[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                     EXAMINING AMERICA'S WORKFORCE
                    CHALLENGES: LOOKING FOR WAYS TO
                       IMPROVE SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

       SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

                                 OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

              HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 11, 2023
                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-8
                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce


  
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


        Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
55-460 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024   
        

                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

               VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman

JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, 
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania             Virginia,
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                  Ranking Member
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
JIM BANKS, Indiana                     Northern Mariana Islands
JAMES COMER, Kentucky                FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
BURGESS OWENS, Utah                  MARK TAKANO, California
BOB GOOD, Virginia                   ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
LISA McCLAIN, Michigan               MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MARY MILLER, Illinois                DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
MICHELLE STEEL, California           PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
RON ESTES, Kansas                    SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana              LUCY McBATH, Georgia
KEVIN KILEY, California              JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
AARON BEAN, Florida                  ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
ERIC BURLISON, Missouri              HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York           JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana

                       Cyrus Artz, Staff Director
              Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

       SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

                     BURGESS OWENS, Utah, Chairman

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania         FREDERICA WILSON, Florida,
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin              Ranking Member
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          MARK TAKANO, California
JIM BANKS, Indiana                   PRAMILA, JAYAPAL, Washington
LLOYD SMUCKER,Pennsylvania           TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
BOB GOOD, Virginia                   KATHY E. MANNING, North Carolina
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona,
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York             Northern Mariana Islands
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina        SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
                                     ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina

                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on May 11, 2023.....................................     1

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

    Owens, Hon. Burgess, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher 
      Education and Workforce Development........................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     3
    Wilson, Hon. Frederica, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
      Higher Education and Workforce Development.................     3
        Prepared statement of....................................     5

                               WITNESSES

    Logan, Lydia, Vice President, Global Education and Workforce 
      Development, Corporate Social Responsibility, IBM..........     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     9
    Ferguson, Bruce, Jr., Chief Executive Officer, CareerSource 
      Northeast Florida..........................................    16
        Prepared statement of....................................    18
    Holzer, Harry, J., John LaFarge Jr. SJ Professor of Public 
      Policy, Georgetown University..............................    24
        Prepared statement of....................................    26
    Pallasch, John, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, One 
      Source Solutions...........................................    30
        Prepared statement of....................................    33

                         ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

    Chairman Owens:
        Letter dated May 10, 2023, from Carl Holshouser, Senior 
          Vice President, TECHNET................................    74
    Good, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Virginia:
        Fiscal information for the record from The Fiscal Burden 
          of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers 2023 
          FAIR...................................................    61

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Response to question submitted for the record by:
        Dr. Harry J. Holzer......................................    76
        Lydia Logan..............................................    77

 
                     EXAMINING AMERICA'S WORKFORCE
                      CHALLENGES: LOOKING FOR WAYS
                     TO IMPROVE SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

                              ----------                              


                         Thursday, May 11, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce 
                                       Development,
                  Committee on Education and the Workforce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in 
Room 2175, House Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Burgess 
Owens [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Owens, Thompson, Grothman, 
Stefanik, Banks, Good, Moran, James, Williams, Houchin, Foxx, 
Wilson, Takano, Manning, McBath, Courtney, Bonamici, Adams, and 
Scott.
    Also present: Walberg
    Staff present: Cyrus Artz, Staff Director; Nick Barley, 
Deputy Communications Director; Mindy Barry, General Counsel; 
Hans Bjontegard, Legislative Assistant; Cate Dillon, Director 
of Operations; Daniel Fuenzalida, Staff Assistant; Sheila 
Havenner, Director of Information Technology; Amy Raaf Jones, 
Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Andrew Kuzy, 
Press Assistant; Marek Laco, Professional Staff Member; Audra 
McGeorge, Communications Director; Eli Mitchell, Legislative 
Assistant; Rebecca Powell, Staff Assistant; Kent Talbert, 
Investigative Counsel; Ilana Brunner, Minority General Counsel; 
Scott Estrada, Minority Professional Staff; Stephanie Lalle, 
Minority Communications Director; Kevin McDermott, Minority 
Director of Labor Policy; Kota Mizutani, Minority Deputy 
Communication Director; Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff 
Director; Jessica Schieder, Minority Economic Policy Advisor; 
Dhrtvan Sherman, Minority Staff Assistant; Banyon Vassar, 
Minority IT Administrator.
    Chairman Owens. The Subcommittee on Workforce Development 
will come to order. I note there is a quorum present. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to call a recess at any 
time. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on 
the skills gap facing America's workforce.
    If the past 3 years have proven anything it is that America 
is an extremely resilient workforce. Through the pandemic we 
prevailed. Nurses found creative ways to assist the patients 
through telehealth. Truckers showed up day in and day out to 
get food delivered to American's kitchen tables.
    I am proud of our resilience. With it, Americans can 
overcome any hardship. The workforce faces another challenge 
today, the skills gap. Simply put, the skills gap is a growing 
disconnect between the employer's needs and employee 
competencies. Nearly 10 million jobs remain unfilled in the 
United States. These jobs require in-demand skills, and our 
workforce system has failed to provide these skills to American 
workers.
    Without swift action, the skills gap is in danger of 
becoming the skills canyon. There are many reasons for the 
skills gap, but only with a workforce system that is 
effectively reskilling, and up skilling individuals can we 
begin to address these issues. Innovations, and a fresh 
approach is needed for the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 
Act to achieve its potential and equip more job seekers with 
the skills needed in the modern economy.
    Employers across the country are searching for talent. 
Good-paying jobs are available for those who possess the right 
skills. Too few Americans upgrading their skills in the 
workforce system. Only about one-third of those participating 
in WIOA engaged in any type of skills development.
    Less than 100,000 individuals nationwide completed their 
programs in the most recent year. We are not going to close the 
skills gap if we stay on this trajectory. Skills development 
must be a greater priority in the system. The government acting 
alone cannot meet the historic challenges facing our workforce.
    Private sector involvement and investment are essential to 
align skills development programs with industry needs, and to 
give workers hands-on experience. Employer-led and work base 
learning must be a focal point in the law. When it comes to 
skills development, employees must be in the driver's seat.
    While skills and competencies become the new currency in 
the labor market, we cannot continue to support programs in 
WIOA that are failing to deliver skills our economy needs and 
demands. Reforms are needed to ensure all eligible programs 
lead to good outcomes. The priority of WIOA must be to connect 
job seekers with job granters.
    At this critical moment Congress cannot simply double down 
on the status quo. More taxpayer dollars will not magically fix 
the problems that are being identified in our workforce system. 
Today's hearing provides an opportunity for us to hear from 
experts on these issues and identify solutions together. This 
is an area where we have a lot of bipartisan agreement. In 
fact, back in 2014, we found a deal that worked for both sides 
of the aisle, legislators, regulators, employers, employees, 
and countless talks to responsibly outline its system to 
connect workers and employers.
    Those discussions resulted in WIOA's passage in 2014. At 
that time the American government looked very similar to what 
is happening today. A Democrat was in control of the White 
House. Democrats were in control of the Senate and Republicans 
were in control of the House. I hope a good faith discussion we 
can once again reach an agreement that reforms and strengthens 
WIOA.
    Delivering results for the job seekers, job creators and 
taxpayers. With that, I yield to the Ranking Member, Ms. 
Wilson.
    [The prepared statement of Chairman Owens follows:]

   Statement of Hon. Burgess Owens, Chairman, Subcommittee on Higher 
                  Education and Workforce Development

    If these past three years have proven anything, it is that America 
has an extremely resilient workforce. Through the COVID pandemic, we 
prevailed.
    Nurses found creative ways to assist patients through telehealth. 
Truckers showed up day in and day out to get food delivered to 
America's kitchen tables.
    I am proud of our resilience. With it, America can overcome any 
hardship. Our workforce faces another challenge: The skills gap.
    Simply put, the skills gap is the growing disconnect between 
employer needs and employee competencies. Nearly 10 million jobs remain 
unfilled in the U.S. These jobs require in-demand skills and our 
workforce system has failed to provide those skills to America's 
workers. Without swift action, the skills gap is in danger of becoming 
a skills canyon.
    There are many reasons for the skills gap, but only with a 
workforce system that effectively re-skills and upskills individuals 
can we begin to address these issues. Innovation and a fresh approach 
is needed for the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to achieve 
its potential, and equip more jobseekers with the skills needed in the 
modern economy.
    Employers across the country are searching for talent, and good-
paying jobs are available for those who possess the right skills. Too 
few Americans are upgrading their skills through the workforce system. 
Only about one-third of those participating in WIOA engage in any type 
of skills development. Less than 100,000 individuals nationwide 
completed their program in the most recent year. We are not going to 
close the skills gap if we stay on this trajectory. Skills development 
must be a greater priority in the system.
    The government acting alone cannot meet the historic challenges 
facing our workforce. Private sector involvement and investment are 
essential to align skills development programs participation with 
industry needs and give workers hands-on experience. Employer-led and 
work-based learning must be a focal point in the law. When it comes to 
skills development, employers must be in the driver's seat.
    While skills and competencies become the new currency in our labor 
market, we cannot carry on allowing programs to participate in WIOA if 
they are failing to deliver the skills our economy demands. Reforms are 
needed to ensure all eligible programs lead to good outcomes--and to 
give jobseekers the information they need to choose the best pathway to 
their own success.
    At this critical moment, Congress cannot simply double down on the 
status quo. More taxpayer dollars will not magically fix the problems 
that are being identified in our workforce system.
    Today's hearing provides an opportunity for us to hear from experts 
on these issues and identify solutions together, because this is an 
area where we have a lot of bipartisan agreement.
    In fact, back in 2014, we found a deal that worked for both sides 
of the aisle. Legislators, regulators, employers, and employees engaged 
in countless talks to responsibly outline a system to connect workers 
and employees.
    Those discussions resulted in WIOA's passage in 2014. At that time, 
the American government looked very similar to today. A Democrat was in 
control of the White House. Democrats were in control of the Senate. 
Republicans were in control of the House.
    I hope, with good-faith discussions once again, we can reach an 
agreement that reforms and strengthens WIOA--delivering results for 
jobseekers, job creators, and taxpayers.
                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Owens, and good morning. 
Thank you so much to our witnesses. Welcome today, thank you 
for your time and looking forward to your testimony. Investing 
in workforce development is a critical step we must take to 
ensure a brighter future for our economy.
    With today's hearing we are taking a step in the right 
direction to support both workers and employers alike. The need 
for this investment is more urgent than ever. Not because our 
economy is struggling, but because it is thriving. The reality 
is that the unemployment rate is still near record lows, and 
wages are increasing. This is a direct result of key 
legislation we delivered last Congress.
    These legislative victories are creating millions of good-
paying jobs, combined with President Biden's work to build the 
economy from the bottom up and middle out. We have created on 
average 470,000 jobs every month since the start of this 
administration.
    For workers to benefit from this historic job growth, they 
need the skills and credentials to succeed in new careers. For 
employers to benefit, they need access to a dedicated and 
skilled workforce. There is no better tool to meet both of 
those needs and connect people with quality jobs than the 
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, or WIOA.
    WIOA is the backbone of our workforce system. Our 
investment in workforce development falls short of where it 
needs to be to stay competitive in the global economy. Other 
developed countries spend half to 1 percent of the gross 
domestic product on workforce development.
    We in America spend only one tenth of 1 percent. We cannot 
afford to fall behind in this critical area. Increasing our 
investment is the only way to stay competitive. That is why 
last Congress Committee Democrats led a series of bipartisan 
hearings to craft the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 
of 2022, which was designed to enhance WIOA funding, expand 
access for underserved communities, and ensure that workers are 
connected to high quality jobs.
    The House passed the bill last year with four Republican 
votes. I believe my Republican colleagues agree that we must 
strengthen skills development. Just last month, House 
Republicans passed a debt ceiling proposal that takes us 
backward. By cutting workforce funding, the Default on America 
Act would prevent roughly 750,000 job seekers from accessing 
services and skills programs.
    This is the wrong approach. Today's hearing can help us 
correct course, and build on last Congress's progress toward a 
bipartisan WIOA reauthorization. There are two fundamental 
goals, a meaningful reauthorization must achieve. Expanding a 
job seeker's access to workforce programs and meeting the needs 
of businesses.
    Far more workers could benefit from skills development 
programs and enter higher quality jobs if we finally put 
serious money behind WIOA. In fact, the WIOA of 2022 included 
80 billion over 6 years to help train more than a million 
workers each year.
    Importantly, more jobs, many job seekers need additional 
support with childcare, transportation, housing, to complete 
skills programs. Take for example, job seekers with children. 
If they don't have childcare, they will not be able to attend 
classes, or go to work, or on-the-job training.
    It is time to stop putting up barriers and start breaking 
barriers down by investing in critical support services, we can 
empower job seekers to achieve their full potential and succeed 
in the workforce. We must also ensure that skills programs and 
support are accessible to those who need them most, but 
currently have the least access.
    Workers of color, young people, workers who have been 
forced out of their jobs, and justice-involved individuals. For 
example, I led the Strengthening Job Corps Act of 2022 last 
Congress to ensure that the job corps programs utilize work-
based learning to get young people into good jobs.
    Skills programs and support must be accessible to those who 
have the least access--young people and displaced workers. 
These groups face significant barriers to education and 
training programs, limiting their job opportunities and 
hindering their success to the workforce. For our workforce 
system to truly succeed, it needs to be a win/win for both job 
seekers and employers.
    Without adequate funding, WIOA programs for employers are 
being utilized by just 8 percent of employers. That has to 
change. Currently, WIOA programs are only used by measly 8 
percent of employers due to insufficient funding. It is time 
for a change.
    Reauthorization of WIOA that would prioritize the 
employment-based training and sector partnerships can help 
businesses find the skilled workers they need and boost local 
economies with higher paying jobs. The bottom line is that an 
effective reauthorization must put access first, quality and 
innovation also that meets the needs of workers and businesses.
    Today, I look forward to charting a path forward that 
achieves these priorities and prepares workers and businesses 
for success. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Wilson follows:]

  Statement of Hon. Frederica Wilson, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
               Higher Education and Workforce Development

