a
perfect example, was insufficient. And that is what I think the
core of the visa is about.
Last year, Congress gave authority to DHS in consultation
with the Department of Labor to increase the cap, and then-
Secretary Kelly made the decision in consultation with me. And
he and I are shoulder to shoulder in that decision that the
visas would increase by 15,000. What Congress did last year,
and I just want to mention this, is they gave discretion to the
administration. And as a result, we had to write a rule, and
that takes time.
And so the mechanism that was used last year, while we made
the discretionary decision to increase the number by 15,000, by
the time the rule was written and issued, that 15,000 was not
able to be focused on businesses like you are talking about.
Mr. Moolenaar. Mm-hmm.
Secretary Acosta. And so I would urge Congress, as you are
looking at a solution this year, and we are happy to--our
Department and DHS, if I could speak for them, I think would be
happy to work with your staff to the extent that you are
looking for solutions to craft something that does not require
rulemaking. Because if we engage in that rulemaking, we are
going to be exactly where we were last year, and that doesn't
solve your problem, and that doesn't really address what we are
looking for either.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
Just to advise the committee, we are going to continue. The
Secretary has a hard stop at noon. We are going to stay at 5
minutes, but if you can do it under that, Ms. Clark will be
very grateful. Mr. Moolenaar, if he hangs around, will be very
grateful.
ADDRESSING SKILLS GAP ISSUE
I am going to set the opening example. I just want to ask
you one question.
We have had always a persistent problem with the skills
gap, and it is always difficult. You probably operate more
training programs in your Department than anybody else in the
Government. And, but it is a stubborn problem. It is a
difficult one.
So would you advise the committee on any special
initiatives you are taking or looking at how we have
traditionally done things so that we could, hopefully, cut into
that a little bit more and put people in really good-paying
jobs that have a real future with.
Secretary Acosta. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
And certainly, we have talked about the apprenticeship
program that we are very excited about, and we are excited
about expanding that even more than has been expanded in the
past. Let me note something that is in the budget that was in
the budget last year that I think is incredibly important, and
that is flexibility for Governors.
The ways monies are appropriated for Governors currently,
they have different programs that they administer. And
Governors on both sides of the aisle have come to us and said,
we have this great idea that works in our State. Can we take
money from funding source A and use it for funding source B?
In-school youth versus out-of-school youth, for example. And I
am highly restricted in my ability to allow Governors to sort
of move those funding streams around, and then Governors have
said, well, the compliance and accounting efforts behind those
are so onerous that we are not able to use monies as
efficiently.
And so we have asked again for additional flexibilities so
that we can work with the Governors to recognize that Oklahoma
may be different than California and that the needs of Oklahoma
may be different and what programs work in Oklahoma may be
different. And so I would ask the committee to look at those
flexibilities because I do think they are important.
Mr. Cole. Well, I appreciate that, and we will look at
that. I think that is an excellent idea, and we are going to
try and work with you on that.
With that, let me go to my good friend, the gentlelady from
Connecticut.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
JOB GROWTH
Mr. Secretary, just a couple of things. My colleague Mr.
Harris was clarifying the record. I would also like to make a
point. This has to do with your commentary on job growth, which
I would just say the last year of the Obama administration,
there were 196,000 jobs created per month. First year of the
Trump administration is 171,000 per month. So, in fact, job
growth slowed.
COURT RULINGS ON TIP POOLING REGULATION
With regard to your selecting the Tenth Circuit over the
Ninth Circuit, it would just seem to me that your view seems to
view that there is legal wage theft is okay. I say that, but at
the same time, we will take a very, very hard look at
legislation, which will undo that and promulgate a law here.
INCOME-SHARING AGREEMENTS IN APPRENTICESHIPS
Let me move to apprenticeships. Just a point, two points I
want to make. You tout the benefits of apprenticeships such as
the average annual wage of $60,000. However, you failed to
clarify that such benefits are only for registered
apprenticeships. The appropriations language is clear that it
can only be used for registered apprenticeship programs and not
for this new scheme.
I would comment on the subcommittee's progress report, and
if you can get back to me on this, it would be helpful. That
one of their recommendations on this, this is the
recommendations from President Trump's Task Force on
Apprenticeship Expansion. It talks about risk-sharing
opportunities. A recommendation is, ``Income-sharing agreements
provide a new tool that could help businesses fund
apprenticeship training costs. Investors sponsor
apprenticeships by investing in their training, and in return,
they take an equity stake in the apprentice's wages over a
certain period of time.''
That would appear to me this is the same as indentured
servitude that you get. So I would love to have clarification
on that, and if you can do it for us in writing, that would be
great because I would like to move to the International Labor
Affairs, ILAB, if you will?
PROPOSED CUTS TO ILAB IN 2019 BUDGET REQUEST
ILAB is one of the few Federal agencies with the explicit
responsibility to help level the playing field so that American
workers are not forced into unfair competition. And we have
seen since entering NAFTA that Carrier, GE, Nabisco have moved
jobs across the border to pay poverty wages, dump toxins before
selling their products back to the U.S. as imports.
2019, you propose to cut 80 percent of funding for ILAB,
explicitly seeking to eliminate the grants for labor capacity-
building that would help countries like Mexico protect worker
rights, fight child labor, improve wages and working
conditions. Your testimony said when trading partners fall
short of labor standards set forth in trade agreements, they
can create an uneven playing field that hurts American workers.
Given the loss of nearly a million jobs, in large part due
to the absence of healthy democratic institutions, independent
workers organizations in Mexico, how would you describe the
current status of labor rights and working conditions on the
ground in Mexico? What are you prepared to do about it?
Do you believe it is fair for workers in my district and
districts across this country to compete with workers in Mexico
who are paid poverty wages and effectively have no freedom to
join in a union of their choice or negotiate for better wages
and working conditions?
I have other questions, but I will submit them for the
record.
Secretary Acosta. Fair enough. Ranking Member DeLauro,
there are a number of assumptions and statements that I--let me
just note that they are yours and that I would not necessarily
agree with your characterizations of what I have said or
otherwise. But let me move on and just address your question.
Ms. DeLauro. This was a quote from your testimony. I have a
quote.
Secretary Acosta. I take no issue with--I was referring
earlier to your summary of what I had said on other issues.
Ms. DeLauro. Ah, got you.
Secretary Acosta. But, and so we currently have a request
that we investigate the labor conditions in Mexico. We are
looking at that request within ILAB, and because that request
is pending, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to
prejudge how that request will be treated. But it is something
that we are certainly aware of. It is something that is part of
the discussions in the NAFTA.
Ms. DeLauro. What about the 80 percent cut, though, in the
ILAB grants that allow us to do these kinds of things?
Secretary Acosta. So the budget, as proposed, looks to
reduce or eliminate most of the grants out of ILAB. And this
goes to I think a question of policy that Congress is going to
have to address. What my testimony made clear is that when
other trading partners violate labor rights, it creates an
unfair labor system and uneven playing field, and that is
absolutely right. The question is should the American taxpayer
be paying for those countries to address those issues, or
should those countries themselves be paying for it?
And so if you look at the budget and what the budget is
doing, most of the reductions that you are referencing go into
grants that are provided to those foreign countries to address
that. And I think Congress needs to decide whether it wants to
spend American taxpayer money here in the United States or in
other countries.
Ms. DeLauro. You have answered my question. Just one last
comment. But we are okay with a tax code that says you can go
to Mexico and only pay up to 13 percent on your profits. But if
you stay in the U.S., you pay 21 percent. Wow.
Okay. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again.
Mr. Cole. Absolutely. With that, we will go to my good
friend from Maryland, Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
And look, I am kind of glad we passed tax reform. We had a
rate of 35 percent before, and we are going to repatriate
money, and we are going to bring jobs back to America. And I
just saw statistics that we increased manufacturing jobs by 1
million last year, which is pretty phenomenal. That is what we
are missing.
H-2B VISA CAP
Anyway, let me just--and I have two specific questions, but
just to close the loop on the H-2B. So if Congress is going to
solve it in the omnibus bill, because that is really the only
vehicle we are going to have that is going to do anything
before the summer season, in my case for crab pickers or the
gentleman from Michigan for Mackinac Island, it is your
testimony that we have to be careful that we write something
that doesn't require a department to write a rule. Is that
right?
Because then it would be a Pyrrhic victory. We could put
the cap at whatever we want, and none of it would be available
by summer?
Secretary Acosta. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Harris. Okay. So we will work on that.
PROPOSED OVERTIME REGULATION
Okay. My two specific questions. One is, is that--and we
talked about the overtime regulation already. But you have
reportedly said that you are considering including an automatic
increase mechanism in the proposed overtime regulation that the
Department is developing, but the Fair Labor Standards Act
doesn't--by my impression, doesn't include language permitting
that. And indeed, it says that the overtime exemption shall be
adjusted to regulation. So are you going to need a statutory
change in order to put an automatic increase mechanism into the
regulation?
Secretary Acosta. Congressman, we asked--we issued a
Request for Information, and we received several comments. Some
of the comments raised that issue. That is an issue that we are
going to look at. We are not asking for any statutory change at
this time.
We will examine whether the statute allows for an inflation
adjustment and whether there are mechanisms that are really in
keeping with good policy within the statute.
Mr. Harris. Okay. No, thank you. And again, you know, if
you need help, we can--hopefully, we can provide that help on
the statutory side.
WORKER CENTERS
Now the last 3 minutes I am going to take is going to be a
topic that I was unaware of until I saw a letter back in
January from the chairman of Education and Workforce to your
office about what are called these ``worker centers.'' Because
in my understanding is that, you know, the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act, I think kind of just makes it
fair to someone who is going to be--you know, come under a
union to make sure that the union is doing things right. That--
you know, that corruption is not occurring, financial
responsibility, the whole thing.
And that now what have come up are these things called
these worker centers that apparently are affiliated with
unions, sometimes closely affiliated with unions. But my
understanding, they may not have this reporting requirement. So
I don't know whether this is a--you know, an overt effort to
just avoid reporting--reporting requirements, or what is going
on. Can you just fill me in on what in the world is going on
with worker centers, and are they truly able to skirt the law
under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act?
And will the Office of Labor-Management Standards, I don't
think you have a new Director in the office yet approved. I
mean, are we paralyzed by this, and these worker centers are
just going to spring up all over the place?
Secretary Acosta. Congressman, first, I hope to have a new
Director in place soon. We are not paralyzed by this. To the
extent that worker centers are acting as labor organizations
and to the extent they are covered by the LMRDA, then they
should, in fact, be covered by the LMRDA. And I have already
asked OLMS to look at this and to determine whether any workers
centers are acting as labor organizations, and if so, whether
they, in fact, should be filing. So this is something that has
already been addressed and is ongoing.
Mr. Harris. Now if you find that they are, in fact, acting
as--you know, they fall under the Disclosure Act, what can you
do? I mean, what mechanisms do you have for enforcement of that
act with these worker centers?
Secretary Acosta. Well, Congressman, if they fall under the
act, then all the enforcement mechanisms of the act would
apply, and so they would have to follow the disclosure
requirements of the act, or there would be enforcement. And you
know, if there is something that I hope has been heard multiple
times by the committee, it is that we were going to follow the
law. And that includes both OSHA, and that includes Wage and
Hour, and that also includes the LMRDA.
Mr. Harris. So are you still trying to determine if some of
these fall under, or it is your belief that they do fall under
it and you are just initiating these, you know, the necessary
actions under the act?
Secretary Acosta. There have been allegations that some
worker centers are functioning as labor organizations. And so I
have directed OLMS to consider those allegations and to
determine if they, in fact, are true. And if they are true and
if, in fact, they fall under the LMRDA, then the LMRDA would
apply, and they would have to disclose. And they would be
subject to the provisions of the LMRDA.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you. We will next go to my friend, Ms. Lee,
from California.
Ms. Lee. Okay. Thank you.
PROPOSED FUNDING REDUCTIONS IN 2019 REQUEST
Let me ask you, Mr. Secretary, a couple of questions with
regard to the administration's proposed cut to the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP. I believe it is about
$213,000,000,000, 30 percent over 10 years.
It also, though, radically really restructures how the
benefits are delivered like through Harvest Box, you know, that
includes eligibility cuts and workforce requirements that would
cause and I believe it is about 4 million people to lose SNAP
benefits altogether. That is according to the Center for Budget
and Policy Priorities.
Now the cuts, though, in your workforce training programs
disturb many of us. They are problematic because that--these
programs are supposed to help people get jobs. So, of course,
you are talking about the 24 percent cut for job training, 34
percent cut for Dislocated Worker National Reserve, again the
reintegration of ex-offender 11 percent cut, 13 percent cut
Office of Federal Contract Compliance, 29 percent cut Office of
Disability Employment Policy, 79 percent cut for International
Labor Affairs, 72 percent cut for the Women's Bureau.
EFFECT OF 2019 PROPOSALS ON AMERICAN WORKERS
Now let me ask you, how do you expect people on SNAP to get
a job if you are cutting the very programs that they are
supposed to help? Secondly, I hope you all are aware of the
fact that the majority of people who receive SNAP benefits are
already working and that two-thirds of individuals who receive
SNAP are children, seniors, and the disabled.
And so what do you think about these cuts that undermine,
first of all, the ability to work, but secondly, these onerous
work requirements now that are going to cause millions of
people to lose their SNAP benefits? And then the second part of
my question has to do with just an increase in the minimum wage
from $7.25 an hour. It has been stagnant. I believe the Federal
tip minimum wage has been stuck at about $2.13 an hour for
about 25 years, and I do associate myself with the remarks of
all my colleagues on the tipped wage issue.
But I remember at your hearing, you said that whether it is
those who are working, those who still seek work, those who are
discouraged or under employed, or those who have retired, if
confirmed as Secretary of Labor, I will advocate for them. That
was your quote at your hearing.
And so do you support legislation to increase the minimum
wage and also eliminate, of course, the tipped wage, which we
discussed earlier.
Secretary Acosta. Congresswoman, thank you for the
question, and you know, as I was listening to your percentages,
I am trying to match them up with my information of the budget
here. And they don't--they don't align, and I am trying to
understand why.
It may be that there really are two different budget
proposals that we are working with here. Because after Congress
reached the resolution that it did, additional monies were put
in the budget. And so as I am looking through this budget, the
programmatic side, putting aside the decreases--let us not even
go on the programmatic side.
The overall decrease is about 10 percent. No one agency
within the Department is receiving, other than ILAB is
receiving--I am sorry, other than ETA is receiving substantial
reductions. And the reductions within ETA, which is the agency
that does much of the workforce training, focus on particular
programs that are being reallocated. And so those are the
migrant and seasonal farm worker and the community service for
older Americans.
And certainly, the hope is that with increased--with
increased flexibilities, those can be made part of the larger
program. So I don't know where the percentages are coming from.
You have those. I have different figures. Let us put those
aside.
WORKFORCE EDUCATION
I strongly believe that workforce education is important
and critical. And in terms of returns on investment, one of the
best things that we can do is provide skills so that someone
can get a job.
Going to your point of reentry, one of the things I have
said, and I have been saying this--did my mike go off? And I
have been saying this since I was United States attorney. I am
a big fan of reentry programs. I was a prosecutor, and so I say
this from the perspective of a prosecutor. Once someone has
served their time, the best thing we can do for them is get
them a job.
Ms. Lee. Yes, Mr. Secretary, but again, we will have to
reconcile these figures. But I see a $10,000,000 cut in the
reintegration of ex-offenders in this year's budget.
What about the minimum wage?
Mr. Cole. I would ask the lady----
Ms. Lee. Pardon?
Mr. Cole. Her time has expired, and I want to be able to
give Ms. Clark----
Ms. Lee. Oh, I am sorry. Excuse me. We will follow up with
you.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Ms. Clark? If you will indulge us, Mr. Secretary, we are
going to go just a few minutes over so my friend can get her
second round in.
Ms. Clark. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Secretary.
MANDATORY ARBITRATION UNDER FAIR PAY AND SAFE WORKPLACES EO
We are on a roll of working together. We are going to work
together on tipped wages, and I hope that we can work together
also I want to go back to some of the comments my colleague
from California had around mandated arbitration because it was
the rule under the Fair Pay and Safe Workplace Executive Order
that that was mandatory arbitration for a host of civil rights,
including sexual harassment and assault was banned for Federal
contractors who have a contract for a minimum of $1,000,000. So
$1,000,000 or more extensive taxpayer funds.
Would you be open to working in reinstating that ban as we
are in the Me Too movement and understand the impact that
sexual harassment and assault has in our workplace, and that
when you are receiving taxpayer dollars as a significant
Federal contractor, there really is no place for this mandated
arbitration around sexual harassment claims that keep them
quiet and out of the courts.
And you know, I think I understood you to say this had been
a private contracting, you know, and that is not what I am
talking. I am talking about Federal contractors who until this
administration rescinded those protections had to do away with
the mandated arbitration around Title VII claims.
Secretary Acosta. And so, Congresswoman, I am certainly
open to discussions, and what I was trying to point out is that
there are really two parts to this. One is whether or not there
should--contractual arbitration should be permitted or not, and
that is a policy question. And the other one is if it is
permitted, what might appropriate safeguards or caveats be
around that arbitration process?
And let us before we eliminate something that has been in
Federal policy for decades, let us talk about maybe there are
safeguards that would make sense. But I think the key part is
let us talk about that and let us--you know, let us discuss,
and I am certainly open to that discussion.
JOB TRAINING FOR RECOVERING OPIOID USERS
Ms. Clark. Okay. And the last one I wanted to mention was
as Massachusetts and the country continues to fight an opiate
crisis--1,900 lives lost in Massachusetts alone last year to
overdoses--I think there is a real role for the Department of
Labor in working with us on job training programs for those
coming out of treatment.
Would you be open to that? Have you been asked by the White
House to weigh in on the opiate crisis and what tools you have
and resources for people?
Secretary Acosta. So, Congresswoman, I agree entirely. If
you look at the data, I believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics
in one of the surveys, I forget exactly which one, asked, ``Did
you take a pain killer yesterday?'' And I believe the response,
44 percent of prime age males outside the workforce answered
yes.
I believe Professor--I am blanking on the name now, he is
in Princeton, and he was President Obama's--one of President
Obama's economic advisers. I think was it Krueger? Yes,
Professor Krueger did a separate survey and found 47 percent.
His survey went on to say, ``Was it a prescription drug?'' And
it was either 31 or 33 percent said yes. Not, you know, last
week or last month, but yesterday.
And so this is, you know, a major, major issue, and
Professor Krueger concluded that I believe 20 to 25 percent,
according to him, of prime age males, which was his focus, that
are not working or not working because of opioid addiction. And
so I have already asked ETA within the Department of Labor to
see within existing funding what we can do to address this.
Because I think when whether it is 20 percent or 15 or 25,
we can have a long discussion about. But that is a very high
number irrespective. And so to the extent that I have
flexibility within the ETA budget, I have already asked ETA to
see what we can do to target programs specifically for
individuals that have opioid addiction so they can come back
and get a job.
And if I could briefly, going back to the reentry issue? I
think there is an analogy to be drawn here. Just like the best
thing you can do for someone coming out of prison is work to
give them the skills to get a job, I think one of the best
things you can do to address an opioid addiction is give
someone a job. Because with the job comes a confidence and a
sense of belonging and all these other soft benefits that are
associated with employment that I think do help combat opioid
addiction. And so, gladly.
Ms. Clark. Wonderful, and I would agree with you that the
two issues are intertwined and that it is a great use of your
budget in asking for additional funds for your budget around
this because the money we will save in the long run by having
people gainfully employed is well documented.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Closing Statements by Chairman Cole
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for your time and for
your indulgence here at the end. We appreciate that.
I want to thank the members of the committee as well for a
very robust exchange. It was a good hearing.
With that, we are adjourned.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 15, 2018.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
WITNESS
HON. ALEX M. AZAR II, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES
Mr. Cole [presiding]. Good morning, Mr. Secretary. It is my
pleasure to welcome you to the Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education, and we are genuinely looking
forward to your testimony. Delighted to have you here and
delighted that you are in place over at the Office of Health
and Human Services.
Mr. Secretary, your responsibilities are many. Your
Department is responsible for ensuring proper payments for
Medicare and Medicaid dollars, for overseeing biomedical
research that can save millions of lives, for helping families
break the cycle of poverty, and for protecting our Nation
against bioterror and pandemic events. I will ask you some
questions this morning about whether this budget leaves America
sufficiently prepared to respond to a pandemic new disease,
like Zika, or a bioterrorism event. And I will ask you some
questions how you will fulfill your mission of enhancing the
health and well-being of Americans at your proposed level of
funding. I will ask how you will work to solve some of the
challenges in your agencies, including those related to the
Indian Health Service and the opioid epidemic.
And as a reminder to the subcommittee and our witness, we
will abide by the 5-minute rule so that everybody will have a
chance to get their questions asked and answered. But before we
begin, I would like to yield the floor to our ranking member,
my very good friend, the gentlelady from Connecticut, and then
we will move on obviously to the chairman and the ranking
member of the full committee.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman, and
it is good to be with the--thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
and chairman and ranking member of the full committee, and
welcome, Mr. Secretary. This is, I guess, your first
appropriations hearing, so we are delighted to have you here
this morning.
There are some real bright spots in this proposal. Let me
highlight them right off the bat. First and foremost, I am
heartened by your commitment to confronting the opioid
epidemic. In my home State of Connecticut, the state medical
examiner's office has reported that opioid deaths have tripled
over just 6 years from 357 in 2012 to 1,038 in 2017. The
Federal Government has a critical role to play in supporting
State and local communities as they work to combat the tragic
consequences of addiction. In the spirit of the 2-year budget
agreement we passed in February, Congress committed to
allocating $6,000,000,000 for opioids. The Department's 2019
budget builds on that commitment by requesting an additional
$10,000,000,000.
Your budget includes some promising proposals on mental
health and assertive community treatment that I believe move us
in the right direction. Glad to know that you signed an
extension of the Public Health Emergency Declaration for Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. And I was pleased to hear you
say on February 15th that the Dickey Amendment does not prevent
gun violence research within the Agency. We cannot let another
year go by without funding to do this research. Since Congress
ended support for gun violence research, more than 600,000
people have been shot, and I think we can all agree that enough
is enough.
In your testimony you say you want to implement change and
reform the programs that, and I quote, ``are not as effective
as they can be, or cost more than they ought to, or fail to
deliver on their promise.'' And yet in the same proposal, you
completely eliminate the LIHEAP program which fits into the
Administration for Children and Families' strategic goal to
build healthy and safe environments.
For 2014, approximately a third of LIHEAP heating were
elderly households, and 19 percent were households with young
children. I have heard from so many constituents who depend on
LIHEAP. They rely on the program to keep their children
healthy, to keep their families safe. So, I have a hard time
seeing how keeping children warm is ``failing to deliver'' on a
promise.
Your budget eliminates the Community Services Block Grant,
which is certainly effective given that it connects 16,000,000
people in 99 percent of counties across this country with job
training, nutrition programs, LIHEAP, and more. It eliminates
preschool development grants which meets its stated goal of
expanding access to high-quality preschool for low- and middle-
income families. In fact, it has led to 28,000 more children
being served, and over the 4 years of the grants, approximately
150,000 additional children will attend high-quality preschool
programs.
The proposal makes cuts to impactful programs as well:
$729,000,000 for the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, $1,000,000,000 from HRSA, workforce training,
$68,000,000 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
or AHRQ. And I am curious how eliminating programs that
hardworking Americans depend on is keeping with the mission of
your Agency.
On first glance, the $10,000,000,000 requested for the
opioid epidemic sounds impressive. It is clearly needed. So, I
was surprised to see that in a budget that prioritizes opioid
funding which we need, you also endorse an even more draconian
version of Graham-Cassidy which cuts Medicaid by at least
$175,000,000,000 and would cause 32,000,000 to lose their
health insurance. The ACA and Medicaid expansion have helped so
many Americans who suffer from mental health and substance
abuse disorders. So, why are we looking to take away that care?
The proposal for Medicaid includes cuts. It includes
lifetime limits, work requirements. Just on Monday I held an
opioid roundtable in my district with healthcare professionals,
State and local officials, and, yes, addicts. I heard from
people on the ground that the biggest problem is there are not
enough providers for Medicaid recipients, that there is
insufficient reimbursement to providers. So, my concern is that
the result of your proposal may be more Americans, and
particularly our most vulnerable--disabled children rely on
Medicaid, disabled adults, seniors, individuals, children,
families who would go without the healthcare coverage and
access to the care that they need.
The budget proposes to cut the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration by $219,000,000. On one hand,
the Department requests funding for opioids, which is great. On
the other hand, the Department slashes access to substance
abuse treatment and cuts millions from SAMHSA. Again, I do not
understand the logic.
An area that appears to be good news is an increase for
childcare. It is proposed along with cuts to programs on the
mandatory side that low- and middle-income families rely on.
This scheme would cut temporary assistance for needy families,
eliminate the Social Services block grant, programs that
support childcare, erasing the impact of the proposed
additional discretionary funds. We have 1 in 6 children who are
eligible for childcare assistance receiving, just that number
receiving any help, so we need to be doing more.
We have got cuts to the funding that CDC gives to the
States for public health departments. It reduces surveillance,
epidemiology, laboratory testing, as well as immunizations, and
emergency preparedness activities in our States. The proposal
decimates the healthcare workforce programs. Research shows us
that we are facing a shortage of more than 100,000 doctors by
2030.
The funding for the NIH--for 2018, we have worked hard to
increase funds, and yet the proposal for 2019 seems to reverse
that direction, and we know that a breakthrough at NIH saves
not just one life, but potentially millions of lives.
