"Building an AI-Ready America: Strengthening Employer-Led Training"

The Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development will come to order. I note a quorum is present. Without objection, the chair is authorized to call a recess at any time. Artificial intelligence isn't coming in some distant future. It's a tool that businesses are already using every single day. Data shows that nearly half of the occupations could use AI as at least a quarter of their tasks. That means jobs are evolving in real time. At the same time, research finds that 44 percent of workers' core skills will change within the next five years because of technology advances. That presents enormous opportunities, but only if we prepare for it. The America's economy strength depends on whether our workforce is ready to compete and lead into the new era. So the question is simple: are we preparing our workers to succeed or letting them fall behind? The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act is a foundation of our nation's workforce development system. It provides funding for job training, work-based learning, classroom instructions, and support for our adults and youth. But the economy looks very different than it did when WIOA was first reauthorized in 2014. We have to ask whether the system we built more than a decade ago is equipped for the economy we have today. Employers are hiring, but nearly 7,000,000 positions remain unfilled. The problem isn't a lack of opportunity; it's a mismatch of skills. More important, businesses are recognizing that demonstrated ability and real-world competencies matter as much or if not more than traditional four-year degrees that leave learners straddled in and sometimes unrecoverable debt. That's why employer-led training matters. When businesses have direct involvement in designing training programs, we get better outcomes. Many employer-led or employer-involved models allow Americans to earn while they learn. These models build practical skills tied to real jobs. And they ensure taxpayer dollars produce measurable results. AI is going to automate some tasks but also create new ones. An AI-ready America won't happen by accident. It will happen when we align training with real job demands, remove barriers to employer participation, and hold programs accountable for results. Our responsibility is clear: prepare Americans not just for the jobs of yesterday, but opportunities for tomorrow. And with that, I'd like to yield to the ranking member.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today. A strong workforce development system can provide our workers with the skills they need to succeed, helping employers find the required talent, and positioning our nation for future economic growth. But we know we've not been investing in our current system for quite some time, and as a result, significant gaps persist. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, or WIOA, was a landmark step forward when it was enacted in 2014. It was a bipartisan success that sought to streamline the complex web of workforce programs and improve accountability for our workforce systems. However, today, many workers and job seekers are struggling in an increasingly unaffordable economy. Many Americans are looking to further develop their skills and seek new opportunities, and our workforce system must ensure that every worker, even those without a bachelor's degree, can access good-paying jobs and gain the skills required to thrive in today's economy. Last Congress, our committee worked in a bipartisan manner to address the gaps in our workforce development system and successfully led and then eventually reached a bipartisan, bicameral agreement entitled A Stronger Workforce for America Act. This monumental agreement updated WIOA to increase skills development, strengthen the connection between employers and the workforce system, and put more Americans on a path to success. It included more important policy victories for both sides of the aisle, including skill-based hiring measures, youth apprenticeship grants, and individual training accounts. It included several of priorities initiated by the chairman, gentleman from Utah, including a pilot program for five states to innovate with flexible funds, which was modeled after his state's workforce system, the creation of new credential repositories in every state, and increased access to accountability for the Job Corps. A Stronger Workforce for America Act was testament on how Congress could put political differences aside to stand up for working Americans. It is a rare achievement when Representative Foxx and Senator Sanders are fighting for the same legislation. Unfortunately, when this legislation was on the cusp of being signed into law, Speaker Johnson abruptly removed it from a end-of-the-year must-pass funding bill after Elon Musk and his allies launched a social media campaign and torpedoed it. We're now over a year into the 119th Congress, and we have failed to bring the bill back up for consideration in its original form. Instead of cementing a win for our workforce and the American people, regrettably, all signs point to committee Republicans now going to needless extremes in a partisan direction when it comes to reauthorizing WIOA, abandoning this bipartisan legislation with potential to go as far as prioritizing President Trump's attempts to dismantle the Department of Education by moving adult education programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor. This would be a big mistake, and we're fortunate to have an expert witness today, Mr. Parton, who's administered WIOA programs during his time at the Department of Labor. He can speak with authority on why it would be a big mistake to move adult education to the Department of Labor, and we should listen to him. The good news is that it's not too late for committee Republicans to avoid this mistake. It's not too late for committee Republicans to show that the committee refuses to put ideology ahead of what's best for the country's workforce development system and those workers and employers in our districts who rely on it. And it's not too late for committee Republicans to take the path that the committee Democrats believe we should have taken over a year ago, because it's not too late to advance A Stronger Workforce for America Act and to renew our commitment to making it a law. It's not too late to do that, but it's up to our Republican friends to decide what comes next. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you. 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 by Microsoft Word format by 5:00 PM, 14 days after this hearing. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open 14 days to allow statements and other materials noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. I now turn our attention to introduction of our four distinguished witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. Tim House, the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer at the Wireless Infrastructure Association from Arlington, Virginia. Our second witness is Dr. Scott Ralls, the President of Wake Technical Community College from Raleigh, North Carolina. Our third witness is Mr. Brent Parton, the President of CareerWise from Washington, D.C. Thank you so much. And our fourth witness is Mary Kate Morley Ryan, the Managing Director of Talent and Organization for Transformation Americas at Accenture from St. Louis, Missouri. I want to thank the witnesses for being here today and look forward to your testimony. Pursuant to committee rules, I would ask that each of you limit your oral presentation to a three-minute summary of your written statement. As committee members have questions for you, the clock will count down from three minutes. However, pursuant to committee rule 8(d) and the committee practice, we will not cut off your testimony until you reach the five-minute mark. I would also like to remind the witnesses to be aware of the responsibility to provide accurate information to the subcommittee. I will first recognize Mr. House for your testimony.

Chairman Owens, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for convening this important hearing on employer-led training. I'm honored to represent the Wireless Infrastructure Association, whose members build, own, and operate the infrastructure powering America's wireless networks. Beyond advocacy at the state and federal levels, WIA is proud to serve as the national sponsor of the Telecommunications Industry Registered Apprenticeship Program and is recognized by the Department of Labor as the sole industry intermediary for telecommunications. Our mission is to ensure a skilled workforce for this industry and to improve safety and quality of work. We appreciate this opportunity to share our insights. To put it simply, the telecommunications industry faces a shortage of qualified workers. In addition to ongoing maintenance and network improvements, we are implementing Congress's $42,000,000,000 broadband investment to close the digital divide. This work coincides with the rise of AI, which depends on widespread connectivity. A February 2026 Citigroup report forecasts $3,000,000,000,000 will be spent on AI infrastructure by 2030. All these factors signal a sharp and sustained increase in demand for skilled telecommunications professionals. WIA and the telecommunications industry have worked for years to address this workforce challenge. Our registered apprenticeship program now includes over 100 employers across 16 occupations and has helped more than 7,000 apprentices start meaningful careers. WIA has further acted as an industry intermediary within the sector partnership framework for developing relevant curriculum for the broadband workforce. We spearhead training and education partnerships with higher education and career and technical education institutions across the country. If there is one takeaway from my participation today, it is the value of industry intermediaries for workforce development initiatives. Registered apprenticeship coordinated with employers target the skills needed for high-demand fields like broadband and AI. These programs grow the talent pool, equip participants with practical skills, and support long-term careers. By blending classroom learning and on-the-job training, participants advance by demonstrating competence. WIA enthusiastically supports the president's executive order to prepare Americans for high-paying skilled trades and the goal of enrolling 1,000,000 new registered apprentices. Despite the real progress our industry has made, current efforts alone will not meet the demand that is coming. WIOA reauthorization is a genuine opportunity to change that. By preserving state flexibility, explicitly supporting registered apprenticeships and employer-led training, and encouraging the sector partnership model that has already proven its effectiveness, this Congress can deliver the policy foundation our workforce needs. When paired with complementary federal investments, including NTIA deploying remaining BEAD funds towards workforce development, these steps would go a long way towards ensuring America has the skilled, credentialed workforce that this moment demands. The infrastructure ambitions of this nation are within reach, and the workforce to build it should be too. Finally, as we continue this dialogue today, let's focus on the people and the communities who benefit from these opportunities or who lose out if action is delayed. We share a common goal; let's work together to achieve it. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you. And now I'd like to recognize Dr. Ralls for your testimony.