    Thank you, Chairman Owens, and good morning. Thank you so much to 
our witnesses--welcome today--thank you for your time and I am looking 
forward to your testimony.
    Investing in workforce development is a critical step we must take 
to ensure a brighter future for our economy. With today's hearing, we 
are taking a step in the right direction to support both workers and 
employers alike. The need for this investment is more urgent than ever, 
not because our economy is struggling, but because it is thriving.
    The reality is that the unemployment rate is still near record lows 
and wages are increasing. This is a direct result of key legislation we 
delivered last Congress.
    These legislative victories are creating millions of good-paying 
jobs. Combined with President Biden's work to build the economy from 
the bottom up and middle out, we have created, on average, 470,000 jobs 
every month since the start of this administration.
    For workers to benefit from this historic job growth, they need the 
skills and credentials to succeed in new careers. For employers to 
benefit, they need access to a dedicated and skilled workforce.
    There is no better tool to meet both of those needs and connect 
people with quality jobs than the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 
Act, or WIOA.
    WIOA is the backbone of our workforce system. Our investment in 
workforce development falls short of where it needs to be to stay 
competitive in the global economy. Other developed countries spend half 
to one percent of their gross domestic product on workforce 
development. We, in America, spend only one-tenth of one percent. We 
cannot afford to fall behind in this critical area, and increasing our 
investment is the only way to stay competitive.
    That is why, last Congress, Committee Democrats led a series of 
bipartisan hearings to craft the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 
Act of 2022, which was designed to enhance WIOA funding, expand access 
for underserved communities, and ensure that workers are connected to 
high-quality jobs. The House passed the bill last year with four 
Republican votes.
    I believe my Republican colleagues agree that we must strengthen 
skills development. Just last month, House Republicans passed a debt 
ceiling proposal that takes us backwards. By cutting workforce funding, 
the Default on America Act would prevent roughly 750,000 job seekers 
from accessing services and skills programs.
    This is the wrong approach. Today's hearing can help us correct 
course and build on last Congress's progress towards a bipartisan WIOA 
reauthorization.
    There are two fundamental goals a meaningful reauthorization must 
achieve: expanding job seekers' access to workforce programs and 
meeting the needs of businesses.
    Far more workers would benefit from skills development programs--
and enter higher quality jobs--if we finally put serious money behind 
WIOA. In fact, the WIOA of 2022 included $80 billion over six years to 
help train more than a million workers each year.
    Importantly, many job seekers need additional support with child 
care, transportation, and housing to complete skills programs. Take, 
for example, job seekers with children. If they don't have child care, 
they will not be able to attend classes or go into work for on-the-job 
training. It is time to stop putting up barriers and start breaking 
barriers down. By investing in critical support services, we can 
empower job seekers to achieve their full potential and succeed in the 
workforce.
    We must also ensure that skills programs and support are accessible 
to those who need them most, but currently have the least access: 
workers of color, young people, workers who have been forced out of 
their jobs, and justice-involved individuals. For example, I led the 
Strengthening Job Corps Act of 2022 last Congress to ensure that the 
Job Corps program utilizes work-based learning to get young people into 
good jobs.
    Skills programs and support must be accessible to those who have 
the least access-young people, displaced workers. These groups face 
significant barriers to education and training programs, limiting their 
job opportunities and hindering their success to the workforce.
    For our workforce system to truly succeed, it needs to be a win-win 
for both job seekers and employers. Without adequate funding, WIOA 
programs for employers are being utilized by just eight percent of 
employers. That has to change. Currently, WIOA programs are only used 
by a measly 8% of employers due to insufficient funding. It is time for 
a change. A reauthorization of WIOA that prioritizes employment-based 
training and sector partnerships can help businesses find the skilled 
workers they need and boost local economies with higher-paying jobs.
    The bottom line is that an effective reauthorization of WIOA must 
put access first--quality and innovation also--that meets the needs of 
workers and businesses. Today, I look forward to charting a path 
forward that achieves those priorities and prepares workers and 
businesses for success.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairman Owens. Thanks, Ms. Wilson. Pursuant to Committee 
Rule 8(c), all members who wish to insert written statements 
into the record may do so by submitting them to the Committee 
Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5 p.m., 14 
days after the date of this hearing, which is May 25, 2023.
    Without objection, the hearing record will remain open 14 
days to allow such statements and other extraneous material 
reference during the hearing be submitted for the official 
hearing record.
    I will now turn next to the introduction of our 
distinguished witnesses. The first is Ms. Lydia Logan, who is 
Vice President for Global Education and Workforce Development 
at IBM. A second witness is Bruce Ferguson, who is CEO of 
CareerSource Northeast Florida. The third witness is Dr. Harry 
Holzer, who is a Professor of Public Policy at Georgetown 
University.
    Our fourth witness is John Pallasch, who is Founder and CEO 
at One Workforce Solutions, located in Aiken, South Carolina. I 
want to thank all witnesses for being here today and look 
forward to your testimony.
    Pursuant to Committee rules, I would ask that you each 
limit your oral presentation to 5 minutes, a summary of your 
written statement. I would also like to remind the witnesses of 
their responsibility to provide accurate information to the 
subcommittee. I first recognize Ms. Lydia Logan.

    STATEMENT OF MS. LYDIA LOGAN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR GLOBAL 
            EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, IBM

    Ms. Logan. Good morning, Chairman Owens, Ranking Member 
Wilson, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am 
Lydia Logan, IBM's Vice President for Global Education 
Workforce Development. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 
on the State of skills development in the United States.
    In my role at IBM I create effective education and 
workforce programs by leading our community and the university 
skill's initiatives. Today I will share IBM's experience 
leading skills development programs, talk about the need for 
multiple pathways to careers, and to offer policy 
recommendations that can scale proven efforts.
    As a global technology leader, IBM believes the U.S. must 
rethink it is education and workforce development approach to 
meet today's market needs and create good paying jobs. To help 
close the skills gap we offer a range of education and career 
readiness programs at no cost.
    To broaden and diversify our talent pool IBM removed the 4-
year degree requirement for 50 percent of our U.S. job 
postings. That resulted in a more diverse applicant pool, and 
almost 20 percent of our U.S. hires joining without a degree. 
The IBM apprenticeship program is another way we're creating 
pathways to meaningful careers in technology.
    We started our first of its kind technology apprenticeship 
in 2017. Today we have over 30 different apprenticeship job 
roles, from cybersecurity to AI, to digital design. IBM's 
apprenticeship programs are recognized up to 40 college 
credits, or about 80 percent of an associate's degree.
    This is all at no cost for the participants and allows them 
to pursue a career and college education at the same time. We 
are working with community colleges to transfer these credits 
and add complimentary courses that would lead to an associate's 
degree for participants who wish to do so.
    As part of our commitment to skill 30 million people 
worldwide by 2030, we offer the cost-free IBM skills build 
program to high school and university students, educators, and 
adult learners. This helps participants develop valuable tech 
and workplace skills, and the access to career opportunities 
through customized, practical learning experiences.
    The platform offers over 1,000 courses and up to 20 
languages, with the opportunity to earn digital credentials 
recognized by industry. We work with partners like the 
Department of Veteran Affairs to offer IBM skills build for 
service members and veterans, to pursue in demand technology 
roles. The online version is open to anyone and is flexible in 
meeting individual learning needs for place, pace and path.
    As this panel and employers know, our Nation's education 
workforce systems are not equipped to meet the market demands 
of the modern digital economy, and there is no silver bullet to 
fix that. Instead, we suggest employers, policymakers, 
education providers, and other stakeholders act collectively to 
make the most significant impact, help current and future 
workers.
    We offer the following policy recommendations. First, align 
higher education workforce development laws to focus on skills. 
It is critical our Federal higher education workforce laws work 
together to provide the necessary resources to obtain and 
demand skills.
    Second, dedicate individual training accounts for workforce 
development. IBM recommends that Congress remove barriers that 
limit skills attainment within WIOA, including dedicating 
funding toward ITAs, increasing dollar limits on incumbent 
worker programs, and enhancing work-based learning programs.
    Third, reform the eligible training provider list. We need 
to directly connect the list of employers within demand and 
growing jobs. Fourth, transparency and the outcomes. Job 
seekers need complete information on program measures, such as 
completion and employment rates, credential attainment, and 
earnings.
    To do this, they need to better access quality data. We 
also believe Congress can encourage the development and 
coordination of an open interoperable data infrastructure with 
strong privacy and security measures so that job seekers, 
employers, and education providers can better align and share 
digital credentials.
    In conclusion, we know these updates can be made in a way 
that unlocks opportunities for all Americans. It is going to 
require industry, government, education institutions, and other 
community stakeholders to shift the way we approach education, 
skills development, and hiring. Thank you again for the 
opportunity to share IBM's experience and recommendations with 
the Committee.
    [The prepared statement of Lydia Logan follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Owens. Thank you, Ms. Logan. I would like to next 
recognize Mr. Bruce Ferguson.

 STATEMENT OF MR. BRUCE FERGUSON, CEO, CAREERSOURCE NORTHEAST 
                            FLORIDA

    Mr. Ferguson. Thank you. Chairman Owens, Ranking Member 
Wilson, and distinguished members of this subcommittee. My name 
is Bruce Ferguson, and I serve as the CEO of CareerSource 
Northeast Florida, the regional workforce board serving the 
Jacksonville region.
    As Congress considers reauthorizing WIOA, I would like to 
address the importance of work-based learning as a tool to 
upskill our Nation's workforce, as well as the importance of 
regulatory flexibility and the reduction of administrative 
waste.
    Some 25 years ago our Board of Directors made a key 
decision that the skills needed to put business community at 
the center of our strategies.
    Since then, our team of professionals has worked to 
understand and respond to the needs of our companies. We have 
developed the central partnerships with our regional economic 
development organization, the JAXUSA partnership, the economic 
development councils in each of our counties and industry 
associations.
    These relationships enhance our understanding of the 
regional economy, and focus our resources on targeted 
industries, such as advanced manufacturing, logistics and 
healthcare. We are experiencing one of the tightest labor 
markets in history, and employers are having a hard time 
finding the skills they need. This creates an opportunity to 
enhance our region's focus on work-based learning.
    Businesses are seeking ways to upskill their workforce and 
increase productivity. Tools such as customized training and 
apprenticeships act as catalysts for companies to build their 
own workforce pipeline and create career pathways for their 
employees. The key to getting companies to use WIOA's services 
is to keep it simple.
    We assist interested employers in completing a simple, 
eight-page grant application. Once approved, the rest of the 
agreement is only a few additional pages. We also employ an 
apprenticeship navigator who assists companies in development 
of apprenticeship programs.
    Too often, our system and regulatory bodies turn what 
should be a simple and concise application and agreement into 
an overly complex process, resulting in employers turning away 
from our services.
    Businesses know best what skills their employees need to 
succeed, and they need access to skill building programs that 
are easy to use.
    A couple of our success stories are with Grace Aerospace 
and Flagler Health. Grace Aerospace is a small manufacturer 
providing full service electrical and structural manufacturing 
for U.S. military and commercial clients. With WIOA funding 
assistance, a Grace quality manager became a certified 
institute for printed circuits IPC trainer.
    The company has since leveraged that manager's new 
certification to upskill seven additional Grace employees. They 
are all now certified IPC specialists, and receive the minimum 
pay increase of 10 percent.
    This new workforce skillset also enabled Grace Aerospace to 
grow in new market segments, performing electrical work for the 
Department of Energy and Nassau, both of which require 
certified IPC techs to perform the manufacturing process.
    Flagler Health faced a shortage of surgical technologies 
and reached out to us for assistance. We helped them navigate 
the apprentice development and approval process through the 
Florida Department of Education. The result was a 12 month 
apprenticeship, and all apprentices were already employed in 
other areas of the hospital, and were looking for new career 
opportunities.
    They only needed a high school diploma, or a GED to be 
considered. Surgical tech apprentices start at $15.00 an hour 
with full benefits, and after program completion they make over 
$19.00 an hour, a 28 percent salary increase.
    These are examples of how our focus on WIOA customized 
training and apprenticeships is positively impacting our 
region's workforce and businesses. We believe enhancing current 
WIOA legislation can be even more integrated and flexible, and 
really be a difference maker.
    With the current flexibility, our Board has been able to 
make policies and skill building programs that meet local 
business needs. Our philosophy is that if the law and the rules 
do not say we cannot do something, then it must mean we can.
    However, additional explicit flexibility is encouraged to 
counter those who tend to operate with the opposite philosophy 
of if it does not say we can, then we cannot.
    Also, there is still a tremendous amount of administrative 
waste in the process, and separately tracking multiple funding 
silos, eligibility processes and data entry.
    While we strive to streamline our services for businesses 
and job seekers, multiple programs we worked with make 
streamlining more difficult. We are forced to use systems that 
require extensive data collection and reporting to the State 
and Federal level.
    The job seeker and business customer experience take a back 
seat to reporting requirements. This approach is backward and 
needs to be addressed as part of the reauthorization. Chairman 
Owens, that concludes my remarks. I want to thank you again for 
the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ferguson follows.]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Owens. Thank you, Mr. Ferguson. I will now 
recognize Dr. Harry Holtzer.

STATEMENT OF DR. HARRY J. HOLZER, JOHN LAFARGE JR. SJ PROFESSOR 
            OF PUBLIC POLICY, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

    Mr. Holzer. Thank you. Good morning. Chairman Owens, 
Ranking Member Wilson, and distinguished Subcommittee members. 
I would like to make four main points in my testimony this 
morning.
    No. 1, many millions of Americans without any post-
secondary education or training credentials would have higher 
productivity and higher earnings if they received more 
training, and many million vacant skilled jobs would be able to 
be more easily filled.
    Remember that in America today, almost half of all 
Americans have no post-secondary education or training 
credential. Too many of them are employed in very low wage 
jobs, often low wage service jobs, and particularly people of 
color are very heavily concentrated there. All the numbers are 
in my written testimony.
    They could receive better training and do better. No. 2, 
relative to American skill needs, relative to almost all other 
industrial countries, and even relative to earlier decades in 
the United States, our levels of public spending on workforce 
training are extremely low.
    For instance, we now spend only about 4 billion dollars a 
year on the core programs in titles one and two of WIOA. Total 
spending of those titles is about 6 billion. Now in a 25 
trillion-dollar economy, and one with 150 million workers, that 
constitutes very, very low investment.
    Now, GAO, the General Accountability Office tells us we 
have a lot more programs, Federal programs besides WIOA. If you 
add all those up, it comes out to be in the ballpark of 20 
billion.
    That may sound like a lot, but it remains less than one-
tenth of 1 percent of GDP, which is vastly lower as a percent 
of GDP than almost all other industrial countries spend on what 
they call active labor market programs.
    In the United States it has declined over time. In 1980, 
the Department of Labor was spending an amount that in current 
dollars would be 60 billion dollars a year, and now it's 20. It 
has declined by two-thirds in a time when the labor force has 
grown by 50 percent and skill needs have risen.
    We are under investing. Point No. 3, the impacts of the 
training we do on participant productivity and participant 
earnings are dramatically limited by these very low funding 
levels. Total of all the dollars being spent, only about a half 
a billion dollars right now are being spent on actual training 
for about 220,000 people per year.
    Each one gets a little over $2,000.00 on average. Compare 
that to the Pell program. Pell Grants provide almost $7,000.00 
per year at this point and serve 6 million people. There is a 
great imbalance. Now how effective is that training because at 
the end of the day we want to make cost-effective investments.
    The research evidence is somewhat mixed, but the most 
plausible studies suggest that the impacts eventually reach 
$1,500.00 to $2,000.00 in the adult program. That is the annual 
bump up generated by this training. The numbers for the 
displaced worker program are somewhat smaller.
    That is a pretty--if those impacts last. If they do not 
fade out over time that is a quite strong economic return on 
investment. Of course, the core and especially the intensive 
services people receive at the American Job Centers are also 
cost-effective. They are much, much less expensive, and those 
small dollars are generating quite strong returns.
    Of course, there are other versions of training besides 
these programs. Take certificate programs at community college. 
On average they generate nice returns. They vary across the 
programs, but on average the larger the investment, the larger 
the earnings gain.
    Short-term programs generate impacts, but less than long-
term, et cetera. The very best programs, the sector-based 
programs, like Per Scholas and Project Quest, Europe, generate 
over $5,000.00 per worker that does not fade out over time, but 
they cost about $10,000.00 per worker.
    Then my fourth point, besides just increasing funding for 
training, I would put the additional priorities on the table as 
follows. No. 1, we need to expand dedicated additional dollars 
for highly effective sectoral training programs, of the kinds 
already discussed today, as well as research and evaluation for 
what makes them good.
    Right now, we mandate that local boards create these 
partnerships, but there is no funding or technical assistance 
to support that. No. 2, I support more funding for 
apprenticeships for work-based learning and incumbent worker 
training to support very good State innovations going on.
    No. 3, we need to fund career guidance and services, 
support services more fully. No. 4, we need much better data 
than we have right now.
    Data on WIOA outcomes, the Employer Training Provider Lists 
are a bit of a mess. They do need to be reformed as has been 
said. Other data on labor market trends, various State 
initiatives, credential engine. All of these are making 
progress.
    Thank you for allowing me to testify. I am happy to be 
here. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Holzer follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Owens. Thank you, Doctor Holzer. Last, but not 
least, Mr. John Pallasch.