So, in the proposal you propose to shift $4,400,000,000 in
mandatory funding in HRSA to the discretionary side of the
budget. That is $3,600,000,000 for community health centers. As
you know, the Congress just reauthorized this mandatory funding
for Fiscal Years 2018-2019, adding additional money in both
years. So, I think you have to agree with us that this new
proposal, it has to be a non-starter.
If we were to make this shift, we would need to add more
funding as well because there is no amount of magical
accounting that is going to fund the programs you are cutting
when you cut their funding source. It is a little bit like
playing three-card Monty with funding for lifesaving programs.
I am going to really end up with this. I need to hear from
you on what is, in my view, a very grave matter, and that is
the issue of a personnel matter for you, and that is Scott
Lloyd. I will be frank with you as I was when we met. I believe
he should be fired immediately. It should have happened months
ago. I am going to be asking questions about that when we get
to the Q&A.
Who is Scott Lloyd? He is the director of the Office of
Refugee Resettlement within HHS. He is a lawyer. He is not a
medical professional. In my view, he has overstepped his
position of authority, violated young immigrant women's
privacy, their right to medical care, in some cases their
safety, to keep them from accessing safe and legal abortions.
He has overstepped his authority. This is not what his job is
about.
Finally, the barrage of attacks on Title X, a program that
provides affordable birth control, reproductive healthcare will
only hurt women. HHS' repeated actions to reduce access to
contraception will lead to an increase in unplanned pregnancies
and lead to more abortions. In order to achieve fewer abortions
in this country, we need to support access to affordable
contraception and family planning.
It is the obligation of this subcommittee to ensure that
working men and women in this country are not harmed by
reckless cuts or a disregard for their well-being. Mr.
Secretary, as I said, there are some very good things in this
proposal, but there are some very bad things, in my view, in
this proposal. I look forward to finding out whether you
support these cuts. I certainly hope not. Thank you, and I look
forward to our discussion.
Mr. Cole. Thank you. Before we proceed, I just want to
advise the committee and the audience, we are having obviously
problems with our sound system here, so I want you all to be
aware of that. And you might want to speak a little bit louder
for the benefit of the Secretary. We are not yelling at you. We
just want you to hear us, Mr. Secretary.
With that, we are very honored to have the chairman of the
full committee and our ranking member here as well, so I will
recognize them for whatever opening remarks they care to make.
So, Mr. Chairman, welcome.
The Chairman. Well, thank you, Chairman Cole, for the time.
I also want to welcome Secretary Azar to the Appropriations
Committee. We look forward to your testimony and hearing your
frank and candid views on a wide variety of subjects.
As I say at every meeting, the power of the purse lies in
this building. It is the constitutional duty of Congress to
make spending decisions on behalf of the people we represent at
home. With that in mind, this committee, ably led by Mr. Cole
and Ms. DeLauro, did pass--it seems like 100 years ago--the
Fiscal Year 2018 Labor, Health and Human Services
appropriations bills. I just want to ensure everyone that Ms.
Lowey and I are working very hard 24/7 with our Senate
colleagues to finish the Fiscal Year 2018 appropriations
process and send the bill to the President for his signature.
We intend to adequately fund important programs, including
yours, and with a remarkable increase in new domestic spending
agreed up in the cap agreement for Fiscal Year 2018 and 2019.
While much of it is targeted, we are counting on you to make
sure that it is well spent and not wasted.
Let me say, I do think, and there is certainly a reason for
it, and a lot of what we are doing is opioid-centric. But I
share with, I think, members of the panel on a bipartisan basis
some concerns about some of the reductions. I think all of us
are big supporters of the National Institutes of Health. Dr.
Collins and his crew there do a remarkable job, and I think we
involve our constituents often in some of those clinical
trials. And we salute the work they do, and I know the chairman
and the ranking member are very supportive of their mission.
I also have concerns and have always been a strong
supporter of the Centers for Disease Control. I am concerned
about the health workforce programs to train nurses and
physicians. This is a huge investment, important investment. It
has historically been very important to our Nation. And I have
always supported, maybe having been a county official over 35
years ago, the important role of community service block
grants. And coming from a State where the temperature this
morning was below freezing, we have a lot of constituents who
are concerned about the future of LIHEAP.
We know you have a tough job, but you have a good committee
here. The last time I stepped in here, the discussion was
rather heated, and perhaps when I leave that will be the case.
But it is not because, you know, there are not great people
here. The people are very passionate on both sides on many of
these issues, and we have confidence in the work and mission
that you have.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now welcome our
ranking member of the full committee back to her favorite
subcommittee, and it is always a delight to have my good
friend, the gentlelady from New York, here. The gentlelady is
recognized.
Ms. Lowey. Well, thank you, and I would like to thank
Chairman Cole for your leadership on this committee, Chairman
Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member DeLauro for holding this hearing.
And Secretary--Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to have you here
today. I enjoyed our first conversation, and I do hope we can
continue the dialogue. And I do welcome you before this
subcommittee.
You come before us with a budget that would cut your
Department's discretionary funding by 11 percent, weakening our
ability to improve public health and confront emerging
epidemics. But as I talk about this budget, Mr. Secretary, I
would rather call it the Mulvaney budget since I know you are
just assuming these responsibilities.
And I hope that we can work together to improve this
budget, because after looking at your record, your outstanding
scholarship, your outstanding leadership, I know that we would
probably agree on some of the changes that this committee and
this Congress would make because your budget would eliminate
heating assistance for low-income Americans and, in particular,
seniors, gut investments in the health workforce at a time when
we face a nursing and primary care shortage.
And for reasons that, frankly, I cannot fathom, eliminate
teen pregnancy prevention grants which since 2010 help more
than 1,000,000 young Americans make informed decisions about
their sexual health. These grants, when distributed to
evidence-based programs, reduce unintended pregnancy and give
more young people a shot at their dreams. Trying to eliminate
them is just one of the ways this Administration is harming
women's health.
Of course, we have seen this Administration attack women's
care, healthcare in particular, time and time again. Last year
the Republicans in Congress tried to jam through a disastrous
bill that would lead to more than 20,000,000 Americans losing
healthcare, raise premiums, reduce essential benefits such as
protections for preexisting conditions, maternity care, ER
visits, substance abuse, mental health, and more.
After the Republicans failed, the Administration turned to
death by a thousand cuts, instilling uncertainty in the market
and attempting to sabotage the ACA behind closed doors. The
President seems to think healthcare is a game. He is toying
with the lives of Americans. This was made clear by his
baseless decision to cancel cost-sharing subsidies, which
increases costs to the government and had led to double-digit
premium increases in many States. This is unacceptable.
And I want to make the point. None of us think that bill or
any bill that we pass is perfect. We are always ready to work
together to improve it. But to make the kind of changes that
clearly damages healthcare in this country, in my judgment, is
unacceptable.
I am also troubled by the Administration's resistance to
adequately fund our health infrastructure at CDC and, in
particular, its apparent disrespect of the NIH. Investments in
the NIH should be a national priority. I want to make clear
there has always been bipartisan support. This is clear. This
is simple. And I know that we are going to continue to support
the NIH because we all respect the essential work they are
doing. But the Fiscal Year 2018 Trump budget as well as the
planned Fiscal Year NIH budget prior to the addendum, show that
the Trump Administration does not think obviously that
biomedical research is a priority worthy of increased funding.
Too many Americans are suffering from debilitating cancers
and diseases. Cuts to the NIH or even level funding is not an
option, and I know that there are strong views on this issue
from our chairman, our ranking member, and the members of this
committee. It is imperative that the government have the best
research at its fingertips. We count on researchers to look at
evidence to shed light on what we can do to safeguard Americans
from harm. This should include encouraging the CDC to study
ways to reduce injury and death from firearms. I am glad we
appear to agree on this important issue and look forward to
discussing this further during my questions.
Lastly, I am very concerned by the proposal to move the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health from the
CDC to the NIH, and to remove the World Trade Center Health
Program from NIOSH's assistance and management. Not only could
this jeopardize the level of care provided to more than 83,000
9/11 first responders who have received monitoring and
treatment from the World Trade Center Health Program under the
existing structure, it would create fear and uncertainty for
those who have already sacrificed greatly for our country. I
implore you to stop this proposal.
So, in conclusion, as you know from the chairman, this is a
very important committee to me and to everyone who serves on
this committee, and I know that we all look forward to working
with you. Thank you again for assuming this responsibility.
Mr. Cole. I thank the gentlelady. And, Mr. Secretary, we,
again, appreciate your being here. You are now recognized for
whatever opening statement you care to make.
Statement of Secretary Azar
Secretary Azar. Thank you very much, Chairman Cole, and
Ranking Member DeLauro, and Ranking Member Lowey, and Chairman
Frelinghuysen. Thank you for inviting me to discuss the
President's budget for the Department of Health and Human
Services for fiscal year 2019. It is an honor to be here, and
it is certainly to serve as Secretary of HHS. Our mission is to
enhance and protect the health and well-being of all Americans.
This is a vital one, and the President's budget clearly
recognizes that.
The budget makes significant strategic investments in HHS'
work, boosting discretionary spending at the Department by 11
percent in Fiscal Year 2019, $95,400,000,000. Among other
targeted investment, that is an increase of $740,000,000 for
the National Institutes of Health, a $473,000,000 increase for
the Food and Drug Administration, and a $157,000,000 increase
for emergency preparedness.
The President's budget especially supports four particular
priorities that I have laid out for the Department at the
direction of the President, issues that the men and women of
HHS are hard at work on already: Fighting the opioid crisis,
increasing the affordability and accessibility of health
insurance, tackling the high price of prescription drugs, and
transforming our healthcare system to a value-based one. In
addition, it strongly supports the ongoing work that HHS does
to keep Americans safe from natural disasters and infectious
threats.
First, the President's budget brings a new level of
commitment to fighting the crisis of opioid addiction and
overdose that is stealing more than 100 American lives from us
every day. Under President Trump, HHS has already disbursed
unprecedented resources to support access to addiction
treatment. The budget would take this investment to
$10,000,000,000 in a joint allocation to address the opioid
epidemic and serious mental illness.
Within that allocation, the budget doubles the amount of
the State-targeted response grants to $1,000,000,000 a year. It
invests $74,000,000 to increase targeted access to lifesaving
overdose reversing drugs, $150,000,000 in grants specifically
to confront the crisis in high-risk rural communities, and
$20,000,000 to expand grant programs for pregnant and
postpartum women struggling with addiction.
Recognizing that we need new tools and private sector
innovation to defeat this epidemic, the budget invests
$500,000,000 to launch an NIH public/private partnership to
develop new addiction treatments and non-addictive approaches
to pain management. Beyond the $10,000,000,000 joint
allocation, the budget also increases support for programs that
have a proven record of improving the lives of Americans who
suffer from serious mental illness.
Second, we are committed to bringing down the skyrocketing
costs of health insurance, especially in the individual market.
The budget proposes the historic transfer of resources and
authority from the Federal government back to the States,
empowering those who are closest to the people and can best
determine their need while also bringing balance to the
Medicaid program.
Third, prescription drug costs in our country are too high.
President Trump recognizes this, I recognize this, and we are
doing something about it. We propose a 5-part reform plan to
further improve the already successful Medicare Part D
prescription drug program by straightening out incentives that
too often serve middlemen more than they do our seniors. The
budget also proposes Medicaid and Medicare Part B reforms to
save patients money on drugs and provide strong support for
FDA's efforts to spur innovation and competition in generic
drug markets.
We also want Medicare and Medicaid and our entire system to
pay for health and outcomes rather than procedures and
sickness. Our fourth departmental priority is to use the powers
we have at HHS to drive value-based transformation through our
health system. This budget takes steps toward that shift,
laying the groundwork for the value-based care vision I
recently laid out. Our system may be working for entrenched
incumbents, but it is not working for patients and the
taxpayer, and that has to change.
Finally, I would like to highlight this budget's investment
in HHS' efforts to make Americans safe from a range of threats,
from natural disasters to international infectious threats like
Ebola and pandemic influenza. The budget funds the continuation
of successful public/private partnerships such as the
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, which
has launched 34 FDA-approved products since its establishment
in 2006. The budget also provides U.S. support for the Global
Health Security agenda, an effort to build other countries'
response capacity so we can avoid infectious threats from ever
reaching our shores.
The President's budget will make the programs we run really
work for the people they are meant to serve, including by
making healthcare more affordable for all Americans. It will
make sure that our programs are on a sound fiscal footing that
will allow them to serve future generations, too, and it will
make the investment we need to keep Americans safe. Delivering
on these goals, as the President's budget does, is a sound
vision for the Department of Health and Human Services, and I
am proud to support it.
Thank you very much, and I look forward to the committee's
questions this morning.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. That was pretty
impressive. You went 2 seconds over the 5 minutes, so you do
better than our members do up here.
I want to actually begin the questioning where you left
off. And I want to tell you having dealt with the first budget,
I actually do think this is a much better budget than we saw
last year, and I want to commend you on that. Particularly in
NIH last year, we saw a lot of cuts. As you pointed out
appropriately, we have got an increase in funding here. We may
want to go further than you propose, but I really want to thank
you for that.
I want to thank you, too, for last year's budget we had the
so-called F&A issue, facilities and administration. That is not
in this budget, and I really want to commend you on that. I
think it is important in securing our biomedical research base
that we not walk down that road.
PREPAREDNESS
What I want to ask you specifically is can you describe how
you intend to maintain and enhance our preparedness within the
topline funding level? I think that is probably the number one
issue for this committee. We all know we could have another
Zika, Ebola, you know, pandemic event of some sort, and,
goodness, we could always have a--I hope this never happens--
but a bioterrorism event. So, tell us what you are planning to
do there.
Second related question to that, a couple of years ago on
this subcommittee, we proposed, and the Senate was not too
interested in it, to actually have an immediate response fund
for disease outbreak, something like we, you know, proposed in
the past. So, I would like to get your thoughts on whether or
not you would find that a useful tool at your disposal.
Secretary Azar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have touched
on an area of great personal passion for me having been at HHS
on 9/11, there for Anthrax, and preparedness for potential
smallpox outbreaks, SARS, Monkey Pox, Hurricane Katrina. So, I
have been deeply involved in that in my past life at HHS, built
and assisted in building many of the key structures that we are
now talking about funding. So, a deep passion and commitment
there.
We are providing in the budget $2,800,000,000, or an
increase of $157,000,000, for priority biodefense and emergency
preparedness programs. These will address natural disasters,
chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, cyberthreats, and
infectious disease outbreaks. The majority of the increase is
targeted towards pandemic influenza threats, as you and I spoke
about in your office, an area that I think we need to continue
to just keep our foot on the pedal on this. No matter the
current press or activity, that has got to always be a core
element of what we are doing is pandemic preparedness. Of that
$2,800,000,000, $2,200,000,000 is included for the assistant
secretary for preparedness response, another $660,000,000,000
is at CDC in the Public Health Emergency Preparedness grants.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND
The last question that you asked was around the Federal
Emergency Response fund. Actually, we do support that. We do
think having a flexible pool of money that enables us to be
agile and nimble. We cannot predict these threats. We do our
best. We have programs against many of them, but we do not know
what the next Zika or Ebola will be.
Mr. Cole. Well, that is something we look forward to
working with you on, and perhaps you can help us convince our
good friends in the other chamber that this is a wise idea. I
know my good friend, the ranking member, supports it.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
I want to move quickly to another area I mentioned, and it
is not directly the responsibility of this subcommittee, but I
have a particular passion for Native American issues, and you
have supervision obviously over the Indian Health Service.
We have had steady bipartisan increases in funding there. I
am actually pretty proud of that. But we all know the
shortfalls are great in that particular area, and there are a
number of Native American health initiatives that actually are
under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. So, I am curious
what your plans are there, how you see the situation and where
you would like to move ahead.
Secretary Azar. So, we take our stewardship of care for the
Native American and Alaska and Eskimo community through the
Indian Health Service very seriously. I have always been deeply
involved in those issues at HHS personally, and I am very proud
that our 2019 budget proposal proposes $5,400,000,000 in total
discretionary funding for IHS, which is an 8 percent increase
over the Fiscal Year 2018 CR.
So, we do intend to make a significant investment in this
space. We have also been working with the committees of
jurisdiction in the Fiscal Year 2018 omnibus appropriation to
see what we can do there to further support our IHS efforts.
We are focused on performance improvement across the IHS.
We have dedicated in this proposal $58,000,000,000, which I
think is a $29,000,000 increase to get $58,000,000, to focus on
the certification issues that are particularly plaguing some of
the Great Plains facilities. I am delighted that CMS has been
able to work with the Pine Ridge facility to clear their
immediate jeopardy finding. They are now, of course, going to
be needing to get a renewal there and pass the following
certification.
We have a comprehensive quality framework agenda for the
IHS. We want to improve quality of care, service delivery,
customer service. I have asked the deputy secretary to
personally take this charge on working with the IHS. I will be
deeply involved there, but we also hope that the money that we
have requested puts our money where our mouth is on that.
Mr. Cole. Well, I thank you very much for that, and I can
assure you will get very strong bipartisan support for that
initiative. With that, I want to go to my good friend, the
ranking member from Connecticut.
PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY FUND
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and just on
the point of a public health emergency fund which the chairman
referenced, we introduced the bill again this year. It is a
$5,000,000,000 fund patterned after what we do in disaster
relief so that we do not have to go through the normal
appropriations process. But at the discretion of the secretary
when we have a public health emergency like we do with opioids,
like we did with Ebola or Zika, et cetera, that we can move
more quickly than we have been able to in the past. So, I will
get you a copy of that legislation and hope you might be able
to endorse it. Thank you.
SCOTT LLOYD/OFFICE OF REFUGEE SETTLEMENT
Mr. Secretary, let me begin by asking you some questions
about, this is where I left off. And this is about the employee
at HHS, and he has continued to make the news due to what has
been regarded, and not my view, but illegal actions, and this
is based on court decisions. This is the Jane Doe decision. I
want to talk about Scott Lloyd, director of HHS Office of
Refugee Settlement.
Job description, director, in the Homeland Security Act:
``responsible for coordinating and implementing the care and
placement of unaccompanied alien children in Federal custody;
ensuring that the interests of the children are considered in
making decisions about their care and custody; responsible for
identifying shelters and other facilities to house children who
have entered the U.S., and for ensuring that the shelters
remain suitable; is responsible for overseeing the placement
process, includes identifying sponsors in the U.S. who can care
for the unaccompanied minors.'' The vast majority are family
members, placing children with those sponsors. ``The director
is responsible for compiling and publishing a list of
individuals who can provide guardian and attorney
representation services for UACs.''
As I said in my opening remarks, Scott Lloyd is not a
doctor. A lawyer, I have regard for lawyers, but he is not a
medical doctor. And in my view, he has shown disregard for the
Constitution, overstepped the boundaries. He has abused his
authority, forced his own personal beliefs on immigrant women
in his custody over and over again, violated their
constitutional rights. He has put their lives in danger,
considering subjecting a woman to unproven medical experiments.
He has personally tried to block a rape victim from getting an
abortion.
He wrote in a government memo, and I quote, ``Here there is
no medical reason for abortion. It will not undo or erase the
memory of the violence against her, and it may further
traumatize her. I conclude it is not in her interest.'' Not a
medical professional. His actions have been overruled by a
Federal judge.
We met on February 6th in my office. You said you needed to
look into the situation, and you said, ``We are trying the best
we can to comply with any legal obligations that we have both
under the statute and constitutionally. We believe we are doing
things right and correctly, but it is a very difficult task, a
very difficult charge.''
Since my time is limited, and I do not want to cut you off,
but kind of ``yes'' and ``nos'' on these things. Have you met
with Mr. Lloyd since becoming the Secretary of HHS?
Secretary Azar. So, I have met with Mr. Lloyd, yes.
Ms. DeLauro. Okay. And what was the nature of your
conversation?
Secretary Azar. So, I have followed up on our discussion
and discussion with others. I have looked into this, and I do
want to be very clear that I do not believe this is an issue
involving Mr. Lloyd. It is a very serious charge that we have,
as you mentioned. We are charged by statute with these children
and to look out for their interests. And there is actually
longstanding policy dating back to 2008 for providing serious
medical services to these children, including involving
discussing with their parents if we can reach them, parental
notification and input as appropriate, complying with State
law. It is a very serious charge. This is not about Mr. Lloyd.
This is a longstanding policy how we deal with this very
difficult issue of serious medical care for these children.
SCOTT LLOYD/ORR
Ms. DeLauro. Right, mm-hmm. In 1997, the Federal settlement
in Flores v. Reno requires the ORR to provide emergency
healthcare and family planning services. This is in 1997. This
is with regard, most recently you had a Texas State judge who
ruled that Jane Doe was mature enough to make her own medical
decisions.
So, the questions are, are you concerned that Mr. Lloyd is
violating the 1997 Federal settlement, is violating the
constitutional rights of these young women. Is it appropriate
for a political employee, appointee, to override the
determination of a Texas state judge? And do you think it is
appropriate for policies by HHS or any office within to take
precedence over the law and the U.S. Constitution?
Secretary Azar. So, we will absolutely comply with the law
and the Constitution as determined by the courts. But also part
of the law is complying with that very unique statutory
obligation. We have to look out for the interests of these
children and their unborn children. Part of that is talking to
the parents to get input, complying with State law. It is a
very difficult case-by-case situation, and if we get different
guidance from the courts on how we need to be implementing
that, we certainly will do that.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, the courts so far have ruled in favor of
these young immigrant women, and it would appear that Mr.
Lloyd, we need to hold him to the law, and so that he should
not be interfering with what is the constitutional right of
access to healthcare. That is there. And we know that, whether
you like it or not ideologically, there is a law that says they
have a right to health services and to legal and safe
abortions.
My final question, Mr. Chairman, is that, look, I should
not really have to ask this. This is a gentleman who should be
gone from this position. He is not a medical doctor. He is not
a psychiatrist. And reaching these children's families is often
lengthy, and it is a process that puts their lives in danger. I
am just going to ask you flat out, Mr. Secretary, when will you
fire Mr. Lloyd?
Secretary Azar. This is simply not an issue of Mr. Lloyd.
This is the statutory obligation of the director of the Office
of Refugee Settlement to coordinate and implement the care and
placement of these minors, including providing for serious
medical service to them and following the----
Ms. DeLauro. So, you are not going to do that, and you are
going to put their health in jeopardy.
Mr. Cole. The gentlelady has gone well beyond.
Ms. DeLauro. Well beyond.
Mr. Cole. So, I want to give you a chance to respond if you
care to add any----
Secretary Azar. I certainly appreciate any concerns that
you have, but I do want to make very clear this is not about
Mr. Lloyd. This is the longstanding policy and procedure of the
Department of Health and Human Services dating back at least--
--
Ms. DeLauro. This is about access to healthcare. Access to
healthcare.
Mr. Cole. The gentlelady has exceeded her time.
Secretary Azar[continued]. Serious medical concerns,
absolutely.
Mr. Cole. Again, we are going to try and be generous with
the clock. We always are, but I would just ask the members to
stay within the 5 minutes if they possibly can because I will
intervene. With that, we will go to my good friend from
Maryland, Mr. Harris, for any questions he might care to ask.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman. And, Secretary Azar, it is a pleasure to welcome you
here, someone who grew up in the beautiful 1st District of
Maryland, and I know a lot of your family still reside there.
Let me just follow up on, and I appreciate your response to
the ranking member about the ORR, because it is an interesting
circumstance. This is not about access to healthcare. It is
about access to abortion. Let use the ``A'' word. It is access
to abortion. And as you realize, not all countries in the world
actually have legalized abortion. In fact, there are many
countries in Africa where it is absolutely illegal, where it is
against the cultural preference of those countries.
So, I would hope that if we get refugees from those
countries that we do not impose our constitutional framework or
legal framework upon refugees from countries where it may be
illegal in those countries because then what we would be doing
is we would be just making this a place to come. If you want an
abortion and in your country it is illegal, and, you know,
countries around the world have the right to restrict abortion,
they certainly do--I wish this country restricted it more--you
are in a difficult situation.
So, I applaud actually using flexibility, saying, look, you
know, a non-citizen coming to the United States actually does
not have a constitutional right to abortion. And we should
respect that they could come from cultures where it is not as
widespread, as accepted as unfortunately it is here.
SODIUM
Let me get to some specific areas and, you know, I will try
to stay within the 5 minutes, and there are many areas of
concern. One is about the, and I question usually the Secretary
about this every year, about the debate about population wide
sodium levels and restrictions. And just an area of concern,
and I may just do a follow-up question in writing about the
review about the dietary reference intake for sodium.
As you know, the National Academy of Medicine has said we
are going to look at it again. HHS I understand is one of the
primary sponsoring agencies. But just recently, you know, they
put together these committees, and just recently two members of
the committee actually write an editorial in the Journal of the
American Medical Association espousing a further sodium
reduction outcome. And it just looks a little strange that what
we are doing is we are assembling a committee that is going to
objectively look at what these things should be, and then two
of the members of this committee actually write in probably one
of the most broadly-distributed journals that they obviously
have a pre-formed opinion before this committee even meets. So,
I have a concern about that, and I may follow up that with you
in writing.
BIODEFENSE
Dr. Harris. With regards to biodefense, and we discussed
it, it is one of the areas of interest, and I know the chairman
has asked you about it as well. You know, I have concern that
as we choose, because we recently had the pandemic flu that was
more serious than before. You know, we include protection
against that with also countermeasures against terrorist-
related chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear
threats. And we have to balance, you know, where are we going
to spend our resources looking forward in biodefense and
pandemics.