Thank you. Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Scott, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss AI building an AI-ready workforce and strengthening employer-led training. My name is Scott Ralls, I'm president of Wake Technical Community College. We're the largest community college in North Carolina, serving approximately 75,000 degree and non-degree students. ChatGPT refers to Wake Tech as a workforce engine for our region, alighting education, industry, and economic development. And we're also frequently cited as a leading apprenticeship college with 170 local employer apprenticeship partners in sectors that range from skilled trades to biotech to healthcare. I often say in our home county that Wake County runs on Wake Tech because of the reach of our technical programs. And in the past few years, we've seen record student interest in our skilled trades programs, reversing prior periods when we experienced student interest gaps. That renewed interest I don't believe is accidental. Artificial intelligence is contributing to the rebound in student interest in skilled trades. And while AI is raising questions for some students about returns from traditional higher ed pathways, it's also increasing demands for programs in energy-related fields such as electrical systems and HVAC. Now Wake Tech is responding by expanding our capacity in these high-demand programs. We're proud to serve as the lead college in a North Carolina pilot of a recently announced national initiative called Careers Electric, funded by the Siemens Foundation to expand the pipeline of skilled electricians. Efforts like these are strengthened by WIOA and other federal workforce frameworks that reinforce employer-aligned training. And continued alignment between the federal workforce policy and employer demand will remain essential as AI reshapes the labor market. At Wake Tech, our approach to AI education is not to confine it to a single program. Instead, we intentionally integrate or as we say, thread AI across disciplines to strengthen student competitiveness across every field. And that integration is already starting to occur at scale. This semester more than 4,600 Wake Tech students are enrolled in courses across 33 academic disciplines that are taught by faculty who are actively incorporating AI into instruction. And these include programs such as automotive systems and heating and air conditioning. To support this integration, we've made AI literacy a priority for both students and faculty. And beyond classroom integration, we're also formalizing AI competency in ways to make it more visible to employers. We're building models to support workforce readiness that will offer AI digital badges that where students can earn alongside their academic credentials. And these badges will be able to apply AI literacy that can be included on transcripts and professional portfolios. And our commitment to AI extends beyond the classroom. We're also applying AI to improve student support. At Wake Tech, we have sector-based care teams, a model that aligns success coaches, advisors, and career coaches around specific career fields. And that model has led to record retention rates at our college. And we're now implementing AI agents within these teams to scale support and allow staff to focus more deeply on personal engagement. Now I think these efforts will position Wake Tech to continue to support one of the nation's most dynamic technology hubs. Cybersecurity is our largest academic program at Wake Tech, and our biotech programs support a leading biopharma manufacturing cluster. To sustain that leadership, our students must remain competitive in their knowledge and application of artificial intelligence. And that means preparing them to use AI as a powerful tool and not a crutch. At Wake Tech, we're developing what we say is AI-enabled critical thinkers, people who can apply technology responsibly across industries. Community colleges, I often say, are through colleges. Students come through us to reach their desired destinations, ultimately employment destinations. And for institutions like Wake Tech, that responsibility means meeting employer skill targets with precision. The future workforce will require fluency in artificial intelligence across occupations, from skilled trades to advanced technology fields. And our role at Wake Tech is to ensure that students are prepared to meet that future with both technical excellence and informed judgment. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you. I'd now like to recognize Mr. Parton for your testimony.

Thank you, Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Scott, members of the subcommittee, appreciate you inviting me to testify today. I'm Brent Parton, I'm the president of CareerWise USA, we're the nation's leading youth apprenticeship intermediary. We connect employers, high schools, colleges, and workforce systems in over 15 states to expand registered apprenticeship opportunities for young Americans. Employer-led training is core to our DNA. CareerWise was founded about 10 years ago by business leader Noel Ginsburg, inspired by the Swiss system where industry doesn't just advise on workforce development, it leads. Today we partner with hundreds of employers and school districts across the country, from manufacturers in Colorado to global organizations like Accenture that I'm joined here by today, serving nearly over 2,600 young people building skills in occupations across industries. Our apprentices have earned over $37 million while still in school, and 93 percent are employed in their field or post-secondary education. The average apprentice in America is 29 years old. That's too late. Apprenticeship is not just a job, but a foundation for a career. It's not an alternative to college, it's an affordable complement that allows young people to earn while they learn. And for employers, it's not charity, it's how you build a generation of talent. The question before this committee is not whether apprenticeship for young Americans works, the question is is it the right bet in the AI age and can we scale it? Entry-level jobs are not disappearing in this country, but they are changing, and they always have. In the AI age, more learning will happen at work and more work will demand continuous learning. I believe industry has to play a bigger role at every level in sharing the responsibility for building the next generation of our workforce. The role of policy is to support scale, and this is where the work of this committee comes in. We need a system that prepares young people to compete, keep workers connected to their jobs while they upskill and adapt to changing technologies, and importantly, the workforce system must give career changers a real shot to change without surrendering their livelihoods. These are the critical tasks of our workforce system, and I come to you today as a practitioner to offer quick set of thoughts about how we can put industry-led training at the center of workforce reauthorization. First, let's focus on building sector infrastructure. We cannot scale employer-led training one employer at a time. We need intermediaries, we need industry associations, we need large employer partners that come to the table with their colleagues. The building trades have done this for generations, we have to emulate that, and I have seen real promise in a stronger Workforce for America Act to focus on sector partnerships and critical skills industry funds. Second, as we pursue employer-led training, keep the focus on results. The goal of employer-led training and on-the-job training is to ensure public dollars go towards training and advancement of a career, not subsidizing low-wage work. Registered apprenticeship is the gold standard of employer-led training for a reason. The National Apprenticeship Act and its reauthorization could offer a really critical framework for scaling employer-led training across industries. Credential registries and learning employment records are also critical for ensuring the quality of employer-led training so that young people as well as workers can support their mobility in their careers from employer to employer. Finally, I urge the committee to keep the attention on youth. AI is rewriting the first rungs of the career ladder, but it is not eliminating it. We at CareerWise focus on what we call the launchpad decade, those first 10 years of a young person's life from 16 to 26 that can shape their economic and social trajectories for years to come. The as was youth apprenticeship readiness grants that we strongly support put real emphasis on youth apprenticeship as a core strategy, as well as more paid work-based learning for out-of-school youth as well along the way. We encourage you to double down on employer-led training for our young people. I'll conclude by saying throughout my years in this field, I've witnessed firsthand the absence of action at time to take great steps to strengthen our workforce system in the face of great crises and opportunities. I have seen how an under-resourced system can serve brittle in the face of pressures. But I've also seen extraordinary resilience, workers striving to adapt, employers investing and innovating to build talent, educators changing the way they do work like my good friend Dr. Ralls here. The need and the will is there, let's build the system to match it. This committee has the solutions. These are not Republican solutions or Democrat solutions, they are American solutions. Reauthorize the Workforce Innovation Act, pursue the reauthorization of the National Apprenticeship Act to pursue its full promise, and focus also on reauthorizing the Carl Perkins Act in building bridges between our career tech ed programs and registered apprenticeships. Our country needs sustained, bipartisan focus on these issues at this critical moment, grounded in what works, but reimagining what's possible. CareerWise stands ready to work with you, and I appreciate the time today. Thank you.

Thank you. And lastly, I'd like to recognize Ms. Morley Ryan for your testimony.