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN PALLASCH, FOUNDER AND CEO, ONE WORKFORCE 
                           SOLUTIONS

    Mr. Pallasch. Thank you, Chairman Owens, Ranking Member 
Wilson, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. Thank 
you for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is 
John Pallasch, and most recently I ran the Employment and 
Training Administration at the Department of Labor, so the 
Federal agency responsible for administering the Workforce 
Initiative Opportunity Act.
    Prior to that I ran the State Workforce Agency for the 
State of Kentucky, the State agency that administers WIOA at 
the State level. It is an honor to discuss a topic vital to 
America's continued growth and prosperity, building and 
sustaining a skilled workforce.
    For my appearance today I would like to highlight three 
areas where I respectfully believe Congress could further its 
mission to increase opportunities, enhance accountability, and 
improve outcomes across the public workforce system. First, we 
must acknowledge and incentivize State and local boards to 
overcome perceived and real challenges to innovation.
    Second, we should hold the U.S. Department of Labor, State 
workforce agencies, and local boards accountable for their poor 
performance across a multitude of workforce programs. Third, 
Congress should explore targeted clarification and changes to 
WIOA, to ensure skills development in the system aligns with 
the needs of employers.
    My written testimony explains in greater detail the 
challenges, performance failures, and areas for improvement in 
our public workforce statement. My oral statement will argue 
significant underperformance and failures at multiple layers of 
our workforce system are generally the fault of local, State 
and Federal partners.
    Local, because the infrastructure, as it exists, is present 
at the local level with more than 550 local workforce boards 
operating more than 2,400 American job centers across the 
country. In addition, a majority of WIOA funds pass through the 
State and land with the local boards as sub-grantees. With it, 
the accountability and responsibility to be good stewards of 
the taxpayer's dollars.
    States share responsibility because the Governor and State 
boards set the strategic direction for the State and have a 
critical role in negotiating levels of performance, maintaining 
the list of eligible training providers, and fostering 
alignment across workforce programs.
    To date, no State, not even Utah, which has the strongest 
statewide integration of workforce programs has fully achieved 
the promise of WIOA. At the Federal level, the Department of 
Labor's Employment and Training Administration must reorganize 
to be more aligned with State and workforce agencies as states 
explore integration and innovation, while also holding states 
and other grantees more accountability to delivering positive 
outcomes for the billions of dollars awarded annually through 
formula and discretionary grants.
    Finally, Congress must provide more rigorous oversight to 
ensure that DOL is performing its critical role in skills 
development. Congress has a unique role here, and today's 
hearing demonstrates your willingness to press for improved 
performance and accountability.
    Having said that, I agree with Ms. Logan, we must resist 
the urge to look for the silver bullet to address our Nation's 
workforce challenges. Almost never are complex problems 
resolved by pulling a silver level, utilizing a particular 
flexibility, or holding a particular hearing.
    Rather, we must look across the broader workforce system, 
and understand how poor leadership, outdated technology, 
incomplete data, and a disjointed patchwork of Federal 
workforce programs allows too many in the system to do what 
they have always done, which for decades employers have told us 
is simply not enough.
    As currently constituted, too much of our workforce funding 
goes to cover overhead and an obsolete brick and mortar 
delivery system. Couple that with a train and pray model where 
incomplete and outdated labor market information pair with the 
lack of reliable performance data for most eligible providers 
to present a greater emphasis on job attached or employer 
driven skills development.
    Nowhere is that more apparent than in the ETPL, which 
contains more than 75,000 WIOA eligible skills development 
programs across the country, with little to no repercussion for 
poor outcomes. We know this because the WIOA data tells us that 
only 34.6 percent of WIOA adults, who receive WIOA skills 
development are placed in a job related to that skills 
development.
    That percentage drops to 34.2 percent for dislocated 
workers and drops all the way to 20.8 percent for youth. One in 
five youth who receive skills development under WIOA find a job 
related to that skills development.
    Finally, most local boards, and I do not include northeast 
Florida in this group, fail to maximize job attached skills 
development flexibilities that currently exist in WIOA, such as 
customized training, incumbent worker training, on the job 
training, and apprenticeship programs.
    For their part, Governors and State workforce agencies 
often do not see high enough standards for performance, and 
rarely hold local boards accountable. In addition, the states 
conduct insufficient oversight of their states ETPL, and often 
fail to exercise existing staffing flexibilities designed to 
aid and program coordination.
    My old employer, the Department of Labor, must also be more 
aggressive to fostering the workforce system, welcoming and 
inviting of innovation, and creativity to address the lack of 
skilled workers produced by the system. As currently 
constituted, the Department of Labor lacks adequate talent, 
technology, structure, and appropriate resource allocation to 
provide both assistance and accountability to grantees.
    In closing, I welcome the opportunity to provide technical 
assistance to Congress on these legislative issues. Thank you 
for your commitment to building a stronger workforce system by 
listening to the needs of job creators, delivering upon 
upscaling opportunities to workers and holding skills education 
programs accountable for their performance. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallasch follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Owens. Thank you, Mr. Pallasch. I appreciate that. 
Under Committee Rule 9, we will now begin questioning witnesses 
under the 5-minute rule. I will begin the process. Ms. Lydia 
Logan, you gave us an example of how IBM has used the work-
based learning to address a shortage of skilled workers and 
support career by advancements.
    What updates to WIOA would be needed to make employer led 
programs to be a greater force, a greater focus in this 
particular law?
    Ms. Logan. Yes, thank you for that question, Chairman 
Owens. We believe that there are a variety of programs that are 
needed to really address the skills gaps that we see. IBM is 
addressing them in multiple ways. We both have apprenticeship 
programs, and we have the free skilling programs that we offer, 
like skills build.
    We work with workforce boards, and with partner 
organizations, so that people who need opportunities can access 
the skill development that is appropriate for them where they 
are. I think the flexibility that WIOA can offer for local 
programming at high quality align to job needs is what we need 
to focus on. How do we make sure that we are aligning what 
employers need with the skills that are offered in a measurable 
way.
    Chairman Owens. Very good. Thank you so much. Sorry. Mr. 
Ferguson, having the business sector contribute to the cost of 
skill development programs is a critical way to maximize the 
impact of taxpayer dollars. How does the cost-effectiveness of 
WIOA customize training, compared to those other skills 
development programs?
    Mr. Ferguson. Right. For us, Mr. Chairman, on the 
customized training piece, the employer has to contribute at 
least 50 percent of the cost of the training. Quite often it is 
more than that. For this current program year that we're in I 
can tell you that our average individual training account, 
single scholarship, is costing us about $6,300.00 per 
participant.
    Our average cost per participant for the customized 
training is just over $1,400.00. That is about a four and a 
half times more efficient on the customized side.
    Chairman Owens. Very good. Thank you so much. Mr. Pallasch, 
we have nearly 10 million unfilled jobs, it is a severe skilled 
shortage and too many Americans are sidelined and out of work, 
yet the DOL considers the public workforce system in every 
single State a performance success. Why is that? What changes 
in WIOA's accountability structure are needed to tackle the 
workforce issues facing our nation?
    Mr. Pallasch. Yes. Thank you for your question. I think 
there are two things we need to focus on. One is the particular 
measures within the WIOA law. If we take a look at what states 
are measured against, there are six common measures. If we 
drill down on what those measures are, for example, two of the 
measures are--was the individual employed during the second 
quarter after they exited the program, and were they employed 
during the fourth quarter, after they exited the program.
    It does not ask if they were employed for the entire 
quarter, nor does it ask if the employment in the second 
quarter was the same as the employment in the fourth quarter. I 
could have two jobs during the year, 1 day in the second 
quarter, and 1 day in the fourth quarter, and the State is able 
to claim me as a plus one in both of those.
    We really have to take a look at the measures that we are 
holding states accountable to. Then we also have to look at the 
negotiated levels of performance, and I took--I pulled down 
from the Department's website the 2023 negotiated performance 
levels for some of the states. If you look at the performance 
levels, and I hate to pick on states, but we are going to have 
to do that.
    If I look in New York and New Jersey, their second quarter 
after exit, so the number of people they say during the second 
quarter after the exit the program are going to have a job. It 
is 61 percent for New York, and 62 percent for New Jersey. 
Those states are telling us right off the bat, 40 percent of 
the people who exit our program are going to be unemployed for 
6 months.
    They are telling us that right off the bat. That is their 
negotiated level of performance. If we look at the fourth 
quarter after exit we can pick on a State like Vermont where it 
is 60.5, so again trending down. Another measure is the median 
wages. How much wage does an individual make in a quarter?
    Again, if we look at the negotiated performance levels in 
New Jersey, their negotiated performance level for the adult 
program under WIOA is $5,400.00 a quarter. So that's $20,000.00 
a year. That is the bar that they want to hold themselves 
accountable to. We are going to provide skills development to 
people, and we hope they will make $20,000.00 a year when they 
leave our program.
    That is just not enough. We need to do better. It is 
strengthening the performance measures, and then it is making 
sure we hold the states to higher performance targets.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. Thanks so much for that. I now 
recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott. Okay.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank the Ranking 
Member. Mr. Holzer, there was a study that showed, and I think 
you kind of referred to this by giving two numbers, that only 
about 22 percent of the money spent on the local boards was 
spent on actual training services. What is the rest of the 
money spent on?
    Dr. Holzer. The rest of the money is spent on a range of 
other services offered, and of course the staff. The data is 
needed to support those efforts. A lot of other money is spent 
on core services, intensive services at one stop shops. The 
evidence, the rigorous evidence suggests that those are 
effective, very cost-effective investments, and we should be 
making more of them.
    The whole pot needs to be bigger, so that this effective 
investment is not competing with this one.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. When you mentioned 50 percent of the 
public has no post-secondary education, what if that group 
shows up at the Workforce Council looking for a job. Where do 
they actually get the training?
    Dr. Holzer. Well ideally, they go to the one stop, the 
American Job Centers, as we now call them, and ideally, they 
get some guidance as to where they can get training.
    Mr. Scott. They will be referred to somebody on the 
eligible training list.
    Dr. Holzer. That is correct.
    Mr. Scott. You mentioned the typical costs of $1,000.00 to 
$10,000.00?
    Dr. Holzer. On average they are a little over $2,000.00, 
and unfortunately that is just vastly less money than is often 
needed for a really good training program. Again, compared to 
Pell Grants for----
    Mr. Scott. The cost of the programs then is up to 
$10,000.00, I think you mentioned.
    Dr. Holzer. I do not think I mentioned that number. The 
very best sector-based programs, Per Scholas, Project Quest, 
Europe, which have very good relationships with private 
employers, those--the very best programs do cost about 
$10,000.00 a year. That is correct.
    Mr. Scott. Okay. We have all seen studies that show that a 
lot of families cannot come up with a couple of hundred 
dollars. How do people without a job looking for a job come up 
with the costs of these training programs?
    Dr. Holzer. It is very difficult. It is very difficult for 
them to do so. With the amount of money, again, in these ITAs 
is too small. Now if these folks are eligible for a Pell Grant, 
then that provides almost $7,000.00 a year. That is good money, 
but remember currently there is great restrictions on that, on 
Pell Grants. It has to be a relatively long certificate 
program.
    It has to be for credit and that is why passing some 
version of short-term Pell is important, with the appropriate 
guardrails.
    Mr. Scott. I think you have really struck at the heart of 
the problem. How do you guarantee that if we were to pass 
short-term Pell that it would only be available for quality 
programs? That is, you do not have to answer that, that is what 
we are working on right now.
    Dr. Holzer. I would briefly--to answer that, I think to do 
this correctly you need the right data. You need the right 
earnings data that follows people over time and compares them 
to people who are not in the programs. I respectfully disagree 
with my colleague Mr. Pallasch. I read those data completely 
differently than he does.
    You cannot just look at earnings levels. You have got to 
look at the improvements over time, those generated. If a 
person is starting at a very, very low earnings level, and gets 
a 10 or 20 percent bump up, I would consider that a successful 
program.
    With the right data, we could do a good job of having 
guardrails.
    Mr. Scott. You mentioned apprenticeships, very briefly, why 
are they such a good deal?
    Dr. Holzer. Apprenticeships seem to be effective because 
they are targeted for the individual employer. They are 
customized in some sense. The employers are training people for 
exactly the skills they need. When that fits, when the workers' 
needs fit with the employer's needs, that generates a good 
return.
    Having said that, we also want to make sure that the 
training is not too narrow. If we are investing public money in 
these workers, we want to make sure that at least some of those 
skills are portable beyond just the individual in question. I 
think apprenticeship does seem to pass the mark. I do not think 
the earnings gains fade out.
    Mr. Scott. Youth employment opportunities, particularly for 
disconnected youth, that are not in school and not working, why 
are those investments important?
    Dr. Holzer. Very simply, this is primarily out-of-school 
youth. There are a lot of good programs for in-school youth 
careers in technical education, and in some community colleges, 
but for out-of-school youth very often with not great, but 
often no post-secondary training whatsoever. They need more. 
They need more help.
    Their current level of skills simply does not enable them 
to try to get good jobs, and often they even lack the knowledge 
of where good jobs are and what employers are looking for, 
where they can enhance their skills, et cetera, so there is a 
big job to do there.
    Ms. Logan, in your testimony, we do not have time for an 
answer, but I am going to pose a question to you. You suggested 
reforms in the Eligible Training Provider List. Obviously, we 
want to separate the good from the bad. If you could provide 
your suggestions that would be very helpful.
    Ms. Logan. I would be happy to do that.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize 
Mr. Grothman.
    Mr. Grothman. Yes. Ms. Logan, I will start with you. Given 
the current worker shortage and skills gap, we cannot afford to 
spend taxpayer dollars on workforce programs that are not 
effective. How do we get better data on program outcomes, such 
as completion employment rates, and help steer funding to 
higher quality programs?
    Ms. Logan. Some of these needs to be required of the 
providers on the eligible provider list. We need to, as our 
panelists said, make sure that data is publicly available. 
People who are seeking out skilling need to know that the 
program they are going to participate in is going to yield the 
result that they need, that they will be able to be placed in a 
job that will give them a living wage.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Mr. Pallasch--I got that right--in 
your opinion, what are the key factors that contribute to 
successful workforce development programs, and how can these be 
integrated into a successful WIOA system?
    Mr. Pallasch. I think it starts with leadership at the 
State level. It starts with integration of programs across the 
State level, so that when we realize we have got many funding 
streams from the Federal Government coming into the State, the 