And it is just an issue that I hope HHS spends time
carefully considering how that balance has to occur because
both are threats. I mean, the flu is a threat, but, you know,
as the chairman alluded to, a broad biological threat, for
instance, may be even more disastrous to the United States.
I do see that the Administration made a late Fiscal Year
2018 request for the forward appropriation, $5,500,000,000 to
the Bioshield Special Reserve Fund. I think that is a good
idea. I think providing that kind of certainty is important,
and I just want to confirm and, I guess, just ask you, is that
something that you still believe is an important thing to do.
Secretary Azar. Yes, Congressman. We feel quite strongly
about that. The advanced appropriation for Project Bioshield
allows us to be a reliable purchaser of products that we are
really the only purchaser in the country for. And so, having
that certainty for people who are going to put hundreds of
millions of dollars of development funding against potential
products is quite important.
340B PROGRAM
Dr. Harris. Yeah, thank you. No, and I agree. We will do
some follow-up questions about the 340B program. I think it is
a very important program, but honestly, I think it has been
abused in some instances and shifted from its initial focus on
providing low-cost medication or medication at lower cost to
needy populations. And I think the system has been gamed a
little bit.
Of interest, and I hear this commonly, and I hope CMS
addresses it. As a physician who delivered medical services, I
know that the administrative burden placed on physicians is
huge. In fact, I understand that last night, JAMA, the Journal
of the American Medical Association actually published an
article saying that our administrative burden for our
healthcare providers is about 3 times that in other countries.
And, you know, administration does not solve anyone's health
problems, does not treat any patients, and I think it is a
waste of resources.
SECTION 1303 OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
And finally, I know there was guidance issued in October
2017 regarding the Section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act,
restrictions on exactly how abortion services were going to be
funded, the coverage for abortion services, needing for both a
separate payment as well as a separate collection. The guidance
was issued, and I guess we will just do follow-up questions
about how the Department is dealing with following up with
enforcement of that guidance issued in 2017, October of last
year on this issue.
And I yield back.
Mr. Cole. I thank the gentleman. My good friend, the
gentlelady from New York, the ranking member of the full
committee.
CDC RESEARCH/DICKEY AMENDMENT
Ms. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was about 22 years
ago that I had a disagreement, in fact, it was a battle, with
Representative Jay Dickey in opposition to his amendment that
placed a chilling effect on CDC research on injury and death
due to firearms. Since that time, more than 600,000 gunshot
victims later, the CDC has largely avoided this research. I
understand there is some going on, but not to the extent
possible. Prior to his death, Congressman Dickey reversed his
position stating that he had deep regrets about the amendment
and, in particular, the lives that could have been saved during
this time.
Mr. Secretary, I am pleased to know that you believe CDC
has an important research mission and are supportive of CDC
conducting research to gather evidence to prevent firearm
injury and death. I just wanted to know what do you need from
this subcommittee to empower CDC and its research partners to
conduct even more research to reduce injuries due to firearms.
Secretary Azar. Thank you, Ranking Member Lowey. As was
referred to by Ranking Member DeLauro from our discussion, as
we look at that Dickey amendment, that is a prohibition of
advocacy, promotion of gun control. We do not believe that it
gets in the way of our ability to do violence research or
firearms violence research at any part of HHS, which I think
was relatively clear.
As you may know, NIH has ongoing and has had projects
involving violence and firearms violence already provided.
After I made my public statement in that regard, I had a
discussion with the acting director of CDC, Dr. Schuchat, where
she confirmed my understanding that we do not have any
statutory prohibitions. And so, I think we are clear, and it is
really now always subject to the peer review process and
funding priorities, but I think we have now made it quite
publicly and within the Administration clear that we do not see
any barriers around violence or firearm research. We are in the
evidence and science gathering business.
CONTRACEPTION/TITLE X
Ms. Lowey. Thank you very much. A woman's decision on if
and when to have a family and to healthfully space pregnancies
is among the most important decisions of her life. Thanks to
the contraceptive coverage provided in the ACA, more than
62,000,000 have access to birth control with no out-of-pocket
costs, saving consumers more than $1,000,000,000 each year. And
yet the Trump Administration has issued interim final rules
that would remove contraceptive coverage requirements.
This is particularly concerning as Republicans complain
that women could access contraception from Title X family
planning centers or Medicaid, all while congressional
Republicans are still to this day fighting to eliminate funding
for Title X and included a devastating blow to Medicaid under
their healthcare bill. It is almost like they just do not care
about women having access to affordable birth control.
Before issuing the interim rules that would gut
contraceptive coverage, did the Department do an analysis of
the increased cost for women?
[The information follows:]
Because we understand that this is currently the subject of ongoing
litigation for the administration, we are not in a position to discuss
the issue at this time.
CONSCIENCE PROVISION
Secretary Azar. I am not aware of any analysis that was
done before the interim final rules on this conscience
provision to try to really balance women getting access to the
care that they need and the small group of employers who have a
conscience, a moral or religious conscience objection. We try
to balance that. It is a very important American interest to
balance right of conscience. We also want to make sure women
have access to the care that they need.
As we have looked at that under the conscience provision,
it is probably about 200 employers, fewer than 120,000 impacted
people, which is actually fewer than under the Affordable Care
Act's grandfather plan provisions, vastly fewer people impacted
than that which is not even subject to the contraception
mandate. We are trying to balance. We really are trying to
strike a delicate balance here between very important interests
on all sides and try to be as sensible as we can to accommodate
those.
Ms. Lowey. Just in conclusion because I know I am running
out of time, I would be interested in your evaluation of the
unintended pregnancies. Has the Department conducted an
analysis into the likely increase of unintended pregnancies if
contraceptive coverage is rolled back.
Secretary Azar. I do not know if they have. If you would
permit me, I would like to get back to you in writing on that
just because I would like to check and make sure I have the
answer to that. I am not positive about that question.
Ms. Lowey. I appreciate----
Secretary Azar. That was part of the analysis.
[The information follows:]
Because we understand that this is currently the subject of ongoing
litigation for the administration, we are not in a position to discuss
the issue at this time.
CONTRACEPTION
Ms. Lowey. Of course. I appreciate your response, but I am
concerned that a purely political decision to make
contraception more expensive for women could result in
unintended consequences. And I am glad that we have an
understanding, and I would appreciate you getting back to me.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. I thank the ranking member. She has done better
than anybody else in sticking to 5 minutes, so thank you very
much.
Ms. Lowey. Oh, can I have a few more minutes? [Laughter.]
Mr. Cole. No, no, but I appreciate your leadership as
always. So, with that, I want to go to my good friend from
Washington, Ms. Herrera Beutler.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I am just going to jump
right in.
OFFICE OF MEDICARE APPEALS/BACKLOGS
As you know, you inherited the growing problem of backlog
of Medicare appeals at the administrative law judge level, and
this backlog presents severe hardships for small companies,
many of whom just do not have the money to float, to stay in
business while they wait year upon year upon year. I mean, we
are talking about small businesses.
In 2016, the U.S. District Court for D.C. ordered Medicare
to reduce the backlog of cases pending at the ALJ level by a
threshold reduction schedule which would achieve 100 percent
reduction by 2020. Are you aware of the court order? What are
the Department's plans to reduce the waiting period for these
healthcare companies at the ALJ level, and what progress has
HHS made towards reaching this court ordered goal?
Secretary Azar. So, Congresswoman, thank you very much for
raising the issue of the appeals backlog. It is, as you said, a
very important and priority issue. So, we actually had as part
of the discretionary caps deal, the budget deal-- I do not know
where this will end up in the final omnibus appropriation for
2018--actually proposed a $500,000,000 plan that we believe
would clear off the backlog of the Medicare appeals cases both
at the Departmental Appeals Board and the Office of Medicare
Hearing and Appeals. So, we remain hopeful that that
$500,000,000 of no-year availability money might make it into
that.
We also in the 2019 budget, in the event that does not
happen, we do have a plan in the 2019 budget that similarly
tackles this at level one, two, three, and four of the appeals
processes providing funding to, we think, clear off the backlog
and get us on a sustainable path, both in terms of the
procedures of appeal, but also staffing of judges, Departmental
Appeals Board judges, et cetera.
So, we think it is a comprehensive approach that ought to
be able to deal with this if the Congress agrees with us and
funds it.
MATERNAL MORTALITY
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Great. We will be looking for that.
Next question. I am sure you know this. The U.S. has an
increasingly, or I should say, an increasing number of maternal
mortality events in our country. And I think we are the highest
for the developed world, but worse yet, but worse yet, yet, we
are increasing year over year. And more startling is that it
just seems like it is news to people. I mean, every time I say
it, it shocks me, and pretty much everybody I present it to, it
is news.
So, the first step in my mind to reversing this trend is
having robust data collection at each State level so States can
understand why women are losing their lives, and then what we
can do to help future moms. I have introduced a bipartisan
bill, the Prevention Maternal Deaths Act, that would create a
dedicated program at CDC to help States create new, and then
improve upon the ones who have existing maternal mortality
review committees. It is a very inexpensive bill. I mean, we
are eking out the money to get this done because it is so just
critical.
And as we are working to get this passed in Congress, I
wanted to see if the Department would prioritize support for
maternal mortality review committees.
Secretary Azar. So, we will be very happy to work with you
on that legislation. We do at the CDC, we have emphasized the
importance of State-level data gathering, as you said, on
maternal deaths and mortality, including the maternal mortality
review committees that operate at the State level, increasing
the quality and quantity of the data that we get so we can
understand the causes of maternal mortality.
So, we have made a lot of progress we think, but certainly
more can be done to assist in the collection and the
dissemination of robust and accurate data around maternal
mortality.
ACE KIDS ACT
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you. My final question. I wanted
to mention that I strongly support this bipartisan legislation.
It is called the ACE Kids Act, and it would basically improve
care, coordinated care for Medicaid's sickest kiddos. Right
now, you are limited by zip code if you are on Medicaid and you
are a chronically ill child.
So, if you are in an area where it is good for you to cross
the State boundary to get care, you know, 20 minutes from home
or be required to drive 3 hours north to, you know, the in-
State care facility, you might not have that option. We are
obviously not going to build world-class facilities in every
single community, right, for children, but what we do need to
do is make sure that kids who do not live in those communities
can then get there, can access it.
And right now, if you have commercial insurance, you are
good. If your parents can afford it, you are good. But if you
are on Medicaid, the State directors can basically say no dice,
you have to stay here. And I have worked with specific families
on this. It is heartbreaking.
This bill would change that. It is bipartisan. For those
who are not on it, get on it. But I wanted to put that on your
radar and, as we move forward, seek your help in kind of
smoothing the way for this. It is good policy. It will save
money, and, more importantly, it will save lives.
Secretary Azar. Thank you. We are very happy to work in
this important space.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. Thank you. On order of arrival, we will now to go
to my good friend from Massachusetts, Ms. Clark.
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS/DIVISION OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here with us. I wanted to talk about the
newly-formed Division of Conscience and Religious Freedom
within the Office of Civil Rights. I certainly agree the Office
of Civil Rights should be concerned about religious
discrimination, but I am a little perplexed by the focus on
this one particular civil right.
And is the OCR no longer going to be in charge of policing
discrimination on the basis of that religion? Will that be
totally within this new office?
Secretary Azar. I am sorry. So, this is a component of the
Office of Civil Rights, so it would remain in there. So, that
function would still be, if I understand the question
correctly, it would still be within that. It is an enforcement
division within OCR.
Ms. Clark. So, you have proposed some rather complex new
notice and reporting requirements for healthcare providers and
Federal enforcement. You have also proposed cuts to the OCR of
$8,000,000 approximately 5 staff members. How are you going to
fund the enforcement of these new proposals with these cuts?
Secretary Azar. So, it is a fairly small commitment for
this division within the Office of Civil Rights to engage in
this enforcement. You know, it is interesting, ever since we
have announced that we are open for business to enforce these
conscience and discrimination provisions, some of which I think
have been on the books as much as 40 years, we have seen a
large number of complaints coming in, and now actually could
have the focus to be investigated in this space to ensure that
we are protecting the rights of people, rights of providers,
their right of conscience in this space. So, it is a relatively
small----
Ms. Clark. But with that influx and with the proposed cuts
to the overall office, how are you going to balance that?
Secretary Azar. I think it is well within the capacities of
OCR to deal with our range of different enforcement activities
from HIPAA through conscience protection in there. We do not
see that being any issue of our ability to manage it. Still,
even with the increase of complaints that we have, it is not a
material kind of financial commitment within the broad scope of
OCR certainly.
Ms. Clark. As of this Tuesday, 24,000 public comments have
been filed on your proposed regulations around conscience
regulations. Not one of them is available for public review. As
appropriators, I think we are particularly interested in
looking at these comments or proposed rules that may have
significant budgetary impact on the Agency. When will you
provide access to those public comments?
Secretary Azar. I would be happy to get back to you on
that. I do not know under the APA the position on that, whether
there is a comment period open or once it is closed or when we
make those available. If I could, I would like to get back to
you with an answer on that just so I can check in with my
general counsel on what the procedures are there.
Ms. Clark. Sure, I would appreciate that.
[The information follows:]
As noted on regulations.gov, the Department has received 72,417
comment submissions, which we have determined comprise comments from
over 240,000 individual commenters. The total number of commenters
exceeds submissions because some submitters attached or included
comments from multiple commenters within the same submission. All
individual timely comments submitted as specified in the notice of
proposed rulemaking have been posted and are available for inspection
online at regulations.gov, including electronic submissions,
submissions mailed to OCR, and comments received as attachments to
submissions. OCR will consider all individual comments as required by
the Administrative Procedure Act during the rulemaking process.
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS/DIVISION OF CONSCIENCE
Ms. Clark. If you can also help me understand some of the
impact on my constituents of this new office and some of these
new rules. I have a constituent who is taking PrEP. It
dramatically lowers the risk of contracting HIV, commonly used
by gay men. And will a doctor or pharmacist be able to deny my
constituent access to that based on their religious beliefs?
Secretary Azar. I want to be careful speculating because it
is a serious matter. I would be surprised by that. I would want
to check on that, though. Again, let me get back to you on that
because I would be surprised that that is the type of
conscience objection, it is really what the statute, we are not
inventing new provisions. We are enforcing various of the----
Ms. Clark. But you could deny birth control? Is that a
clear example?
Secretary Azar. Again, I want to make sure I understand
exactly the different conscience statutory provisions that we
are enforcing there. Case-by-case it is an enforcement matter,
so I do not want to just off the cuff give you an answer. I
will be happy to get back to you in writing on the particulars
of that.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Clark. So, this would just be case-by-case determined
on people's----
Secretary Azar. No, what I want to do is case-by-case
sitting here, make something up for you. I would like it to be
thoughtful. These are serious enforcement matters that involve
statutes. I do not have the statutes in front of me, and I have
been on the job for 7 weeks, so I have not dug into every
different iteration of the conscience protections that are part
of the OCR Enforcement Division. I am familiar with some of
them certainly around the provision of abortion services, the
most common one that is part of the Abortion Non-Discrimination
Act for providers that have a conscience objection that they
could not be retaliated against or discriminated for refusing
to participate in an abortion.
Contraception, the PrEP medicine, I do not know. I have not
looked into that yet, so I welcome the opportunity to take a
deeper look there.
Ms. Clark. So, is there anything beyond abortion that you
are clear would fall within this new office in this
enforcement?
Secretary Azar. Again, I would want to get back to you on
the parameters of it.
Ms. Clark. Okay.
Secretary Azar. It is just an area that I have not gone as
deep in yet with 7 weeks as Secretary so far.
[The information follows:]
As discussed above, under regulations issued in 2008 and
amended in 2011 (45 CFR part 88), OCR enforces several
conscience protection statutes, namely, the Weldon Amendment,
the Church Amendments, and the Coats-Snowe Amendment. Each of
those statutes specifically reference abortion with the Church
Amendments also specifically referencing sterilization. In
addition, Section 1553 of the ACA specifically designates OCR
to receive complaints concerning conscience protections with
respect to assisted suicide. The new OCR Conscience and
Religious Freedom Division would enforce these statutes.
We are committed to enforcing laws as Congress has written
them. As described above, OCR's proposed regulation would
provide specific enforcement procedures for existing conscience
protection statutes so as to create parity with standard
enforcement procedures available for other civil rights laws.
We are currently analyzing, and carefully considering, all
comments submitted from the public on the scope of the
regulation as it is finalized. We cannot prejudge the outcome
of that rulemaking process or how any rule might be applied to
specific complaints or scenarios. OCR is a law enforcement
agency. Under the existing rule or any future rule, it will
remain committed to enforcing laws as Congress has written
them, and applying the law to the facts of each particular case
fairly and appropriately.
Ms. Clark. I am out of time. If you would add to your
response to that the nature of this influx of violations that
you are seeing or reports of violations that you are seeing.
[The information follows:]
We cannot comment on specific open complaints. However, as
of April 6, 2018, OCR has an estimated 937 open combined
conscience and religion complaints (with 137 complaints
alleging a violation of conscience rights, and 800 complaints
alleging religious discrimination). In the first 3 months of
2018, OCR received more religion and conscience complaints than
in all of 2017, which had itself been the record year in OCR's
history for receipt of such complaints.
Secretary Azar. Yes, I would clarify not violations, but
simply complaints.
Ms. Clark. Complaints, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Okay, thank you. We now move to my good friend,
the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Moolenaar.
BIOSHIELD ADVANCE APPROPRIATION
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here today. I just wanted to first follow
up on a question Dr. Harris had asked about the 10-year
advanced appropriation for the Special Reserve Fund. And you
had mentioned the certainty that provides, and I just want to
clarify. So, the Administration supports that 10-year advanced
appropriation?
Secretary Azar. Absolutely. That was a part of what we did
originally when we created Project Bioshield in 2004, I
believe, and that type of advanced appropriation gives the type
of certainty that we can live up to our commitments and
contracts to companies that might try to be developing devices
or biopharmaceuticals that are countermeasures or really unique
government use in the event of an attack.
MEDICAID MANAGED CARE PLANS
Mr. Moolenaar. Okay, thank you. I also want to address an
issue affecting Medicaid managed care plans. As you know, the
budget situation in Illinois and potentially several other
States presents a significant challenge for the State's
Medicaid program. And, you know, what happens in these States
can have an effect on the HMOs in my home State of Michigan as
well.
In fact, at one point, Illinois owed the State's Medicaid
managed care plans approximately $3,500,000,000. And for many
plans, these debts created significant difficulties as they
struggled to ensure that their beneficiaries had access to
healthcare providers.
Unfortunately, the Federal Social Security Act and its
rules prevent these managed care plans from selling the debt to
a third party. And our colleague, Representative Upton, has
been working on a solution that would allow plans to sell this
debt, allowing plans to access cash needed to ensure that
patients can receive the needed medical services and that
providers get paid.
I just want to clarify. Are you aware of the situation in
Illinois and the anti-assignment limitations, and also will you
commit to help resolving and working on addressing this
problem?
Secretary Azar. So, I am aware of that issue. Mr. Upton
actually had raised that question in our discussion as have
you. It certainly concerns me, and I am happy to work with you,
and Mr. Upton, and others to see if there are solutions that
are appropriate around this question.
CENTER FOR MEDICARE AND MEDICAID INNOVATION
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you very much. Last year, the
Administration released a set of principles for the Center for
Medicare and Medicaid Innovation that established more
transparent procedures for developing and testing new payment
models. And I agree these standards are necessary to ensure
that CMMI models are first tested on a small scale voluntary
basis, and then that permanent changes can be made later, and
Congress would be very involved in that.
I am wondering if you could tell us what steps that you
will be taking a Secretary to put these principles in place. Do
you have plans to implement more formal regulations describing
the standards and process that CMMI will adhere to?
Secretary Azar. So, the potential guardrails there are
still under review. I do believe in the speeches I gave just
last week around the transition to value-based care, I firmly
believe that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation,
the powers that we have there are actually vital to our ability
to use Medicare as the largest payer in the United States and
in every geographic area as a key tool to drive the value-based
transformation of our healthcare system. I also believe that
guardrails to ensure transparency, collaboration are also
vital. Whether those are in regulation or internal procedures,
I need to determine on that.
I also do want to be clear. I think there was a statement
made about only voluntary use of that CMMI authority. Where
necessary to ensure an adequate statistical design and an
adequate test and demonstration of procedures or alternative
payment models, I do believe it may be necessary for elements
to be mandatory. But, again, through those types of guardrails
of transparency and collaboration.
Mr. Moolenaar. Okay, and that would be working with
Congress to implement that if it was mandatory?
Secretary Azar. Of course.
CDC SURVEILLANCE STRATEGY
Mr. Moolenaar. Okay, thank you. Moving on to the CDC for a
moment. The CDC has over 100 different surveillance systems
used to collect and analyze data related to the public's
health. And recently, the CDC has been developing the
Surveillance Data Platform as recommended by the CDC's
Surveillance Strategy. I am just wondering if given that the
CDC is our leading public health surveillance agency, how do
you see the CDC further enhancing its ability to manage, share,
analyze data? Are there additional resources that Congress
needs to provide? Do you see a need to better integrate the
CDC's health data surveillance technology?
Secretary Azar. So, I have not spoken with Dr. Schuchat
about these particular issues of concern around the multiple
disease surveillance systems that we have. I certainly have
been able to get the type of data that we need from a public
health emergency preparedness disease surveillance perspective.
So, I have not seen challenges with the integration or
interoperability of that data so far.
I am, however, a huge believer in big data and predictive
analytics applied on top of that. We are, in fact, moving at
CMS towards approaches like that under Administrator Verma. So,
as a follow-up, I would like to talk to Dr. Schuchat and the
team at CDC to see if there are additional areas where we could
improve data collection, interoperability, and actionability of
the data that we get there. As you said, it is the premiere
epidemiological institution on earth, and the data is the key.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Moolenaar. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. The chair would ask members not to pose questions
just as their time runs out. Very skillful. [Laughter.]
Mr. Cole. With that, my friend, Ms. Roybal-Allard, is next.
Oh, I am sorry. Ms. Lee has returned. You were gone, so I
apologize for that. My good friend from California, Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. No, let me yield right now to Ms. Roybal-Allard.
Mr. Cole. Okay. We will certainly pick the gentlelady up as
we come back through.
Ms. Lee. Okay, thank you. I had another hearing. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. Okay. With that, my other good friend from
California, Ms. Roybal-Allard.
NEWBORN SCREENING
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Newborn
screening is one of the great public health success stories of
the 20th century, but it has not always been as uniform for
children in all communities as it is today. Congressman Simpson
and I worked together for many years to promote national
standards for State screening programs. Prior to enactment of
the Newborn Screening Saves Life Act in 2008, only 25 States
required infants to be screened for the complete panel of 29
recommended disorders, and access to information on these
diseases was also very difficult to locate.
As a result, children in States that did not test for
certain disorders would face lifetime disability and even the
risk of death because they were not diagnosed in time to
receive lifesaving interventions, and their families were often
overwhelmed in their searches for answers and support. Today,
41 States and the District of Columbia require screening for at
least 31 of the 34 core treatable conditions, and States are
actively working to implement screening for three new
conditions added since 2015.
Additionally, parents of the 12,000 newborns diagnosed each
year with these conditions and the professionals caring for
them now have a centralized access to newborn screening
information when they are faced with a diagnosis of one of
these disorders. These successes were made possible by HRSA's
Hereditable Disorders Program, which our bill authorized in
2008 and reauthorized in 2014. Alarmingly, your Fiscal Year
2019 budget proposes to eliminate this program.
Without this extremely successful program, what is your
plan, and I have a series of three questions here. What is your
plan to continue evaluating future lifesaving screening tests
if the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Hereditable Disorders
no longer exists to make recommendations? How will your
Department update and distribute the recommendations to States?
And will there still be grant for States to implement new
conditions on their screening panels? And who will operate,
update, and disseminate information from the Federal
Clearinghouse of Newborn Screening Information if this program
is eliminated?
Secretary Azar. Congresswoman, thank you. I think those are
important concerns, and it is obviously a very important issue.
On the advisory committee and the dissemination of standards
and screening information, I would like to look into that more.
That is an aspect of this I do not know as much as I would like
to, and I would like get back to you on that, but clearly an
important area of newborn screening.
[The information follows:]
Prior to enactment of the Newborn Screening Saves Lives
Act, the process for identifying conditions to be screened for
and tested was not centralized and standardized with the
Federal Government. However, states have always had the ability
to review conditions and make decisions about what is screened
for and tested for by their state newborn screening panels.
Adoption of the conditions on the Recommended Uniform Screening
Panel (RUSP) has always been voluntary. Absent funding for the
Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children program, we expect
states to continue evaluating individually which new conditions
may and should be included on their state screening panels.
States currently may choose to use their Maternal and Child
Health Title V block grant funds to support these efforts.
HRSA would continue to maintain its website as an
information resource for states, stakeholders, and the public.
We expect states to continue evaluating individually which new
conditions may and should be included on their state screening
panels. States currently may choose to use their Maternal and
Child Health Title V block grant funds to support these
efforts.
If states choose to implement new conditions under
screening panels, they will be eligible to use their Title V
block grant funds to support such efforts.
As stated above, HRSA will maintain its current website for
use by states, stakeholders and the public. States that are
considering making changes to their screening panels will be
able to use Title V block grant funds to gather information and
review research evidence and findings for possible inclusion of
new tests in such panels.
MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH BLOCK GRANT
Secretary Azar. You know, in terms of the program and not
requesting funding in the budget, we do believe that there is
money that States could use through the Maternal and Child
Health Block Grant program. This is one of those difficult
budget choices that in a constrained environment one makes
choices. That does not make it less difficult, however.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay. Well, let me just point out a
couple of things. First of all, the system not only saves
lives, but it also saves money for both the healthcare system
and the taxpayer by preventing severe and permanent
disabilities because infants receive treatment early. That was
not happening before.
And newborn screening, it is not just a test. It is an
interconnected public health system that relies on the
coordinated activities of healthcare providers, laboratories,
public health professionals, and parents, and Federal support
and funding are essential to its success. So, your budget
unfortunately would set us back a decade in the progress that
we have made to protect all children from unnecessary
disability and death regardless of where they live.
NEWBORN SCREENING
And so, I am truly hoping that, Mr. Chairman, that we will
be able to, you know, support this program. And finally, my
question is, if this program goes away, who is going to
operate, and update, and disseminate the information from the
Federal Clearinghouse of Newborn Screening Information?
Secretary Azar. So, absolutely appreciate that feedback and
input. So, it is important for me to hear that. And on the
issue of the dissemination of information from the center, if
this were to move forward, if the committee were, of course, to
follow the budget recommendations here, I do not know, and I
want to get back to you in writing if I could, on that question
of what, if any, from the center input would there be around
dissemination of guidelines, et cetera, does that go away also
if the budget request were fulfilled. I do not know it at that
level of detail I am afraid.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Well, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will be
able to address the concerns I have raised on this program.
Mr. Cole. I want to remind my friend from California, she
always has a powerful advocate for all of her concerns in the
ranking member of this committee, I can assure you. With that,
I want to go to my very good friend, the distinguished chairman
emeritus of the full committee, Mr. Rogers of Kentucky.
Delighted to have you here.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, thank you for making space at the
dais for me at this time, and thank you for what you are doing
with this subcommittee. Mr. Secretary, welcome.
Mr. Cole. Which you placed me on. [Laughter.]
OPIOIDS ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Rogers. Yes, I sentenced you to this, sure. Welcome,
Mr. Secretary. Opioids. My colleagues, Mr. Cole in particular,
have heard me time and again extol the virtues of UNITE, which
is an organization we started in my district 13 years ago, and
now it has gone national.
We are holding our 7th annual summit on prescription drug
abuse and deaths in Atlanta April the 2nd, and you have been
invited. I would be very delighted if you could make it there
to speak. We will have 3,000 of the country's experts on this
subject on all aspects of it, law enforcement, treatment,
education, and the like. So, I would hope that you would come.
And UNITE emphasizes the holistic approach. You cannot just
arrest your way out of the problem. You cannot treat your way
out. You cannot prevent your way out. You have got to do all
three simultaneous, non-ending, expensive, complicated. We have
made good progress toward that goal through CARA and the 21st
Century Cures Act. But I am quite concerned that the
Administration is focusing too heavily, almost exclusively, on
enforcement above all else. It is important, but it is just one
leg of the stool. I think we all agree.
The President has expressed concern about the epidemic,
formed a commission, and through your predecessor declared a
public health emergency. Yet ONDCP, the drug czar's office in
the White House, remains understaffed, almost unstaffed. And
the public message seems solely focused on drug cartels rather
than the Americans who fall victim to these addictive drugs. In
fact, just 46 seconds of the State of the Union address were
dedicated to the epidemic, glancing over treatment, ignoring
prevention measures all together.
Despite that enforcement-oriented rhetoric, I am pleased to
see that your budget dedicates a lot of resources to the opioid
epidemic. I would like to hear how you view the
Administration's response to the epidemic thus far, how you
intend to shape HHS' responsibilities to meet the ever-growing
challenge that our constituents are facing back home. Yes, sir.
Secretary Azar. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for those
questions around opioids. I would say this notion of
enforcement over prevention and treatment and care, I can only
tell you from everything I have seen in my interactions with
the President, my work on the opioid summit, my work leading
these efforts at HHS very directly and personally as one of the
four core priorities that we have at HHS, is that we are
dedicated around prevention and treatment for people. How do we
keep people from getting into the cycle of dependency from the
legal prescription opioids? How do we keep them from
transitioning then into the illegal opioids into fast
addiction? And then how for those who are addicted do we help
them with treatment and keeping them from relapsing?
I was just at the National Governor's Association, in fact,
delivered a major statement around our full support for
medication-assisted therapy, and two key guidances coming out
of FDA to further assist MAT. Our budget fully supports MAT
demanding that Medicaid provide coverage of all medicines in
medication-assisted therapy, a demonstration within the Part D
drug program. So, we are just across the board, I mean, we
would be happy to come up and brief you on this. I can only
tell you enforcement may be a critical aspect at the Justice
Department, ONDCP. Treatment, prevention. The historic
$13,000,000,000 requested for HHS from 2018 on is really
focused around prevention, treatment, prevention or relapse,
and next generation therapies and pathways around pain
management.
Mr. Rogers. You are a former pharmaceutical executive. How
do you see the industry playing a positive role going forward
rather than the driver of the epidemic as certain companies
have been in the past? I have made no bones about naming names.
Purdue Pharmaceuticals--I am sorry. Purdue Pharma. Purdue
Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, convicted, $600,000,000 in
fines for misleading doctors about OxyContin being addictive or
not.
But what can the industry do to help with this problem? I
notice that they, Purdue Pharma, now has fired or laid off half
their sales staff, but there have been billions of these pills
produced by these companies. What can we expect?
Secretary Azar. So, first, I would say in terms of
retrospective, and I do not want to be involved in mentioning
individual companies' names. But the Attorney General, as you
know, the Justice Department on behalf of the United States has
filed a statement of interest in the state attorney general
actions that have been going on and has formed a task force
looking into government action here to ensure whether, in
effect, ethical practices have been maintained. And we will
absolutely ensure that they are on a going forward basis also.
OPIOIDS RESEARCH
In terms of those actors who are willing to work with us in
an ethical and constructive way, this is where the public/
private partnership at NIH that we have requested funding for
is so critical. We have asked for $500,000,000 there to support
efforts to develop that next non-opioid generation of potential
pain therapies, and as well as another $350,000,000 of effort
at NIH to research just alternative pathways, different ways to
treat pain, perhaps non-pharmaceutical ways of treating pain.
And so, we would look forward to any entities to work with
us in a constructive, ethical manner in that public/private
partnership to come up with what are the targets, so what are
the molecular and physiological targets that we should be
designing molecules against, how do we design them, and how do
we at FDA speed the approval pathways for them so we can get
more products on the market to help people so we do not get
them possibly trapped in this legal opioid pathway for pain.
Mr. Rogers. And I thank you, Mr. Secretary, for focusing on
this problem. It is of major importance, of course, to this
country. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Cole. Well, Mr. Chairman, I can chastise Mr. Moolenaar
for asking him questions at the last minute, but I am not going
to chastise the guy that put me in the chair, so. [Laughter.]
Mr. Cole. I want to next go to my good friend from
California, Ms. Lee.
HIV/AIDS
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you for being here. First of all, let me just mention
this to the committee actually and to yourself. I do not know
if you know it or not, but we have been selected, the United
States, as the site for the 2020 International AIDS Conference.
It is going to be in the Bay Area, so I hope we have the
support of your Agency. And I would like to sit down and talk
to you about this.
There are well over 1,000,000 people living with HIV, and
over 37,000 new infections each year in this country. So, we
have made tremendous progress, but we have come very close to
our goal of ending AIDS by 2030. But with these cuts now, I am
concerned that we are going to turn back the clock.
MINORITY HEALTH/HIV-AIDS/FUNDING CUTS
First of all, I am pleased to see that you referenced in
the budget supporting a national HIV/AIDS strategy. That is the
first time I have seen that with this Administration. And
unfortunately, it almost appears an empty promise or
disingenuous because you completely eliminate the Minority AIDS
Initiative within the Office of Secretary and within SAMHSA.
That is about $130,000,000 in cuts.
Also, you propose a $35,000,000 cut to CDC's domestic HIV
and AIDS research, and a more than $23,000,000 cut to CDC's
Global HIV/AIDS Program, and a cut of $43,000,000 to the Ryan
White Program. So, with these dramatic cuts, including programs
that specifically are designed to serve low-income people and
people of color, how do you intend to implement the National
HIV/AIDS Strategy and achieve our goals of reducing new
infections, increasing access to care, and reducing health
disparities and inequality? So, that is my first question.
Secondly, I would like to ask you once again about these
proposed cuts to the National Institute of Minority Health and
Health Disparities. You proposed a $7,000,000 cut to this
institute and then a $2,000,000 cut to the Office of Minority
Health. So, I do not know if you understand what these cuts are
going to do to communities of color and people of color because
we have huge disparities in healthcare. And in our minority
communities, we rely on these institutes to help us begin to
close these disparities, but I am worried now, especially with
the signaling you are sending to people of color, what this
means.
CUBA
And finally, if you have time to answer this, if not, you
can give it to us in writing. There were several reports
involving U.S. diplomats in Cuba. And so, I am wondering is the
CDC or NIH involved in the ongoing investigation into the
causes of the range of symptoms reported by these diplomats.
So, thank you again.
Secretary Azar. Well, thank you very much. We did not have
a chance before the hearing, but I hope we will have a chance
to sit and talk and get to know each other. I look forward to
working together in the years ahead.
On the Cuba issue, I do not know. I would like to get back
to you in writing on that one in terms of what our involvement
has been on the Cuba situation. So, I just simply do not know
there.
[The information follows:]
At the formal request of the Department of State, CDC has begun
working alongside other Federal agencies in the on-going medical
epidemiological investigations. Officials at NIH were also recently
briefed and have expressed their commitment to assist as well. This
work also involves input from Penn and University of Miami.
HIV/AIDS--RYAN WHITE
Secretary Azar. On HIV/AIDS, it is absolutely a core
priority for us. I was actually in the Bush Administration when
the historic PEPFAR program, that historic landmark program was
created. I was just----
Ms. Lee. I must know you then because we worked very
closely with the Bush Administration on PEPFAR.
Secretary Azar. And, in fact, I just met with Bill Gates
yesterday on this critical issue, and how we can ensure that we
are supporting that effort appropriately across the globe.
And then within our budget here for 2019 around HIV/AIDS, I
would say first, we fully support the Ryan White AIDS Program,
for instance, which as you know, I think it is over three-
quarters of Ryan White beneficiaries or recipients of funding
are racial ethnic minority group members who are receiving that
kind of care.
Ms. Lee. But you are cutting it by $43,000,000.
Secretary Azar. This is in a tight budget environment. What
we have tried to do is prioritize direct service delivery, so
some of the programs that you mentioned around minority health
were more training and infrastructure support as opposed to
direct care delivery. So, again, in an environment where we are
trying to just hit caps numbers, we have to balance some
different items there. It is not a lack of commitment or desire
around Ryan White, HIV/AIDS, or minority health. We just want
to make sure, for instance, that community health centers are
funded where 62 percent of patients are racial ethnic minority
members, for instance. So, we are just trying to ensure that we
are putting direct service, as much as possible, out there to
people. That was a theme----
MINORITY HEALTH/HIV AIDS/FUNDING CUTS
Ms. Lee. Yeah, I understand that theme, Mr. Secretary, but
you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, and you are sending a
horrible signal to people of color and communities of color in
this country about who is worth supporting and who is not, and
who your priorities are. And to cut HIV and AIDS at this level,
these programs, and to cut programs for minority health,
whatever they are, sends a terrible, terrible signal to the
people of this country in terms of who is valued and who is not
in this budget.
Secretary Azar. We certainly would not want to be sending
any signal that represents that we do not view on the HIV/AIDS
issue, or minority health disparities or otherwise a deep
commitment to solving and moving forward on those issues. So, I
look forward to working with you on those issues in the future.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. And now I will go to my very
good friend from Arkansas, the vice chairman of the committee,
Mr. Womack.
Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary. Welcome aboard. I know it is still early in your
tenure there, and we expect great things out of you, and I know
you will deliver.
OPIOIDS DIVERSION
To piggyback on my friend, Mr. Rogers, and his concern
about opioids, in addition to the Federal government, the
private sector has also recognized how devastating this crisis
has been. And as an example, a company headquartered in my
district, Walmart, will now, free of charge, distribute these
packets, Dispose Rx, when they fill opioid prescriptions. It is
a simple thing. You open the vial of an unused medication, you
fill it with some lukewarm water, and you put this packet in
it, and it hardens to where the remaining prescription cannot
be taken. I think this is a great example of private sector
innovation, and I am looking forward to its implementation.
So, my question. How will you leverage such innovation to
complement and further the goal of mitigating this epidemic
with our Federal funds?
Secretary Azar. Well, thank you. I actually had not heard
of that initiative by Walmart, and certainly I am glad to see
that type of private sector initiative by our pharmacist
community here. As Kellyanne Conway has said and the President
has said, we hope that every day will be takeback day for drugs
because it is such a dangerous situation, and I just hope that
the American people understand this.
First, we have got to keep people from getting for a wisdom
tooth, or a broken bone, or other injury, getting excessive
quantities of these legal opioids. There may be a role for
them, but there may be roles for non-opioid pain management
also. But we have got to stop this notion of 30, 90 days of
opioid pills for a wisdom tooth extraction, for instance, and
we are working with the States on that. That was a significant
topic of discussion at the National Governor's Association.
But then for the parents out there and just for your own
safety, this is not something to keep in your medicine cabinet.
It is not safe to have around the house. The temptation around
these products is simply too great. The risk of diversion to
children or others is too great. And so, procedures like this
or other forms of takeback and appropriate destruction of these
medicines is absolutely critical.
Mr. Womack. Based on your private sector experience, how
much collaboration do you see between, say, the National
Institutes and Health and the private sector to bolster the
kind of efforts that we are talking about with a product,
something like this?
Secretary Azar. I think probably those types of efforts
will be more out of Dr. Gottlieb's work at the Food and Drug
Administration as we think about the appropriate distribution
and prescribing of these, again, very, very serious medicines.
And Dr. Gottlieb has full engagement, and he is working through
a range of continued options here of how can we support States
and the pharmacy community to ensure that we do not have
excessive quantities of these medicines getting prescribed or
even being out in the channel.
Mr. Womack. So, diversion into the population is always a
consideration, sadly so. But too much of these opioids are
finding their way from a legally prescribed condition, diverted
into something with more nefarious type consequences. So, we
think that it is wise for us to explore ways to make more of
these kinds of things happen so that we can give people an
opportunity to do something. It is very convenient and very
practical to help us help them do their part to save us from
this crisis.
I know I have a little bit of time left, and my questions
remaining are not sufficient. So, I am going to yield my time
to Moolenaar for taking more time than he needed, and I yield
back. [Laughter.]
Mr. Cole. He is off the bad list thanks to you. With that,
we will go to my very good and patient friend from Wisconsin,
Mr. Pocan.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Secretary, for being here. You just recently got an invitation
from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is the largest
values-based caucus within the Democratic Caucus, to come and
talk to us about the extremely, you know, high cost of
prescription drugs. We would love you to take a look at that,
and if you could sit down with us, that would be great.
DRUG PRICING
I think one of the biggest threats we have to affordable
healthcare is the rising cost of prescription drugs. And while
there has been some bold language by the Administration, I
would argue some of the positions have been rather timid
compared to some other ideas that are out there. I would just
like to ask you a little bit about some of those.
The first one, I know you have been in the job for 7 weeks,
but you have been in the industry for a while, so I think you
might be able to answer all of these, and I would like to go
through a few of them in the time, so if we can be really
concise, I would appreciate it. But it is the ability to
negotiate through Medicare for lower prescription drug costs.
AARP has said that on average in the last 7 years, seniors saw
the price of drugs double each year, and that we have come up
with an estimate that about $429,000,000,000 could be saved
over 10 years if we did just this. So, this is a bigger, bolder
idea with public support. Do you support that there is a way we
can get that done?
Secretary Azar. So, we do support getting value for
medicines through our Medicare programs. In Part D, we actually
do, as you know, have the prescription pharmacy benefit
managers that negotiate on our behalf and get the best net
deals of anyone in the commercial sector for our Part D
beneficiaries.
The challenge we have there is the out-of-pocket, and that
is why in our budget, as I was mentioning in our great call, is
it is a comprehensive 5-point plan on Part D to drive down the
out-of-pocket costs for our seniors. We think it will save
them, over 10 years, tens of billions of dollars out-of-pocket
there.
Where we are not negotiating is Part B, and that is those
physician-administered drugs, often quite high cost. We just
pay the bill. We get a bill, we pay 106 percent of the average
sales price. The budget proposes to allow me as Secretary to
move drugs from Part B into Part D where we do negotiate. So, I
would love to work with you and others around elements of the
President's budget here that we think actually are quite bold
and will get at that issue of what is the patient paying out of
pocket at pharmacy, which is high.
Mr. Pocan. Yeah, and we would argue instead of tens of
billions of savings, if we can save $400,000,000,000-plus over
10 years, let us move all of them into there. Let us just start
negotiating for all drugs, and that would be a great approach,
so I would be glad to work with you on that.
Also, during your confirmation hearing one of the things
that you talked about was the rising cost of prescription
drugs, specifically how drug companies set the list prices for
drugs. And I guess I had a question about that is, you know, if
we are really going to reduce the cost of prescription drugs,
can we address the issue? Can we, say, limit it to inflation?
What can we really do around this because this is a huge driver
of cost?
Secretary Azar. So, one of the difficult issues around drug
pricing. I think there are many approaches, including some we
just talked about, that the Administration has in its budget to
help with. In many areas, Part D, we get the best pricing net
by negotiating. Part B, we are not doing that. So, there are
some proposals that we have to do all of that.
The list price, which, of course, drives the whole system,
it is a harder nut to crack, frankly. What we have in the
budget is on Part B, we actually propose an inflation penalty
where if a company increases the price of a physician-
administered drug above medical inflation, that would actually
come out of the reimbursement levels. We continue to look at a
host of other ideas, how do we reverse the incentives for list
price increases? Right now, every incentive in the system for
every player in the system, except the patient and us as
taxpayers, is for higher and higher list prices. The best way
is how do you reverse those economic incentives?
Mr. Pocan. And I would just encourage more boldness, you
know. There is a bumper sticker I used to have that I am going
to put back in my car again which is, ``When the people lead,
eventually the leaders will follow.'' The people are way ahead
of where we are at, and they think that, you know, we are in
the pockets of prescription drug companies because we are not
willing to stand up. There has been some bold language. Let us
put bold policies behind that, and I think another one would be
looking at how they set those prices.
A third question would be how about the pay-for-delay
tactics that some brand name manufacturing companies are using
to delay cheaper generic drugs? You have done some other
provisions around getting generics into the market. How about
this one?
Secretary Azar. Yeah, so we are very concerned. I am
adamantly concerned about any types of gamesmanship. There is a
deal under Hatch-Waxman that says there should be a time
certain when your drug is off patent, and at that point generic
competition, ``Katy, bar the door,'' prices fall, free
competition, and efforts to delay inappropriate are improper.
One of the pay-for-delay proposals we have in our budget
would prevent the squatting by a generic company on that 180
days of exclusivity that they get being the first to file
generic drug. If you squat on it for whatever reason, and a
second drug can be approved by FDA, that clock will start on
under our proposal. That will save the Medicaid budget
$1,800,000,000 a year just for making that one change against
gamesmanship.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Final word is ``bold.''
Let us be bolder in this area. Thank you.
Secretary Azar. And that is the goal.
DEPARTMENT FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET
Mr. Cole. I thank the gentleman, and now go to my very good
friend, the distinguished lady from Alabama, Ms. Roby.
Ms. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Mr. Secretary,
thank you so much for being here today. I just want to first
say thank you for the time that you have made yourself
available so that we could talk beyond these short 5 minutes
that we have. And so, I am grateful for that and the phone that
we had where I laid out a number of my concerns.
But the one that I want to focus on today is the
Department's Fiscal Year 2019 budget request, which reiterates
the Administration's commitment to expanding choices,
increasing access, and lowering the cost of healthcare in our
country. And I share this commitment and I support reforming
our healthcare system to give Americans much-needed relief from
Obamacare.
RURAL HOSPITALS CLOSURES
When it comes to the issue of access, as you and I have
discussed, I am really concerned with the fact that hospitals
located in rural areas of our country have been closing their
doors at alarming rates and much more frequently than urban
facilities, leading to less choices and less access for many
people who live in rural communities. And since 2005, more than
120 rural hospitals have gone out of business. In my home State
of Alabama, we have seen 5 rural hospitals close their doors
over the past 8 years. So, the impact of these closures is
clearly detrimental to patients who will often be forced to
travel more than 30 miles to have access to care, including
elderly patients and those with chronic health conditions.
So, Mr. Secretary, these closures have not gone unnoticed.
Rural hospitals, as you know, provide essential healthcare
services, and in a lot of instances they are the only
healthcare available in communities, many that I represent in
Alabama's 2nd Congressional District.
So, I would like to know how we can work with HHS and what
does HHS intend to do to address these rural hospital closures,
and any plans that you may have to work on this important issue
of access to care in our rural areas of our country. And then
additionally, CMS pursuing any rulemaking opportunities and
actions to address these challenges to provide them with
regulatory relief.
Secretary Azar. Well, first, thank you for your advocacy
for rural access to care in Alabama, and this is an issue that
is in our radar, and it is an issue of great concern to us.
Just please know that. And we are following up on your
suggestions around how do we reduce burden for our rural
providers.
We have a very important initiative going on within CMS
that is Patients Over Paperwork, which is a historic, dramatic
reduction in provider burden coming out of the Medicare and
Medicaid programs. Now, will that solve it? No, but it
certainly can improve their ability to achieve a margin by
pulling away any kind of unnecessary burdensome requirements
that have accreted over the 50-plus years of the program. So,
we are working on that. And Administrator Verma is driving that
with great success that has come and coming.
The other is CMS has provided relief from the direct
supervision requirements for our rural hospitals and our
critical access hospitals, which is that notion that there has
to be direct supervision of a doctor over others to be able to
provide service and be able to bill. We have provided relief
there for years 2018 and 2019.
And then, of course, the big issue is the wage index as it
always is. As you know, there was a report from the Secretary
in April of 2012 about the wage index. We will always look
forward to working with Congress to see if there are statutory
solutions. From a regulatory perspective, it becomes a very
knotty question because it is always a zero-sum game. One
hospital wins, one hospital loses under the wage index
nationwide, and that we believe Congress has to be intimately
involved with this with us working with you, providing advice
on how to steer through that.
Ms. Roby. Well, Alabama is certainly not winning under the
current law, so we would very much appreciate a thorough look
at that. There have been several pieces of legislation
introduced directly related to the wage index, and we would be
happy. But really in my last few seconds, I just would love to
have your commitment to continue to work with us on this very
important issue. We have got to think outside of the box on
some of these things, and of course I am ready and willing to
do so. And I appreciate your candor and your time today, and
again look forward to working with you.
Secretary Azar. Thank you. It is a very important issue,
and we commit to working together on this.
Ms. Roby. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. Just to advise the
committee, the Secretary has to leave at noon, so we are going
to proceed. I want to give the ranking member a full 5 minutes
to ask whatever questions she cares. I am going to give Mr.
Harris my time as you have been patient to be here this long. I
know you must have a question you want to ask, and then the
ranking member and I will make a brief comment to close out.
So, again, thank you for your forbearance. The gentlelady from
Connecticut is recognized.
NIH GUN VIOLENCE RESEARCH
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Secretary, just a couple of points. You noted correctly that
the NIH has funded gun violence prevention research in recent
years. Let me just clarify for a second that NIH announced last
year that it would not be issuing a new funding opportunity for
gun violence prevention research. I would just ask you to
strongly urge the NIH to issue a new funding opportunity in
Fiscal Year 2018.
LIHEAP
I have another quick question which this has to do with the
LIHEAP program, and just a ``yes'' or ``no'' answer. Do you
support the President's proposal to eliminate LIHEAP?
Secretary Azar. Well, I do support the request in a very
tough budget environment to meet caps. These are difficult
choices.
COMMUNITY SERVICE BLOCK GRANT
Ms. DeLauro. Then on the Community Services Block Grant
where you do also propose a termination, that also includes a
network of community action agencies. I just wanted to request
that, I do not know whether you have talked to local officials
or mayors, but really I would like to request an evaluation of
if this funding is eliminated, what is then going to be the
effect on local governments, and what is going to be the effect
on the community action agencies, which, as you know, provide
housing, education, nutrition, and employment services. What
happens with all of that? So, if you can get us a report, that
would be terrific.
[The information follows:]
While the percentage can vary by agency, overall the Community
Services Block Grant (CSBG) accounts for approximately five percent of
total funding received by local agencies that benefit from these funds.
In a constrained budget environment, difficult funding decisions were
made to ensure that federal funds are being spent as effectively as
possible. Although states have discretion to reduce or terminate
funding to local agencies that do not meet state-established
performance standards, CSBG continues to be distributed by a formula
not tied directly to the local agency performance, and it is a priority
of this administration to ensure limited federal funds go to programs
that deliver results.
In regard to Idaho, HHS is committed to working with states to give
them as much flexibility as permissible under the law to provide their
citizens the best possible access to healthcare. As noted in your
question above, in March the CMS Administrator sent a letter to the
Governor of Idaho and the State Director of Insurance stating that the
Affordable Care Act remains the law and we have a duty to enforce and
uphold the law.
SHORT-TERM HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS
Ms. DeLauro. Let me just get to the issue of Idaho and the
short-term plans. I think, you know, that the Idaho officials
are claiming that their State-based plan offers better coverage
than would be available under your short-term proposed rule.