Thank you. Chairman Walberg, Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Mary Kate Morley Ryan, and it is my pleasure to speak to you today on behalf of Accenture. Accenture is a talent and innovation-led organization with 784,000 people operating at the center of enterprise AI adoption across every sector of the economy. From our experience, success with advanced AI requires equal investments in people, in learning, and the technology that they use. At Accenture, we develop our own people to be AI-ready, digitally fluent, and agile. And I help our clients do the same. I lead workforce transformation, technology, and change initiatives alongside our clients, partnering to shape the future of work. From my experience, to build an AI-ready workforce, employers must double down on the following four actions. First, cultivate a culture of continuous learning. Learning has to be at the heartbeat of the organization. The moment it stops, everything stops. It has to be constant, ever-present, and non-negotiable. For example, Accenture invests over a billion dollars each year in our own learning and development of our people. In our last fiscal year, we delivered 47 million hours of learning, much of it focused on advanced AI skills. To date, we have equipped over 560,000 people with GenAI fundamentals in our organization, and over 315,000 with agentic AI fundamentals. Second, employers need a plan for the future using skills and tasks, not just seats. Employers should not only focus on the number of workers, but also on the future skill needs for their organization. Annual workforce plans and job title hiring are yesterday's playbook. By 2030, employers expect 40 percent of workers' core skills to change. Defining the workforce of the future is not just an HR initiative, it's an enterprise-wide strategic imperative with people, skills, and tasks at the core. And third, we need to meet the moment with work-based learning, developing talent at the speed that technology demands. You can't learn to swim from outside the pool. At some point, you have to jump in the water. Apprenticeships and work-based learning programs put people in the water, where real skill building happens. Traditional apprenticeships have primarily focused on the trades, but apprenticeships have tremendous potential to prepare people to use emerging technology like artificial intelligence in critical areas like manufacturing. And last, employers need to make literacy, AI literacy an imperative, not an option. AI literacy can't be an add-on course, it must be encoded into the DNA of an organization. When it's built into how people learn and grow, it sticks together. AI and data skills should be treated as foundational for employers and government alike, rather than standalone programs for only IT professionals. Companies need to do this for their entire workforce, and the government needs to provide support at scale. The most effective policy actions are those that align workforce policy and employer demand. They accelerate access to training and create agency for workers to continuously build their skills. Modernizing the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act would help improve employer-led training, streamline access to training funds, and improve coordination between state workforce agencies and employers. Modernization would reduce delays associated with program approval and reimbursement while bringing processes related to the eligible training provider list in line with the evolving technological changes we see every day. Additionally, policies encouraging the development of portable digital skills passports is a step forward to modernize our public workforce system. I believe the challenge before us is not simply to prepare the next generation of workers, but to equip today's workforce with the skills to adapt, advance, and thrive as AI reshapes tasks across every sector of our economy. I so look forward to your questions today. Thank you.

Thank you. Under committee rule nine, we will now question the witnesses under five-minute rule. I will recognize myself for five minutes. Mr. House, in your view, what happens to the America competitiveness if we fail to modernize our workforce system for AI-enabled infrastructure? Thank you. I'll now like to recognize the chairman of the full committee, my friend from Michigan, Chairman Walberg.

Chairman Owens, to put it simply, we will miss out on a historic opportunity. As I mentioned in my testimony, there are unprecedented investments in deploying AI infrastructure and broadband infrastructure that are happening right now. But those investments cannot move forward without the American workforce needed to build that infrastructure. In the context of national security and U.S. competitiveness, we're on the cusp of moving from digital AI to physical AI. And that will be manifested in robots and humanoids. So we cannot afford to have the American workforce be a bottleneck towards that progress. I think foreign competitors and indeed our adversaries are working to enhance those sectors, and so we must ensure that American technological leadership by investing in opportunities to grow this critical workforce.

Thank you. Dr. Ralls, are you seeing any interesting trends when it comes to specific skill demands from learners? How influential do you believe AI might be in shifting learner demand for those skills over others? Thank you. Dr. Ralls, are you seeing any interesting trends when it comes to specific skill demands from learners? How influential do you believe AI might be in shifting learner demand for those skills over others?

Absolutely. One of the trends we're seeing this year, as I noted in the past two years, is a renewed interest in technical education, technician programs, skill trade programs. For years, we had what I sometimes referred to as an interest gap. We had the employment, we had the programs, too often we didn't have enough students. Now we're seeing waiting lists that we've never seen before. So I think students are seeing opportunity there, and part of that opportunity is driven by AI. It raises the level of all skills in technicians and the demand in areas because we're going to need more power and more electricity. That's certainly one area. I think students also are looking for opportunities that allow not just either-or, but both, the ands. And so that's something that we strive for. Short-term programs, but also short-term programs that can walk into degree programs and lead not to just a job, but lead to economic mobility. And that's a strive for us at Wake Tech in building what we refer to as ladders for opportunity. Absolutely. One of the trends we're seeing this year, as I noted in the past two years, is a renewed interest in technical education, technician programs, skill trade programs. For years, we had what I sometimes referred to as an interest gap. We had the employment, we had the programs, too often we didn't have enough students. Now we're seeing waiting lists that we've never seen before. So I think students are seeing opportunity there, and part of that opportunity is driven by AI. It raises the level of all skills in technicians and the demand in areas because we're going to need more power and more electricity. That's certainly one area. I think students also are looking for opportunities that allow not just either-or, but both, the ands. And so that's something that we strive for. Short-term programs, but also short-term programs that can walk into degree programs and lead not to just a job, but lead to economic mobility. And that's a strive for us at Wake Tech in building what we refer to as ladders for opportunity.

Thank you. Ms. Morley Ryan, Accenture has been involved with digital skills passport space as a way to strengthen portability and accountability. How could interoperable employer-validated credentials improve alignment between training investments and the labor market demand? Thank you. Ms. Morley Ryan, Accenture has been involved with digital skills passport space as a way to strengthen portability and accountability. How could interoperable employer-validated credentials improve alignment between training investments and the labor market demand?

Great question. Thank you. I mean, it provides transparency, right? I think the biggest thing is it provides transparency across the employers and the workers that they're seeking. And we see it with our in the private sector all the time, right? Having a skills profile, Accenture has that for every one of our employees globally, and we use that to staff our jobs and our roles internally. Having that available at the state and federal level would be an outstanding step forward. Great question. Thank you. I mean, it provides transparency, right? I think the biggest thing is it provides transparency across the employers and the workers that they're seeking. And we see it with our in the private sector all the time, right? Having a skills profile, Accenture has that for every one of our employees globally, and we use that to staff our jobs and our roles internally. Having that available at the state and federal level would be an outstanding step forward.

Thank you. I'll now like to recognize my friend from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the witnesses for being here. Mr. Parton, as acting assistant secretary for the Employment Training Administration during the prior administration, you oversaw most of the workforce development at DOL that invested billions of grant funding for job training each year. Last year, in their effort to dismantle the Department of Education, the Trump administration used interagency agreements to move several large programs authorized under the Education Department to ETA. In particular, it moved the career and technical programs over to ETA programs under the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education to ETA and programs under the Office of Postsecondary Education to ETA. Do you think ETA has the capacity to administer all these programs?

Incredibly proud of my time at ETA, and a lot of that has to do with working with the incredible public servants within that agency. ETA has a big mission. It's construction worker really trying to build opportunity, but it's also firefighter, overseeing a lot of programs that serve people on their worst days when they lose their jobs. And so when we think about the scope of responsibilities, whether that's supporting opportunities for youth, whether that's supporting upskilling for workers, it's a huge breadth of opportunities. The agency, I believe, always works to its great maximum in terms of the letter of its authority, in terms of the resources it has. But I believe for the scope of the mission in front of it has been long under-resourced, as our public workforce system at the state and local level has as well. When I consider in the relationship between the scope of what ETA has to conduct on its core mission in relation to also what partners, we work incredibly close with our partners at the Department of Education on Title II, on career tech ed, trying to forge better relationships between apprenticeship and career tech ed systems. The federal government has great expertise across the board. ETA's capacity is strained in its current mission. I'm concerned about its ability to really have the capacity to meet the moment in the AI age as is in relation to a broadened portfolio of responsibility. I continue to have that concern.