ability for a State to coordinate that funding, the ability for 
the State to make sure that they are leveraging the funding for 
its targeted intent.
    Then it is really getting back to performance. It is 
getting back to what we are holding ourselves accountable for. 
We talked a lot about the ETPL list today. There are a couple 
of states out there who have more training programs on their 
ETPL than people they train.
    Right there we know we have too many programs. A lot of the 
responsibility falls to the Governors and to the leadership at 
the State level to make sure that the local workforce boards 
are targeting that skills development.
    Mr. Grothman. More programs than people who are in the 
programs.
    Mr. Pallasch. Correct. More training programs, correct.
    Mr. Grothman. How many of those are what you would call 
primarily federally funded, and how many are primarily State 
funded?
    Mr. Pallasch. Being on the eligible training provider list 
makes you eligible for WIOA funding. As Bruce was talking 
about, the individual training encounter, the ITA. When I go to 
an American Job Center, and I present myself, and I said I need 
some upskilling, I want to get some skills development, in 
essence I am able to pick from the eligible training provider 
list.
    The career coaches are supposed to help me narrow down that 
choice, so that it is really informed customer choice. By being 
on the ETPL, all of those are eligible for WIOA funding.
    Mr. Grothman. What would happen if the Federal Government 
got out of this and just the State had to determine who they 
were going to train on their own?
    Mr. Pallasch. Would the State be paying in that instance on 
their own?
    Mr. Grothman. Well, I would suppose that most states want 
adequate job training. We in Wisconsin have a tremendous 
technical college system, the states and local support. What do 
we get for having the Federal Government involved in it as 
well?
    Mr. Pallasch. I think we can have both. As I mentioned, I 
think there is responsibility at all three levels.
    Mr. Grothman. What would happen if the feds got out it? 
What do they add to the mix?
    Mr. Pallasch. Traditionally, what they add is funding. They 
add infrastructure. They add partnerships, the ability to 
leverage like I said, across programs, so that there are 
advantages to having the Federal Government as a partner in 
this.
    Mr. Grothman. Would the State pick up some of the funding? 
Well, Mr. Ferguson, as we look to increase access to work-based 
learning opportunities, some have raised concerns about the 
regulatory burden, and administrative waste associated with 
WIOA workforce boards.
    How can we streamline these processes to reduce waste, and 
increase efficiency while maintaining accountability and 
oversight, and do you feel that it is accurate that there is 
regulatory burden and administrative waste associated with 
WIOA?
    Mr. Ferguson. Well, in our experience in Florida in 
particular, not only under our umbrella do we have the WIOA 
funding, we also have the workforce piece of TANA of the SNAP 
employment and training, veterans services, et cetera. There 
are a multitude of Federal funding programs that operate under 
our umbrella, and that makes it difficult.
    I have to train staff across multiple programs in addition 
to WIOA to get the job done, and we work with multiple systems 
and lots of programs.
    Mr. Grothman. Okay, lots of programs, is not that by itself 
a sign, we have problems with lots of different programs here 
and there? Would the State be a little bit more nimble and be 
able to handle this stuff without us mucking around?
    Mr. Ferguson. Well, certainly we appreciate the funding 
level and the effort that does come in from the Federal level 
to make this work.
    Mr. Grothman. I know we have a lot of extra Federal money. 
I know, but go ahead, go ahead.
    Mr. Ferguson. To have it more simplified under one program 
would certainly be beneficial.
    Mr. Grothman. Okay. Thank you.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize 
Ms. Wilson.
    Ms. Wilson. Thank you, Chair Owens. My mantra has always 
been jobs, jobs, jobs. When we talk about WIOA, I think about 
how this Federal investment and workforce development changes 
lives, gives hope, and propels our constituents to greater 
heights and prosperity.
    While this hearing is focused on adult job training 
services, I would be remiss if I did not highlight the need for 
a hearing focused on youth workforce investment. Title I of 
WIOA, which supports job training programs and services for 
unemployed and underemployed individuals.
    We need to make a substantial investment in dropouts and 
those we consider out-of-school youth, that investment can play 
a crucial role in dismantling the school-to-prison pipeline and 
reducing crime in our communities. With that, I have a few 
questions. Dr. Holzer, you mentioned in your testimony that 
inclusion of scale sectoral training programs is vital in any 
WIOA reauthorization.
    The WIOA of 2022 expanded the sectoral training programs 
requiring local boards to allocate a billion dollars a year 
through formula grants. Can you explain the reasons behind the 
success of this approach to training and is it necessary to 
ensure that local boards have sufficient funding to implement 
an evidence-based approach?
    Dr. Holzer. Thank you for that question, Ms. Wilson. 
Sectoral approaches work for similar reasons to why 
apprenticeship works. There is a dual customer focus where we 
are making sure that the training dollars are going to 
employers who have good jobs, as well as workers to get the 
right skills to meet those needs.
    You usually need a skilled intermediary who knows the 
industry, a Per Scholas, a Project Quest, et cetera, to bring 
the two sides together and make sure that the training is 
effective. It also requires support services and all of those 
successful programs provide support services, career guidance, 
job search assistance, childcare and transportation, et cetera.
    You simply cannot do that on the cheap, and that is why the 
very best programs do in fact need approximately $10,000.00 per 
participant in order to put all of the pieces in place to make 
these efforts successful.
    Ms. Wilson. Thank you. Mr. Ferguson, it is always great 
having another Floridian in the room, and as the CEO of 
CareerSource Northeast Florida you have experienced that with 
the State system, which is relevant to my work with 
CareerSource Broward and CareerSource South Florida in my 
district.
    I have worked with Mr. Rick Beasley for years. As you 
shared in your testimony, a good, customized training program 
requires buy-in from the two key partners--the board and the 
employer. In your case, it seems employers are instrumental in 
the success of your programing.
    Unfortunately, the customized training program is an under-
utilized program for other local boards. How can we not only 
encourage more employers to participate in the program, but 
also get buy-in from those employers?
    Mr. Ferguson. I was really surprised at how under-utilized 
customized training is across the country as I saw some of the 
data about that. I was not surprised. I was actually shocked. 
We find it to be a highly effective program, both for the 
companies, the Grace Aerospace is a double win because the 
employees got new skills, new certifications, and additional 
dollars in their pocket, and it opened new markets for the 
business, so that business can grow and hire more workers as 
they go along.
    For us, it becomes second nature. It is really critical for 
our workforce boards to have really deep partnerships with the 
economic development organizations in their particular 
workforce areas. That is a huge benefit for us to understand 
what sectors our economic developers are targeting in terms of 
the best areas for growth, and because we do have limited 
funds, we try to target both our ITA funding as well as 
customized training in those targeted industries.
    I say it is not rocket science, but apparently, it is less 
used than it should be. It is a competitive advantage for our 
region. I will just say that.
    Ms. Wilson. I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Moran.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your 
testimony today, and your participation in this hearing. Mr. 
Pallasch, I want to start with you. You mentioned earlier just 
a few minutes ago in response to Mr. Grothman's questions about 
the need for additional accountability.
    I just wonder if you can give me some examples about the 
times for the accountability that you believe should be a part 
of the WIOA program as we move forward to ensure that every 
dollar is used appropriately?
    Mr. Pallasch. Thank you for your question. Accountability 
starts with the sanctions provision in the law. Unfortunately, 
there was no sub-regulatory guidance from the Department of 
Labor on how to administer sanctions until February 2020. It 
just so happened that I signed that sub-regulatory guidance.
    For more than 5 years the law was in place without the 
Department of Labor weighing in on exactly how the Department 
would hold the states accountable, and how the states would 
hold the local workforce boards accountable. We can see that 
there was not a real commitment to accountability. There was 
not a real commitment to sanctions up front.
    I think if we can get the Department of Labor to focus on 
its responsibility, if we can get the states to focus on their 
responsibilities, we all have a role here. We all have to do a 
little bit better at our job. We all have to do a little bit 
better about holding everybody accountable, making sure that 
the ETPL is clean. Making sure we have tight relationships with 
employers.
    To Mr. Holzer's comment earlier, in my written testimony I 
said that I do not think wages are a good measure, and within 
the pearl, which is a very massive file that the states are 
required to submit for every individual they serve, we collect 
their pre-enrollment wages, and their post-enrollment wages, so 
we can absolutely look at the difference in wages, the change 
in wages, but we do not do it.
    That is not the measure. The measure we are held to is just 
what are your wages. There are things that we could do to 
tighten this up, to really focus on what we all want, which is 
positive outcomes for job seekers.
    Mr. Moran. Each of you, and I agree with that. Thank you 
for your response. Each of you has been involved in workforce 
development for a number of years. I am curious if we could 
just go down the panel, and I would like for each of you to 
give me a quick response on programs. You do not have to 
identify them by name, but programs that have not worked. Help 
me understand and help the Committee understand why they are 
not working, and what traps we need to avoid as we begin to 
reshape WIOA this next year. Ma'am, I would like to start with 
you, Ms. Logan.
    Ms. Logan. I think what we need to focus on are programs 
that are connected to jobs that are local, so that people see 
the relevance of what they are learning, connected to what is 
actually going to--where they will be employed afterwards. Job 
connected learning.
    Mr. Moran. Yes. That was going to be one of my next 
questions, but since you brought it up, I am curious. What 
would you suggest we do to make sure the businesses are 
connected to the workforce development, because that in fact is 
the goal, right?
    Ms. Logan. Absolutely. Well first, certainly involvement 
with workforce boards. I would also say that economic 
development locally always is driven by business, and the jobs 
that are going to be created locally is a way to make sure that 
the skills that are needed by the jobs that will be created 
need to be aligned to the skilling programs that are being 
offered.
    Mr. Moran. Mr. Ferguson, back to my first question about 
programs that you have seen that have not worked, where it has 
been a bottleneck, or what has been the problem?
    Mr. Ferguson. Gosh, what does not work? We try to make it 
all work as best we can. Some of the difficulty lies in the 
data collection that we have to go through for a participant in 
WIOA to do a full WIOA application for us. It may take up to 45 
minutes through the State system. That is too long.
    We need to be able to collect what we need and move a 
participant through the process in a quick manner.
    Mr. Moran. I am shocked that you would say a Federal 
program has too many documents and strings attached to it to 
make it difficult, and unfortunately that is the case. I think 
that is true. Sir, next I would like to move to you to answer 
my question if you do not mind. What have you seen that does 
not work that we need to avoid?
    Dr. Holzer. I cannot name individual or single out 
individual programs. I would argue that in some cases, in 
certain limited cases, the training either may not be 
appropriate or portable for workers who leave that sector, or 
in fact the wages on those jobs might be extremely low and with 
training individuals could do better than that.
    I think again, with the right data, we could weed out 
ineffective programs, get them off the ETPL lists, but again, 
the quality of the jobs for which we are training, and let us 
be honest, the dollars are so small that they cannot use them 
to train for really good jobs because the dollars are too 
limited.
    Mr. Moran. I am almost out of time, so I think what I heard 
you guys say is a lot of the problems is there is no 
portability sometimes, there is no basis or outcomes, there is 
no accountability, there is too much regulation, and oversight 
by the Federal Government, and frankly, not enough creativity 
in allowing local workforce boards to do what is best in their 
local community. Is that an accurate summary? All right. Thank 
you, guys, I appreciate your time. I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize 
Ms. Manning.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent a 
district where we have had huge job losses when many of our 
textile and furniture manufacturing facilities moved overseas. 
After many, many years of effort we have been successful in 
attracting new advanced manufacturing jobs, but those jobs 
require more skills than many of our workers have.
    Those skills require programs from apprenticeships to 
training programs, to community college, and of course all 
these programs cost money. Dr. Holzer, you mentioned in your 
testimony that compared to other developed countries, we are 
dramatically underinvesting in training our workforce and you 
cited reports that show that greater investment in worker 
training results in higher income to those workers, which I 
assume leads to more self-sufficiency.
    How much should we be investing in our workers?
    Dr. Holzer. I do not think there is any magic number or 
magic level. What I know for sure is that less than one-tenth 
of 1 percent of GDP is dramatically too small. If we were more 
like some of the more successful countries in the EU, where as 
a percentage of GDP, they will spend four-tenths of a percent, 
five-tenths of a percent. I think by those standards that would 
put us in a better place.
    Again, even in 1980, as a percentage of GDP we were 
spending dramatically more than we are today. I cannot give an 
exact number, but it would be substantially higher. We are 
spending half a billion dollars of WIOA money on training. It 
is crazy to think that that is sufficient for what a 25 
trillion-dollar economy with 150 million worker's needs.
    Ms. Manning. What other kinds of efforts can be made to 
attract people to seek out these skills, programs, how can we 
remove hurdles to participation?
    Dr. Holzer. I think that starts simply with getting the 
word out in the community, in schools, and community colleges 
about local opportunities within the region, about vacant jobs, 
the skills they require. Now, not every form of training is 
going to work for every unemployed worker, every low skilled 
worker.
    Right, there is a certain basic level of skill needs, which 
is why basic literacy needs, including digital literacy are 
also important, but I think getting the word out, combining I 
think brick and mortar, American Job Centers still have a role 
to play, but also digital forms.
    A lot of people do need some human touch to help that 
process, but strong outreach, making information and 
opportunities available that meet what individual workers, as 
well as individual employers can bring together is the goal.
    Ms. Manning. Are there other Federal programs that provide 
support services like food assistance and childcare and 
transportation that could also allow people to seek out these 
kinds of training programs that they might not be able to 
pursue right now?
    Dr. Holzer. Yes. Out of the 43 programs that GAO 
identifies, some of them do allow spending on childcare, 
transportation, and career guidance and job seeking guidance is 
very important. Of course, WIOA money is spent on those things 
as well.
    There are simply too few dollars to provide all of those 
needs off of this very small pot.
    Ms. Manning. At what age should we be talking to young 
people about the kinds of skilled jobs that are out there and 
the kinds of training that they might need? Should we be 
approaching them earlier in high school or should we be 
approaching them in middle school?
    Are we talking to kids too late about what might be out 
there?
    Mr. Holzer. I believe we are talking to them too late. I 
mean we tell kids in the 7th grade you need to take algebra. We 
do not tell them why. A lot of those 7th graders may not be 
highly motivated to take those classes. If they know you 
actually need algebra to be a successful machinist, or to have 
this kind of good-paying job, I think their motivation would be 
higher.
    I think it is terribly low career information, and I think 
we all would agree on that. People need to know more about what 
skills are required in the economy for success, for career 
success, and the earlier we start that the better and the more 
motivated students would be to undertake the basic skill 