The other piece on Idaho is that, in fact, I think the
Administration has said that Idaho, that their plan would be
out of compliance with the law. The short-term plans, they are
allowed to deny people insurance based on medical history,
charge higher premiums because of preexisting conditions,
provide skimpy benefit packages.
Also, let me just a couple of questions with regard to
this. Idaho makes maternity coverage optional. Do you believe
that plans should not cover maternity care?
Secretary Azar. So, I want to be very clear with Idaho. We
have sent a letter to Idaho saying that the guidance that they
have given would put them out of compliance under our reading
with their requirements under the Affordable Care Act. And if
they were to continue in that approach, that we at HHS would
have to assume those authorities, and that the plan that was
mentioned there would not be compliant.
Ms. DeLauro. Should they cover maternity care, make it
optional. Should they cover maternity care?
Secretary Azar. So, that is a requirement under the
Affordable Care Act.
Ms. DeLauro. Right, okay. Contraceptive services, newborn
care, habilitative service, which are particularly important to
children with autism. Should they cover those efforts as well?
Should these plans cover these services?
Secretary Azar. Again, we are charged with enforcing the
laws as written, and the Affordable Care Act so provides, and
we will enforce as long as that remains the law of the land.
Ms. DeLauro. You probably have seen this, but their
questionnaire, you know, ``Have you or any family member listed
on this application ever seen a doctor, been diagnosed,'' et
cetera. Then they list a whole variety of health coverage
because of these conditions, diseases, et cetera. My concern
with this document is that checking off whether or not you have
cancer, or tumors, brain, nervous system, urinary or kidney.
Again, and you may have answered this already, but are we going
to allow this kind of a survey which then would put people at
risk for not getting the insurance coverage they need? And that
would be including they ask about pregnancy, congenital
conditions, et cetera. If they are out of compliance, does that
mean that we are going to just say they cannot move forward
and, what, in fact, will we do if they presume to move forward?
Secretary Azar. Absolutely. And, again, I empathize with
the situation that the governor and the commissioner in Idaho
are trying to deal with, which is skyrocketing premiums,
reduced choice, reduced access. And we want to do everything we
can to support the governor and the people of Idaho to get
access to affordable health insurance. So, please, let me start
from that premise that we want to work to help them. But----
Ms. DeLauro. We are not going to allow them to move forward
on these issues which will deny people healthcare coverage.
Secretary Azar. Not if it does not comply with the
Affordable Care Act, which is the law. And so, the way this
will work is we have given them 30 days to respond to our
notice.
Ms. DeLauro. Have they responded?
Secretary Azar. No, not yet. Once they respond, we will
make a determination. If they remain out of compliance in terms
of their willingness to enforce the provisions of the
Affordable Care Act, then CMS will assume that responsibility
to fully enforce the Affordable Care Act, and an insurer who
issues a plan that is not compliant will be dealt with and
enforced against as appropriate.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Absolutely. For the final round of questions, my
good friend from Maryland, Mr. Harris. Dr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much. Let me follow up on that
question because my understanding is that the short-term plans
were exempt from some of the requirements of the ACA. Is that
correct?
Secretary Azar. That is correct. In fact, the separate
issue from the issue of the Idaho Insurance Commissioner's
guidance saying basically you do not need to comply is our
proposal for short-term limited duration plans, these
transitional plans that can be available to people. And this is
actually restoring an option for States and for people that was
in place during the entirety of the Obama Administration until
October of 2016.
Mr. Harris. Right, yeah. That is my understanding. These
short-term plans were in place actually, you know, the ACA
framework includes the ability to have short-term plans. And
let me get it straight. Now, the existence of a short-term plan
does not interfere with anyone's ability who has a medical
condition to obtain insurance under an ACA plan.
Secretary Azar. Absolutely.
Mr. Harris. So, every American is absolutely guaranteed
access to a plan that is actually by statute affordable because
we set income limitations for subsidies, for the premium
subsidies. So, that is all left in place. Now, if an American
chooses not to have an ACA plan, they can just choose to have a
short-term plan. Okay, I just want to straighten out----
Secretary Azar. That is a very important clarification that
the short-term plans are a choice. None of it changes the
individual market Affordable Care Act exchange plans, or
requirements that are there.
Mr. Harris. Right. So, again, just to reiterate, so if you
have a condition where someone may not insure you under a
short-term plan, you always can go back to the ACA type plans,
or in States like Maryland what we are going to do is we are
probably going to have a separate plan with a reinsurance plan.
Some States have high-risk pools. I mean, there are multiple
methods now. Every person in the United States has the ability
to be covered if they have a medical condition.
Secretary Azar. And I would say, first, what our proposal
would do is it puts the State back in the driver's seat. So,
the State is the regulator. They can have requirements as high
or higher than the Affordable Care Act on these short-term plan
options.
Mr. Harris. Right.
Secretary Azar. Secondly, these plans, as I was very clear,
may not be right for all people. They are an option for some
for who maybe it is correct, but they should go in with their
eyes wide open and know what is covered, what is not, what is
there. And so, for instance, an individual with a preexisting
condition, if an affordable plan is available in the individual
market under the Affordable Care Act, that may be the best
option. The challenge is for so many Americans, there are not
affordable plans available even in the exchange system, and
that is what we all have to work on.
Mr. Harris. That is right, especially I imagine for young,
healthy individuals who are priced out of the market. And
obviously we know because millions of Americans chose to pay
the penalty instead of to get the unaffordable ACA plans.
MEDICAID--WORK REQUIREMENTS
Let me just briefly mention two issues. One is we talked
about work requirements in Medicaid. Look, I congratulate the
Department to do this. I think this is long overdue. I think
that there should be a compact between the Federal government
and someone who applies to the Federal government for
assistance, and that is that if you are able-bodied, I think it
is good to ask someone to apply for a job, train for a job,
look for a job. I do not think that is unreasonable. The vast,
vast majority of Americans agree with that.
I am glad the Department is talking about it. I wish other
departments, including the Department of Agriculture, would
start doing it for able-bodied individuals who want the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. I think across the
board, I think these are good public policies to say we will
help you, but, you know, if you are able-bodied and you are not
disabled, you are not taking care of a child at home, you know,
you are expected to work, or be trained for work, or apply for
work, especially important in an environment where we have full
employment.
RIGHT TO TRY
Finally, the last is I am just going to express
disappointment that the Democrats blocked the Right to Try bill
this week. Very puzzling to me. Thirty-eight States have bills
like this. You know, it is probably only going to be a 1-week
delay. I know this is a priority of the President because he
has talked to me about it in a meeting personally. He feels
strongly that a person who has a terminal illness, you know,
should have access to medications even before they have passed
the Phase 3 clinical trials at the FDA.
And, yes, it is probably only going to delay it for a week,
but, god, I feel strongly for those individuals who have to
wait a week because, again, the minority has blocked it this
week on the floor. That is a real shame, and I hope the
Administration redoubles its efforts to make sure that the bill
passes next week, and then we come to agreement with the Senate
and finally have a National Right to Try bill. And with that, I
yield back to the chairman
Mr. Cole. I thank my friend for yielding back. I want to
recognize the ranking member for any closing remarks she cares
to make. I will make a couple, and then we will adjourn the
hearing.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On that
last point, let me just say my hope is that while we would say
to Idaho that you cannot do this, that whatever the
Administration is proposing, I mean, I am opposed to these
short-term efforts. I think we have had that conversation. But
that the exemptions that will be made under that effort, while
those will be made in order and exemptions in States will not
be made in order. So, we will have to take a very, very close
look at this effort.
I applaud you, Mr. Secretary, for some of the initiatives
that you have taken here, but if you heard us on this side of
the aisle, the level of cuts in fairly basic programs, and we
talk about LIHEAP, community services block grant, health
workforce training. In my view, when you look at your overall
message, which where you sit, and I am just quoting you, is
that ``We want to take a look if the programs are effective, if
they are, you know, meeting their purpose, and that they are
cost-effective.'' Well, we have so many of the programs that we
now are under the chopping block that, in fact, are getting cut
or eliminated. And for the life of me, I do not understand the
criteria upon which these decisions have been made.
My final comment is I go back, the gentleman that you have
serving in a very, very key, important place, his ideological
views should not be making the determination of whether it is
the children who are coming in or anyone else. He is not
qualified to do that, and he should be removed from that
position. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. I thank you, and, Mr. Secretary, I want to just
thank you for your testimony today. I want to thank you for the
manner in which you engaged our committee, the openness, the
thoughtfulness. Very impressive performance. I particularly
want to thank you before the hearing for reaching out to every
member on both sides of the aisle and engaging, as my friend,
Ms. Roby, said, openly and candidly in conversations. Very
helpful to every member of this committee.
And, again, I just want to tell you how much I look forward
to working with you, how impressed I am with the manner in
which you have started your tenure as Secretary, and the manner
in which you have dealt and the courtesy with which you have
dealt with this committee. So, we look forward to working
together as we go forward.
And with that, we are adjourned.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, March 20, 2018.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
WITNESS
HON. BETSY DEVOS, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Chairman's Opening Statement
Mr. Cole. Good morning, Madam Secretary. It is genuinely my
pleasure to welcome you to the Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education. We are looking forward to
hearing your testimony today.
Madam Secretary, your job bears great responsibility.
Ensuring high-quality education in this country affects not
only the future of each individual but also the collective
economic well-being of the Nation.
While most of the funding and policy for education lies,
appropriately in my view, at the State and local level, the
impact of Federal dollars and policies carries importance and
influence. So it is our responsibility to ensure that they are
being targeted to the best and most effective programs with a
high degree of accountability.
Your request continues to prioritize resources to certain
populations of children who need additional support. I
appreciate the continued investment into those programs, such
as for children with special needs and disabilities, Indian
education and rural education, and to support English learners.
However, I am concerned about the administration continuing
to request cuts that Congress has rejected. One example I am
particularly concerned about is the repeat proposal to decrease
funding for Impact Aid. And let me add, the last Administration
also had a similar position in this area. But that aid is an
important source of resources for school districts that are
financially burdened by their large amount of Federal property.
My colleagues and I will be interested in hearing what your
plans are to better understand the economic effects of the
Federal presence in districts, as you cite in the budget
proposal.
We also bear responsibility to ensure that there are
various affordable paths to lucrative careers, whether that
includes college, technical school, or other training. Your
budget proposes a number of actions in the realm of career and
technical education as well as changes to programs that support
college education for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The proposal also includes an expansion of Pell eligibility
to short-term, high-quality programs that provide a
certification or licensing. And, frankly, while I like this
concept a lot, I want to learn more about the cost of it and
some of the complications associated with it. But I very much
like the general idea.
Additionally, the budget again proposes deep cuts in some
student financial assistance programs. I look forward to
discussing those proposals with you today.
I understand that, again, action by Congress just before
the budget was released made some of the information provided
to this committee out of date, even just as it was being
presented to us. And that responsibility lies with Congress,
certainly not with you. And now, based on our action this week,
we will have more information on congressional priorities in
the fiscal year 2018. For example, your budget continues to
request no funding for Student Support and Academic Enrichment
grants, which support school-based mental health services,
bullying prevention, and professional development for personnel
and crisis management.
We look forward to continuing a conversation about where
the Administration prioritizes funding in a less constrained
environment than we have operated under in the past.
As a reminder to the committee 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 5 minutes to our
subcommittee ranking member, the gentlelady from Connecticut,
my good friend, for an opening statement.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ranking Member's Opening Statement
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Secretary DeVos, for joining us today.
Public education is a great equalizer in our country. At
the signing ceremony for the original Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, President Lyndon Johnson described education as,
and I quote, ``the only valid passport out of poverty.''
Decades later, he is still right. The economic benefits that
accrue to the individual and to society are indisputable.
Congress passed the law in 1965 because real leaders on
both sides of the aisle understood the Federal Government's
responsibility to ensure that children everywhere receive a
quality education.
Fifteen years after that landmark law, the Department of
Education was established. Its primary function is--and I quote
from the Department's mission statement--``to strengthen the
Federal commitment to assuring access to equal educational
opportunity for every individual,'' end quote. The mission
statement goes on to say the Department is to supplement
efforts of States and local school systems to improve the
quality of education.
And yet, in your testimony, you say the Department was
charged with prohibiting Federal control of education. No one
is trying to impose a Federal takeover of education. I have
read the establishing law, and I find your broad statement
somewhat dubious. To characterize the aims of the Department
vaguely as, quote, ``prohibiting control of Federal education''
is misleading and, yes, cynical.
Madam Secretary, do you support public education? I ask
because the Trump budget request seeks approximately $4 billion
in cuts to investments in public schools while proposing $1
billion in new funding for unauthorized programs, including to
expand private school vouchers. I am pleased Congress rejected
similar proposals made in the fiscal year 2018 request and hope
that we continue to focus bipartisan support on increasing
investments in areas that strengthen public schools.
For the last year, I have watched you advocate as Secretary
for the privatization of public education. This budget intends
to shift public school funding and advance a radical agenda
that transfers taxpayer dollars out of local community schools.
In your testimony, you say that the United States spends
more per pupil than nearly every other developed country. What
you fail to point out is that we have a school funding gap in
this country, much worse in high-poverty areas, both urban and
rural. And yet these are the very areas that the Trump budget
would starve.
In addition, other countries blow us out of the water in
terms of providing access to early childhood education. We have
one of the lowest enrollment rates for early childhood
education.
Ninety percent of our kids are in public schools. We need
more resources to help them succeed. You can't do more with
less; you do less with less. We certainly shouldn't be
siphoning off taxpayer dollars to pay for vouchers.
I was disturbed by your appearance on ``60 Minutes'' early
this month where you admitted that you have not visited
underperforming schools. You say, quote, ``maybe'' you should
visit them. Maybe? I am perplexed by that answer, because it
sounds to me like you are turning your back on these schools.
We need to focus our policies on strengthening public
schools, supporting the teaching professions, boosting student
enrichment opportunities, increasing parental involvement, and
making high-quality preschool available to all. The 29
authorized programs that this budget completely eliminates
include after-school programs that keep our kids safe, block
grants that provide mental health and counseling services,
literacy programs that build the foundation for a lifetime of
learning.
Your testimony mentions support of students with
disabilities. So why does the Trump budget zero out Special
Olympics? The administration's own budget justification
indicates that this program exceeds its performance measures.
And for students with disabilities, are you aware of what the
President's budget does to Medicaid? It cuts it $1.4 trillion.
Do you know who Medicaid serves?
Turning to higher education, I was dismayed that the budget
proposal does nothing to make college more affordable. It
level-funds the maximum Pell grant award; eliminates $733
million in campus-based aid for low-income students; slashes
Federal Work Study in half.
At the same time, the Department is undoing protections for
students and taxpayer dollars from fraudulent for-profit
colleges, ones that specifically prey on our veterans, working-
class women, and minorities. Repealing the Gainful Employment
rule would cost taxpayers $1.3 billion and leave thousands of
students at risk.
The Department has also undermined sexual assault
investigations on college campuses, which I plan to ask you
about in more detail later.
The Trump Administration has advocated for arming teachers,
yet all credible research we have shows that more guns lead to
more accidents. In the short amount of time since the tragedy
at Parkland, we have seen teachers with guns mistakenly fire
them in their classroom. Let me emphasize that the teacher in
California who shot a gun in his classrooms, resulting in
bullet fragments in the neck of a student, was a reserve police
officer.
The task force announced by the White House is not a
solution; it is simply talk and an acceptance of the status
quo. I am amazed that the budget proposes to cut School Safety
National Activities by more than a third. The funding supports
evidence-based programs to ensure safe learning environments
for our kids, including preventing violence in schools and
providing services in response to serious incidents.
Instead of focusing on dangerous policies to arm teachers,
the Department should be focused on supporting teachers and
school counselors where they need it the most. We should have a
school counselor in every school in this country. This proposal
eliminates funding dedicated to supporting both classroom
teachers and counselors through Supporting Effective
Instruction State grants and Student Support and Academic
Enrichment grants.
Madam Secretary, we also face a debt crisis. Forty-four
million individuals owe $1.4 trillion in student loan debt. You
often say you came to Washington to return power to the States,
yet you recently took steps to preempt State laws and
regulations that protect these borrowers, including in my home
State of Connecticut, which is a leader in this area.
States have stepped up because of predatory practices in
the student loan industry, including ruining credit scores for
disabled veterans seeking loan discharges under, quote, ``total
and permanent disability.'' These actions have prompted rebukes
from the National Governors Association, a large bipartisan
coalition of attorneys general who urge you to reject the
company's campaign to, and I quote, ``secure immunity for
themselves from State-level oversight and enforcement,'' end
quote.
This seems to me like you are standing up for debt
collectors over injured military veterans. I hope that you can
reassure us that this is not the case.
In closing, I would like to make known my deep concern over
the plan to dismantle the Budget Service office. A Politico
article from March 14 reported that you, and I quote, ``want to
break up and decentralize all of the Education Department's
budget functions.''
The budget office plays a leading role in managing the
Department's programs and resources, and this particular
congressional committee relies on its professional expertise
and nonpartisan technical assistance. It was reported that even
the White House Office of Management and Budget objects to
these actions.
In addition, it was disturbing to read that career
officials have been prohibited from communicating directly with
congressional committees or OMB without the approval of
political appointees. This directly impinges on the critical
work of this committee, and I hope and I believe it needs to
stop.
In addition, the 2019 budget justification fails to include
details on these plans, which I am aware have been in the works
for many months. I need to know who was consulted and why was
there a deliberate choice to withhold this information for
Congress' consideration.
Madam Secretary, if an education is a passport out of
poverty, as Lyndon Johnson said, then your plan for public
education in our country puts students' future at risk. I hope
that we can work together to ensure that this is not the path
that we go down, and I look forward to our discussion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. I thank the gentlelady.
We have been joined in the interim by the chairman of the
full committee.
And so, Mr. Chairman, always a delight to have you here,
and you are recognized for whatever opening comments you care
to make.
Full Committee Chairman's Opening Statement
The Chairman. Just a few comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank Chairman Cole for his leadership and,
obviously, Ranking Member DeLauro for her leadership.
Often I say in my opening remarks--and they will be brief--
the power of the purse resides here. A lot of things have been
rolled out, in terms of public policy initiatives from the
Department of Education. And I say this very respectfully. You
have been on the job for a while. I think sometimes people
recognize the role of authorizing committees, but oftentimes
they don't recognize the responsibilities of the Appropriations
Committee.
I would welcome an opportunity and a visit to my office to
discuss the path forward. I say this more to the Secretary's
staff than I do to the Secretary. You are an honorable,
successful person, but I think it is important for Members who
pay the bill to meet with the Secretaries before they come
before the committee. I say that respectfully. I am concerned
that we have sort of a disconnect here.
And may I say, I just left Secretary Wilbur Ross, and I
said the same thing to his staff. It is hard to believe that
people have been on the job for this long and they don't have
staff that are understanding how the system works.
So I say this with no disrespect to you. But, certainly, I
think many of my colleagues would probably feel the same way.
It is important to connect with the people who pay the bills.
And the bill payors, in many ways, determine, as the chairman
knows, the public policies that we lay out and that you are
seeking, that we are both seeking, to improve public and higher
education across the Nation.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, thank you again for being here. And you
are recognized now for whatever opening statement you would
care to make.
Opening Statement by Secretary DeVos
Secretary DeVos. Thank you, Chairman Cole, Chairman
Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member DeLauro. I appreciate it--and
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify on the President's fiscal year 2019 budget request for
the Department of Education. This budget sharpens and hones the
focus of our mission: serving students by meeting their needs.
When the Department was created, it was charged to prohibit
Federal control of education. I take that charge seriously.
Accordingly, President Trump is committed to reducing the
Federal footprint in education, and that is reflected in this
budget.
The President's fiscal year 2019 budget would reduce
overall funding for department programs by $3.6 billion, or 5
percent, from fiscal year 2017 enacted levels. This budget was
initially prepared prior to the 2-year-cap deal, so the
administration submitted an addendum that allows for valuable
investments in students, including Impact Aid Basic Support
Payments, TRIO, school choice, Federal Work Study, and Pell.
This Department's budget focuses on improving educational
opportunities and outcomes for all students while also
returning power to the people closest to students.
SCHOOL CHOICE
First, our request would provide significant new resources
dedicated to helping achieve the President's goal of giving
every student the freedom to attend a school that best meets
his or her unique needs. The budget provides funding for this
purpose through a new opportunity grants program that would
expand the number of students who have the opportunity to
attend a school of their choice. Under this new program, States
could apply for funding to provide scholarships to students
from low-income families that could be used to transfer to a
different school.
Local educational agencies participating in the
Department's student-centered funding pilot could request funds
to build on the flexibility provided by establishing or
expanding open enrollment systems. This way, funds follow
children based on their needs, not buildings or systems.
In addition, the budget expands support for charter schools
by providing an increase of $160 million, for a total of $500
million, and continues support for magnet schools.
We are also proposing to expand the use of direct student
services to allow States to reserve up to 5 percent of their
Title I allocations to further expand educational freedom,
including helping students transfer to a school that better
meets individual needs.
OTHER BUDGET PRIORITIES
Second, the administration's request maintains support for
students with disabilities. Our request includes funding for
essential K-12 formula grant programs that support the Nation's
neediest students, including all programs authorized under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Third, our request creates more pathways to prepare workers
to fill existing and newly created jobs as well as jobs of the
future. Expanding apprenticeships and reforming ineffective
education and workforce development programs will help more
Americans obtain relevant skills and enter high-paying jobs.
Students should be able to pursue a variety of pathways to
successful careers. To that end, grants should follow the
student, not the other way around. The budget expands the use
of Pell grants for high-quality, short-term summer and
certificate programs. It invests in career and technical
education and streamlines student loan repayment.
These proposals also support congressional efforts to
reauthorize the Higher Education Act to address student debt
and higher-education costs while reducing the complexity of
student financial aid.
Fourth, our request supports science, technology,
engineering and math (STEM) education to help better equip
students with skills employers need. Consistent with the
Presidential memorandum on STEM education, our request includes
$200 million in new funding to support STEM education while
continuing to fund almost $330 million in discretionary grants.
Fifth, we look forward to working with Congress on
promoting a safe and healthy culture in our schools. Schools
must have the resources they need to improve safety
infrastructure, hire more counselors, and host more programs
and activities aimed at violence prevention. We owe the victims
of school violence nothing less.
Finally, our request reflects a number of reform proposals
aimed at streamlining the Department's internal organization
and improving the Department's services to States, districts,
post-secondary institutions, and the public.
CONSOLIDATIONS AND ELIMINATIONS
We recommend, for instance, a number of consolidations,
including proposals for the Federal TRIO programs and the HEA
Title III and Title V programs supporting minority-serving
institutions, making them formula grants so that, for example,
States may use TRIO funds more effectively.
The budget eliminates, streamlines, or reduces funding for
many discretionary programs that do not address national needs,
that duplicate other programs, are ineffective, or are more
appropriately supported with State, local, or private funds,
reducing taxpayer costs by $6.7 billion.
The budget reflects our commitment to spending taxpayer
dollars wisely and efficiently. The Federal Government does not
and can not know the unique needs of each individual student in
America. Parents and teachers know their students best and know
how their needs should be addressed. With this budget, we can
continue to return power to those who walk side-by-side with
students every day, because that is who budgets are for, not
special interests, not legislators, and not the system. This
budget is about students.
It is easy to get lost in the numbers and forget about the
faces of students whom we have all pledged to serve--students
like Carolina Martinez. Carolina was raised by a single mother
who spoke little to no English in one of the poorest housing
complexes in my hometown of Grand Rapids. Her home was later
razed because it was in total disrepair.
Carolina wasn't doing well in the school she was forced to
attend based on her ZIP code. That school's graduation rates
didn't give Carolina's mother much hope for her future. So,
with help from a local scholarship, she enrolled Carolina in a
different school that more deliberately met her needs.
And then things began to look up. Carolina progressed and
graduated and became the first in her family to go to college
and earn a degree in pre-med. Carolina went on to be one of the
first 200 students in Michigan State University's new School of
Medicine in Grand Rapids. She graduated and moved to Arizona,
where she practices as a surgeon.
Think about that for a moment. Carolina went from complete
poverty, her home being torn down because it was no longer
livable, to a surgeon, all in one generation. Education can
truly change the trajectory of a child's life. All they need is
the chance to attain it.
More students deserve the same chance Carolina and her
mother had. That is the focus of this administration and the
focus of this budget.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I look forward
to answering your questions.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Acknowledging Full Committee Ranking Member
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
Before we begin, I see we are joined by my favorite ranking
member of the full committee. I want to give her a chance to
get settled and then offer whatever opening comments she would
care to make.
Mrs. Lowey. Given I am running from one hearing to
another----
Mr. Cole. I was just watching you.
Mrs. Lowey [continuing]. I think I will skip my opening and
begin with questions. But----
Mr. Cole. Well, I would normally be next up and then the
ranking lady and then you, Madam, ranking member of the full
committee.
Mrs. Lowey. Well, you are very generous. Is that an
invitation to move forward?
Mr. Cole. Well, as soon as I get my questions done.
Mrs. Lowey. Good. I think that is appropriate.
Mr. Cole. All right. Thank you. Well----
Mrs. Lowey. That is very kind, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Well, again, as I tell you, I know we are really
your favorite subcommittee, so I want to work extra hard.
But let me begin, if I may, and just start the clock on my
5 minutes, if you could.
PROPOSED CUTS TO IMPACT AID
As I mentioned, Madam Secretary, in my opening statement, I
am very concerned about the proposed cuts in Impact Aid. School
districts with high numbers of federally connected children or
large amounts of untaxable Federal property rely heavily on
these resources. And to be, you know, perfectly candid, some of
these districts are certainly in my home district, in my home
State. Let me give you a couple of examples.