Well, thank you. I mean, I and this is sort of consistent with all the testimony today. There is such an incredible consensus out there about the fact that we need to create career pathways, whether it's through tech schools that are, again, administered by the Office of Career and Technical Education or comprehensive high schools who, again, take advantage of Perkins grants programs. I have a ton of them in my district. We have a huge surge of shipbuilding employment growth at the Groton shipyard, and it's amazing. I mean, we're now dozens of regular comprehensive high schools that have set up welding labs using Perkins money that's there. But I will tell you, the notion that they're going to be sort of subject to the Department of Labor as opposed to the Department of Education, it just it does not compute with the faculty or just the way the program has been run. And again, weakening career and technical education by, again, diluting it in an agency that's already overstrained, as you point out, it really is taking this country in exactly the wrong direction. And again, it's not just manufacturing, it's healthcare, it's so many other occupations which this should be career and technical education's moment. And fooling around with taking them out of the Department of Education, as I said, is just totally crosswise to, again, what we're hearing today from the witnesses. In addition to what I just described, we also have actual apprenticeship programs starting at the high school level through a youth manufacturing pipeline initiative that's there. We have a pending Apprenticeship Act reauthorization bill. The Fitzgerald Act has not been reauthorized, honestly, since 1937. And again, that again opens another opportunity to connect people to the higher skill level even when they're getting their secondary school degree. Maybe you could talk about whether that fits within the parameters of your experience at the Department of Labor and the Fitzgerald Act.

One of the most exciting parts, and thank you for that question, of the past 10 years of workforce development has been the renaissance in apprenticeship. And that has been a bipartisan consistent focus, and I commend the administration's focus on one million registered apprentices as well. The National Apprenticeship Act bringing to the board the reauthorization of that is critical because it's catching up with the field that's rapidly expanding and growing. It's an opportunity to take a look at the investments that Congress has made, bipartisan investments in the expansion of apprenticeship, making sure that the system is not operating in a silo. The connections between the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act, career and technical education, reauthorizing the National Apprenticeship Act has the opportunity to clarify those connections because at the end of the day, apprenticeship is an earn-and-learn proven model that we need to see across our systems, with our community colleges, partnerships with our workforce boards, our high schools. And I think the National Apprenticeship Act reauthorizing it sets the standard for what good is, but at the same time opens up a lot of possibilities to expand apprenticeship to more occupations and reach a lot more people in our country.

Great. Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the panel for being here. Ms. Morley Ryan, Accenture, as we know, works with companies around the world, specifically in adopting AI, and I sure appreciate the four need areas that you laid out very clearly. How quickly are workforce skill demands shifting across industries?

Every second. Thank you for that question. I mean, skills are changing. I think the half-life of skills now is less than five years. So, you know, the core skills that employers think they need in 2030, 40 percent of those are going to change. There are going to be consistent skills, though, that we're going to see, no matter what. Critical thinking, curiosity, collaboration, those are those are what I would call like the human-led sort of skills that are not going to change, that we're going to continue to need enduring.

And these have to start early, don't they?

Exactly. Yeah. Early education. And you know, what's special about our country, as I've also advised other countries on this topic, is that they come to the United States because we have entrepreneurs, we are innovative, we are curious, we collaborate, we go for the big we shoot for the moon, right? And I would say, other countries have asked me, how can we have that sort of American spirit, honestly, in our in our place? We have the money, we have the funding, we've done their versions of apprenticeship acts, we've done essentially digital skills passports, right? But how do we get that sort of energy and culture, frankly? And so I just want to I want to share that we have that in our country and we need to allow spaces to scale that and codify that from a workforce development perspective.

And certainly foster that more, relish it, and encourage it, and accept the fact that we have our challenges, but America still is a place that has that in our DNA. Let's not waste it. Thank you. Mr. House, we know that many wireless jobs, which are expanding all the time, don't require a four-year degree. Or sadly, six-year degree that we see so often now. How can employer-directed training further advance skills first, skills-first hiring in your sector because the technical competence has to be there even though it may not need that four-year degree?

Agreed. As an industry intermediary, WIA typically sits at the intersection of employer need and training design. We don't develop curriculum in a vacuum. We work with employers, convene them, and identify exactly what skills, competencies, and safety standards are required for each occupation before we enter into writing a single course. That means that curriculum is demand-driven from the outset. When the industry changes, we know first. You move from 4G to 5G and the methods of deployment change, the skills required change as well, and the curriculum associated with that changes. And so that intelligence flows directly into how we design and update our training content and keep it current with real-world requirements. And the result of this is industry-validated credentials that carry weight. And so this is the foundation of skills-first hiring in our sector. The credential becomes reliable, portable, and a sign of competence that a degree may not satisfy. Apprenticeship is one important delivery mechanism for that curriculum, which is structured on-the-job learning and ensures that workers don't just learn the theory but also demonstrate competence in the field where it counts.

Yeah, I appreciate that. Moving next door to you, Dr. Ralls, the community college education, its time has come. It's never gone. It's always been here, and you have the ability to be fast and loose on your feet as it were, especially in current technology education. WIOA needs to be reauthorized. We need to make sure that a program's good idea has become a little bit fragmented, etc., forcing employers to jump through hoops at times and different rules that sometimes don't make sense. Can you give a concrete example of how that fragmentation slows down or blocks employer participation?

Well, speaking from the ground, I can tell you where sometimes I see that. I can see that sometimes for employers, understanding who is eligible for WIOA-based support and who is not is sometimes a challenge in working in customized training areas. I think sometimes for people who are in practitioner roles and this is for people who are in WIOA positions with workforce boards as well as community colleges, one of our challenges sometimes is we're really all focused on wanting ultimately employment outcomes. Too often I find that it is challenging for us to easily get those employment outcomes long term looking at not just getting a job, but in what field, moving up, and I think those are areas for all of us that having greater access to that type of data would be important for all of us in the workforce field.

Okay. Well thank you, my time has expired, I yield back.

Thank you. I'd like to now recognize my friend from California, Mr. DeSaulnier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and all of the witnesses for being here. It's such an overwhelming wonderful mix of emotions, the opportunities but also the apprehension in this. I represent a district in the East Bay of San Francisco Bay Area, it's the fifth wealthiest in the district. The southern end of it has a lot of H-1B tech workers. The northern end is traditional refining. It's interesting in terms of workforce investment, two industries that are changing rapidly. So the northern end, one of the five refineries is closing, two of them are spending billions of dollars going into transitional fuel and a lot of the operational things are changing from steelworkers, traditional positions and building trades to more efficient uses, but getting that right and training people is a real challenge. And then in the southern end, because we're getting so many layoffs in the tech field, we've got H-1B workers who are there who are adding a lot of value and aren't replaceable, but what do we do with them? Anecdotally as I was coming back from the national labs looking at what they're doing there, extraordinary investments on AI, mostly with DOE grants, and then going down onto the campus to meet with the Labor Institute to talk about their research and the challenges in the workforce, particularly in that workforce, the tech industry. And then lastly I was driving home and I stopped, my microwave had broken, went in to buy a new microwave and the salesman, we had a moment, we were chatting and I said how long have you worked here and he said three months. I said what'd you do before, he said I worked for a tech company. So he went from, I didn't get into the details, but being a tech worker to being a retail worker and it was quite demonstrative between national labs with people who are doing Nobel Prize work to workers trying to do research on how do you work with WIOA to prepare for the workforce in future in very different traditional fields. And then seeing it at the counter of a Best Buy. So Mr. Parton, there are individual things we can do like for the H-1B, individual training accounts where together we can partner with employers in this kind of world. Are they of value and the danger is to the Chairman's comment is being too fragmented and too incremental in a world that's changing so dramatically. So are those the kind of transitions where we can keep the best and the brightest that have come to this country with great opportunities and we've gotten a great benefit from, but transition them and use their talent in a way that benefits Americans?

Thank you for the question. I think you described something and as a Bay Area native myself, it's not one region, but it's a bigger picture that how AI will impact a labor market will not be one experience for any one industry sector and one worker. I think what you described about how even within a large region there's sub-regional trends in terms of how this technology is going to create different jobs but have an adverse impact on others. I think it's really critical when we think about our policies and the individual funds that are there to support individuals to transition and find new opportunities in careers, that we are also using our federal dollars to support what I would call the critical sector-based infrastructure that's needed to manage these transitions. That's able to actually take the skills of someone who's in one field and apply it to another. And I'll just quickly describe this connection between both what we would traditionally call technicians in trades and technology is one of the most important emerging trends I believe that we need to seize the opportunity on, whether that's the focus on re-industrialization or the reality that humans in the loop and how they take their skills and apply those new technologies. That's the power of AI to create productivity gains, competitiveness for American manufacturing and production that is really critical for how these new opportunities would look like. Having the software engineer stand next to the manufacturing technician is something that was once what I think a lot of the work in manufacturing looked like with the skilled workers and the engineers standing next to each other. I think your point about how we can take folks with tech skills, find ways to deploy them in other industry sectors, we're doing that with our work in CareerWise, how AI is impacting healthcare delivery. I think that's critical, but we have to build this infrastructure of sector-based partnerships. That's not a one employer at a time solution. That is something I think as WIOA really put an emphasis on, that's something that has been an unfunded mandate that we need to deal with in our workforce system.