development that they need.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. Ms. Logan, one key question that we 
should be answering with WIOA reauthorization is how we can 
bolster employer engagement with our workforce programs, and 
WIOA participants, and you gave a great description of what you 
do in your company to help workers.
    How can a WIOA reauthorization start attracting good 
employers like IBM for middle to high skilled jobs?
    Ms. Logan. I think making sure that there are opportunities 
to connect to workforce boards and making sure that the 
transparency is there in the data. The quality of the programs 
that prepare people for employment in companies, really matters 
for companies to participate.
    Ms. Manning. Great. Thank you. My time has expired, and I 
yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize 
Mr. Williams.
    Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Logan, you have 
provided a number of inciteful comments and insights about your 
partnership and workforce development at IBM, so thank you for 
that. I would like to build on that. In my district we are very 
fortunate to have two excellent community colleges, Onadaga 
Community College in Mohawk Valley Community College in New 
York's 22d district.
    These excellent institutions are actively involved in 
workforce development, and partnering with local employers, 
particularly around skill-based certificate education that are 
exactly targeted to both the needs in our community, the needs 
of the employers, and the opportunities for these aspiring 
students.
    They partner in a lot of ways, but you know, it really 
falls along technologies, even cybersecurity, manufacturing, 
healthcare, and the hospitality industries. All of these really 
are covered. Can you give any insight as to what are the best 
practices for these community colleges?
    I try very hard to partner with them, and to be a good 
partner for them. What is the best way for them to partner with 
industry and companies from your perspective? Any advice you 
have?
    Ms. Logan. Absolutely. We work closely with several 
community colleges in a variety of ways from providing expert 
lectures in key technical areas. We have our skills build 
program that we offer to community colleges, so that they can 
have current content at no cost to them.
    We help them with pathways that are both degree and non-
degree content from IBM. We also offer our digital credentials. 
I think those are things that community colleges can do with 
industry to ensure that they are offering key skills that 
employers are looking for, and give students the opportunity to 
earn digital credentials, that is signal to the market that 
those students have the skills employers are seeking.
    Mr. Williams. That is a great list. Thank you. Could you 
advise me what it is that we in Congress, what can the Federal 
Government do to support or encourage, you know, particularly 
in this context, these kinds of partnership programs that 
you're describing?
    Ms. Logan. Well, one of them would be a short-term Pell 
revision. That would make a tremendous difference.
    Mr. Williams. OK. Can you expand on that? I have heard some 
comments on that, just to get it in this context?
    Ms. Logan. Absolutely. We know that many people are not 
going to brick and mortar institutions. They may be learning 
online, they may not be seeking a degree, and they may not need 
a degree in order to gain employment. We need to make sure that 
there are quality opportunities for them to gain the skills 
they need, and short-term Pell would help to close that gap. It 
is part of the larger ecosystem.
    Mr. Williams. Great. Thank you. I have heard that also from 
the community college presidents as well. I just want to touch 
on individual training accounts. It is open for anyone to react 
to it. Many aspiring and ambitious students are seeking these 
critical skills that we are talking about to advance 
themselves, to provide for their families.
    They find it hard to come up even with the minimum tuition 
payment. I think one example was $1,200.00 for a phlebotomy 
class. There is a great story of a single mom driving an hour 
and a half two or three times a week just to get this class and 
certificate, so that she could provide for her family. That has 
a really great outcome and success story.
    How would ITAs help meet this need, even at these low 
dollar numbers. What can we do in Congress to provide this 
boost? Can anybody provide any insight for individual training 
accounts? Pro or con?
    Dr. Holzer. I would say we could do better with that. I 
think the funding levels are too low right now. On average, 
$2,000.00 is only enough to provide training for quite low-wage 
jobs. I agree about short-term Pell, as long as it has the 
appropriate safeguards. There are a lot of very ineffective 
programs, and I am sorry to say that most for profit providers 
on average, those programs that will have value.
    Not all, but some. We need good accountability for that 
money. We need higher levels, and that is why the support 
services are so important. You get the voucher, but the staff 
has to have extensive knowledge of exactly which jobs in the 
economy are appropriate for that particular person, and that 
requires some resources. That requires good training for the 
staff at the job centers as well, so I think that combination 
could enable us to do better.
    Ms. Logan. One thing I would like to add is we need to 
think about the larger ecosystem of opportunities for people to 
gain skills. There are programs that we offer, like skills 
build is free and available to the public. You are going to 
think about that at the wider end of the funnel.
    People can log on, create an account, learn for free, earn 
an IBM digital credential. They may need the next level of 
skilling after that. That is where they may use an ITA or use 
something else. They may go use short-term Pell, go to a 
project-based learning program, a boot camp.
    There are levels of skilling that people may need in order 
to get the job they are seeking, and we need to make sure that 
people are aware of those opportunities. When we did our 
morning consult study a year ago, we found most people do not 
know, 60 percent do not know where to start, and do not know 
that technological training is available to them.
    Mr. Williams. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. Mrs. McBath, I now recognize.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Chairman Owens, and Ranking Member 
Wilson, and to your staff, and to our witnesses for being here 
today, and I hope you can hear me. I kind of lost my voice. 
Since it was signed into law in 2014, with the help of 
Chairwoman Foxx, the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act, or 
we will refer to it as WIOA, has really assisted millions of 
American workers in helping themselves gain the skills 
necessary to be able to succeed in today's country, in our 
economy.
    It has inspired people who may have had to drop out of high 
school to start working sooner than they expected, or to go 
back to school to make better lives for themselves and their 
families, and their loved ones. This helped families in 
districts like mine, Georgia 7th, helped them to learn English.
    For roughly a quarter of the population of my district was 
actually born outside of the United States, and many of them do 
not speak English as their first language. Stories like this 
kind of illustrate how important it is that we continue to 
reauthorize WIOA and ensure that it gets the necessary funding 
it needs to expand upon the successes that we've had with it.
    Congress must really take action to reverse the decades 
long trend, declining public investment in our workforce 
development programs. As I said in this Committee many times 
before, the Federal Government spends significantly less today 
on workforce development programs than they did over 20 years 
ago in 2001.
    My bill, the Train for Better America Act, which was 
included in the bipartisan WIOA reauthorization that passed the 
House last Congress would assist community colleges and 
technical schools connecting recent and upcoming graduates with 
employers in their area to fill the workforce shortages by 
making the strengthening community college training grant 
program at DOL permanent.
    We know that community colleges and technical training 
schools like Gwinnett Tech in my district in Lawrenceville and 
Georgia Piedmont Technical College in Clarkston, are some of 
the best and the most frequent providers of training for our 
workforce system, yet there is no dedicated funding to support 
these community colleges through WIOA.
    The Train Act would actually authorize over 770 million 
dollars for our Nation's community colleges to develop and 
sustain job training programs for job seekers with barriers to 
employment. Dr. Holzer, I have two questions for you. I hope we 
can get to both.
    What value do you believe the community colleges bring to 
the workforce system, and do you think WIOA authorization needs 
to include targeted funding, specifically for community 
colleges?
    Dr. Holzer. Thank you for both of those questions. 
Community colleges are the only institution in America that 
could deliver job training at a scale remotely close to what 
our labor force and our economy needs. They could potentially 
play an enormous role.
    Unfortunately, I think so far, the performance is more 
mixed, as some do much better than others. We know that 
community colleges, we expect them to wear a lot of hats and do 
a lot of things. We expect them to have a purely academic 
mission, to be a steppingstone to 4 year programs, which some 
do well.
    We expect them to do really effective job training, but 
many, many of them are strapped for cash. They simply cannot do 
so many different functions really well. For instance, most 
students get very, very little career guidance at community 
colleges. I mean they might see an academic adviser once a 
semester who checks off their courses.
    That is not real career guidance. Frankly, a lot of 
community colleges cannot afford to provide more of that 
guidance and more of the support services a lot of students 
need. I think another issue is this divide between for-credit 
and not-for-credit. Frankly, for a lot of students, if they did 
badly in high school, they may not be academically prepared for 
some of the better for-credit classes requiring the community 
colleges, without short-term Pell, which I think all of us 
could agree on some version that is really important.
    It requires the community colleges to do all kinds of 
creative work to try to reach those students and provide them 
what they need. I think, you know, more dollars for things like 
career guidance and for teaching capacity. Another thing we 
have to remember is that a lot of these industries, especially 
in IT and advanced manufacturing, change very quickly, and the 
skills can become obsolete very quickly, and community colleges 
sometimes can be a little bit bureaucratic. Less bureaucratic 
on the not-for-credit side, which is why those programs are 
important. They also need more funds to support capacity 
building, effective capacity building, as well as good 
interactions with the employers with need in those districts.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much, and I am out of time.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. Right now, I would now like to 
recognize Mr. James.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have heard a number 
of amazing and informative things. I want to say thank you for 
each of your care and service to folks who are seeking the 
American dream at every corner of this country.
    I have heard a number of things that I vehemently agree 
with, and it is so refreshing to be on the same page, 
especially with our Democratic colleagues. Among the things 
that I very much agree with, what our ranking member said 
earlier today.
    In her statement, she mentioned two fundamental goals, 
reauthorization must achieve expanding job seeker's access to 
workforce programs, and meeting the needs of business. She also 
stated, and I agree quite strongly, that reauthorization of 
WIOA based training and sector partnerships can help businesses 
find workers they need and higher paying jobs.
    Effective reauthorization must put access first, quality 
innovation also, that meets the needs of workers, and business. 
I, as a former business leader, and representing Michigan's 
10th congressional District, the arsenal democracy, No. 1 
manufacturing district in the entire nation, know how important 
it is to make sure we have a workforce that is ready, and that 
the American dream is accessible and attainable.
    Based upon the comments of the ranking member earlier, 
would estimate that we agree there should be no wrong path. 
There should be no wrong path to pursue the American dream. I 
also really appreciate Ms. Logan's comments about skills 
recognized by industry.
    I think that many of us would also agree that at the local 
level businesses and industry led institutions are probably 
better to determine what is needed, than we are here in 
Washington, DC. Programs that would allow paid work, written 
training programs, written apprenticeship agreements, 
specialized knowledge, promotes safety, equal employment 
opportunity, credit for prior knowledge and experience, 
mentorship, industry recognized credential, and disclosure of 
costs and fees for transparency, which would move people 
forward, are some things that we also agree with.
    What I just listed and described are exactly what industry 
recognized apprenticeship programs provided that was repealed 
by the Biden administration. Mr. Pallasch, given your 
experience at DOL, can you explain to me what the rationale may 
have been behind that decision?
    If you believe, in your estimation, that was the right 
decision?
    Mr. Pallasch. Yes. Thank you very much for the question. I 
do believe it was the right decision. I believe the intention 
was to create yet another pathway for individuals to achieve 
the American dream, to achieve the skills development that they 
need. We talk about multiple pathways all the time.
    The IRAP program was designed to create yet another pathway 
for an individual to take. We have also talked----
    Mr. James. The repeal was the wrong decision?
    Mr. Pallasch. I did not agree with the repeal.
    Mr. James. Okay.
    Mr. Pallasch. Having been the individual who signed the 
rule into law under the previous administration, I was dismayed 
to see that that rule was rolled back. The reason being is we 
talked a lot today about administrative burden, and that was 
another thing we were trying to do, is we were trying to take 
the Department of Labor, take my office, out of that 
decisionmaking process, and push that down to the states.
    Push that down to the trade organizations, the employer 
groups, the folks who actually know what is needed, and taking 
some of that onus off of the Department of Labor, because I do 
not know what occupations should be apprentice-able at a 
Federal level.
    I need the local folks to tell me that. I did not agree 
with the action. I think it took away an avenue for individuals 
to achieve that American dream, and that is unfortunate.
    Mr. James. I firmly believe, and I think we agree that when 
the Federal Government believes they know better what 
businesses and locals need, that is where we run afoul. 
Offering opportunities to earn and learn while obtaining 
valuable portable industry recognized competency-based 
credentials are very important.
    In the last 30 seconds we have, Ms. Logan, you listed four 
items that should be priorities. Could you re-list those for 
again please? I think they are very important.
    Ms. Logan. Absolutely. Align higher education and workforce 
development laws to focus on skills. Dedicate individual 
training accounts for workforce development. Reform the 
eligible training provider list and focus on transparency and 
outcomes.
    Mr. James. That is outstanding. I believe IRAPs achieve all 
of those, thank you all for your time.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would not like to recognize 
Mr. Courtney.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 
the witnesses for your thoughtful testimony this morning. I, 
you know, appreciate the fact that you opened this hearing by 
reminding us that in 2014 it was a bipartisan initiative that 
passed the last authorization of WIOA.
    Congresswoman Bonamici and I were comparing photographs 
because we were in the executive office building at the bill 
signing, and have a nice picture of Chairwoman Foxx standing 
behind President Obama at the time that was signed, and it was 
an extraordinary event.
    Having said that, it was not the Ten Commandments, and we 
obviously have a job to do to update and reauthorize and make 
improvements to WIOA. Really looking at the, in my opinion, 
extraordinary sort of consensus of the four witnesses here 
today on a number of issues.
    I think there is great hope that we can, with good faith, 
try to put together an intelligent change in terms of the 
program that is there. In my district, which is the home of 
Electric Boat, which is a ship builder that builds nuclear 
powered submarines, that is now on a huge trajectory of growth 
because of a change in focus by the Congress, in terms of 
appropriations, as well as the Navy.
    We again, have seen a hiring demand in terms of the metal 
trades, that you know, sort of in the late 90's to mid-2000's 
sort of atrophied in terms of just the numbers of people, and 
the focus of trade schools as well as job training programs.
    The good news is that WIOA, in my opinion, succeeded in 
terms of bringing together the employer, the trade unions, who 
have been part of this extraordinary company, going back to the 
1930's, and crafting a curriculum that in an accelerated 
fashion, has resulted in over 3,000 graduates that 90 percent 
plus have been immediately hired and the job retention is a 
smashing success.
    Ten weeks for welding, 8 weeks for electricians, 8 weeks 
for CNC machinists. The only thing that has been holding us 
back, as I mentioned to Dr. Holzer this morning, is really just 