The largest single-site employer in Oklahoma is Tinker Air
Force Base. It has 16,000 civilian workers and 8,000 military
personnel. Their children all attend the local public schools.
I have 39 Indian tribes in the State, 11 in my district. They
have Federal property--or property, their property, held in
trust by the Federal Government. Obviously, most of those kids
are actually in the public school system. And we have other
military installations.
And that is not unique. As a matter of fact, of our better
than 500--we have probably too many school districts in
Oklahoma--of our 550, over 200 get some sort of Impact Aid
either because of the military presence around the State or
because of the very strong Native American presence.
So your proposal mentions a high-quality evaluation of the
effects of the Federal presence on districts. I want to ask
three questions. Could you give me more detail on what kinds of
questions you are likely to explore? And when do you plan to
undertake the study? And, finally, why would you propose to cut
funding before such a study is complete?
And let me again add, the last administration also had this
idea, as well, and didn't fare too well. So there is clearly
some thought at the Department that this is a good approach,
but it is met with a lot of resistance on the committee. So I
wanted to give you an opportunity to explain it to us a little
further.
Secretary DeVos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question
and for your----
Mr. Cole. I don't think your mike is on. Thank you.
Secretary DeVos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that
question, and we share your desire for ensuring that the needs
of these districts and these communities are met.
And, as you know better than many or most, we have had to
work within the framework of a bottom line. And so the initial
budget did propose more significant cuts to Impact Aid. The
addendum allowed us to restore much of that funding, so it is
back to almost what the funding was for the last fiscal year
budget proposal.
But with respect to some of the details of your questions,
I would like to refer to Bill.
Mr. Cole. Sure.
Mr. Cordes. As you know, just as part of fiscal discipline
and an effort to reduce funding and also to identify programs
that are lower-priority, multiple administrations have proposed
to reduce or eliminate payments for Impact Aid payments for
Federal property.
IMPACT AND EVALUATION
I think, as a budget analyst, I very much would like to
carry out the evaluation that we are now proposing. Part of the
problem has been funding. There is no separate line item for
evaluation in Impact Aid. But we do have section 8601 in the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which allows us
to reserve up to one-half of 1 percent for an evaluation. And
so I think we would like to talk to you about that.
I think the issues we want to explore are, as you know, the
program has been around for a long time, so it is one of our
oldest programs, and much of the property that we are now
making payments on behalf of was set aside decades ago. And
some of that property has actually since been developed; some
of that property is generating income now.
And so I think we want to be able to--we would like to be
able to be a little more discerning in our proposal by looking
at the impact it's had. I mean, in some cases, the Federal
presence actually generates more revenue. A military base, for
example, oftentimes brings in a lot of people, a lot of
businesses. So we would like to have the opportunity to do,
sort of, a more in-depth study of maybe a half-dozen places.
Mr. Cole. I would be happy--this is something I know a lot
about, and so I would be happy to work with you on that.
But let me assure you, in the cases I mentioned--let's just
take Tinker Air Force Base. That is 16,000 people that wouldn't
be there. And the principal place of where they work is
Federal, and it is not subject to State or local taxes. There
is no way the businesses around them make up for that or come
anywhere close to it. And, again, it is not an Indian--you
know, Indian property is held in trust by the Federal
Government, and it is not disposed of very often.
So I would just be very careful here, because these funding
streams are awfully critical in the places where they are at.
And, again, the Federal Government is going to literally
build capital-intensive places. The same thing is true at the
other end of my district, at Fort Sill Army post. We have been
the home of the Field Artillery since 1911 and been an active
military base since 1865. Again, those populations aren't there
other than the fact that the Federal Government is there
providing employment or bringing in military personnel. So,
again, these are not areas that I would say can afford those
kind of hits and that there is an alternate tax base.
I don't mean to lecture you, but my time is nearly up, and
I can't hold anybody else to the clock if I don't hold myself.
Secretary DeVos. Do you want----
Mr. Cole. No, that is fine. I will go to my friend, the
ranking member of the Subcommittee, the gentlelady from
Connecticut.
GUN VIOLENCE
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In 2018, there have been 17 school shootings, not including
one this morning, I might add, in Maryland, St. Mary's school.
And these schools range from elementary school classrooms to
university halls. On average, Americans can expect a school
shooting nearly one and a half times a week.
Several questions. Do you believe that we have a crisis
with gun violence in our country? That is a yes-or-no question.
Secretary DeVos. Congresswoman DeLauro, I believe we have a
crisis of violence in our country, yes.
Ms. DeLauro. Okay.
Then, we have a young man who murdered 17, injured 15 of
his own classmates using an AR-15 assault rifle. What is the
best way to prevent another young person from taking lives at
the hands of a gun?
Secretary DeVos. I think there are a number of ways to
address this. The President has been very clear in his focus
on----
Ms. DeLauro. What are they?
Secretary DeVos. There are ways to prevent young people
from getting guns--who should not be having guns, from having
them. We need to strengthen background checks and ensure that
individuals who should not be getting guns don't get them.
And in the cases where they have them and have demonstrated
that they are not competent to have them from a mental health
perspective, there should be ways of taking them away--
emergency restraining and protective orders.
Ms. DeLauro. Uh-huh.
Do school counselors have a role to play in supporting the
social and emotional well-being of children to prevent school
shootings, yes or no?
Secretary DeVos. Certainly.
Ms. DeLauro. Well, then we have an issue here. Three days
before the Parkland shooting, there was a budget released from
your department that proposed to zero out money for school
counselors and for school safety.
In your interview on ``60 Minutes,'' you claimed that
teachers having guns in the classroom should be an option for
States and communities to consider, despite believing that your
own first-grade teacher should not have been armed.
I think you may be aware there is a Gallup poll from, you
know, recently that said three-quarters of teachers oppose
school staff carrying guns, nearly 60 percent saying that
arming staff would make schools less safe.
To that end, since, as we all know, the majority of
education policy is a local matter and we know that the Federal
budget is a very tight one, would you support a government-wide
prohibition of using Federal funds to arm teachers and to train
teachers and teacher candidates on firearms?
Secretary DeVos. That is an issue that needs to be
discussed more broadly.
And what I will say is this budget was submitted well in
advance of recent----
Ms. DeLauro. My point is, if a majority of--you are focused
on States and control there. If we have about 73 percent of
teachers oppose school staff carrying guns, 60 percent believe
arming staff would actually make schools less safe, your view,
and would you then reconsider and support a prohibition on the
use of Federal funds to arm and train teachers if, as I said,
it is supported by a majority of parents and educators?
Secretary DeVos. That is an important discussion and an
important consideration for----
Ms. DeLauro. So you don't have a view about that, given
that you want to give the control to the States?
Secretary DeVos. I think it is an important matter for
discussion in addition to many other factors that play into a
culture of violence that I think we can all agree has taken
root in our country. There are many issues to be addressed
here. The President has advanced----
Ms. DeLauro. Well----
Secretary DeVos [continuing]. A number of very commonsense
steps that can be taken today----
Ms. DeLauro. But he has not talked about banning assault
weapons. But that is a different issue.
My point is, given your belief in State control of the
process, you want to decrease the Federal imprint on this--
footprint. So where can--you know, the majority count of
teachers and parents that say ``no'' to arming teachers. You
are the Secretary of Education. Would you take their word and
do something about it?
Or, if I can judge what you are saying, it is that what you
are going to do is to continue to study it. What research do
you already have that you are looking at, in terms of the areas
you want to go down?
LOCAL AUTONOMY IN DECISION TO ARM SCHOOL PERSONNEL
Secretary DeVos. The question of school personnel being
armed is very much one for local communities and States to
grapple with. And many States have already done so. Texas has
170 districts that have determined that is the right answer for
them. Other States have decided they do not want to proceed in
that direction. This is very much a matter of----
Ms. DeLauro. Right. But if it is a majority of the parents
and of the teachers across the country that say ``no,'' will
you--and I am just asking you, will you reconsider?
Secretary DeVos. That is a matter for Congress to decide,
not for the Secretary of Education to decide.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. And, of course, the gentlelady, the ranking
member of the full committee, has a lot of committee meetings
to go. So I want to move, next, to her in case she has to leave
us early.
And, again, it is always a pleasure to have you here.
Opening Statement From Full Committee Ranking Member
Mrs. Lowey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always appreciate
your warm welcome.
And I want to thank you, Secretary DeVos, for coming before
the Subcommittee. We have multiple hearings this morning, and
so I apologize for missing most of your testimony and questions
of my colleagues. So I will get right to it.
GAO REPORT ON IDEA AND VOUCHERS
On November 16, the GAO put out a report stating that many
parents of children using private school vouchers are not aware
of the full level of Federal protections they surrendered when
leaving public schools. The report also stated that most
private schools usually do not disclose the loss of special
education protections.
This can't be all that shocking based on the evidence.
Multiple investigations, including a recent investigation into
the Indiana voucher program, found that special education
students underperformed in voucher schools compared to public
schools.
And yet your budget would spend up to $1 billion on private
school vouchers, all while not providing a dime of extra
funding for the IDEA special education.
And I must say as I move forward, IDEA has been a priority
of both Democrats and Republicans as long as I have been in
this Congress, which is a long time.
And the GAO report recommended requiring States to notify
parents and guardians of potential changes to a student's
special education rights when using a voucher to attend private
school. Has the Department of Education taken steps to address
the GAO recommendation?
Secretary DeVos. Congresswoman, thanks for that question.
The Department is committed to following the statute, the
IDEA statute, and making sure that States are complying with
the law as written by Congress.
As you know, with regard to parents getting information in
States, those are State programs. And while I fully personally
agree that parents should be afforded the widest array of
information possible when making decisions for their children.
It is not a Federal matter, it is not a Department of Education
matter.
We certainly will recommend and encourage States to ensure
that parents have all of the information possible for making
decisions on behalf of their students. But it is a matter for
States to grapple with specifically.
Mrs. Lowey. So the Department of Education has not taken
any steps to address the GAO recommendation? I am a little
puzzled.
Secretary DeVos. We are committed to following all the IDEA
provisions, statutory provisions, and we are doing so.
Mrs. Lowey. Have you or your Department encouraged the
congressional leadership to work on this important issue?
Secretary DeVos. I think it is an important matter for
Congress to consider and encourage you to discuss it further.
FEDERAL ROLE IN ENSURING IDEA COMPLIANCE
Mrs. Lowey. But how about your leadership? You are head of
the Department of Education. If you think it is an important
matter, have you contacted the Republican leadership and urged
them to consider addressing this real serious issue?
Secretary DeVos. Where Federal funds and Federal statute
are involved, the Department is directly involved and committed
to that.
Mrs. Lowey. Look, I just think we have to be real with the
American people and tell them that this Administration, with
your leadership, is selling, frankly, a false bill of goods,
and it is an attempt to weaken public education in our country.
So I don't understand this. You are saying it is up to the
States. You don't have any leadership role in presenting the
facts? I just want to make sure I understand what you are
saying.
Secretary DeVos. Well, Congresswoman, let me just go back
to what you just said about not supporting public education.
That is, in fact, false. I absolutely support public education
and encourage public education in all traditional public
schools and charter schools, which are also public schools, to
continue to do better for each of the students that they serve.
I am a strong supporter of public education and will continue
to be.
Mrs. Lowey. What about the--I just want to make sure I
understand. What about the IDEA program? Republicans and
Democrats have been fighting for this as long as I can
remember.
Secretary DeVos. IDEA is a Federal law, and where Federal
funds are involved in States, if they are, the Federal
Government has a role.
The report and the situation to which you referred are
really matters of States. I agree with you----
Mrs. Lowey. Wait, wait, wait.
Secretary DeVos. I agree with you that parents should have
information and should have the fullest amount of information
when making a decision for their child with a disability, but
it is a State matter and a State issue.
Mrs. Lowey. Even though we are providing Federal funding?
Secretary DeVos. We are not, in those cases, providing
Federal funding.
Mrs. Lowey. To those institutions, schools that are not
providing the services, is what you are saying.
Well, I think this----
Secretary DeVos. IDEA funding is a Federal program and a
Federal matter.
Mrs. Lowey. Correct.
Secretary DeVos. Uh-huh.
Mrs. Lowey. But, then, if it is a Federal program with
Federal funding, then I don't understand how you don't have a
role in providing information so that parents----
Secretary DeVos. The programs to which you are referring
are State programs. They do not receive Federal funding.
Mrs. Lowey. IDEA doesn't get Federal funding?
Secretary DeVos. The schools----
Mrs. Lowey. Maybe we are misunderstanding each other.
Secretary DeVos. Perhaps. I don't think so. I think you are
referring to programs in States that provide parents with
choices in private schools. Those are not receiving Federal
funds through IDEA.
Mrs. Lowey. Yes, because they made a decision, I guess, not
to accept them.
Secretary DeVos. Correct.
FEDERAL ROLE IN PUBLICIZING INFORMATION ON IDEA
Mrs. Lowey. But if we--my question is--and I will conclude
with that. If we--and I would say if my recollection is
correct, both Democrats and Republicans have been advocates--I
could check those numbers again--for IDEA. And as far back as I
can remember on this committee, we are always pushing for more
money for IDEA.
So you are saying that you have no obligation to share
information on the values of IDEA programs with schools that
are not Federal-funded--I mean--I shouldn't say that. Only 10
percent or less of Federal funds goes to schools in this
country. Most is funded State and local.
But you have no obligation to parents to let them know that
they can make a better choice?
Secretary DeVos. We absolutely have an obligation to follow
the statutes of IDEA. The Department does that, the Department
is doing that, and----
Mrs. Lowey. What does that mean?
Secretary DeVos [continuing]. The Department will continue
to do that.
Mrs. Lowey. What does that mean, ``in the statutes''?
Secretary DeVos. To follow Federal law as it relates to
education of children with disabilities.
Mrs. Lowey. So if parents don't have all the information--
they have a child who needs this help and they choose to go to
a school that doesn't provide the services, your reaction is,
``Okay. They made that decision.'' I think that is what you are
saying.
Secretary DeVos. No. I am saying that if it is a State
program and it is a State-run and -funded program, it is a
matter for the State to deal with.
And I agree with the premise that parents should receive
full information, but you are trying to extend, I believe, the
role of IDEA into a place where IDEA does not touch.
Mrs. Lowey. Why don't we follow up at another time, Mr.
Chairman? I think I have taken too much time.
Mr. Cole. As a matter of fact, I agree with the gentlelady.
And I want to advise the rest of the committee, it is only
my great affection for the ranking member of the full committee
that allowed her to stretch the time that far. Don't anybody
else try that, okay?
All right. With that, I want to go to, on the basis of
order of arrival, my good friend, the gentlelady from Alabama,
for whatever questions she cares to pose.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here today. I
really appreciate the time that you spent with me last week in
my office. My son, George, who was on his spring break, he and
I enjoyed the opportunity to visit with you. So thank you for
your time.
Secretary DeVos. Likewise.
EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT COMPLIANCE
Mrs. Roby. In our budget hearing last year, I asked for
your view on the law we passed here in Congress and what it
says about the role of the Federal Government in decisions
concerning standards and curriculum for the classroom.
This issue is one of great importance, as I have said to
you many times, to parents and teachers across my district and
State. So I wanted to take this opportunity to once again ask
you, as a matter of record, to please state the
Administration's position.
Do you acknowledge that the Every Student Succeeds Act
expressly forbids the coercion of States to adopt certain
standards or curriculum, including Common Core?
Secretary DeVos. Yes. Correct.
Mrs. Roby. And will the Department of Education continue to
follow the letter and the spirit of the law?
Secretary DeVos. Indeed we will.
Mrs. Roby. I appreciate your direct answer and your
continued support of the State-driven approach to education.
And I believe that Alabama and all States should set high
standards to challenge students and help create better
opportunities.
CAREER, TECHNICAL AND ADULT EDUCATION
I was pleased to see the Administration's commitment to
investing in career and technical education by proposing an
increase of $22 million in the CTE State grants program.
Supporting career and technical education has been and will
continue to be a priority for me.
I have long been a proponent of CTE and workforce
development programs in our country for three simple reasons:
These programs help ensure that students are prepared for
rewarding careers; they ensure American workers have the
necessary training for skilled trades that are foundational to
our society; and they boost local economies by producing a
quality workforce.
In my home State of Alabama, we have an incredible network
of community colleges, industries, and facility partnerships
that help provide skills training to prepare our students for
in-demand jobs. They work hand-in-glove, together, to ensure
students are prepared with the right skills to be successful
and have job options when they graduate.
So could you expand, again, on behalf of the
Administration, upon the importance of career and technical
education to the Department of Education? And how does the
Department plan to address any perceived weaknesses within
career and technical education?
Secretary DeVos. Thank you, Congresswoman, for your
commitment to career and technical education and for the
multitude of pathways that young people really do have for a
successful future.
This Administration, our President, is really committed to
supporting and encouraging students to pursue all these
different opportunities. And your State of Alabama has been
exemplary in providing options and alternatives to young people
in seeking a career beyond high school and an education beyond
high school.
We are committed to helping to support those activities and
those efforts with the proposal for the short-term Pell, to
have certification become a robust way for students to pursue
good careers that don't require a longer-term encounter in a
higher-ed setting.
We are committed to expanding earn-and-learn opportunities
and apprenticeship programs. I am serving on the task force
with Secretary Acosta and Secretary Ross to expand
apprenticeship on-ramps and to really start facilitating
industry-recognized apprenticeships and that as a way for
students to begin a different pathway, an alternative to a 4-
year college or university.
We have very much encouraged through the implementation of
ESSA that schools consider increasing dual-enrollment
opportunities for high school students to begin earning college
credit while they are still in high school. And, in fact, we
would advocate for making the CTE programming through the
Perkins program more flexible to reach down even into middle
school to help students know and understand, again, what
pathways they might have beyond high school to consider.
So, very much a commitment to ensuring that students have
these different opportunities and that we support them in as
many ways and as flexible a way as possible.
Mrs. Roby. Thank you for your very thorough answer.
And I am going to be a good example and yield back.
Mr. Cole. That was 2 extra seconds. I appreciate that.
Thank you very much.
I want to go next, again, on basis of order of arrival, to
my good friend from California, Ms. Lee.
RACIAL DISPARITIES IN SCHOOL DISCIPLINE
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Madam Secretary.
First, I believe that this budget does decimate public
education. But let's talk about, for a minute, institutional
racism and racial discrimination and what this budget says
about students of color. For me, it is a slap in the face.
First of all, you cut $1 million from the Office for Civil
Rights.
Secondly, there are about 29 programs, including 21st
Century community learning centers--that is after-school
programs for low-income students. You are zeroing out American
history, civics history, literacy programs, Promise
Neighborhoods. These are all programs that are critical to
students of color and low-income communities.
We know that school discipline practices disproportionally
impact black and Latino students. For example, the data
released by the Department of Education's Office for Civil
Rights--and I am wondering now if this is why you want to cut
that budget--over three times more likely, brown and black
students, to be expelled than their white peers.
Now, recently, you said that you weren't sure or you didn't
know whether or not race plays a role in school discipline.
Now, isn't it your job to be sure that schools aren't executing
harsher punishment for the same behavior because they are black
or brown? Could you kind of talk a little bit about your views
on students of color and the----
Secretary DeVos. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Ms. Lee [continuing]. Disparities in expulsions and
suspensions.
Secretary DeVos. Well, you have posed a number of different
issues and questions here, and let me just begin by thanking
you for your concern, more broadly, around students of color.
And I just want to say that I believe this budget does very
much to not only protect but encourage students of color to
pursue their education through level Title I funding, through
expanding opportunity grants for parents to be empowered to
choose a different school if their assigned school is not
working for their child, for expanding charter school
programs----
Ms. Lee. Obviously, I am talking about public education,
Madam Secretary, and----
Secretary DeVos. As am I.
OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
Ms. Lee [continuing]. I am talking about eliminating the
Office for Civil Rights, and I am talking about, in the public
sector, what you are doing to----
Secretary DeVos. I, too, am talking about public education,
expanding opportunities for students within a community to
attend a different public school in that community, to expand
charter school options.
With regard to Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs), there was loan forgiveness in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina. And we have also continued our commitment to
supporting HBCUs by naming the board to the finance--the
finance board for HBCUs.
I believe that this administration actually has a very
strong record and this budget is very much oriented around
ensuring that students--the most vulnerable--are protected and
encouraged to be able to pursue education that is right for
them.
Ms. Lee. But you are robbing Peter to pay Paul in many of
these budget items, in terms of, say, opportunity grants not
being authorized.
But, also, let me just say, you still haven't talked about
the issue in public schools as it relates to black and brown
students and the high disparity rates as it relates to
suspensions and expulsions. And is race a factor? Do you
believe that or not?
Secretary DeVos. Let me just say----
Ms. Lee. Is there racial bias in----
Secretary DeVos [continuing]. There is no place for
discrimination, and there is no tolerance for discrimination.
And we will continue to uphold that. I am very proud of the
record of the Office for Civil Rights in continuing to address
issues that arise to that level----
Ms. Lee. But you are taking away $1 million from the Office
for Civil Rights.
Secretary DeVos. The team in the Office for Civil Rights is
doing an amazing job. They have continued to investigate and
solve and resolve issues at a much more rapid rate than was
previously done. We have decentralized their decisionmaking
around this and their ability to see these cases through to
resolution.
And so I will continue to defend all of the work that they
have done more effectively and more efficiently.
Ms. Lee. But you are still cutting their budget, Madam
Secretary. And that is going to mean that we will have less
civil rights enforcement for students of color.
Also, just look at what you are suggesting as it relates to
the discipline guidelines in the Obama administration that
ensured that students of color were not subject to harsher
discipline practices. You are actually talking about that now.
What does that mean for black and brown students?
Secretary DeVos. Congresswoman, I said before, I will say
again, there is no place for discrimination, and we are not
tolerating discrimination. The Office for Civil Rights----
Ms. Lee. But you are saying that; your policies and your
budget show differently.
Secretary DeVos. The Office for Civil Rights budget
reduction is less than 1 percent. The office is being operated
and is functioning at a much more efficient level than it was
previously, and so they are able to do more with less.
Ms. Lee. Madam Secretary, that is not acceptable----
Secretary DeVos. And a less-than-1-percent change.
Ms. Lee [continuing]. That is not acceptable when you look
at the huge expulsion and suspension rates and what is taking
place in terms of racial bias in our public schools. You need
to increase that budget, and you need to back off of looking at
how to rescind the policies that would decrease the school-to-
prison pipeline for black and brown----
Mr. Cole. I will allow the Secretary to answer, but the
gentlelady's time has expired.
But do you care to respond?
Secretary DeVos. I think I have addressed that issue.
Mr. Cole. I thank you both.
We will, again, now move to Ms. Herrera Beutler for the
next set of questions.
DUAL ENROLLMENT PROGRAMS
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Madam Secretary. I also appreciate you taking
the time to come in and meet with us last week--this week. It
is all running together. I appreciate your time.
I am going to jump right in.
In Washington State, we have a combined enrollment program
called Running Start. This program allows upperclassmen to
enroll in courses--I shouldn't say ``upperclassmen''--11th and
12th graders--in courses at community or technical colleges as
well as some public universities.
Many families have greatly benefited from this program,
which provides the opportunity to graduate your son or daughter
from high school with an associate's degree. You are utilizing
that time basically to get two birds with one stone, so to
speak. This saves families thousands of dollars and gives
students that jump start on good opportunities in the workforce
or on a bachelor's degree, because you can get rid of some of
those general ed credits and not pay the steeper price at a 4-
year school.
So I wanted to ask, what can your department do to ensure
that the students are made aware of these opportunities and
that it could be a good option for them?
One of the things that I found troubling is not all schools
or districts make this available--or make students aware that
they can get two birds with one stone, so to speak.
Secretary DeVos. Well, thanks, Congresswoman, for that
question and for your support of and commitment to this dual-
enrollment opportunity and option.
We have been following through on Congress' intent in the
ESSA legislation to ensure that a lot of the funding programs
through ESSA are made more flexible, and there is a great
opportunity for schools to seize this particular direction and
to build upon it.
I believe it is really up to the States to ensure that they
communicate these opportunities to students, and I will
continue to encourage that they do so. We have to make known to
students that they have a wide variety of pathways and they
have the opportunity to start earning higher-ed credit while
they still are in high school.
And, again, I would say, even beyond that, or before that,
that middle school students need to become aware of these
opportunities to be able to anticipate and think about them in
advance of actually arriving at the time they have to make that
decision.
SECLUSION AND RESTRAINT OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Absolutely. Absolutely.
I am going to switch over to an issue I have become aware
of. Your department has the absolute critical responsibility of
ensuring that schools provide safe and healthy learning
environments for all students. And reports have demonstrated
that students with disabilities are subjected to restraint and
seclusion at rates that far exceed those of other students.
Although schools are required to report to the Office for
Civil Rights on these instances, it has come to my attention
that multiple States have reported zero instances for an entire
school year, which is just not believable. This raises concerns
on this issue, that it is being chronically under-reported.
I wanted to ask about your awareness of this issue, what we
can do, and is there a need, perhaps, for a clearer definition
of ``seclusion'' and ``restraint?''
Secretary DeVos. Thank you, Congresswoman. And I will just,
again, state our commitment to and support of making sure that
the IDEA statutes are followed and the provisions are adhered
to by the States.
I am aware of this issue, this claim. And we will certainly
look into ways that we can continue to insist and ensure that
States are appropriately addressing and reporting these
situations and that that community is well aware of solutions
and resolutions to ensuring that those situations are reported
fully.
SCHOOL CLOSURES AND STUDENT LOANS
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Okay. And one final--thank you.
And I actually just want someone on your staff to work with
on this issue. I had a constituent come to me regarding a
college she attended. She was 8 weeks from graduation, and it
was an online school. And the last administration, the last
Department of Education, shut the school down. She was 8 weeks
from graduation.
And so they shut it down, and basically it froze
everything. It froze her credits. It froze all the money she
had paid--like, she attempted, then, to go to a community
college and pay cash, and because it was a FAFSA--because it
was federally connected, it basically put a hold on her ability
to continue on with her education, even if she was paying cash.
She wasn't able to repay loans. It impacted her ability to get
a mortgage.
And the Department was sitting on it. Basically, she
couldn't move because the Department was going to resolve this.
And this impacted other students.
So I realize this is kind of--I hadn't led into this. I
just want someone on your team of the right people to work
through this, because she is not the only affected constituent
that I have. And I want to make sure that if a school did
something wrong, she is not being held liable and it is not
impacting her life, especially when she had done a good job,
she was on track, she had great grades, and then, bam, it was
taken from her.
Secretary DeVos. I would like to be able to work with you
and your team and make sure that we get this addressed and
resolved for your constituent.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Perfect.
With that, I thank the chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. Thank you. We next go to my good friend, Mr.
Pocan, from Wisconsin.
GUN VIOLENCE
Mr. Pocan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here. Last night
on our Facebook page, I said you were coming before the
committee, got over 100 different questions, but I am going to
try to cover some of the topics they covered.
I was very heartened to hear you say that the budget is
about students, not special interests, about the faces of the
students. A lot of the questions came in around gun violence.
They are concerned not just about the faces, but the hearts and
the minds and the lives of the students, if you go to school in
the morning, you are able to go home alive at the end of the
day, and that hasn't been happening.
You once, in an interview, said, I would imagine that there
is probably a gun in the schools to protect from potential
grizzlies. Is it still your opinion that we need guns in
schools to protect from grizzlies?
Secretary DeVos. Thanks, Congressman, for that question.
And if I had to do over today, I probably would have used a
different example. The point was that if there are going to be
guns in schools, they need to be in the hands of the right
people, and those who are going to protect students and ensure
their safety. And that is the point.
Mr. Pocan. I appreciate that, because I agree, there is not
a grizzly bear problem in this country. There is a gun violence
problem in the country. And a few weeks ago, the President
seemed to be on board with some sensible alternatives, and then
he met with the NRA and the sensible alternatives went out the
door.
Are you a member of the NRA, by any chance?
Secretary DeVos. I am not.
Mr. Pocan. You are not, okay. I was wondering specifically
do you know how many school shootings and incidences involving
guns have taken place in schools since you were confirmed last
year?
Secretary DeVos. Too many.
Mr. Pocan. Too many, yeah. So it is over 85. In fact, that
number this morning increased. At least two people were injured
in Maryland.
Secretary DeVos. I understand that.
Mr. Pocan. You know, 17 lives recently in Parkland. In your
comments, you made a comment about trying to prevent young
people from getting guns. Does that mean you support banning
the purchase of guns for people under 21?
Secretary DeVos. The President has indicated support for
that. I think it is an important issue for this body to deal
with. I would like to think that this body and Congress could
go ahead and get progress on some of the things that are
broadly supported, and I encourage and the President has
certainly encouraged that.
Mr. Pocan. So you support that?
Secretary DeVos. The President has said that that should be
a part of the consideration. That is actually part of the study
that the school safety commission will be looking at and making
a recommendation on.
Mr. Pocan. So you support that?
Secretary DeVos. The President has indicated support.
Mr. Pocan. I got you. I got you. Okay.
Secretary DeVos. I have not reached a conclusion myself.
MEETING WITH SURVIVORS OF GUN VIOLENCE
Mr. Pocan. Someday maybe we will find out where you are on
it, but the President supports it. I got that. Okay.
This Friday, the Parkland students are going to be up here.
Would you be willing to sit down? I know you had a meeting with
the President, but you didn't get a lot of one-on-one time.
These students really would like to be heard. I am staying an
extra day just to meet with them. Would you be willing to meet
with the Parkland students? We would be glad to facilitate a
meeting.
Secretary DeVos. I look forward to meeting with Parkland
students. I have actually talked with a few of them about
meeting them in Parkland at a time that is workable for both of
us.
Mr. Pocan. Are you available this Friday to meet with them
when they are in town?
Secretary DeVos. I don't know. I can't say right now what
my schedule is.
Mr. Pocan. If we could just follow up with that, we would
certainly appreciate it.
Let's see. The President maybe is saying not to raise the
age. Okay. Well, anyway, that is all right. We will find that
out.
SCHOOL CHOICE
On vouchers, I want to associate myself with the remarks
from our ranking member of the committee on the GAO report,
because I do think there are concerns there. I know at another
interview you made a comment just recently that you haven't
visited poor-performing schools. I think that is another one
you would like to reel back.
Secretary DeVos. As Secretary, I have made a point of
visiting schools that are doing things creatively,
innovatively, out-of-the-box thinking. I think it would be
important to visit some poor-performing schools.
Mr. Pocan. Great.
Secretary DeVos. I think the question is, will they let me
in?
Mr. Pocan. So that is the exact place I am going, but you
and I are on the same wavelength. So you are willing to meet
with some schools that are poor-performing schools?
Secretary DeVos. Absolutely.
Mr. Pocan. Okay. So there are, according to a recent
article in the Milwaukee Journal, at least 26 Choice schools,
which I know you are a big advocate for. They are performing
way below the standards and level they are supposed to.
So I would love to meet you in Wisconsin. And, you know,
one of them that ranks the lowest recently said, we don't let
people from the media in our building, and they are the lowest
of 121 schools in the Milwaukee area. I would love to go to one
of those with you, because I have seen the problems in my
State--as you know, we were one of the early adopters of the
choice program--just to see exactly what that problem is.
We have 140 private schools, voucher schools statewide that
couldn't be rated because they won't provide the information.
Do you think that is right that the State of Wisconsin, as much
as you want to give the State rights, can't even get the
information from schools that are ultimately getting some sort
of Federal dollars, because they are a choice program?
Secretary DeVos. Congressman, Wisconsin has legislated
their program and their accountabilities to the----
Mr. Pocan. But do you think it is right is the question?
Secretary DeVos. I think parents and I think----
Mr. Pocan. Do you think it is right?
Secretary DeVos. I think parents and taxpayers need to have
more information, not less. And the goal of this administration
and this Department is to ensure that all children have an
equal opportunity to access a great education.
Mr. Pocan. So I am going to take it that you think they
should have to report. Is that fair?
Secretary DeVos. I am going to--I have been focused on
ensuring that children and students and parents have
opportunities to make the right education decision for them,
and I support those parents in Wisconsin who have made choices
for their children. I am not going to comment on the Wisconsin
method of reporting and accountability.
Mr. Pocan. So you don't think those schools should have to
provide information?
Mr. Cole. The time has----
Secretary DeVos. I think all parents need to have
information, and I think all taxpayers need to have
information.
Mr. Pocan. Maybe if we get a second round, I can get more.
Thank you.
Mr. Cole. I would advise every member of the committee, you
have a much better chance of getting a second round if you stay
within your time in the first round.
So, with that, let me facilitate a conversation between two
old friends. Your next person to be recognized for questions is
your good friend and this committee's very distinguished
member, Mr. Moolenaar of Michigan.
CHARTER SCHOOLS
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary DeVos, and I just want to appreciate
your focus on students, student achievement, trusting parents
to make the right decisions for their children. You know, as
someone from Michigan, I have seen the work you have done over
the years that has benefited our students in Michigan, and you
should be commended for that.
And, you know, there is a lot of confusion over the issue
of charter schools. As you pointed out in your testimony,
charter schools are public schools. And I want to clarify
something in Michigan. There are over 300 charter schools in
the State of Michigan, serving over 145,000 students. Half of
those students are minority and low-income students, and those
are students whose parents have chosen those options for their
children, and they have had the freedom to do that. So, again,
I want to thank you for that.
I want to go to a few different issues. One is, I want to
talk with you a little bit more about your Opportunity
Scholarships and Grants, because when I think of the Lyndon
Johnson quote, and I had never heard that, ``passport out of
poverty,'' I think two things: one is education; the other is a
job.
And I think that the focus you have in the Department right
now on improving options for education and opportunities, as
well as this job preparedness are hitting that mark. But before
we get to that, I wanted to also just kind of question you on a
few things that came up. One is, when it comes to ranking
lowest in some of these school districts, you know, some
charter school districts in our State are focused on, you know,
adjudicated youth, at-risk youth. And so I don't think it is
compared, you know, apples and oranges seem to be. So I wonder
if you kind of run across some of that?
SCHOOL SAFETY
And I appreciate that you are looking at best practices to
see what can be replicated around the country. I think that is
very important. You know, the fact that you aren't giving your
opinion on all the gun issues that are politicizing our country
right now, what strikes me as you are the head of a commission
on school safety, and the goal of that commission is to look at
ways to keep students safe. And I understand that if you had
all your conclusions before you had the commission, it wouldn't
make much sense to have a commission. So thank you for your
leadership on that.
SPECIAL EDUCATION
And then finally, on the IDEA question that was raised, if
I understand what you were saying is that Congress, you know,
has passed a law. The executive branch, you know, is
administering that law. States have the ultimate responsibility
to administer the law and communicate to individual parents.
And it is in their best interest, if you are an intermediate
school district, to communicate with the parents who may be
leaving your district, here are the things you are losing. So
if there needs to be further follow-up legislation, would you
be willing to work with the committee or myself to address
that?
And so I know I have thrown a lot at you, but I just wanted
to get some of those issues on the table, because I think you
have really responded well to a lot of different questions on
all sorts of topics, but I thought some of those needed to be
clarified.
Secretary DeVos. Thank you so much, Congressman. And thank
you for your previous leadership as a charter school
administrator who knows the value of having that kind of an
option for students.
Let me start with your last question around IDEA. And,
indeed, if there are ways to clarify in the law requirements of
States in terms of what they communicate and how, I would
certainly encourage Congress to consider that and address that.
OPPORTUNITY GRANTS
With regard to the Opportunity Grant proposal that is part
of the budget, it is proposed to be a $1 billion fund, that
roughly half of which would be tied to the student-weighted
funding pilot program that has been authorized through the
Every Student Succeeds Act, and would encourage districts to
direct their funding in the student-weighted funding approach.
It would facilitate allowing students to choose from within
public schools in a district.
So for those communities that are hesitant to take that
step today because of costs involved with making a funding
mechanism switch, it would help facilitate that and would open
up public school choice more broadly to students in that
district. There are, I believe, 50 opportunities, and only a
handful have indicated a desire to move that direction to date.
We think this would help incentivize and encourage some of them
to do that further.
The other half roughly would be to come alongside of
States' private school choice programs that are already in
existence and enhance what they already have, voluntarily on
the part of States, nothing required or mandated. And so that
is the idea. The details surrounding that would need to be
worked out with Congress.
Mr. Moolenaar. Mr. Chairman, if I could just make a
statement and not a question.
Mr. Cole. Very quickly.
CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION
Mr. Moolenaar. I think you are also on the right track with
career and technical education. I have two words: The Mecosta
Osceola Career Center, enrollment is up by over 10 percent,
students who want to get these skills in careers. We also have
a community college that is working on, in our district, a way
that--a short-term certificate that gets people into jobs where
they can earn and work and learn. And I appreciate your work on
that. So thank you.
Mr. Cole. With that, we will go to my good friend from
Massachusetts, Ms. Clark.
SCHOOL SAFETY
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here today. I want to
talk back about Parkland. I know you went there to visit,
weren't able to take many questions from students, so some of
them have submitted them to me today. And as we hear news
reports of another school shooting in Maryland yet today, your
work on this commission, I think you described it in a recent
interview, as urgent. It couldn't be more urgent as we send our
kids to school and hope that they will come home safely.
So in that line, and this is in line with many of the
questions from students: When is the first meeting of your
commission?
Secretary DeVos. The first meeting is going to take place
very soon.
Ms. Clark. What does that mean?
Secretary DeVos. Within the next few weeks. And we are----
SCHOOL SAFETY COMMISSION
Ms. Clark. Who is going to be on the commission?
Secretary DeVos. The commission is going to be comprised of
four Cabinet Secretaries: Myself, HHS, Justice and Homeland
Security.
Ms. Clark. Is that it, just four Cabinet Secretaries? No
experts? No Democrats?
Secretary DeVos. That is the composition of the commission
itself. We will be inviting and having forums and meetings with
a wide variety of experts not only here, but across the
country.
Ms. Clark. Will you have any students? Apparently not as
commission members, but you will be inviting students?
Secretary DeVos. Not as members of the commission. As I
said, this is an urgent matter, and we want to ensure that we
are able to move and operate as quickly as possible without
getting bogged down in a lot of bureaucracy.
Ms. Clark. So you think the first meeting will happen by
mid-April. When do you plan to conclude this?
Secretary DeVos. The timeline is still being worked out,
but rest assured, we have a very keen sense of urgency around
the work of this commission and the necessity of really----
Ms. Clark. How are you defining urgency? I mean, you must
have some timeline in your head for this.
Secretary DeVos. I do, but----
Ms. Clark. What is that? What do you think, as the leader?
Secretary DeVos. I do, but we are still working out the
details with the administration.
Ms. Clark. Okay. So your urgency, but you haven't begun.
There will be five members of this in total?
Secretary DeVos. Four.
Ms. Clark. Just four. So four includes you?
Secretary DeVos. That is correct.
RACIAL DISPARITIES IN SCHOOL DISCIPLINE
Ms. Clark. Okay. And you have said that you were going to
look at everything. One of the questions from my students
follows back on Barbara Lee's question that she had for you. Do
you recognize that there are disparate rates of discipline for
black children in our schools, that it is 3.8 times----
Secretary DeVos. I have heard of that data.
Ms. Clark. You have seen that data. So how are you feeling
about arming guards and teachers and increased militarization
of our schools potentially, how will that affect students of
color?
Secretary DeVos. I am concerned about all students,
students of color and all students. We want to ensure that
students have the opportunity to learn in safe environments.
That is----
Ms. Clark. Is that going to be a top agenda of your
commission?
Secretary DeVos. That is going to be the focus of this
commission. That is the charge of this commission, to look at
ways to advance the safety and well-being of all the physical
environments that students attend. We want to ensure that
parents don't have the situation that they did in Parkland and
today in Maryland.
We have a culture of violence in this country that we have
got to help identify solutions for and root causes to, and we
need to come up with ways----
Ms. Clark. We are sort of moving beyond platitudes at this
point, though. We have students' lives on the line. Have you
rethought your elimination of the Student Support and Academic
Enrichment grants that specifically go to violence in our
schools and help students deal with that?
Secretary DeVos. As you know, this budget was presented
several months ago.
Ms. Clark. Is that a no, you have not rethought that?
Secretary DeVos. As you know, the budget was presented
several months ago. Our current scenario suggests that we
should revisit this again, and I would welcome Congress' doing
so and supporting this initiative around ensuring schools have
the resources that they need to help keep----
Ms. Clark. So you will take a leadership role in undoing
the elimination of those critical mental health programs for
students?
Secretary DeVos. I support Congress' readdressing this and
looking at this budget item----
Ms. Clark. What about after school programs, are you----
Secretary DeVos [continuing]. And support the flexibility
that schools and districts have under ESSA to focus resources
where they believe it is most needed to ensure student safety.
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS
Ms. Clark. And what about after-school programs? You also
eliminated the 21st Century Community Centers. That is 80,000
kids in Florida alone. Are you----
Secretary DeVos. This budget has had to make priorities
around the bottom line.
Ms. Clark. Have you rethought that, in light of school
violence?
Secretary DeVos. I encourage Congress to take a look at
areas that they think need to be done differently, based on
where we are today. But the after-school programs have been
identified as being very--there is no data to show that they
are effective in what the stated goal has been. In some
communities, they may be----
Ms. Clark. What do you mean, there is no data? There is
study after study after study.
Mr. Cole. The gentlelady's time has expired. Again, I am
trying to make sure everybody gets a second round.
Ms. Clark. I appreciate that. We will be glad to supply you
with the studies on the efficacy of after-school programming.
Mr. Cole. With that, we will now move to my good friend,
Mr. Harris of Maryland.
GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is a pleasure to see you again, Madam Secretary. Thanks
for the flexibility in your visit time last week with me. I
have got to tell you, you have got your work cut out for you,
because the Federal intrusion into education just hasn't
worked. You know what the PSSA scores are. It is pathetic. I am
tired of going in other countries and having them brag about
actually having better scores than the United States. And you
know the list. In math, you know, we come under the Slovak
Republic, lower than Hungary, lower than Lithuania, lower than
Latvia.
FEDERAL ROLE IN EDUCATION
My gosh, I mean, the Federal intrusion into education just
hasn't worked, and it is time to drain the education swamp.
That is the fact.
And, you know, I am not surprised you get questioned here
today, you know, about doing more with less. Now, I thought
that is the way America kind of worked, that you actually got
rewarded if you increased efficiency. And with the $21 trillion
debt deficit, that we actually can do more with less and I am
not shocked that that is possible, that we actually have an
efficiency problem in the Federal Government. And I applaud
you. If the OCR is doing a more efficient job, it can actually
do more civil rights enforcement with less money, have at it.
Great idea.
You know, bucking the education establishment is not easy.
You know what it is about, because the education establishment
is into basically warehousing our low-income students. That is
it. It is warehousing. And if you resist that warehousing, you
are called--sometimes I have been called a racist for resisting
it.
OPPORTUNITY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM
But the fact of the matter is that the Opportunity
Scholarship Program, which we discussed here in Washington, is
a success, and that is an embarrassing fact. But you know in
the year 2015 to 2016, the graduation rate for students
receiving those Opportunity Scholarships was 98 percent in a
city where the average graduation rate for all D.C. public
schools is 69 percent. And you and I both know that graduation
rate is usually inflated by cooking the books, because that is
what they did in Maryland, and I am sure that is what they do
in D.C.
But my first question is, is the President's budget
proposed to fully fund the Opportunity Scholarship Program?
Secretary DeVos. Yes, indeed, Congressman.
RACE AND SCHOOL DISCIPLINE
Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.
Let's go on to the next thing. The racial disparity, the
disparate racial impact dear colleague letter. You know, I have
got complaints from my constituents, because the fact of the
matter is now what you have is you have schools that, because
you know the way the heavy hand of the Federal Government
works, it sends out a dear colleague letter and then threatens
to withhold funding if they should, in fact, do a study in your
district and somehow, by the magic of Federal Government
mathematics, find that you somehow disparately discipline
people.
So the average person in some of the school districts in my
district have just stopped disciplining people. They are just
afraid to do it, because they don't want the Federal Government
coming in and, through some statistical magic, showing that
they have a disparate impact. So I have constituents writing me
that their children are in fear in their schools, because they
have just not--they just don't do a job disciplining anymore,
because they are afraid of it.
And I hope that--look, racism is wrong; discrimination is
wrong. If you punish someone, or you determine the extent of
the punishment solely based on their race, that is just plain
wrong. But you have to have some punishment and discipline in
schools, and it goes too far when the long hand of the Federal
Government reaches into that level.
OPIOID CRISIS
We just have a few minutes remaining. I do want to talk
about an issue that I think that your Department can help in,
and that is with the opioid crisis, because I think that this
strikes all age levels, but a lot of these problems start at
the school-age level. We have an increasing number of students
in our, not only our middle schools, but our high schools
certainly who have this problem. And I want you to discuss,
because I have read about a school in Indiana, I think it is
called the Hope Academy, a charter school. And, again, you
know, I know it is using the C word, and the education
establishment doesn't like the word ``charter schools,'' but
for some people, this can save lives.
So I want to, if you can just educate me a little bit more
about this, you know, what these opportunities are to help with
those students who, you know, have this problem with addiction
and they and their families want to get through it and they
look to the school system to perhaps give them a helping hand.
Secretary DeVos. Well, thank you, Congressman. And, as you
note, this is a really critical issue. Obviously, there is a
proposal in the budget to raise up and elevate to a national
level programs that are working from a prevention perspective.
And I think that is where we really have to invest a lot of
time and resources to the side of preventing kids from ever
getting addicted to, and on, these really corrosive drugs. The
Hope Academy that you referred to was a great visit to a
charter school outside of Indianapolis. It is a school that is
focused solely on recovering addicts that want to continue
their education simultaneously while they are in recovery. And
the students are able to progress at their own speed through a
mastery competency-based program, but they have the support
services to ensure that they are staying on track to stay off
the drugs and/or alcohol, depending on their addictions.
I met a family that had moved to Indiana from Georgia
specifically for this school. The young woman had been through
three recovery programs in Georgia, every time had gone back to
the same school, the same friends, the same environment, and
had fallen right back into addiction.
She was there at the Hope Academy in Indianapolis, and was
doing extremely well, had been clean for nearly, I believe, 9
or 10 months. And this type of school and this type of
opportunity we need to offer more of, and there needs to be
more of these kinds of programs that students who are addicted
can avail themselves of. But I go back to the, you know,
primacy of prevention being the focus.
Mr. Harris. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
Mr. Harris. I tried.
Mr. Cole. Nobody's trying that hard here today on both
sides, to be fair.
If we could, I want to go next to my good friend from
California, Ms. Roybal-Allard.
ESSA TITLE IV BLOCK GRANTS
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Welcome, Madam Secretary. Secretary
DeVos, you emphasize the importance of letting States decide
for themselves what programs work best for them. The flexible
block grant under Title IV-A of ESSA is one of the few programs
authorized in law that allows districts to decide for
themselves how to invest in areas that support STEM, computer
science, violence prevention, and mental health services. These
are areas that you and the administration claim to prioritize.
Yet you are eliminating this flexible block grant program, and
the reasons given are that it is ineffective due to low
allocations to local school districts, and that it is
duplicative with other Federal programs.
My question is, why are you eliminating this program, which
gives States the flexibility you support instead of providing
it with the resources it needs to make the program successful?
Secretary DeVos. Congresswoman, again, this budget was
developed several months ago. We had to make decisions within a
bottom line, and this particular program was thinly spread.
When it was originally authorized by Congress, it was
authorized at--it had a $1.6 billion authorization, but it was
never funded beyond $400,000,000. So we are at a different
place, and I would encourage Congress to revisit this program,
if you all believe it is a good program that provides the kind
of flexibility to meet the needs of schools and districts with
regard to school safety, in particular.
EFFECTIVE TEACHERS
Ms. Roybal-Allard. Okay, great. I look forward to working
with you on that, Mr. Chairman.
In communities across our country, whether they are urban,
rural, or Native American, there is a severe teacher shortage.
And research tells us that effective school leadership helps
foster the development and retention of effective teachers. It
also tells us that effective teachers have an outsized impact
on student outcomes.
The State grants under Title II of ESSA provide the
resources States need to develop and train effective teachers.
For example, in California, the State uses it to effectively
teach children with disabilities. Other States also use the
grant money to support administrators in their role as leaders,
and to provide opportunities for the growth and development of
aspiring young administrators. Yet your budget request proposes
eliminating this grant program on the grounds that it is
duplicative.
Can you specify which programs offer the same kind of
support for teacher and school leadership development,
recruitment, and retention?
Secretary DeVos. Thank you, Congresswoman, for your
question there. We have, again, focused our budget requests
around areas that do provide the most flexibility, and continue
to want to support teachers, in both their roles as teachers as
well as their continued development; and we have done so
through the protection of Title I funds and through the
protection of IDEA funds. We have also, through ESSA, provided
a lot more flexibility in the classroom and have moved away
from high-stakes testing, all of which teachers have really
spoken out for and in favor of and are grateful for. We
continue to want to support teachers in their roles, and know
that you can't replace a good teacher in a classroom. We need
more of them.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I just want to point out that Title I is
a critical program that is designed to help schools in low-
income communities provide students with access to tutoring,
educational technology, and other school activities that enrich
students' learning experience. And proposing schools use these
funds for teacher development instead of providing the
resources that enhance student learning, I think is
preposterous, quite frankly. So, again, I am hoping that we
will be able to take another look at this and maybe reinstate
this program as well.
ACCESS TO SCHOOL CHOICE
And I see that my time is almost up, so I just want to make
one point rather than ask a question. In your opening
statement, you used the example of Carolina, who was successful
because she was able to move on to, I guess, a charter school.
The point is that she was able to do this because she got a
local scholarship. Without that, she would not have been able
to go to the other school. And there are a limited amount of
scholarships throughout this country. So unless we invest in
public education, there is going to be a lot of Carolinas who
are going to be left behind, because right now she is the
exception and not the rule.
Secretary DeVos. Congresswoman, she actually would have had
access to something like that if Michigan had continued to
advance in offering more choices to parents. Unfortunately, it
has not. And so, Carolina is an example of what we need to
change, that we need to offer parents more of those
opportunities and options, Michigan foremost among them.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. And parents would need the resources in
order to do that, and many do not have that money. They have
two and three jobs. They are barely making ends meet.
Secretary DeVos. Many States offer programs. Many States
offer programs that afford parents like Carolina's mom the
opportunity to do so. Other States have programs.
Ms. Roybal-Allard. I would like you to come and visit my
district and some of my schools and talk to the parents there.
Mr. Cole. Good. Now, Mr. Fleischmann, you have been
extraordinarily patient, so I recognize my good friend, the
gentleman from Tennessee.