Yes, sitting here I'm actually less apprehensive and still apprehensive about the traditional building trades sort of steelworker than I am about people with graduate degrees. Because you can see it in the layoffs and the tech companies saying well we're really we're going to replace all these people, but I'm not sure where that connection is. And I'm not sure for that population the level of anxiety is demonstrated in that anecdotal story we are helping with in what we're doing with the Workforce Investment Act, although having said that I think and Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I do think we've worked together really well and I hope we will continue to do that with a sense of urgency.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Now I'd like to recognize my friend from Guam, Mr. Moylan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to our witnesses, obviously you've already made it pretty clear the age of AI is here and it's not going away. And now you're coming before us and it's really helpful to see what Congress should do to include some tailored support for small and especially rural businesses and how we want to make that employer-driven training that we need to provide them. And to do that, you mentioned reauthorization of WIOA as well and we should be focusing on the targeted approaches and avoiding this one size fits all. So we need to do this quickly as you mentioned and for our support of our small businesses, our rural remote communities, especially territories, the island of Guam and being in the second island chain in this Indo-Pacific area and what we need to do is to support our national defense, train our workforce and get everybody ready for the defense of our nation and the protection of our communities. So Dr. Ralls, think of some having the ability to have flexible funding and how this would enhance or you can enhance the emerging industries like enhancing cybersecurity or AI.

Well thank you for the question. You know for us at a community college ultimately I think our superpower is we have to be nimble. We have to move in different directions and at different times we will see different programs that are emerging in different ways for us right now. The jobs in healthcare, the jobs in technician areas, that's where we put a lot of investment. So for us at the community college level having that type of flexibility is important so we can respond to the trends of the day. I think that's where employer-led becomes so important because for us ultimately it's about hitting targets. And for us it cannot be targets that we're imagining, they have to be realistic targets because if we imagine them for our students we're not providing a service to them. So that's why I think the flexibility for us to be nimble but also the ability and using our employers which are the destinations for our students as the targets for what we're trying to hit is so important. And I think that's where that part of it with WIOA is very important.

Thank you. And continuing on that with that, so how could Congress better reform WIOA to allow community colleges to fully leverage these programs to support their workforce innovation?

I'd say a couple of things. I mean I think at the state level there are funds which the state can pull out for specific innovation. Sometimes at the local level it can be a little more challenging I believe because they are following particular performance metrics and nothing wrong with that, that's to make sure you're being responsible and accountable. But sometimes when you know you have to hit particular metrics and targets, you do what you've always known, you don't do things that are new and different and we're living in a world where more of thinking outside the box is a little more required. So I think having that form of flexibility at the local level. I also think the role for community colleges is going to be important. In WIOA legislation community colleges are eligible training providers. I actually think we're more than that. I think we're the backbone of the American workforce development system and so I think particularly speaking out to the role that community colleges play in working with the WIOA system would be an important way of making sure that we're able to respond to the needs that our country needs in workforce development right now.

Thank you. And Ms. Morley Ryan, we know our current law was not written to address AI. And so what are the most significant administrative barriers employers face when attempting to use these workforce funds and what do we need to do to create more modern WIOA and operate it at a speed of AI?

Thank you for that question. I think it's modernizing the ETPL, the training provider list, making that what I would say more frequently updated, including AI as a priority from a learning perspective, actually scaling and investing more in the programs that we know already work because we do have work and learn programs or learn and earn programs that we know already work instead of doing more small pilots, we need to invest in the things that and make it easier to invest in those things that work. And I think also looking at more performance-based funding to scale. So yeah, thank you for that question.

Thank you. Mr. House, just give you a little bit time just to elaborate more on the apprenticeship role for our new and emerging sectors, please.

Sure, thank you for the question, Congressman. Our experience as an industry intermediary and national sponsor of apprenticeship is that we can work very closely with a rapidly changing industry and meet what our employer needs by addressing related technical instruction, co-creating curriculum that would support earn while you learn and training on the job. And we found that in doing so and with registered apprenticeship being a world renowned time tested system.

Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you witnesses.

Thank you. I'd like to recognize my friend from Georgia, Mrs. McBath.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the ranking member Adams and to our witnesses for taking the time with us to be with us today. I have already read your testimonies. The quickest way to strengthen employer-led training for AI and other growing sectors of our economy is to pass the bipartisan Stronger Workforce for America Act and increase funding for workforce development programs that are proven to get Americans the skills that they need to get good jobs and to keep them. Almost every decent job requires some sort of credential, certificate, or degree beyond a high school diploma. And most will require workers to gain skills as they advance in their careers. Despite the fact that most Americans do not go to college, the federal government spends only a fraction on workforce development and on-the-job training programs compared to what they spend on our university systems. Congress must support job training and workforce development programs the same way that it supports our university systems. The fact of the matter is that you do not have to go to college to be successful. It certainly helps, but it's not the only path to a good life. Congress sends the opposite message to the American people with these vastly different funding levels. Part of the reason why there is so much loan debt is because Americans have been told by both parties and our society for years that the only way they can be successful is to go to college. Students were told that if they just got a four-year college degree, that the jobs would be there. But oftentimes we see every single day those jobs are not there. And since most Americans can't afford to go to college on their own, they turn to loans. And the less money you have, the riskier you are to get a loan, to be given a loan, meaning the only way to get one is to work with lenders offering predatory interest rates as high as 15 and 20 percent, pushing contracts that are easy to sign but next to impossible for these students to pay off. The system is rigged against the very people that it's supposed to be helping, those who don't have the money to get the skills necessary to move into a higher income level. It's a cycle, and it never ends. And it never ends because Congress, yes, my colleagues and I, we allow it to continue. We should be using this time to mark up the Stronger Workforce for America Act, a package of bills that this committee has been trying to get done since before I came to Congress seven years ago. A package of bills that's sponsored by members from both parties, including the TRAIN Act, my bill to authorize and improve the Strengthening Community College Training Grant that provides hundreds of millions of dollars to over 200 community colleges around the country to support sector partnerships between schools and employers in fields like advanced manufacturing and AI. DOL recently announced that they'll be accepting applications for the sixth round of funding until May 20th later this year, which I would like to submit digitally for the record.

No objection.

Thank you. Dr. Ralls, can you briefly talk about why it is so important for Congress to authorize and maintain funding for community colleges through federal programs like the Strengthening Community College Training Act?

Well, thank you for the question. As I said before, I do believe, I'm a little biased, that community colleges are the backbone of the American workforce development system. I think we're unique in that we work between what has traditionally been a job training box and a workforce development and education, and we're uniquely capable of bridging because people don't want just jobs, they want careers. They want the opportunity to be able to quickly get a job, but then to take skills and move them into education and then to move up and get promotions. And I think community colleges are uniquely created to be nimble, to bridge the traditional worlds of workforce development and higher education. And I believe that we are the answer to many of the workforce challenges that America faces right now, and we're also the access points. We take great pride at Wake Tech that, you know, some colleges take pride in how few students they take. We take great pride in that we take the top 100 percent of students. And our ability to inclusively support people in this time of transition, I think community colleges are uniquely prepared to do.

And thank you. I agree with you as well. This is a great program that's supported by both parties, and this is just only one example. There's so much that we could be doing together. But instead of really doing it, we've been in hearing after hearing discussing solutions that are ready to go right this second, but are pushed aside in favor of partisan bills that have no real chance of ever getting 60 votes in the Senate and being signed into law. Well, thank you so much, and I yield.

Thank you. I'd like to now recognize my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.