that there is insufficient funding to get more slots.
    The hiring target this year for EB is 5,750 jobs in 2023. 
Again, the need to look at the authorized and appropriated 
funding levels in my district is issue No. 1, two, and three. 
Part of that funding, and again, Ms. Logan, in your testimony 
you talked about the fact that IBM has made this process free 
for workers, in terms of going through the pre-apprenticeship 
and apprenticeship programs, that is also key.
    I mean the 10-weeks for welding is very intensive. You 
cannot just hit a pause button on your life in terms of daycare 
and transportation, paying the rent, and get through this 
process there. Dr. Holzer, again in your testimony you talked 
about the fact that this is just the reality in terms of the 
number of job openings in the economy, and just the real life 
needs of people to be able to afford going through these 
transformation training programs.
    Is that again, what you were focused on in your testimony?
    Dr. Holzer. Yes. I agree with your summary of that. It is 
great to hear success stories, and we have heard a number of 
success stories today, that I have actually been very happy to 
hear. We have to be honest about the level of demand. The need 
for funds out there is relative to the resources that are 
available. The programs you describe really do require trainees 
to come in with a fairly high level of basic reading and math 
literacy, digital literacy, et cetera.
    We have to be honest that not all candidates for these 
training programs can meet those bars. That is why in fact, 
Title II programs are important as well. Investing in the basic 
literacy. The best programs are ones that integrate a pathway 
program that starts with basic literacy, and then targets the 
literacy support to what the skill needs and the training will 
be.
    We have some good examples of those programs and that is a 
major need as well.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Ms. Logan, again IBM has a nice 
presence in Southbury, Connecticut, and yes again, I think it 
surprises maybe people to hear about a company like IBM using 
apprenticeships. The Hartford Financial Group also has been, 
you know, using apprenticeships for a number of years now for 
their IT.
    Again, there are a lot of complaints about the fact that it 
is too burdensome to participate in the Fitzgerald Act 
Register. The Hartford Insurance Group, what I have heard is 
they had no problem, you know, setting up the program in 
accordance with WIOA. What was IBM's experience with registered 
apprenticeships?
    Ms. Logan. The first thing I would like to say work-based 
learning is important in all forms, right. Work-based learning 
compared with quality programs. With regard to apprenticeships, 
for IBM it was important to do a registered apprenticeship. We 
are a national company. We are very large. We wanted to make 
sure both for us and for participants, that when they--if they 
stay with IBM, and a thousand of them are now IBM employees, or 
whether they move on to another company, it is recognized where 
they go next by other employers.
    For smaller companies, they may have a different situation. 
We had to do the bridge between the skills, the technical 
skills for our apprenticeship job roles, and what the 
registered job roles were. There is some work involved for 
sure, and the modernization would advantage the program, and 
allow for more employers to participate.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would now like to recognize 
the Chair of the Full Committee, Dr. Foxx.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our witnesses 
for being here. Mr. Courtney, maybe WIOA in 2014 was not the 
Ten Commandments, but like the Ten Commandments, WIOA has not 
been honored as we had hoped it would be.
    I think I point out all the time that all we have ever 
needed, we do not need all these laws, we pass now. All we ever 
needed was the Ten Commandments. Everything, every action we 
take could be contained within the Ten Commandments, so 
unfortunately WIOA has not been adhered to like the Ten 
Commandments have been.
    Ms. Logan, you recommend dedicating WIOA funding toward 
what I like to call individualized education accounts. I do not 
use the T word. Work-based learning. What impact would it have 
for job seekers and employers if a greater share of WIOA 
dollars were consistently available for upskilling?
    Ms. Logan. We believe it would allow us to serve more 
people but having more dollars of the allowable dollars 
dedicated to skilling programs, would help us to serve more 
people, and prepare them for available jobs.
    Mrs. Foxx. Right. Everybody who said, including Mr. 
Holtzer, that too much money is going to administrators, 
bureaucrats feather their own nest, with WIOA money, and that 
is the reason only about 20 percent to 30 percent. I saw that 
when I was a community college President, and we have been 
frustrated by breaking that mold.
    Mr. Pallasch, in 2020, DOL established a website to 
increase transparency and accountability in the workforce 
system. Almost 3 years later, the site still lacks basic 
performance data on most eligible programs and providers. Why 
do we not have the data? What will it take to fix it? What does 
this say about the current State of accountability in the 
system?
    Mr. Pallasch. Thank you for your question, and I think it 
is important to note that I was the one who launched that 
website because I knew coming from the State of Kentucky, that 
the training programs in Kentucky were not performing.
    Mrs. Foxx. You mean the education programs?
    Mr. Pallasch. I am sorry. Yes. The eligible education 
programs, yes. I knew that we were providing customer choice to 
individuals, but we were giving them bad choices. If the State 
of Kentucky did not know whether the programs were good or bad, 
and if the Department of Labor does not know whether the 
programs are good or bad, how can we possibly expect the 
individual job seeker to know?
    I think that that is the crux of what we are here to talk 
about, is making sure we can talk about funding levels, but 
putting more money into a system that does not have the 
accountability and does not have the performance is not going 
to generate the results we want it to.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you for that. That is a wonderful way to 
say it.
    Mr. Pallasch. Yes. We do, we have to clean up the process 
first, and we have to leverage work-based learning and on-the-
job training, and then coworker training. We have to leverage 
apprenticeships. Then those programs that are on the ETPL, we 
have to make sure those are the highest performing programs.
    Then we could infuse more money to make sure that 
individuals are being pushed and directed toward programs that 
are going to succeed.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. Mr. Ferguson, you discussed how 
cutting down on administrative waste in the system, which I 
have alluded to already, and so has everybody else, will allow 
local workforce boards to focus more funding on skill 
development. Do you believe consolidating similar workforce 
programs would make the system more efficient and empower local 
leaders to achieve better results?
    Mr. Ferguson. Very simply, yes.
    Mrs. Foxx. Well, that is a succinct answer, and we 
appreciate that. Again, we worked on that in 2014, with what we 
did with WIOA. Mr. Ferguson, I mean sorry, Ms. Logan. I would 
like to come back to you. Several years ago, IBM instituted a 
program I understood, in Bedford Stuyvesant in high schools 
where they began with high school students.
    You may not be aware of this program, and if you are not 
that is OK. My understanding was, and I cannot remember what 
they called it, but where IBM went into the high schools and 
developed the curriculum. Students enrolled in the 9th grade, 
and went through for 4 years, and my understanding was at the 
time, and it has been several years since anyone has talked to 
me about it, that at the end of the 4-years they were 
guaranteed an interview.
    Not guaranteed a job but guaranteed an interview. Could 
you, if you have information, bring us up to date on that? If 
you do not, could you send it after the hearing?
    Ms. Logan. I would be happy to send more information after 
that is our pathways and technology education program. It's the 
P-TECH program.
    Mrs. Foxx. P-TECH, that is it, yes.
    Ms. Logan. It is an early college high school model. It is 
a career to high school pathway. There are many pathways high 
school models now out there, and we believe it includes high 
school plus work base learning, plus higher ed. Those students 
earn an associate's degree. They have internships at IBM.
    They also have work-based learning while they are in high 
school. That is a wonderful model for high school, and happy to 
talk afterwards more about that.
    Mrs. Foxx. I happen to think that this is actually the 
model that we need to be following in our country everywhere. 
North Carolina is doing a great job on early college, and we 
give free community college courses to high school students, 
and many students now are graduating from high school with 
their high school diploma, as well as an AA or an AAS degree, 
and credentials, so that they could go immediately into a job.
    I really think we cannot wait until students graduate from 
high school to start working on helping them gain the skills 
they need for a productive career. Thank you again. I am sorry, 
Mr. Chairman, I went over.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. I appreciate it. I 
would now like to recognize Ms. Bonamici.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Wilson, and thank you to the witnesses. I am really glad we are 
having this conversation and I really see the Workforce 
Innovation and Opportunity Act as Representative Courtney said, 
was at the bill signing. It was the first bill signing I 
attended. I see it as a vision for a demand driven workforce 
system that really has the dual goals of getting people into 
jobs, but also meeting the needs in the industry.
    Of course, funding is critical, and as Dr. Holzer 
testified, we do not have enough funding. It is pretty clear 
that there is a tremendous amount of potential there. I want to 
focus on a couple things. I know the importance of helping 
people who historically faced barriers to getting into good 
jobs. That is important as well.
    A couple comments. First of all, I am planning to 
reintroduce both my Partners Act and Builds Act. We hear a lot 
about industry partnerships, the Partners Act, which has been 
historically bipartisan. We are hoping to keep it that way, 
will help especially smaller and medium sized business with 
workforce and apprenticeship programs, and also the Builds Act, 
which is specifically designed to help people get into 
constructions trades and trades that help build the 
infrastructure that we so desperately need.
    Again, a bipartisan piece of legislation we are planning to 
reintroduce. I also want to mention as a graduate of a 
community college, the importance of the work of community 
colleges. Portland Community College, for example, in the 
district I am honored to represent, has an amazing mechatronics 
program for example, because we have a huge semi-conductor 
industry, and they get people ready to work in advanced 
manufacturing.
    We have an amazing industry partnership called the Oregon 
Manufacturing Innovation Center with lots of private industry, 
working with not only our higher education institutes, but also 
Portland Community College, to get people ready for advanced 
and additive manufacturing, lots of models there, but the 
potential to do so much more with more funding is real.
    With regard to current technical education is the culture 
of the CTE caucus. We cannot start young enough. When we see it 
is not only getting the skills, it is also the hands-on 
education that keeps students engaged. I just visited St. 
Helen's High School in the rural part of the district I 
represent where they have eight different CTE programs.
    It is amazing what they can do. Dr. Holzer, I want to talk 
about apprenticeships. We know the successful model, and 93 
percent of apprentices receive employment and make a good 
salary. Good paying jobs, in fact, in my home State of Oregon, 
we had more than 10,600 people go through apprenticeship 
programs in 2022.
    As we are considering reauthorization of the Workforce 
Innovation and Opportunity Act, and the National Apprenticeship 
Act, which has not been updated since the 1930's, what should 
we be doing to lower the barriers to entry, and are there 
policies we should consider to make it easier for businesses to 
host apprenticeships?
    Dr. Holzer. Thank you for that question. I think there is 
broad agreement that registered apprenticeships, the entry 
barriers, the hurdles need to be streamlined. My sense is that 
the current drafts of revisions in the National Apprenticeship 
Act would help to do that.
    The exact details go beyond my level of expertise, but I 
think that is the direction we all agree on. Now, unlike Mr. 
Pallasch, I would have some concerns about programs like IRAP 
because all the evidence that we have is on registered 
apprenticeships. We simply have no evidence of the 
effectiveness of these alternative programs. That does not mean 
that they should not exist.
    Ms. Bonamici. I share that. I share that concern.
    Dr. Holzer. What we know is registered apprenticeship, I am 
open to expanding with other versions of that, but that is what 
the focus needs to be. Streamlining outreach to employers. Now 
I will refer to a red State like South Carolina that actually 
does a very nice job of outreach to employers, some tax 
credits, a comprehensive model.
    I think that is a nice approach. I think we want to use the 
opportunity to reauthorize the National Apprenticeship Act to 
bring those barriers down, to create some resources for 
outreach to support some of these very nice State models, 
innovative models.
    Ms. Bonamici. We will look at that as a model. I just have 
a little bit of time left, and I just want to, Dr. Holzer, if 
we could just touch briefly on the 2002 legislation that 
codified re-entry grants. Those services are made available to 
those re-entering the market after leaving the justice system, 
and we know the evidence is there. RAND did a report. It is a 
good return on investment.
    We have a fabulous program in Oregon called Constructing 
Hope for people who get out of the criminal justice system, and 
then get a job in the trades. Why should a future 
reauthorization make these services a priority?
    Dr. Holzer. It is so important. We have incarcerated way 
too many people in America. When they are coming out, and a lot 
of people come out having been disconnected from the school 
system, they need support. Sometimes they are not ready for a 
really rigorous training program. It might be basic literacy. 
It might be other services just to make sure that they are 
housed in a safe place.
    The best programs prevent recidivism. Recidivism is so 
expensive. Not only does it help them get into an economy at a 
time when there's some shortage of employees, but when you 
prevent recidivism, it's a strong return for the entire 
country, and the entire economy, and that's the main reason in 
favor.
    In some cases, you also need things like subsidized jobs 
for a while, for people that are not quite ready for the more 
rigorous demands of the private sector.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would now like to recognize 
Mr. Good.
    Mr. Good. Thank you, Chairman Owens. Again, thank you to 
all of our witnesses for your submitted written and expressed 
testimony here today. One of the top concerns I hear, and I 
think many of my colleagues hear from employers in our 
districts, is the inability to find workers with the right 
skills.
    Obviously, that is one of the reasons why we are here 
today. In light of the Title 42 expiration today, that is 
throwing gasoline on the already raging fire that is the border 
invasion, I think that effects everything. I think it is 
appropriate to ask how flooding the labor market, flooding the 
country with millions of unskilled, non-English speaking 
illegal aliens, impacts the labor market.
    Would anyone say in our panel that this helps employers who 
are seeking more skilled labor? Somewhat rhetorical. Would 
anyone say that this helps increase wages for Americans? Would 
anyone say this helps employers? This is part of our 
jurisdiction on this Committee. Would anyone say this helps 
employers provide better healthcare for their current workers?
    Would anyone say this helps enhance the education 
excellence for our K to 12 children, and the quality of 
teaching and learning for American children as we require every 
school to accommodate every illegal that's here, and whatever 
is their native language.
    I would like to submit for the record, official record of 
this hearing, a document that I have from Federation for 
American Immigration Reform. In my home State of Virginia, the 
Commonwealth of Virginia says we have an estimated already, 
419,000 illegal aliens residing in Virginia, 123,000 of which 
are students in our K to 12 schools.
    The average cost to Virginians is $5,000.00 annually per 
illegal alien. Total of nearly 3 billion, 2.84 billion in 
costs, which costs the average household in Virginia right at 
about $900.00. Shifting gears to more specifically to what the 
purpose of this hearing is, Mr. Ferguson, how has this 
historically tight labor market created new opportunities to 
establish work-based learning partnerships with employers, and 
how could WIOA be updated to support more employer engagement?
    [The information of Mr. Good follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Ferguson. For us to have the opportunity through the 
WIOA funding to help a business upskill their workforce, and 
increase their productivity is just one measure of a way that 
we can help both the worker and the business make it through a 
tight labor market.
    Creating programs and showing companies how to build a 
workforce pipeline through work-based learning, we can provide 
some very entry level, short term training. For instance, where 
a certified nursing assistant may take four to 6 weeks, and 
they can go right to work, and then add on.
    We talked about phlebotomy certification earlier as another 
short-term training that we have done as an add on, bolt on 
skill, that increases that individual's wage by two to three 
dollars per hour, and it gives the hospital that many more 
phlebotomists that are able to work.
    From there, we have individuals going on to licensed 
practical nursing, so businesses are figuring out with our help 
how to build their pipeline and build their workforce 
internally.
    Mr. Good. Thank you for being part of the solution with 
your Career Centers, and by the way the private solution that 
is always better than government solutions. What have you found 
that works best in developing partnerships between State and 
local workforce boards and employers?
    Then what are some of the challenges that prevent employers 
from collaborating with the public workforce system?
    Mr. Ferguson. For us, the biggest key is being active 
members in our business community organizations, our industry 
associations, such as the First Coast Manufacturers 
Association. We have staff that are in the workforce, 
particular subcommittees that those industry associations have.
    Understanding our economic development targeted industries, 
knowing your business community is the key for us to invest the 
dollars that we do have in the areas that are growing, so that 
a worker may not work for company A, but they are in the 
distribution and logistics industry within our area, which is 
very strong, we know we can get them to company B or company C.
    Mr. Good. Thank you, sir. Mr. Pallasch, one last question 
for you. If the Department of Labor was less involved in 
workforce development, leaving employers to work on it, what do 
you think that would do for our economy?
    Mr. Pallasch. I think that is the key is the Department of 
Labor's responsibility is to foster an environment where that 
happens, where employers are working with their local workforce 
boards, as Bruce has described.
    Working with the other workforce partners to find solutions 
that are best for them, and that part of the State, or that 
part of the country because folks here in D.C., myself 
included, do not necessarily know what central Texas needs 
versus, you know, Northern California.
    It is best left up to them. The Department of Labor does 
have a role. It is fostering that type of environment, and not 
being the big, bad cops all the time. It is working with them 
so that the locals, as Bruce has done, take advantage of the 
flexibilities that exist.
    We need to make sure they are aware of that and encourage 
them to do that.
    Mr. Good. Well said. We could apply that to a lot of 
government that we should just facilitate the private sector to 
thrive and succeed, so thank you for succinctly answering that. 
I yield back Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Owens. Thanks so much. I would like to now yield 
to Ms. Adams.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
witnesses today for joining us this morning, certainly a topic 
that we need to talk about. Dr. Holzer, because funding for the 
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act is not mandatory, 
funding may fluctuate, and even be reduced during times of 
heightened demand for training services.
    Have you seen an increase in demand for job training during 
the COVID pandemic? How could the Federal Government provide 
equitable outcomes for disadvantaged communities through 
funding?
    Dr. Holzer. I think COVID was very unusual, because it 
affected, it limited both the supply and the demand for 
education, enrollment in community colleges declined, et 
cetera. Now, in most cyclical downturns, training is counter 
cyclical. When the labor market is not that good, that is a 
good time for people to go and train, and I think it will be 
nice if there were some mandatory dollars that are tied to the 
State of the business cycle, and many other areas, many other 
programs were trying to improve the automatic stabilizer role 
of support programs like SNAP and other things.
    That, I think we could probably do some of that with WIOA 
dollars as well. On the equity issue, I think right now people 
of color, broadly defined, are overrepresented in the WIOA 
population, so they benefit more from these dollars than anyone 
else.
    Now, the average impacts are roughly the same in percentage 
terms, for people of color. As for white people, we wish they 
were a little higher, but in fact so I think a lot of the 
improvements we have talked about today, plus some extra 
resources could make the system better serve.
    Of course, the whole adult program is really designed for 
the disadvantaged population, people who often start with a 
fairly low level of work experience and basic skills, so more 
resources. With the appropriate accountability in that system, 
I think would increase its equity value.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, sir. Ms. Logan, you mentioned in your 
testimony that you believe that Congress should dedicate 
funding for individual accounts, to increase dollar limits on 
incumbent worker programs, and we should also enhance workplace 
learning programs. Could you talk a little bit about the wrap 
around services and how the program distribution has impacted 
the workforce at companies like IBM?
    Ms. Logan. Sure. Let me start with incumbent workers. Thank 
you for the question. As Mr. Ferguson said earlier, there are 
opportunities for people to start with WIOA dollars, earn a 
credential, get employment, but there may be other short-term 
programs they could get to go to the next level, and those 
kinds of upscaling opportunities that would allow them to get a 
few more dollars per hour, and continue on a career trajectory 
are why incumbent workers should be included in the ITAs.
    We also believe that there are opportunities for people to 
get training that are not currently working for them. They are 
not necessarily work-based learning. They are not necessarily 
high quality. These are some of the points we have been talking 
about and we need to make sure that those are all part of the 
revisions that this Committee is considering.
    IBM offers programs that are free. I know in the past we 
have talked about several of them, and some of them were 
working with HBCU's on our cybersecurity centers are benefiting 
from our digital credentials that we offer.
    We can build on what is available to people, and then make 
sure that they have the opportunity to continue to use more 
resources that are available to align with employer needs 
locally, quality programs, and get them into jobs.
    Ms. Adams. Well, thank you very much and thank you for all 
of your work with our HBCUs. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I 
am going to yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would now like to recognize 
Ms. Houchin.
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, guys, for 
coming to testify today. I am actually very excited to continue 
this conversation about the WIOA reauthorization, and how we 
can improve the skills gap, and address the workforce shortage.
    The State of the workforce continues to change. Right now, 
if you want a job you can find it. WIOA, over the past, was 
connecting job seekers to jobs, and we have about 40 percent of 
the able-bodied population not engaging in the workforce.
    I would like to see a reauthorization that keeps that issue 
in mind, promoting incentives that would engage the 40 percent, 
and utilize Work One and other programs to encourage those to 
participate in the workforce, and provide the scaling up that 
they need to do the jobs of today.
    One of the things I am considering in this Congress is a 
tiered tax credit for employers who are retaining new 
employees, allowing, you know, out of the 40 percent, allowing 
more workforce programs funds to be extended to adult education 
opportunities like the Goodwill Excel Center in my district, in 
Clarksville, Indiana.
    I have been there and seen it firsthand. They are doing 
amazing work at taking that marginal population, and providing 
them an education, and opportunities that they might not 
otherwise have. Mr. Ferguson, I believe workforce programs are 
most successful when employers are in the driver's seat. What 
have you found to work best in developing partnerships with 
employers?
    Mr. Ferguson. I would agree. Our board agrees that the 
philosophy of the business knows best what skills they need. 
When our board sets that kind of a tone for us as professional 
staff, it is my job to make sure we understand what our 
business community skills needs are.
    We do that through, as I said, in my testimony with our 
economic development councils, by being part of our Chambers of 
Commerce, by participating in Advisory Councils for our State 
college system. We sit, so we are hearing what industry is 
asking for from our colleges.
    It is really all about partnerships and understanding your 
local labor markets so that we can coach our job seekers that 
are coming into the career centers. Here is where your areas of 
best opportunity lie.
    Ms. Houchin. To that point, do you think it would be 
beneficial for us to consider legislation that concerns the 
tiered tax credit program where employers could work with 
workforce boards as they retain employers for say, three, six, 
employees in that 40 percent for three, six, nine or 12 months?
    Mr. Ferguson. Certainly, any kind of a tax credit program, 
or something like that, it needs to be simple to use. If it 
takes too much to get the credit the business will not do it.
    Ms. Houchin. Right. Then would you consider supporting 
employers and reskilling workers as part of this 
reauthorization? Would you consider a program that would 
support employers in helping to reskill the workforce?
    Mr. Ferguson. Right. I think it is there with the current 
ability to do the customized training types of things that we 
do to make it more explicit, to encourage it in some way, that 
it kind of opens the door to other workforce boards and other 
states to understand this tool, and how to use it would be very 
beneficial.
    Ms. Houchin. Clarifying what already exists, and making 
sure it's advertised?
    Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
    Ms. Houchin. Mr. Ferguson, my time in social services 
showed me that we should be focusing on young adults aging out 
of foster care. As you may know, over 23,000 children age out 
of foster care every year, 20 percent of them become instantly 
homeless upon aging out.
    Furthermore, only half of those young adults will have 
gainful employment by the age of 24. Do you have any 
suggestions on how through this we can engage that demographic 
in the workforce?
    Mr. Ferguson. The best thing that we can try to do is to 
get to those kids before they age out.
    Ms. Houchin. Correct.
    Mr. Ferguson. Show them what the opportunities are in the 
labor market to introduce them to potential training programs. 
For us to connect them to employment as soon as possible 
because you can build skills while you work.
    Ms. Houchin. Do you think we are reaching those students 
early enough now, or those foster children early enough now?
    Mr. Ferguson. Probably not, or you would not end up with 
the homeless situation that we are having.
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you. I look forward to continuing this 
discussion on reauthorization. I have got lots of thoughts on 
how we can make improvements. I appreciate you being here 
today. My goal is to support job creators in the workforce, and 
in Indiana, and across the country. Thank you very much. I 
yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize 
Mr. Takano.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is 
for Mr. Ferguson. Mr. Ferguson, you highlight some success for 
job seekers specifically with job seekers in certified nursing 
assistant programs. You State a majority of them earned a 
significant wage after passing the CNA certification exam, and 
this is a very real accomplishment, and I applaud you for that 
success.
    I wonder what is next for these individuals? They are now 
earning in many instances $12.29 an hour, which is a decent 
starting wage, but still not enough to raise a family, or be 
sustainable over a whole career. This is an arena that we need 
to focus on in the next WIOA reauthorization.
    My question is how can WIOA play a role in these 
individuals' more long-term career paths?
    Mr. Ferguson. Well, so thank you for that question, and 
what we are trying to set forth in that particular example is 
that is the starting point for us. We continue to engage with 
that particular hospital, and they look forward to, and we have 
done a follow on employed worker training, where we have helped 
those CNAs become an LPN, which again boosts that income, and 
fills a need for the hospital, and you know, gives the 
opportunity for that particular worker to upskill and earn more 
money, so.
    Mr. Takano. How could WIOA play a role?
    Mr. Ferguson. We utilize the customized training dollars to 
do that exact thing, so the funding that we have, and the 
employers paying for half of this because they have got to 
benefit, you know, from that as well, now I have an LPN filled 
that I did not have, and it is easier for us, at our workforce 
career center level, to go replace another CNA with a very 
short-term training, and just get that pipeline going.
    Mr. Takano. Well, how can WIOA support lifelong learning 
and a sustainable career pathway, because $12.29 is a start, 
but do you have ideas about how we can use WIOA to support the 
lifelong learning and sustainable career pathway?
    Mr. Ferguson. Exactly. I will go back to the apprenticeship 
program that Flagler Health Plus put in place. They were taking 
individuals that worked at the hospital. Some of them were in 
administrative, entry level jobs, or the food service area of 
the hospital, through a 1-year, just a 12-month apprenticeship 
program. Went from a starting wage of $15.00 in that program, 
and when they graduate as a surgical technician, they are 
making over $19.00 an hour. That is a really significant gain 
in a short period of time.
    Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. Dr. Holzer, a recent study by 
the Harvard Project on Workforce found that of the 75,000 
programs across the United States on Eligible Training Provider 
Lists, or ETPLs, 75,000 or 75 percent could not report on 
critical information of their program like employment rates, 
earnings, and credentials.
    While I would like to see greater focus on skills-based 
hiring, I am concerned that without transparency on the type of 
credentials being trained for, we risk making the situation 
worse and causing harm to low-income populations who need this 
information to make informed--an informed choice.
    How can we address this issue of transparency for 
credentials?
    Mr. Ferguson. Thank you, Mr. Takano. It starts with making 
sure the right data is available. I would prefer individual 
records to be more available, so you could really track the 
progress of each individual in those programs. We are making 
some progress. I think the ETPL lists have a lot of problems in 
their current form, in terms of the ability of people to 
navigate them.
    They are not transparent right now, and as well as the 
ability to use those to weed out less effective programs. 
Several states, and in fact the program credential engine, is 
making some nice progress, and gathering the data and making it 
in a digestible form for job seekers, for program 
administrators, so making sure people have the right resources 
supporting efforts like that to improve the quality of the wage 
data, I think would be a good first step.
    Mr. Takano. Well thank you, Dr. Holzer. Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back.
    Chairman Owens. I would like to now recognize Mr. Banks.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Logan, I want to 
address the statement made by IBM's CEO Arvind Krishna just 
last week that roughly 7,800 of IBM's jobs could be slowed or 
eliminated entirely by artificial intelligence. How is IBM 
planning to balance offering good paying, stable roles to 
American workers, while competing in a high stakes environment 
in which our competitors, including international ones, might 
be relying on AI?
    Ms. Logan. Sure. Absolutely, and thank you for the 
question. The technology industry, as we all know, is a rapidly 
evolving sector. We are continuously increasing our own skills 
as IBM-ers. We are all required to do a minimum of 40 hours of 
learning a year to maintain and increase the skills that we 
have.
    In addition to that, we are offering programs, many of 
which I have talked about today, our skills build program, 
which is available to the public, and offers AI and 
cybersecurity, and digital data analytics, et cetera, so that 
people can learn for free with current content.
    It is important for this WIOA program to focus on making 
sure that people have those skills that are the skills of today 
and tomorrow. It is also important that we think about the fact 
that some jobs will be eliminated. Some jobs will shift, and 
new jobs will be created.
    AI is a tool. It is something that is going to shift and 
change the way that we work, and the way that jobs are shaped. 
It is not new. It has been around for a long time. It was 2011 
that Watson won jeopardy, so it is really about how we use it, 
and not just about the thing itself.
    We need to make sure that people have the skills that they 
need in order to leverage AI in the jobs of today.
    Mr. Banks. I appreciate that. It is interesting that you 
require continuing education for your employees, but is there 
an ongoing effort by IBM leadership to take care of those 
people, those workers who you know their jobs will be 
eliminated by AI? Is there a regular discussion, especially 
about artificial intelligence?
    Ms. Logan. Well, artificial intelligence is something where 
you are using it to become more efficient. It is not always 
about what is being eliminated. It may be about how your job is 
shifting, so that is a big part of the reskilling that we all 
do, is making sure that we are keeping pace with the jobs as 
they evolve.
    Mr. Banks. 300 million jobs around the world may be lost, 
or severely diminished by AI according to Goldman Sachs March 
report. Even if it is a fraction of 300 million, it is still a 
huge number of American workers whose jobs are lost or 
disrupted by artificial intelligence.
    What sectors of the U.S. economy do you think are most 
vulnerable? I will start with you, Ms. Logan, and maybe 
everyone else can take a shot at answering that question too.
    Ms. Logan. Well first, I would say this is also not the 
first time we have seen this. Anytime we have a major 
technological advance we see these shifts in the workforce. We 
saw it on the internet, we have seen it with advanced 
manufacturing, so this shift is a pattern, and this is the 
latest iteration of it.
    Mr. Banks. Would you agree? I mean artificial intelligence 
is different than creating the internet. Artificial 
intelligence is explicitly designed to perform a role, or a job 
of someone who had that role before, so would you distinguish 
that as being somewhat different?
    Ms. Logan. It still requires people to manage it. It is now 
someone who understands how to apply it in the context of what 
it is doing.
    Mr. Banks. Mr. Ferguson, what roles do you think are most 
likely to be eliminated due to, especially American worker's 
jobs?
    Mr. Ferguson. That is a great question. I mean we have seen 
how technology reduces the need for the number of workers. How 
AI ends up impacting that is something that I have not studied 
a lot. I am certainly trying to keep aware of what is going on, 
but in my reading things in the world of accounting, and other 
areas, could have significant impacts, so we will see how it 
goes.
    Mr. Banks. Dr. Holtzer.
    Dr. Holzer. I think certain sectors will be affected first. 
Customer service very obviously, since a lot of that has been 
automated already. Almost any kind of fairly low-level research 
assistants, or low level writing assistants, Chat GPT will do 
fairly soon, if not currently, what we really need is some kind 
of system of lifelong learning, including for incumbent 
workers.
    If a worker sees that 20 or 30 percent of her tasks were 
getting automated, that we helped the employer help the 
employee pivot to a different set of tasks, and that is ideal, 
and a few states have actually have lifelong learning accounts, 
but also various forms of tax credits for incumbent worker 
training to help employers, rather than displace those workers, 
to help them pivot to the skills, because there will be a lot 
of new skills demanded to replace the old ones.
    This has been going on for over 200 years, so we need to be 
better about helping both workers and employers adapt to that 
with new forms of skill support.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize 
Mr. Thompson.
    Mr. Thompson. Chairman, thank you for holding this timely 
hearing to address one of the main challenges facing businesses 
across the country. In nearly every meeting with my 
constituents in recent months, I hear firsthand how workforce 
shortages impact everything from childcare to trucking.
    Part of these issues stem from a lack of a skilled 
workforce, and as co-Chair of the congressional Career 
Integrational Educational Caucus, I am committed to ensuring 
the success of these highly beneficial programs, and I believe 
that they provide Americans with the skills necessary to 
address our current challenges.
    First, a comment and then a question for Ms. Logan. My 
comment for Mr. Ferguson is just congratulations on what you 
have done in Florida with career ladders. That is what you have 
described, and I am a product of that. Out of high school I 
worked a job at a nursing home, 11 at night until 7 in the 
morning, today it would be a CNA.
    This was before CNA, but from there I became an Assistant, 
I worked the career ladder, became assistant therapist, a 
therapist, a rehab services manager, and eventually was 
licensed as a nursing home administrator.
    I think those career ladders fit--well, I think with the 
younger population as well. You know, it is not so important 
where you start in life, it is where you end up. Quite frankly, 
I think we have known these career ladders rather well for some 
time, and certainly through WIOA, and everything else we really 
should do our best to even make them better.
    My question is for Ms. Logan. Ms. Logan, working at IBM, 
you know firsthand the importance of highly skilled 
cybersecurity professionals, not just in places like IBM, but 
quite frankly businesses nationwide. Anybody that touches the 
internet is at risk, right?
    At the last Congress, I was proud to co-lead the 
Cybersecurity Skills Integration Act, which would create a new 
grant program, incentivizing cybersecurity education into new 
established CT programs. Do you have any experience cultivating 
education and workforce programs at IBM, do you currently work 
with CT programs to develop curriculum that addresses 
cybersecurity issues in the skillsets that are needed?
    Ms. Logan. Thank you for the question. We have been in 
conversations with school districts about that. There are 
certainly more school districts could do around cybersecurity 
education, again our Skills Build program offers some entry 
level and exploratory content for high school teachers and 
students on cybersecurity, so it encourages them to explore 
that.
    There is not enough that students and teachers, and every 
individual can know about cybersecurity and their role in 
keeping their own information safe on the internet, and for any 
network they are participating in. That is why IBM is 
establishing 20 cybersecurity leadership centers with HBC's.
    We work closely through digital promise. We have got a 
cybersecurity initiative there with some school districts 
across the country, and we have got a cybersecurity 
apprenticeship program, that is a year long. We need 
cybersecurity roles filled in the United States.
    We committed to fill--to skill 150,000 cyber people in the 
United States, so we are hard at work on the cyber issue, and 
absolutely there is more that can be done in the high school 
space.
    Mr. Thompson. Well, you are doing a great job. It sounds 
that is a pretty extensive list, a lot more than what I 
expected. The question is, from your perspective, what more can 
Congress do to help integrate career and technical education 
programs with employers like yourself to ensure that we have 
the cybersecurity workforce necessary to confront the 
challenges of the future?
    Ms. Logan. Sure. I think absolutely the CTE programs can 
take a look at some of the newer content that is out there, and 
new challenges that are facing us as we discussed today. Roles 
and technology are evolving all the time. We need to make sure 
students are lifelong learners, but also that the programs and 
pathways that are available are taking into account the new 
technologies that are out there, and what is facing our Nation, 
national security, cybersecurity, information, and there is 
opportunity for CTE to be updated to include some of that.
    Mr. Thompson. Mr. Pallasch, we know one of the challenges 
with WIOA is that many programs within the bill do not 
participate in skills development training, or education. Quite 
frankly, many adults are simply unaware of the programs and 
benefits available to them.
    In your testimony, given your experience as a former 
Assistant Secretary, you noted that the Department of Labor 
Employment and Training Administration, needs to be more 
engaged on these issues. What do you believe the Department can 
do to expand awareness of these critical career counseling 
programs, and opportunities to help increase participation?
    Mr. Pallasch. Thank you for your question. Since we are 
showering praise on Bruce, I think one of the things that the 
Regional Administrator from the Department of Labor could hold 
up what northeast Florida is doing, and share that with other 
workforce boards, so that when we find somebody that's doing it 
right, when we find somebody that has employers engaged to job 
attached training, that we, as the Department of Labor, amplify 
that, and in essence put our arm around that and say yes, that 
is good, we want to see this more.
    We want to see folks do this in Nevada, and in Colorado and 
Michigan and Washington.
    Mr. Thompson. That is great. Create a mechanism to share 
best practices?
    Mr. Pallasch. Absolutely.
    Mr. Thompson. That is great. Mr. Chairman, thank you so 
much.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I would like to now recognize 
Mr. Walberg.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the panel 
for being here. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you allowing me to 
wave on to this Committee, a Committee that was long very close 
to my heart with what you do here. America's workforce needs to 
have drastically change how Americans access education, and 
workforce development has changed as well.
    There are many good changes that offer opportunities. 
Through the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act, WIOA, we have 
an opportunity to address America's workforce challenges to 
bring more employers to the table and offer innovative ways to 
reskill and upskill workers.
    Today, I introduced with my colleague, Representative 
Rochester, the Immersive Technology for American Workforce Act, 
which would help the job seekers gain the skills they need 
through programs that utilize immersive technology or virtual 
reality.
    I have seen how immersive technologies, including augmented 
and virtual reality tools, can be used to upskill workers in 
the telecommunications industry. Advanced manufacturing, and in 
healthcare. These technologies have potential to lower training 
costs and improve safety while paving the way for individuals 
to pursue good-paying careers.
    Across the country, businesses are struggling to find 
employees to meet the ever-growing demand in the skilled trades 
or technical fields. Our bill would enable Americans in rural 
and underserved areas to utilize immersive technologies to 
pursue career development, and better access quality job 
development courses.
    Ms. Logan, in your testimony you discussed about how IBM is 
partnering with innovative education providers to expand career 
opportunities for millions of Americans. Thank you for that. As 
we think about ways to deliver more skills and developments 
through the public workforce system, how can we encourage more 
engagement from employers who want to offer innovative skill 
development opportunities?
    Ms. Logan. Thank you for the question. We believe that 
transparency and quality in programs that are offered, one way 
to make sure that employers are at the table. Making sure that 
they are connected, that the programs that are offered locally, 
are connected to the needs of the employers, the job 
opportunities that are there, so that the pipeline of people 
being skilled are the ones being prepared for the jobs that are 
available.
    We also believe that we need to look at some of the reforms 
to the program, so that we are not just looking at the brick-
and-mortar providers, but looking at quality providers that may 
be online, and the other modalities that will help people learn 
at the place, pace, and path that is right for them.
    We cannot leave anyone behind when we are looking at 
finding talent. Employers need to fill jobs to keep our economy 
strong, and to keep our local economies going, thank you.
    Mr. Walberg. I guess this definitely starts at the early 
ages, to start young people thinking about what could be the 
potential for the values that they share in their life. That 
includes finding ways to get parents to start reacting 
differently to appropriate educational opportunities that may 
be different than what they planned for their young people as 
well, and to foster the desire to look for ways that will get 
them to the marketplace, which oftentimes seems to make them 
want to expand that in the future.
    Are we looking at ways through business and industry, and I 
guess I could ask any of you to respond to that. Do we really 
start addressing that to introduce, and even inoculate people 
against certain perceptions of certain jobs and start to 
introduce them to the fact that any job could be expansive 
opportunity, and unique, creative training courses can assist 
in that.
    Mr. Pallasch. Yes, I would like to jump in as possible 
because I appreciate the question, and I think one of the 
barriers to entry for the apprenticeship program that we found 
was speaking to the point that you're talking about. Parents 
oftentimes look at an apprenticeship as something less than. It 
is not--I hoped that John would go to college, and I do not 
want John to be an apprentice, not realizing exactly what an 
apprentice is.
    It is a job attached training program that we know--I 
forget the Representatives we mentioned it earlier, it is about 
a 94 percent tension rate. It is a $70,000 starting salary 
across the board for apprenticeships. We know that is a proven 
model that it is getting past the stigma of oh, an 
apprenticeship. I am going to an apprenticeship. I am not going 
to college.
    To speak to your earlier point about location or VR, I 
could not agree more. When I was at the Department of Labor we 
launched a pilot with the job corps program, to try to bring 
virtual reality headsets into some of our job corps centers, so 
that we could allow career exploration for the students, but 
also allow training for them.
    I think there is real value in looking at things a little 
bit differently, trying some new things, encouraging, getting 
people comfortable with doing it a little bit differently.
    Mr. Walberg. Virtual reality to bring out reality, and for 
the future, so Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you 
again. I wanted to, as we start our closing comments, recognize 
Ranking Member Ms. Wilson.
    Ms. Wilson. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Owens, and thank 
you so much again to our witnesses for being with us today. As 
I said at the start of this hearing, investing in WIOA and 
skills development is one of the best things we can do to boost 
our economy. I am grateful for our productive discussion on the 
steps that would and would not meaningfully update our 
workforce system.
    We have our work cut out for us, and we may not see eye to 
eye all the time, but politics aside, let us agree on this. A 
WIOA reauthorization must cater to the needs of diverse job 
seekers and ensure workforce investment helps businesses. I 
look forward to working with Chair Owens on a bipartisan WIOA 
reauthorization that delivers on these commitments and meets 
the needs of workers and businesses. Thank you so much, and I 
yield back.
    Chairman Owens. Thank you, Ms. Wilson, appreciate that. I 
wanted to just say thank you so much. I think that we are 
having a very helpful conversation. You know, there are a lot 
of bad things that happened due to COVID. One of the good 
things is innovators are stepping to the plate, and I 
appreciate that in so many ways.
    We talk about supply chain, and we know that there will 
have issues in so many ways, but the greatest danger to our 
country is our workforce supply chain, not being prepared to 
take us to the next level. I looked up--because I just want to 
remind what WIOA means, the WIOA is Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act.
    I think a key word to that is innovation. We seem to have 
forgotten that. I think we have to also understand we have a 
partnership here. There is the government and there are the 
innovators, and we both have our parts, and both weaknesses and 
strengths.
    I was kind of thinking about some of the weaknesses and 
strengths of both, this is the mindset, and the mindset is 
real. The weaknesses of the government mindset is that it is 
risk adverse. It does spread away from accountability and 
transparency.
    It seems the goal itself versus looking at the matrix of 
gross success in the mission statement. The upside is that it 
is funded, but it is funded by taxpayers. Unfortunately, with 
that, throwing money at the wall is very easy to do, so we have 
to make sure that we bring that accountability into it.
    The other side is innovation, innovators. Innovators, all 
about profit, and that means they have to create the best 
product, and the best talent and hold on to that talent. That 
is what makes this whole process work. That is the upside. The 
weakness is lack of funding, so therefore, scaling of a good 
idea sometimes is more difficult.
    What we have to do at this present place is walk across the 
aisle and realize that we are fighting for the soul of our 
country right now, and we need to make sure that our people, 
old and young, have hope. They only do that if they have the 
skillset, they have a dream, they can know to go out there and 
go through the ups and downs, and know they will end up on the 
right side.
    We have to, and I am thankful again for what you are doing 
right now, cannot wait. Just know that we have a Congress now, 
we have a Congress that believes very simply, we need to be 
innovative in our legislative process. We can only do that by 
hearing from the innovators what works, what is outside the box 
that we do not understand.
    We will never understand in DC. If we are open to that, 
then we will make sure our country comes back really, really 
strong, and I look forward to that process. I think we are 
going to do very well with that.
    I want to thank you guys again for being here. I would like 
to thank you for taking the time, for coming to testify before 
the subcommittee today. Without objections, there being no 
further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you 
so much.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    [Whereupon at 12:42 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.]

                                 [all]