COMPUTER SCIENCE LITERACY
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Madam Secretary, it is a privilege and pleasure to
have you before us today. I sincerely appreciate the visit that
we had last week in my office. We discussed a lot of great
topics, but thank you for hearing me out and about my
commitment to computer science literacy in America,
particularly in the underserved areas, rural, inner city. There
is just a great need and thank you.
There is a great coalition out there, tremendous bipartisan
support. As a matter of fact, with the chairman's great help,
we got language in this bill supporting computer science
literacy, and I sure hope that strong bipartisan commitment
continues. So I appreciate that so much.
Madam Secretary, I know you are aware America needs 1
million more STEM professionals by 2022 to hold jobs ranging
from computing to the national security and defense fields.
Additionally, it is estimated that we are only graduating about
10 percent of the computer science professionals that our
country needs to compete globally. And by leaving these jobs
unfilled, we are vulnerable to cyber attack and other threats
to our national security.
Additionally, I regularly meet with employers from my
district, and there are an increasing number of job openings
with state-of-the-art technology. These jobs require
specialized technical training, and I am hearing from employers
that there are not enough of our workforce that has the skills
necessary to be considered for these technical jobs.
Thus, I was pleased in September when President Trump
signed a memo on creating pathways to jobs by increasing access
to STEM and computer science education. Central to this
memorandum was directing you to make STEM and computer science
one of your top priorities, including the goal of devoting at
least $200 million per year of grant funding toward this
effort.
Madam Secretary, can you please update the committee on the
progress of this goal and whether you believe this goal will be
met in fiscal year 2018 and how?
Secretary DeVos. Thank you, Congressman, for that question
and for your commitment to STEM, and particularly to computer
science education. As you have noted, this is not only an
economic issue, it is also a matter for national security.
And I am pleased to say that this budget has proposed a
$200 million investment in STEM-related programs and subjects,
and we seek to use $180 million of that for competitive grants
to support evidence-based innovations in K-12 education. And I
would argue that the focus really needs to be primarily, or, to
a large extent, on computer science, on attracting kids from a
very, very young age to begin learning coding and taking up
computer science at a very young age. There is a very strong
commitment on the part of this administration to not only
recognizing the need, but also filling and responding to that
need.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. Thank you for that response.
The Presidential memorandum also called on you to explore
appropriate administrative actions to increase the focus,
specifically on computer science and existing K-12 and
postsecondary programs, such as through guidance documents and
other technical assistance that could support high-quality
computer science education.
Can you please update the committee on what you have done
to date in carrying out these actions and what you have planned
in the coming year?
Secretary DeVos. Yes. Commensurate with the budget
proposal, we are putting together proposals to actually address
this through appropriate guidance and appropriate FAQs and
other information to help support State and local initiatives
in this area.
CONGRESSIONAL ROLE IN ADVANCING COMPUTER SCIENCE
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you. I have one last question. How
do you believe Congress could help in your efforts to increase
STEM and especially computer science education? What can we do
to help?
Secretary DeVos. Well, I think continuing to talk about the
need and the opportunities. It is clear that there are tens of
thousands of opportunities for students in high-paying jobs in
computer science. And, you know, maybe Members of Congress need
to demonstrate their interest and commitment to this in
creative and unique ways to draw attention to it.
I am just thinking that perhaps a coding class for some
Members of Congress that are really interested in it might be
an interesting way to help draw attention to it, just off the
top of my head on that one.
Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I am actually
all in. I had second-graders in one of our inner city schools
in Chattanooga last year teach me how to code. It was
tremendous. So thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Cole. I appreciate that. If you are going to drag the
chairman into coding, Madam Secretary, we are going to have a
problem.
Secretary DeVos. Only those who are interested, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Okay. Well, I am interested, just not capable.
In the interest of time, the ranking member and I are going
to reduce our time to 4 minutes. If we can stay there, I will.
But if not, just for Ms. Clark, I want to make--then we will go
to 3. If Mr. Fleischmann is leaving, we still have Mr. Harris.
But anyway, I want to recognize my good friend, the ranking
member, for 4 minutes.
SCHOOL VIOLENCE
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a couple quick recaps here. Madam Secretary, you said
you believed that counselors were an important part of our
school strategy in terms of our children and violence, and yet,
you had a budget that proposed zeroing out money for school
counselors. The President has said he was for increasing the
age; now he is opposed to increasing the age for the purchase
of assault weapons. You can't talk out of both sides of your
mouth.
And I would like to introduce this into the record, Mr.
Chairman. If you are going to talk about a culture of violence,
I certainly do hope that guns on the streets are an interest.
This is: ``Shoot real machine guns, Machine Gun America, an
adrenaline rush for the entire family,'' except for the
youngster who is at the other end of that assault weapon.
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS
My colleague, Ms. Clark, will talk about the studies, 2007,
2010, on the after-school program and their success in raising
grades. It is a successful program.
STUDENT LOAN SERVICING
Let me talk about student loan servicing preemption. My
State of Connecticut has led the country to ensure we were the
first State in the Nation where borrowers were defended. We
required that student loan servicers are licensed and follow
consumer protections. We want to drain the swamp. To my
colleague from Maryland, these companies have a track record of
predatory practices, of abuses, and State-led investigations
have resulted in hundreds of millions in settlements on behalf
of students.
Despite your statements all morning about supporting
States' rights, supporting States' rights, what your office has
done, you issued a declaration to preempt State regulations on
companies that collect student loans. And you have the NGA
bipartisan statement saying no to what you want to do.
Bipartisan list of attorneys general, Montana, Texas,
Tennessee, Kansas, Indiana, say no to State preemption, because
they are watching what is happening in their States.
Why aren't you listening to what they want to do? Do you
believe that States have the right to guarantee consumer
protections for their citizens?
Secretary DeVos. Congresswoman, we have----
Ms. DeLauro. Do you believe that States have a right to
guarantee consumer protection for their citizens?
Secretary DeVos. Federal Student Loans is a Federal program
that has appropriate Federal oversight, and that is our
argument----
Ms. DeLauro. You are preempting States' rights here.
Secretary DeVos. What we are doing is ensuring that
students continue to be protected through the Federal program
that Congress created, and we are continuing to ensure that
students and taxpayers are----
Ms. DeLauro. Why does no one believe what you are doing?
The people who are legally in charge of their States, people--
Governors who are in charge of their States that say no,
because they are tracking down these folks and this industry,
which is hurting the borrowers. Let me just ask you, who made
that decision? Did you make this decision to preempt States'
rights? Did you make it?
Secretary DeVos. I have supported the fact----
Ms. DeLauro. Who made the decision? What was the process?
Secretary DeVos. Federal Student Aid is a Federal program
with Federal oversight, and we believe----
Ms. DeLauro. You have issued a declaration to preempt State
regulations on companies that collect student loans. This is
your Department. Did you do it?
Secretary DeVos. To not layer another layer of
bureaucracy----
Ms. DeLauro. So you made the decision. Who was a part of
that decision? Borrowers, were they a part of the decision?
Secretary DeVos. We have decided to exert all preemption--
--
Ms. DeLauro. Who is ``we''? Who is ``we''?
Secretary DeVos. The Department of Education,
acknowledging----
Ms. DeLauro. So you are the Department of Education. Who do
you believe this serves? Does it serve the borrowers or the
servicers? Preempting----
Secretary DeVos. We are supporting students and are
committed to protecting students through the oversight that is
relevant in the Federal program.
Ms. DeLauro. Madam Secretary, the bulk of the people who
have a stake in this interest have said, No, don't do it, and
they are not going to live by--what I believe you have said is
you made the decision, as the Secretary of Education.
I yield back.
TRIO AND GEAR UP
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
Madam Secretary, as you probably know, I have long
supported the role of programs meant to support first-
generation college students. I believe that far too many
students enter college, frankly, unprepared for the coursework,
relationships with the faculty, or are simply at a disadvantage
in navigating the day-to-day environment, because they are the
first person in their entire family to have the opportunity to
attend college.
It is important to ensure that these students can succeed
in completing coursework, as I believe every new generation
that completes college only helps grow the future workforce and
support the economy. So I strongly support the TRIO and GEAR UP
programs for these reasons. And first, I would like to commend
the Department for taking the step to increase TRIO
commensurate with the fiscal year 2017, once the budget deal
was actually reached and making the extra funding available. I
commend you for that.
And, frankly, I hope if we have similar success this year
in the 2018 budget, that that is a step that you will strongly
consider doing again. Again, I recognize we have put you in a
very difficult spot by not getting our work done in a timely
fashion.
However, the request that we have, at least, still cuts all
funding for GEAR UP, so, again, I want you to address that. And
it may well be, again, I understand you had budget constraints
at the time you put this together.
But I am also particularly interested in understanding the
proposal to cut parts of the TRIO program and redesign the rest
of the program, proposing moving from a competition to a State
formula grant. Of course, we supported easing the
administrative burden, but I have got some concerns.
So could you tell me a little bit more about why the
Department thinks this is the best course of action and can you
ensure the same level of accountability you have now through a
competitive grant, and how would this new grant format, if you
will, work?
Secretary DeVos. Sure. Thanks, Congressman, for that
question, and for your commitment to TRIO. It is a program that
I think has broad support, and we certainly support the notion
that first-generation college students should be supported in a
multitude of ways.
The proposal in this budget is to combine a number of
smaller grant programs with the TRIO program, and with that sum
of money, block grant it back to the States, based on the fact
that 90 percent of the TRIO grantees in past years have
continued to receive grants in subsequent competitions.
We believe that the States are closer to the students and
the institutions that are served, and would be best suited for
being able to make the decisions for where these TRIO funds are
going to make the most difference for students.
And the savings and the efficiencies created in that will
ultimately help more of those funds get directly to the
students involved. And so this is, you know, the essence of the
proposal. The details, of course, around boundaries or
guidelines with that have to be worked out with Congress.
Mr. Cole. Well, I would love to discuss that with you,
because I think there is considerable merit in that, but I want
to be very careful. This is a program that has literally
produced over 5 million college graduates for the United States
from people that, frankly, absent these programs may well never
have had the opportunity to go. So I want to commend you for
thinking about how to use those dollars more effectively, and
we will keep working here to try and make sure the investments
are there.
With that, I am going to yield back some of my time, in the
interest of my good friend at the very end of the podium to
actually get to her. And let me go next to my good friend from
California, Ms. Lee.
RACIAL DISPARITIES IN SCHOOL DISCIPLINE
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
Let me first respond to Dr. Harris and clarify one thing on
school discipline. The issue is the differing punishment by
race for the same type of infraction, the disparity there as it
relates to suspensions and expulsions. For the same infraction,
black and brown students are disciplined and expelled at a much
higher rate. That is what you call racial bias and racism.
Madam Secretary, let me ask you, because I am not so sure
you really are clear about racial bias and what this all means.
First of all, you are officially seeking to delay by 2 years an
Obama rule aimed at combating disproportionate numbers of
minority students in special ed classes. That is according to
the Federal Register notice published on Tuesday.
Secondly, you said you wanted all students, including
students of color, to learn in safe environments. We all want
that. Yet students of color are subjected to harsher
punishments and disciplines. Should the President's view
prevail in arming teachers, do you see why black and brown
students are really worried and anxious about this? It is very
clear to me.
And also, let me just ask you, as it relates to your
comments as it relates to considering the elimination of the
discipline guidance--actually, this is a report--in the wake of
the tragic shootings in Florida. The White House released this
report, school safety proposals, which imply, really, that
black and brown students are responsible for mass shootings in
schools, which is just not the case.
This directive was really to ensure that students of color
are not subject to the harsher disciplines and practices. And
now you are talking about possibly eliminating this, based on
the tragedy of gun violence in Florida. So can you comment on
that, please, and if that is really what you are thinking about
doing.
Secretary DeVos. Thank you, Congresswoman. That particular
piece of guidance has been under review, per the Executive
Order to review all regulation within the Department. And this
is a matter we take very seriously.
Clearly, the stated goal of the guidance is one that we all
embrace, to ensure that no child is discriminated against. And
we are committed to reviewing and considering this guidance,
and taking appropriate steps if any are warranted, but I have
nothing further to say at this point with regard to where that
is.
DISPROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION OF MINORITIES IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
Ms. Lee. Well, how about let's go to the delay of the
regulation requiring a strategy to combat disproportionate
numbers of minority students in special ed classes. Why the 2-
year delay on that?
Secretary DeVos. The delay is to ensure that we have a
regulation that really does meet the needs of students that are
disabled in any way.
Ms. Lee. By 2 years, though? Why would you do that?
Secretary DeVos. We are committed to upholding the
provisions of IDEA, and I want to be very clear that we are
addressing this issue appropriately. There have been varying
opinions and very different approaches to this within the
community that are most concerned about this. We want to ensure
that we end up with a regulation that does address these issues
appropriately.
Ms. Lee. Another example of the fact that I think more and
more every day that your head is in the sand about racial bias
and racial discrimination. I wrote you a letter June 2017,
concerned about school segregation and what this means in terms
of addressing the adverse effects of segregation on minority
students, to ensure that every student has an opportunity for
an equal education. You never answered that letter nor that
question. I would like for you to please respond to that.
Secretary DeVos. I am sorry if we have not yet responded to
it. We are still waiting to actually have Senate-confirmed
nominees become a part of the Department, and would urge that
this body encourage your fellow Members of Congress----
Ms. Lee. Madam Secretary, you just don't care much about
civil rights of black and brown children. This is horrible.
Mr. Cole. The gentlelady's time has expired. I really am
trying to make sure everybody gets a second round here.
So, with that, we will go to my good friend from Maryland,
Mr. Harris.
SCHOOL DISCIPLINE
Mr. Harris. Thank you.
And I guess that is the reason why you support Opportunity
Scholarships, because you just don't support minority students
in the District of Columbia. I guess that is right.
Again, I have been called racist. You know, I guess that is
the favorite thing to do to anyone who you disagree with. And
it is shameful, to be honest with you. Because, you know, I
have letters. I mean, I have a letter from someone in my
district who says, Look, this letter has led to decreased
discipline in their schools, and they see it because the
teachers are afraid to discipline because the Federal
Government will come in and do their analysis and somehow
threaten to withdraw Federal funds.
And, Madam Secretary, you know, look, there is a fine line
that you have got to balance here. I think this letter went way
overboard. And I don't want to hear that in my schools--and
look, you know what the problem is. The problem is that it gets
to the outcome, not the cause.
And the causes of bad behavior and disciplinary behavior in
classes, they are connected to socioeconomic problems. You
know, the fact of the matter is that the great society
destroyed the nuclear family in some of our communities. And as
the destruction of the nuclear family, you have an end result
that is not good for society.
You know, so just looking at an outcome, just looking at an
outcome is not going to solve this problem; and, in fact, it is
going to make the problem worse, because people get resentful
when they try to solve a problem and are accused of racism.
FIREARMS ON SCHOOL GROUNDS
Just to clear the record up, because I was in the military
and I know what an assault rifle is, an M4 weapon is. An M4 is
not what we are talking about banning, because a machine gun
is--assault rifles that are supposed to be banned are not
machine guns. That is a plain fact. I am sorry, they are not.
An assault rifle that we are talking about is an AR-15. An AR-
15 is not a machine gun. A machine gun is defined as a fully
automatic weapon.
And we do have to ask whether the creation of gun-free
zones has, in fact, been an invitation to violence in gun-free
areas. The fact that the debate still occurs whether a police
officer in a school should carry a firearm amazes me that we
still have that discussion, given the amount of potential
violence in our public schools and other schools. But that
discussion still exists.
Madam Secretary, I applaud you for saying this is up to the
States, and it is even more than the States. It should be up to
the local jurisdiction. You know, if I have a county--I have 12
counties in my State, and if one of them says, You know what,
we have a high school, we have three high schools in our
county, and in each one we have a veteran or retired police
officer who is fully trained with a firearm, why shouldn't they
have the ability to have that person have a firearm to protect
the students in that school just like they protected people
when they were either in the military or they were in law
enforcement? That is just common sense.
And I hope the long arm of the Federal Government doesn't
reach into the schools and say, no, you cannot arm people in
schools. It hasn't yet. I hope you don't do it. In fact, I hope
you go exactly the opposite way and encourage districts who
want to protect their students by abolishing the idea that a
gun-free zone is absolutely safe. I hope we are disabused of
that idea, given the tragedies that have occurred, because
whether it is Baltimore City, which has one of the highest gun
control--the greatest gun control laws in the country, and yet,
is not a gun-free zone, pretty clearly, with over 300 murders a
year, or whether it is a school, which proudly displays, or a
movie theatre, like it did in Denver, proudly displaying a sign
that says gun-free zone, which we know does not mean guns are
not going to be there.
So I urge you to make this a local decision, and encourage
the proper local decision, because what works in one
jurisdiction doesn't work in another.
And I yield back my time.
Mr. Cole. I thank the gentleman.
We have a hard stop at noon, so I am going to cut it to 3,
but we are going to get both of you in and then I want to give
the gentlelady, the ranking member, a chance to make a final
comment. I will make one as well.
So, with that, Mr. Pocan, you are recognized.
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Pocan. Sure. Thank you.
First of all, no one called anyone a racist. I think people
were addressing racial bias as a policy matter, and people
often who don't want to address racial bias as a policy matter
claim they are called a racist, just for the record.
So I am reading a text from the President, who said he
wasn't moving forward, he didn't have the courage to move
forward on changing the age to 21. And I know you said that was
a policy the President wanted. So I am a little confused. What
exactly, then, did you mean by preventing young people from
getting guns if, indeed, he chickened out after he met with the
NRA in his own tweet? I guess that is how we talk these days,
in tweets. He said, 18 to 21, age limits, watching court cases
and rulings before acting. States are making this decision.
Things are moving rapidly on this, but not much more political
support, to put it mildly.
What did you mean then how to keep guns out of young
people's hands? You said it was the President supported that
measure, but he clearly chickened out.
Secretary DeVos. I think we were talking about ensuring
that students in schools don't have guns. And let's go back to
the purpose of the work of this commission. It is to consider
all----
Mr. Pocan. Yeah, I have 3 minutes, so we got to keep right
to my subject area. So you don't have an answer on specifically
how to keep guns out of young people's hands?
Secretary DeVos. I think it is an important discussion for
this Chamber to have.
WEAPONS TRAINING VERSUS TEACHER TRAINING FUNDING
Mr. Pocan. Got you. Discussion, no answer. Okay.
Some people have asked, why is it that we don't have enough
money to train teachers to teach, but suddenly have enough
money to train them to be sharpshooters by eliminating Title II
moneys? How do you respond to that?
Secretary DeVos. I don't think it is----
Mr. Pocan. You don't have a response again? I just want to
make sure I got----
Secretary DeVos. That is not the consideration. We want to
ensure that teachers have the opportunity to continue to
develop, and we have continued to support them through this
budget in ways that I have already articulated.
Mr. Pocan. And again, I am trying not to be rude. With the
amount of time I have, if we could just keep to the subjects.
You said something I thought was very poignant, that ``if
they let me in'' about talking to poor-performing schools.
Don't you think any school that wouldn't let the Secretary of
Education in shouldn't get a single penny of money if Federal
dollars are involved if they wouldn't let you into their
school? Would you at least personally agree with me on that?
And that could be a yes-or-no answer.
Secretary DeVos. I hope that the schools would be
hospitable enough to open their doors. And I look forward to--
--
Mr. Pocan. So you don't think they shouldn't get a penny of
public dollars if they won't let you in? Simple question.
Secretary DeVos. I am not going to----
Mr. Pocan. A simple answer.
Okay, final one: Last year, LGBT rights, you basically
answered Ms. Clark's question saying that States should be
flexible on it. I don't think being flexible on whether or not
someone has rights or not matters. It should be you have rights
and that is it, period.
In February of this year, your Department said it wouldn't
investigate or take action on any complaints filed by
transgender students who are banned from restrooms that match
their gender identity. The question being, how does the
Department intend to investigate and act upon claims of
transgender students denied access to restrooms corresponding
to their gender identity in the Sixth and Seventh Court
Circuits? And I will stop there, because I have seconds.
Secretary DeVos. We have continued to protect the rights of
students as defined under Title IX, and have continued to do so
and to consider all of those matters brought to the Office for
Civil Rights. We will continue to do so until either the
Supreme Court or Congress clarifies the law with regard to
transgender access to bathrooms, athletic locker rooms, and
athletic teams. That is not an area where law has been
clarified. This Department is not going to make law. We are
going to continue to enforce laws that we are given to do.
Mr. Pocan. So you won't back the courts. Thank you.
Mr. Cole. The gentlelady from Massachusetts is recognized
for the final round of questions.
ANTIDISCRIMINATION PROTECTIONS IN SCHOOL CHOICE
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to also go back to the $1 billion voucher program
that you have proposed. I could not find a single State that
protects LGBT students within the States' voucher
antidiscrimination laws. So State dollars flow to private
schools. They are allowed to discriminate. I couldn't find any
case where that didn't happen.
As you were looking at Federal dollars under your program
going to private schools, will you put in protections of
nondiscrimination for all students, whether on sexual
orientation, race, religion, or gender?
Secretary DeVos. Congresswoman, as I have said before,
where Federal dollars flow, Federal law must be adhered to. And
this Department has continued to adhere to that and will
continue to in the future.
Ms. Clark. So, to be clear, under your voucher program, no
dollars will go to private schools, Federal dollars, that do
not adhere to nondiscrimination policies? Is that correct?
Secretary DeVos. Let me first clarify. The $1 billion
request is not a voucher program. It is a program to allow
traditional public schools to move to student-weighted funding
formulas so that students can make choices within a district of
other traditional public schools for a portion of it. The other
portion is to come alongside States that have private school
programs and enhance the opportunities there.
Ms. Clark. Let me make this as simple as possible. Where
Federal dollars are going to private schools through voucher or
choice programs, will you guarantee, as Secretary of Education,
that that money is included with nondiscrimination policies for
those private schools?
Secretary DeVos. As I said, Federal dollars----
Ms. Clark. Is that a yes or a no?
Secretary DeVos. Federal dollars going to any program
requires----
Ms. Clark. So what is your interpretation of Federal law?
Secretary DeVos. I think I have made this clear.
Ms. Clark. Then just say yes or no.
Secretary DeVos. Federal dollars going anywhere for
education, Federal laws are adhered to.
Ms. Clark. So you would not be able to send Federal dollars
to a private school that did not adhere to the full panoply of
civil rights laws in this country?
Secretary DeVos. Federal law must be followed.
Ms. Clark. Is that a yes or no? Just say yes or no. Yes or
no?
Secretary DeVos. Federal law must be followed when Federal
money is involved.
Ms. Clark. Is there some problem? Yes or no? Will you
guarantee--
Secretary DeVos. I think I have been clear.
Ms. Clark. Then say yes or no.
Secretary DeVos. Yes.
Ms. Clark. Okay, great. Thank you. Wow, that took a year.
Briefly--I see that I am----
Mr. Cole. Actually, yeah, I think that is it.
Ms. Clark. Okay.
Mr. Cole. I want to recognize the gentlelady, my ranking
member, for a brief closing statement.
I want to thank you for, frankly, indulging us, because we
did have a hard stop, so we will keep our remarks brief.
IMPORTANCE OF FEDERAL INVESTMENT IN EDUCATION
Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As I said
at the outset, Lyndon Johnson said that the only valid passport
out of poverty is education. He is still right. But yet the
Trump budget seeks $4,000,000,000 in cuts to investments in
public schools, and $1,000,000,000 in new funding to create
unauthorized Opportunity Grants that would expand private
school vouchers and Public School Choice.
The programs eliminated: After school, data that says they
succeed; full-service community schools, data talks about what
they do in preparing kids; comprehensive literacy development
grants; supporting effective educator developments; supporting
effective instruction State grants; comprehensive literacy
development grants; innovative approaches to literacy.
My colleague from Maryland who is no longer here--and we
have the lowest enrollment rate on early childhood education in
any country in the world. My colleague talks about
international education and where we stand. When we do not
provide either educational opportunities or the services that
go along with them, we don't compete in an international world.
And the others are doing all of these services and wraparound
services as well.
DEPARTMENT OUTREACH TO APPROPRIATORS
In closing, let me point out that it sounds like, Madam
Secretary, that you have made the time to meet with every
subcommittee member on the other side of the aisle, and I will
exclude the full committee chairman, because of his statement
that he made early on, and yet no one on the Democratic side of
the aisle had the opportunity for a question and answer with
you. And yet you are not sure that you have the time to meet
with the Parkland kids on Friday. And maybe you will have a
meeting with the commission in a few weeks, but then, maybe
not.
You know, Madam Secretary, I think we understand where your
priorities are. They are not with the young people of this
country.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, I want to thank you very much for coming
and sharing your testimony with us today. I appreciate very
much your poise and your professionalism, frankly, your candor
and your openness. I appreciate it very, very much.
And I want to thank you for sending us a thoughtful budget.
We won't agree on every part of the budget, obviously, but I
will be candid with you. I think this is a better budget, that
you have had a little more time and you can tell. And we have
complicated your work, and I want to recognize that. And the
committee acknowledges, because Congress didn't get its work on
time, you have had to operate under different sets of figures
at different points along the way.
So we want to continue our dialogue with you so that if we
have a different budget arrangement, as I am certain we will,
that, you know, we have an opportunity to work together and
direct those dollars to where they need to go, where we think
working together those dollars will make a difference.
And, again, many, many thanks for coming here and, frankly,
many, many thanks for your many years of uncompensated service
on the cause of educational reform, working for children, rich
and poor alike, to have opportunities and choices available to
them.
And thank you for taking on what is a really tough job in a
really polarized and contentious period of our political
history. I think you do the President great credit and the
country great credit. So it is good to have you here today.
With that, we are adjourned.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]