Thank you. First of all, just a comment on the last thing. I've been here for 11 years, and I think the whole time I've been here, the party that's been leading the charge for what I'll call a skills-based education and what I guess what you refer to as community college, in Wisconsin we refer to as technical college, has largely been a Republican thing. And I think the guidance counselors who encourage children to get some general degree, four-year degree, are almost uniformly liberal Democrats. So, you know, it's not I don't think it's both parties responsible for this, but there's no question we'd be better off with more people in technical college and less in four-year. Now, Mr. House, general question. We hear often hear that workforce programs are slow and compliance heavy. From your members' perspective, what makes federal training programs difficult to navigate?

Congressman, thank you for the question. Too many disconnected programs to sort through. The federal workforce development system is not one system, but dozens of separate programs targeting different populations, sectors, and localities. Heavy compliance and reporting requirements. Employers consistently cite the administrative burden of federal programs, particularly documentation, performance tracking, and reporting as a deterrent. I think our role as an intermediary is particularly helpful with those kinds of challenges. Constant regulatory changes also create uncertainty. Federal workforce rules can shift dramatically between administrations, and that creates unpredictability, uncertainty for employers.

Okay. In general, do you feel insofar as we're going to put more money at the technical colleges in the country, it'd be better off coming from the state government without so many burdensome regulations than coming from the federal government?

Generally, yes.

Okay. Shifting gears a bit, you mentioned that the Wireless Infrastructure Association is recognized as a sponsor of the national is recognized as a sponsor of national sponsor of registered apprenticeships by the Department of Labor. Can you talk about that program and how it works under WIOA?

Sure. I can talk about the program in the sense that it has rapidly expanded in a in a very short period of time. We've been able to scale it from zero occupations to 16 occupations. We have 113 now participating employers and over 7,000 apprentices have moved through the through the program. I think it's a great success story. Our employers, however, choose not to pursue funding through WIOA because of some of the administrative burdens that I just mentioned. So our experience with with WIOA for participants in that program is is limited because of the exact feedback that we got around these these burdens.

Okay. Next question is maybe a little repetitive, but and this is for Dr. Ralls. There are administrative requirements under are there administrative requirements under WIOA that slow down innovation at the local level?

For me at the community colleges, we don't receive direct funding from WIOA, but I do know at WIOA sometimes there is a challenges, as I mentioned before, the performance requirements oftentimes speak to process and not ultimate outcomes. That's a challenge for all of us in being able to determine what are the ultimate employment goals that we're trying to achieve, what's the mobility, what's the the wage progression. And so I do think there are challenges that WIOA faces, but we all face in that in that regard as well.

Okay. Just one more general comment on the differences between a four-year university and what in Wisconsin we call a technical college. It's sometimes inferred that a four-year university isn't for everybody, like not everybody could graduate. I think right now we have dumbed down the requirements for a four-year degree such that anybody can get a four-year degree. And when I think of some of the people who have them, quite frankly, back home that I've met, I would almost say that anybody can get a master's degree, right? And when you look at some of the technical college degrees, nursing, for example, welding, I think there are a lot of people in society who don't have the natural skills to be able to do that. So right now, I would say it it shows more if you can get a technical college degree with skills than some vague communication arts type of degree on a four-year level. Those are the people who anybody passes. In the tech college, you really have to learn something. So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. I'd like to now recognize my friend from Arizona, Ms. Grijalva.

Today we're focused on building an AI-ready workforce through employer-led training and innovative apprenticeship pathways. But this committee has already produced a bipartisan blueprint to do just that. Last Congress, a Stronger Workforce for America Act was passed by a vote of 378 to 26, a historic consensus on how to modernize our workforce system for the challenges ahead. The tools were clear: mandatory investments in youth apprenticeships, stronger employer-led training models, and sector partnership designed to respond to dynamically to labor market shifts, including AI-driven disruption. The question before us today is not whether we know what works, it's whether we will follow through. If ASWA had been enacted, the lower-income communities would likely have benefited in several structural, if not programmatic, ways. The bill wasn't simply about training, it was about realigning the workforce system towards wage mobility, employer demand, and mandatory investment stability. For districts like mine, it would have meant paid apprenticeships for our students, predictable workforce funding for local providers, and real partnerships between Southern Arizona employers and educators, creating pathways to high-skill, high-wage jobs that many families in our community urgently need. Because if we fail to scale what works, lower-income communities will feel the consequences first. Mr. Parton, given your experience in scaling apprenticeships at CareerWise and your prior leadership at the U.S. Department of Labor, I'd like to ask you directly whether these reforms represent the kind of adaptive capacity workers need to thrive in an AI economy.

Yes. The youth apprenticeship readiness grants, for example, for an organization like ours that works closely with industry as well as education partners to set up these innovative apprenticeship pathways would have been a down payment and a serious commitment from the nation to the future of our young people that you don't have to choose between work or college, but you have a clear earn and learn path that leads to not just a job but a career.

Yeah, it was in ASWA that $65 million was included in mandatory funding for the youth apprenticeship readiness grant, and I know that that would have made huge impacts in our communities. From your experience at CareerWise and based on what you have seen in the field, what are the essential components of high-quality youth apprenticeship programs and how important is sustained federal investment like YARG in ensuring that these programs serve both students and employers effectively?

What sets I think youth apprenticeship apart from other types of job training is that it's industry-led, not industry-advised. It's built around a job and a real career. And but I think what's critical to recognize is through our apprenticeships that start in high school, often juniors or seniors or right after they graduate, young people are earning while they learn, they're learning skills on the job, but they're also earning post-secondary credentials. College credit, in some cases degrees. North Carolina where Dr. Ralls comes from has been a leader in this space, the partnership we have with Accenture is not just building skills but actually using those day-to-day, not having to take out debt, and most importantly, being able to make informed decisions about where they want to go with their future, about if they want to invest in higher education, where do they want to invest, and that work experience to launch their careers is really critical.

And giving them the opportunity to explore those careers while they're in high school gives them that flexibility to like, well, maybe this isn't what I want to do and let me focus on something else. Based on your experience, are sector partnerships one of the most effective employer-led tools we have in preparing workers for technological disruption, and what risk do we take if Congress fails to codify them?

Thank you for that. Again, the short answer is yes. You spoke already well to the fact that many questions have come up about how to integrate all these different funding streams or how to deal with the different realities in one community, one industry versus another. The answer is building this infrastructure that can be nimble; the employers are at the table, the education partners are at the table, but it's about this infrastructure for how we scale employer-led training. We cannot sell our way to scale, we cannot do this one employer at a time; we need these durable industry partnerships that can be nimble and that can ensure that there's clear signals about how we use these various sources of funds to the best impact.

Yeah, and I think that we all have examples in our own communities of how these youth apprenticeship programs have worked. But they're one-off ones; it's a certain school that works with a certain company. And when we provide the infrastructure support federally, it allows the flexibility for everyone to be able to do what we know works. And so I hope we'll continue to act with that in mind. Thank you, and I yield back.

Thank you. I would now like to recognize my friend from Missouri, Mr. Onder.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the witnesses for appearing here today. I'm very interested in what our nation's workforce development system can do to meet the moment regarding AI training. AI has enormous potential in many different areas of our economy as long as employees possess the skills to unlock that potential. In our market economy, businesses need to be up-to-date with consumer trends and technological advantages; they cannot be afraid to embrace innovation to remain competitive. However, there is a learning curve for employers and employees in AI-exposed industries and occupations who wish to adopt AI. Some small business owners and workers may not be as tech-savvy as others and risk being left behind. In Missouri, a company's AI usage has increased dramatically over the past two and a half years. In September 2023, 3.1 percent of Missouri employers reported using AI; by July 2025, that figure had more than tripled to 10.5 percent, exceeding the national average. With this growth comes increased demand for trained, highly skilled workers to deploy AI. There's also an increased demand for AI workers, engineers, and electrical workers. As AI continues to expand, American employers and employees need effective and continual AI training to remain competitive. AI could provide more high-paying jobs and could be a net job creator for our country, but our workforce development system must ensure American workers are qualified for these new job opportunities. Ms. Ryan, I'm aware that Missouri already has some great AI success stories. From your perspective, what are some examples of effective employer-education AI partnerships in Missouri that are successful at keeping pace with AI development, and what can we policymakers learn from those success stories?

Thank you for the question. Yeah, I'm not going to speak exactly to my clients or specific employers, just I want to make sure I have their permission. But I would say what we see in financial services and professional services right now is some of what I talked about in my opening statement, this sort of AI fluency for all of their employees and then tiered fluency at different levels depending on the role. Healthcare is actually moving the fastest in Missouri; I think that might be part of it since we have so many nationwide healthcare headquarters in the state. And it's out of necessity to serve folks both in urban areas but also rural areas. So I would say healthcare is a space to look to where we see learn-and-earn programs, apprenticeship programs, as well as people moving up from a wage perspective. And then finally manufacturing; we're seeing a lot actually in your district as well, right, where folks are getting much more hands-on, right, they're leveraging the community colleges, they're leveraging technical colleges at a scale that is absolutely needed to provide the AI infrastructure we need in the state and in the country.

Oh, that's great. And Ms. Ryan, as you know, this committee is pursuing WIOA reauthorization; my congressional district includes many rural communities, and I believe any WIOA authorization cannot overlook workforce trends in rural Missouri. How are rural Missouri communities faring compared to metropolitan areas when it comes to workforce access and training capacity?

It's a great question. I'm not fully equipped to answer it, but I will share what I'm aware of. I think there's always an opportunity to provide more what I would say these apprenticeship opportunities, right, the registered apprenticeship programs, especially in the rural areas. And I know that we're building some infrastructure actually in your district and maybe in partnership with Tim House's organization. But we need those earn-and-learn programs to build those skills in rural areas where we are going to have this infrastructure. If we don't have those programs, we actually won't have the talent to build the infrastructure we need for our country.

Well, thank you. Mr. House, I have 40 seconds left if you'd care to comment.

No, I would just echo what she said; it is critically important for us to continue to build these programs and attract new entrants to have the success that we need in building infrastructure.

Great. Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you. I would now like to recognize my friend from Florida, Mr. Fine.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Long time ago, I was in the software business. I retired, it'll be 12 years ago next month, and it's extraordinary to see how much that industry has changed. I've never missed it, but I see it in my children who are now taking advantage of tools that 12 years ago as I was creating software that frankly AI might have been able to do for me without us having to do it. And I see both the upside and the risks of it. But one of the biggest risks is that the technology outstrips our employees' ability to leverage it usefully. So I've got a few questions. Mr. House, technology in your sector can evolve every 12 to 24 months, and I may be being generous in giving it that long of a time. I think the adoption of AI has been the fastest technology adoption ever in history when you look at how long it took for a quarter or half of the population to adopt it. Can a system that's built on multi-year planning cycles realistically keep pace with that kind of change?

No.

No. Okay. So what do we do about it?

Well, I want to qualify that; it's not without major adaptation at this point. I think traditional multi-year planning cycles already lag behind the speed of AI. New models come out every month now. So virtualization, edge computing, and broadband deployment requirements are also rapidly changing. My view is that there are a few changes that could be meaningful. One is to shift from a plan-execute model to a plan-adapt and then iterate model so that you can move through curriculum development in a much tighter cycle. Build workforce pipelines that update continuously. With shortages in telecom, broadband, and AI-integrated networks, it means that the system has to expand registered apprenticeships, micro-credentials, and ongoing upskilling. And then we have to modernize, as Brent has mentioned, the infrastructure planning to account for AI-driven transformation.

Okay. So I already worried, even 12 years ago back when I worked for a living, about the government's ability to adapt to market conditions. I thought I was moving pretty quick and the government couldn't keep up. And now under AI, we're worried about companies being able to keep up, let alone the government, which has never been known for its rapidity and its skill set. So one of the ways that we adapt is by having the workforce to do it, which is what we're talking about. So Ms. Morley Ryan, my question's going to be for you. Other countries seem to be aggressively investing in their AI talent pipelines. From a global competitiveness standpoint, how are we doing and how urgent is workforce modernization for maintaining U.S. leadership?

It's urgent. It needs to be now. I'll just give a corollary to what we know is going on in the UK, where they've just set a target of skilling 10 million workers with AI skills by 2030, which is a third of their workforce. And that includes all of their government employees as well. We need to have those types of bold goals and collaboration across parties to drive towards something of that nature.

So let me flip it around on you. What happens if we don't do it? Let's say it'll all be fine. I actually have to tell people things are fine even when they're not, it's my last name, but what happens if we don't take it seriously?

If we don't take it seriously, we're going to see what we saw in manufacturing, and I forget the year I was trying to pull it up, where we had a significant drop-off in the workforce, where we had highly skilled manufacturing workers who could not get jobs. I think it was 17 percent. AI will have a much bigger impact than 17 percent of our workforce.

So you're saying our choices are we can either lead or we can lag; there's not a middle ground. We can either maintain our leadership or we can end up with an industry that gets hollowed out as we saw happen with so many of them in our past.

Absolutely. Employers will go where the talent is. So I would say our clients are actively asking us where can I find cybersecurity talent, AI talent, folks that can work with large language models, build those alongside whether it's manufacturing or other functional functional areas of their business. And they are desperate to build that talent and and retain it.

And I would I'd simply close by saying this. We have seen the risks to our economy of of letting our manufacturing sector be hollowed out, being able being reliant on countries that may not like us very much. I would argue that the risk of AI and technology being hollowed out in the United States, that risk is even worse. It's why we need to take it seriously and I appreciate what all of you are doing to advance that today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you. Now I'd like to recognize my my friend from Virginia, Ranking Member Mr. Scott.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Parton, we've heard a lot about supporting registered apprenticeships. Can you tell me some of the important aspects of that bill that are that we should make sure we don't lose?

The National Apprenticeship Act when it was first passed was a couple of paragraphs. And and since then, the the registered apprenticeship system has really been overseen through regulation. The National Apprenticeship Act that this committee and and Congress has considered, I think meets the moment in the sense that on one hand, it makes clear how Congress's investments in apprenticeship can support the capacity of states to play a leadership role in apprenticeship. It clarifies the linkages between registered apprenticeship, our workforce system, our career and tech ed systems, as well as youth apprenticeship models. The National Apprenticeship Act also I think provides critical stability and security that about what an apprenticeship is or how new flexibilities can be pursued by industry sector, but it does not leave that to the whims of any one administration or regulation that can change. It clarifies what the rules of the games are and lets the world innovate within it. Last thing I'll say is it recognizes the roles of intermediaries, which can be community colleges, industry associations. They are really critical just like our joint training partners to scaling apprenticeship and NAA does all.

Thank you. And you mentioned 29 was too old to start. What are we doing for youth apprenticeships and youth initiatives in WIOA?

Well, as was already mentioned, the youth apprenticeship readiness grant, so I appreciate Ranking Member Scott to bring this up. The youth apprenticeship readiness grants that were I think a critical down payment on that linkage between helping states build out apprenticeship programs that meet the needs of youth. But beyond that, I would also call out how A Stronger Workforce for America Act increases the use of work-based learning, subsidized employment for youth as part of how we serve young people who are both in and out of school. Both of those things are critical, I think, for how employer-led learning is being embedded into our workforce system.

Our colleague from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur, has insisted that we include sector training as well as individual job training because the conversion to electric cars, a lot of the skills don't transfer and we have a whole sector that needs help. Can you say whether that's important, that flexibility is important?

It's hugely important. WIOA has long recognized the evidence-based sector partnership model in workforce development. It called for more sector partnerships. I think ASWA took the important step to actually put the money where the mouth is behind that, the critical industry skills funds that gave flexibility for states to establish those. How to use and increase the governor's reserve to increase sector partnerships is critical. I will just say as an intermediary, employers do not look at their workforce through just a youth lens, just an incumbent worker lens, or how their workforce needs to change. Sector partnerships is an infrastructure that lets them meet all needs.

Now there's some expertise at the Department of Education that you don't have at the Department of Labor. Why does that make it more appropriate to keep adult education at the Department of Labor? Excuse me, Department of Education.

On a personal level, it's always good to have friends who are smarter than you in other things so we can work on something together. But let me even answer that from the lens of an intermediary out there in the field. Our employer partners expect folks that come into their workforce development programs to have some basic skills. It's not about the job training part. It's about the often what are called kind of the durable career-ready skills. It's what us as an intermediary provides, but also basic literacy and numeracy. That's not something employers want to spend a lot of time investing in when they're investing in employer-led training. So I think it while it's critically important, the best of adult education and workforce development has always been when they work together. The I-BEST program in Washington state has long been an evidence-based model, but they are different pursuits because the employers who we work with expect that to be delivered. We need partners out in the ecosystem that know how to do that well.

Thank you. Dr. Ralls, I want to thank you for your work in community colleges. You've been in other states other than North Carolina and done an excellent job. Community colleges are good at preparing jobs for the future. AI is going to cost people jobs and create some jobs. What are community colleges doing to prepare people for actual jobs that will be there?

Well, thank you and thank you for your comments. For community colleges, we're successful in our strategies. We go where the jobs are. Because as I said before, community colleges are through colleges. Students come through us to get to their destination, ultimately jobs. That's why us being nimble is so important. That's why our being employer-led is so important. But also the way we structure programs, I think is very important as we look at the AI moment. We have seen disruptive technologies in our time. This technology will be more disruptive, positively and negatively. And I think what's important is from a Wake Tech perspective, the way we look at it is this is too important to be treated as just a program or a silo. It has to be threaded across and we have to make sure we're preparing all of our students across multiple disciplines. And that's why we are threading AI literacy into multiple different programs across Wake Tech. I think that's the strength of community colleges because we have a breadth of programming that we do across community colleges. We have strengths in our own areas because we're locally based, but we work across program areas. And I think the AI moment in the United States demands threading it throughout multiple workforce and programmatic areas and community colleges I think are uniquely prepared to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. I'd like to now recognize my friend from California, Mr. Kiley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for convening this hearing on such an incredibly important challenging topic. Ms. Morley Ryan, I know that kind of the hallmark of what Accenture is doing right now is being kind of as up to date as possible in the midst of this rapid transformation and advancement in in the capability of AI models that we're seeing. I can't imagine how difficult that task must be since, you know, whatever training you might have provided three months ago is woefully out of date today. Could you just tell us a little bit about how you try to do that in a way that's, you know, helping the workforce adapt?

Absolutely. Thank you for that question. I would say what we're seeing our clients do and and what we're partnering with them on that's working the best is actually having their workers be a part of defining future state processes and future state workflows. So they're along, if you will, for the ride of where where the company is choosing to go. And so when they're a part of that process change and they're a part of, you know, choosing technology that they're going to work with, they're much more bought in and they're able to use that and and we're able to see what I would say double-digit productivity gains, right, for those organizations. From a keeping people up to date, I think the again the apprenticeship and work-based learning model is the best model because it's the only way where you're learn, you know, you're in the flow of work learning and as things are changing, you're changing with it. So those are those are what we see be the best. I think the other thing that and I mentioned earlier is that, you know, employers that are providing AI fluency and and digital fluency training for all of their workforce regardless of if they're, you know, quote-unquote in an IT professional job, is critical so that people have the same language to talk about where the organization is going. I would say finally, you know, the other piece is for the folks that are getting those productivity gains, the the best folks are moving those people into other roles where they when they get that capacity from that productivity, they're actually moving those people into higher wage roles and allowing what I would say better customer service or, you know, allowing those people to think more strategically about other problems in the in the in the organization. That's what I would say, you know, some of our best clients are doing and that what I'm excited about partnering with them on.

Very interesting. What would you say kind of as a broader question for young people today, many of whom are thinking, okay, what is the future of of this given profession going to look like, what degree does it make sense to pursue? Is there any good advice that we can give them?

Yeah. I will share what I tell my children. Three of them are behind me. We did not bring the four-year-old today, but, you know, to me, what I think is important is to continue to foster what, you know, the American curiosity and entrepreneurial spirit. Going after complex and hard problems with grit, right, and excitement versus fear. Embracing what I would call like this the uncomfortable part of learning, right, not knowing, which is I think a lot of where we are right now. We don't know and feeling like, okay, what what could we hold on to or what can we embrace from a uncomfortable perspective. You know, more empirically if you will and or evidence-based is critical thinking, curiosity, collaboration from a human perspective, critical. I think the other thing is being really grounded and knowing who you are as a person. What are your values? What do you care about? What are your principles? Because it's not human in the loop when it comes to AI, it's human in the lead, right? We are in charge. We need to remember that as we're developing these technologies and deploying them across the world, right? Human in the lead. And so to me to to really have people feel empowered around that and for our young people like my children, you know, it's again this like entrepreneurial spirit, empowerment, ownership, you know, knowing who what your principles are because those principles will be embedded in the in the technology that you're building, whether you know it or not. And so I think those are important things that I think about when it comes to my own children and when I think about, you know, Accenture's partnerships on youth-based apprenticeships. It's not just about learning how to use, you know, certain technologies. It's about the mindset that you go into it when you're learning or how you're partnering or how you're listening to people. So that's that's my perspective.

Yeah. I think that's really well said. I mean, what you're describing, this capacity to to adapt and to lead and to be anchored in core values, like that that should be what education is about, you know, all along, but I think it's of really heightened importance in this moment. And so, you know, on this committee we deal with education and workforce, but to the extent we can have conversations about how we can make sure those are priorities throughout the across the board, I think that that'd be a great thing. So thanks for your testimony. I yield back.

Thank you so much. And now I'd like to move to our closing remarks. I'd like to recognize Ranking Member Mr. Scott for his closing remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank again our witnesses for being with us today. Last Congress, Democrats and Republicans reached an excellent bipartisan bicameral agreement to strengthen our workforce system to help America's employers and workers. The agreement, entitled the Stronger Workforce for America Act, updated WIOA to increase skills, to strengthen the connection between employers and the workforce system, and put more Americans on a path to success. Bill has the flexibility to incorporate the challenges of artificial intelligence that we've heard today. So I urge my colleagues to renew their commitment to a Stronger Workforce for America Act and reject any partisan-fueled endeavor that has no chance of becoming law. We have an opportunity to deliver on the promise to create opportunity and upward mobility for working families and we should deliver on that promise. So thank you for the opportunity to discuss the future of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you. First of all, I want to thank each and every one of you guys. This is a remarkable timing. It's a paradigm shift that we needed to get to for a long a long time ago. And Ms. Morley Ryan, thank you. First of all for bringing your kids here. This is how our country will get back to the promise that we've always had. And I love not only the way you start off talking about the dream, the culture. We have something so unique here and something we take for granted. The reason why we have the greatest middle class is because we can dream, we can risk, we can get back up and go at it again and then tell our kids how to do the same thing so they stand on our shoulders. And I think that's the greatest promise we have with what with our country is what you've just kind of highlighted. We've always believed the next generation will stand on our shoulders, be better than we were. And we've kind of dropped the ball for a while. I was looking at a study, the kids born in 1940s, there was a 90 percent chance they were going to outearn their parents by the time they grew up. Well, 1980 that dropped to 50 percent. So we had lost the promise, the mission, and this is how we bring it back. Not only with new technology, but putting the character we need, putting our our principles, our values into that process and knowing that we're really working to make sure our kids are living a better life. Not just that we're making more money, but our kids can actually stand on our shoulders, take our legacy of of our name and and our mission and be excited about that. So I can't say enough about how excited about what what you're talking about here. I'll say finally we're getting back to return of investment. You know, the time we put in, the work, the money, we should have a much bigger dreams when it's all said and done, not less. We should be more excited about the obstacles we'll be facing. So AI is a great opportunity. I think more importantly is the way we approach it. We're finally seeing the focus is our kids, not institutions, not processes. It's how can we make sure the next generation moves on. So thank you so much for that. I cannot wait to be a part of the answers we need, solutions we need. Can't wait to see down the road what your kids are doing. It's going to be fun to see that for sure. And with that being said, I'd like to thank our witnesses again for taking the time to testify before the subcommittee today. Without objections, there being no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned.