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



                 EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND PRIORITIES
                   OF THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECURITY
                             ADMINISTRATION

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

                                HEARING

                               Before The

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                                 of the

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

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________


             HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 27, 2024

                               __________


                           Serial No. 118-57

                               __________


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





               [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]





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

                               ______
                                 

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

57-221 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024












                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

               VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman

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

                       Cyrus Artz, Staff Director
              Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director

                                 ------                                

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EMPLOYMENT, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                      BOB GOOD, Virginia, Chairman

JOE WILSON, South Carolina           MARK DeSAULNIER, California
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                  Ranking Member
RICK ALLEN, Georgia                  JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
JIM BANKS, Indiana                   DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
JAMES COMER, Kentucky                SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
MICHELLE STEEL, California           PRAMILA, JAYAPAL, Washington
AARON BEAN, Florida                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
ERIC BURLISON, Missouri              JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                KATHY MANNING, North Carolina








                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on June 27, 2024....................................     1

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

    Good, Hon. Bob, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, 
      Labor, and Pensions........................................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     2
    DeSaulnier, Hon. Mark, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
      Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions....................     3
        Prepared statement of....................................     4

                               WITNESSES

    Gomez, Lisa M., Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits 
      Security Administration (EBSA).............................     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     8

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
        Ms. Lisa M. Gomez........................................    37








 
                 EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND PRIORITIES
                   OF THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECURITY
                             ADMINISTRATION

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, June 27, 2024

                  House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and 
                                          Pensions,
                  Committee on Education and the Workforce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in 
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Good 
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Good, Walberg, Allen, Burlison, 
Foxx, DeSaulnier, Courtney, Norcross, Jayapal, McBath, Hayes, 
Manning, and Scott.
    Staff present: Cyrus Artz, Staff Director; Mindy Barry, 
General Counsel; Isabel Foster, Press Assistant; Daniel 
Fuenzalida, Staff Assistant; Ben Gruber, Alex Knorr, 
Legislative Assistant; CJ Mahler, Professional Staff Member; 
John Martin, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy/Counsel; 
Hannah Matesic, Deputy Staff Director; Sophia Rees, Intern; 
Seth Waugh, Director of Workforce Policy; Jeanne Wilson, 
Retirement Counsel; Brittany Alston, Minority Operations 
Assistant; Ellie Berenson, Minority Press Assistant; Ilana 
Brunner, Minority General Counsel; Ni'Aisha Banks, Minority 
Staff Assistant; Daniel Foster, Minority Senior Health and 
Labor Counsel; Carrie Hughes, Minority Director of Health & 
Human Services Policy; Sam Owusu, Minority Grad Intern; Dhrtvan 
Sherman, Minority Research Assistant; Raiyana Malone, Minority 
Press Secretary; Meghan O'Neil, Minority Intern; Veronique 
Pluviose, Minority Staff Director; Rachel Tao, Minority Intern; 
Banyon Vassar, Minority IT Administrator.
    Chairman Good. The Hearing on the Subcommittee on Health, 
Employment, Labor and Pensions will come to order. I note that 
a quorum is present. Without objection, the Chair is authorized 
to call a recess at any time. Thank you to my fellow 
Subcommittee members for coming together to examine the 
policies and priorities of the Employer Benefits Security 
Administration, or EBSA, under the leadership of Assistant 
Secretary Lisa Gomez.
    EBSA is responsible for regulating employer-provided 
benefit plans, subject to the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act of 1974, or ERISA. This duty includes the 
oversight of millions of retirement and health benefit plans, 
holding approximately 13.6 trillion dollars in assets. It is 
safe to say, Ms. Gomez, that with the financial security of 
half of the American people in your hands, you are one of 
Washington's most important bureaucrats.
    That is why I am disappointed with the current direction of 
the EBSA under your leadership, which is fraught with 
regulatory excess and mismanagement. Since you assumed office 
in October 2022, EBSA has pursued senseless, costly regulations 
at the expense of American taxpayers and plan beneficiaries.
    Take for instance, the Fiduciary Rule. The definition of 
the word ``fiduciary'' is foundational to ERISA, and plan 
sponsors are heavily reliant on its consistent application. 
However, EBSA recently revived a failed, overbroad, definition 
of fiduciary that was vacated years ago in a Federal Appellate 
Court, and that will decrease access to important retirement 
products for lower and middle income Americans.
    In health care, EBSA over regulation is also reducing 
options. The rollback of the previous administration's 
Association Health Plan Rule will decrease access to quality 
coverage. The previous rule produced savings of up to 29 
percent on average--progress that your agency has now erased.
    These regulations have saddled the American worker with 
higher cost, fewer benefits, and less flexibility. In addition, 
the Biden administration has used EBSA to promote their woke 
agenda. In December 2022, EBSA issued a regulation to allow 
retirement plans to consider ESG factors when investing, and 
when exercising proxy votes, even if those factors have zero 
financial impact on the value of the investment for the plan.
    Investing in suboptimal ways--that is based on 
environmental or social factors without a financial basis for 
those decisions--violates the sacred fiduciary duty that 
institutional investors have toward retirees and their hard-
earned savings. The truth is that the ESG investment principles 
are woke, and they are anti-American.
    It seems to me that this regulation serves as an excuse for 
companies to virtual signal to the far left, rather than focus 
on risk and return for their beneficiaries. There are costs to 
EBSA's misguided policies and resources, and the agency is 
failing to implement the law.
    Execution of the No Surprises Act has been challenging, to 
say the least. EBSA investigations are stalled, sometimes as 
long as, or even longer than 4 years. We are no closer to 
expanded telehealth coverage, even as benefits have lapsed. 
ERISA preemption, the very framework that establishes and 
empowers EBSA is under siege.
    Today we will not only address our concerns with EBSA but 
must also discuss ways to better safeguard American's benefit 
plans. All Americans deserve a future which benefit options are 
abundant, affordable and high-quality. With that, I yield to 
the Ranking Member for an opening statement.
    [The Statement of Chairman Good follows:]

     Statement of Hon. Bob Good, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, 
                     Employment, Labor and Pensions

    Thank you to my fellow Subcommittee members for coming together to 
examine the policies and priorities of the Employee Benefits Security 
Administration (EBSA) under the leadership of Assistant Secretary Lisa 
Gomez.
    EBSA is responsible for regulating employer-provided benefit plans 
subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). 
This duty includes the oversight of millions of retirement and health 
benefit plans holding approximately $13.6 trillion in assets. It is 
safe to say, Ms. Gomez, that with the financial security of around half 
of America in your hands, you are one of Washington's most important 
bureaucrats.
    That is why I am disappointed with the current direction of EBSA 
under your leadership, which is fraught with regulatory excess and 
mismanagement. Since you assumed office in October of 2022, EBSA has 
pursued senseless, costly regulations at the expense of American 
taxpayers and plan beneficiaries.
    Take, for instance, the fiduciary rule. The definition of the word 
``fiduciary'' is foundational to ERISA, and plan sponsors are heavily 
reliant on its consistent application. However, EBSA recently revived a 
failed, overbroad definition of fiduciary that was vacated years ago in 
a federal appellate court and that will decrease access to important 
retirement products for lower- and middle-income Americans.
    In health care, EBSA overregulation is also reducing options. The 
rollback of the previous administration's Association Health Plan rule 
will decrease access to quality coverage. The previous rule produced 
savings of up to 29 percent on average--progress that your agency has 
now erased.
    These regulations have saddled the American worker with higher 
costs, fewer benefits, and less flexibility.
    In addition, the Biden administration has used EBSA to promote 
their woke agenda. In December 2022, EBSA issued a regulation to allow 
retirement plans to consider ESG factors when investing and exercising 
proxy votes, even if those factors have zero financial impact on the 
value of the investment for the plan.
    Investing in suboptimal ways--that is, based on environmental or 
social factors without a financial basis for those decisions--violates 
the sacred fiduciary duty that institutional investors have towards 
retirees and their hard-earned savings.
    The truth is that ESG investment principles are woke and anti-
American. It seems to me that this regulation serves as an excuse for 
companies to virtue-signal to the far-left, rather than focus on risk 
and returns for beneficiaries.
    There are costs to EBSA's misguided policies and resources, and the 
agency is failing to implement the law.
    Execution of the No Surprises Act has been a challenge to say the 
least. EBSA investigations are stalled, sometimes as long as, or even 
longer than, four years. We are no closer to expanded telehealth 
coverage, even as benefits have lapsed. ERISA preemption, the very 
framework that establishes and empowers EBSA, is under siege.
    Today, we not only address our concerns with EBSA, but we must also 
discuss ways to better safeguard Americans' benefit plans. All 
Americans deserve a future in which benefit options are abundant, 
affordable, and high quality.
                                 ______
                                 
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. 
Gomez. Welcome, for being with us today, and for your career. I 
am happy that we are holding this hearing and taking a close 
look at the important work the Department of Labor is doing to 
protect the hard-earned benefits of workers, retirees, and 
their families.
    The Employee Benefits Security Administration, or EBSA for 
short, oversees retirement, health care, and other employee 
benefit plans. Altogether, EBSA helps support the health and 
financial security of over 153 million Americans, yet despite 
EBSA's vital mission and its growing responsibilities, it has 
consistently been underfunded by the majority.
    Since 2013, the number of staff hired through its base 
appropriation has declined by more than 25 percent. As a 
result, EBSA has increasingly relied on unpredictable, 
supplemental appropriations to perform its basic functions. 
Unfortunately, supplemental funding is set to dry up soon, when 
the bipartisan No Surprises Act implementation fund expires at 
the end of this year.
    This will cut EBSA's workforce by as much as 14 percent. To 
add insult to injury, House Republicans have proposed to cut 
the agency's budget by an additional $10 million in this year's 
Labor HHS Appropriations Bill. This is a crisis for workers, 
retirees, and their families, and should not be a partisan 
issue. Cuts in EBSA undermine the bipartisan progress we have 
made in recent years through the No Surprises Act, the Secure 
Act, the Secure Act 2.0, and so many other important laws.
    I hope today's hearing will give us an opportunity to 
discuss the need to address these funding shortfalls, while 
recognizing the incredible work that EBSA under Ms. Gomez' 
leadership has managed to accomplish with its limited 
resources. You have all heard me discuss my history as both a 
union member and a business owner. I have been able to see both 
sides of employer-sponsored health care and retirement plans, 
and the ways that they can make or break a workforce. EBSA does 
an enormous amount to protect and serve workers so that they 
and their families can have security and stability. In the past 
few years, EBSA has made great strides in protecting benefits, 
and putting money back in the pockets of working Americans.
    Last year alone, EBSA recovered over 1.4 billion dollars in 
payments through enforcement activities, informal complaint 
resolutions, and other actions. The agency has also recovered 
6.7 billion dollars in retirement savings for missing 
participants since 2017. Every day, Americans get assistance 
from EBSA's Benefits Advisors, who help workers navigate the 
complex issues with their plans.
    EBSA is also taking crucial steps, through its regulatory 
efforts, to make life better for the American people. In April, 
the Department finalized the Retirement Security Rule, which 
will ensure consumers get financial advice free from conflicts 
of interest. Morning Star concluded that the rule would save 
over 55 billion dollars in the first 10 years, and over $130 
billion in the subsequent 10 years.
    EBSA is also working diligently to improve health coverage. 
Last fall's proposed rule on mental health parity is a huge 
step forward in improving access to behavioral health care for 
millions of Americans. The agency has also worked to reverse 
harmful actions taken by the Trump administration to expand 
junk health plans, such as short-term limited duration 
insurance and association health plans.
    There is still even more work to be done. In recent weeks, 
for example, Ranking Member Scott and I have encouraged EBSA to 
take steps to improve transparency in claim denials, and 
collaborate on ways to improve parity in long-term disability 
plans.
    However, to ensure that EBSA is equipped to move forward on 
these and other priorities, including many bipartisan ones, we 
must all commit to giving the agency the tools and resources it 
needs to do its job. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to 
a productive discussion of these issues, and I yield back.
    [The Statement of Ranking Member DeSaulnier follows:]

  Statement of Hon. Mark DeSaulnier, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
                 Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. Gomez, for speaking 
with us today. I am happy that we are holding this hearing and taking a 
close look at the important work the Department of Labor is doing to 
protect the hard-earned benefits of workers, retirees, and their 
families.
    The Employee Benefits Security Administration (or EBSA) oversees 
retirement, health care, and other employee benefit plans, which 
support the health and financial security of over 153 million 
Americans.
    Despite EBSA's vital mission and its ever-growing responsibilities, 
it has consistently been underfunded by the majority. Since 2013, the 
number of staff hired through its base appropriation has declined by 
more than 25 percent, and, as a result, EBSA has increasingly relied on 
unpredictable supplemental appropriations to perform its basic 
operations.
    Unfortunately, supplemental funding will also dry up soon when the 
bipartisan No Surprises Act implementation fund expires at the end of 
the year. This will cut EBSA's workforce by as much as 14 percent.
    To add insult to injury, House Republicans have proposed to cut the 
agency's budget by an additional $10 million in this year's Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill.
    This is a crisis for workers, retirees, and their families. It 
should not be a partisan issue. Cuts to EBSA undermine the bipartisan 
progress we have made in recent years through the No Surprises Act, the 
SECURE Act, the SECURE 2.0 Act, and so many other important laws.
    I hope today's hearing will give us an opportunity to discuss the 
need to address these funding shortfalls while recognizing the 
incredible work that EBSA, under Ms. Gomez's leadership, has managed to 
accomplish with its limited resources.
    You have all heard me discuss at length my history as both a union 
member and a business owner. I have seen both sides of employer-
sponsored health care and retirement plans and the ways that they can 
make or break a workforce. EBSA does an enormous amount to protect and 
serve workers so that they and their families can have security and 
stability.
    In the past few years, EBSA has made great strides in protecting 
benefits and putting money back in the pockets of working Americans. 
Last year alone, EBSA recovered over $1.4 billion in payments through 
enforcement activities, informal complaint resolutions, and other 
actions. The agency has also recovered $6.7 billion in retirement 
savings for missing participants since 2017. Every day, Americans get 
assistance from EBSA's Benefits Advisors, who help navigate complex 
issues with their plans.
    EBSA is also taking critical steps through its regulatory efforts 
to make life better for the American people.
    In April, the Department finalized the Retirement Security Rule, 
which will ensure consumers get financial advice free from conflicts of 
interest. Morningstar calculated that the rule ``would save over $55 
billion in the first 10 years and over $130 billion in the subsequent 
10 years.''
    EBSA is also working diligently to improve health coverage. Last 
fall's proposed rule on mental health parity is a huge step forward in 
improving access to behavioral health care for millions of Americans. 
The agency has also worked to reverse harmful actions taken by the 
Trump Administration to expand ``junk'' health plans such as short-
term, limited-duration insurance and association health plans.
    There is still even more work to be done. In recent weeks, for 
example, Ranking Member Scott and I have encouraged EBSA to take steps 
to improve transparency in claims denials and collaborate on ways to 
improve parity in long-term disability plans.
    However, to ensure that EBSA is equipped to move forward on these 
and other priorities, including many bipartisan ones, we must all 
commit to giving the agency the tools and resources it needs to do its 
job.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to a productive discussion 
of these issues. I yield back.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairman Good. Thank you to our Ranking Member. Pursuant to 
Committee Rule 8-C, all members who wish to insert written 
statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the 
Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5 
o'clock p.m., 14 days after the date of this hearing, which is 
July 11, 2024.
    Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 
14 days to allow such statements, and other extraneous 
materials referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the 
official hearing record. We will now turn to the introduction 
of our distinguished witness.
    We have before us today Hon. Lisa M. Gomez, who is 
Assistant Secretary of Employee Benefits and Security 
Administration. We thank the witness for being here today. We 
look forward to your testimony. Pursuant to the Committee 
Rules, I would ask that you limit your oral presentation to a 
5-minute summary of your written statement.
    I would also like to remind the witness to be aware of her 
responsibility to provide accurate information to the 
Subcommittee, and we now recognize Ms. Gomez for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF HON. LISA M. GOMEZ, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, EBSA, 
                        WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Chairman Good, Ranking Member 
DeSaulnier, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today about the important work of the 
Employee Benefits Security Administration, or EBSA. I am proud 
to appear before you today to highlight the invaluable services 
of this small, but mighty agency and what we provide.
    EBSA's mission is to protect the hard-earned retirement, 
health, and other job-based benefits of America's workers, 
retirees, and their families. We do so by developing effective 
regulations, guidance, assisting and educating workers, 
employers, plan sponsors, fiduciaries and service providers, 
and enforcing the law.
    EBSA oversees more than 765,000 retirement plans, 2.8 
million health plans, and 619,000 other benefit plans, 
collectively holding about 14 trillion dollars in assets. 
ERISA-covered benefit plans cover more than 153 million 
workers, retirees, and their dependents, and EBSA also has 
regulatory and interpretive responsibilities related to 
individual retirement accounts that cover another roughly $13.6 
trillion.
    EBSA's current limited resources place our mission at risk. 
EBSA's staffing is miniscule compared to the obligations that 
Congress has placed upon it. EBSA currently employs less than 
850 people nationwide and has less than one investigator for 
every 13,900 plans.
    Even with those limited resources, in the last fiscal year, 
EBSA recovered over 1.4 billion dollars for plans, 
participants, and their families. Almost $845 million of those 
recoveries resulted from our investigations. In one case, EBSA 
recovered over $230,000.00 in contributions owed to a plan that 
covered participants who only spoke Spanish. We worked 
tirelessly to locate those participants, and one participant's 
wife was in an emergency clinic with her husband when we called 
to tell her that they would be receiving $31,000.00 from his 
retirement plan that was recovered for him. She said that 
recovery was a miracle.
    EBSA's Benefits Advisors answer questions and help workers 
and their families navigate benefit issues. Last fiscal year, 
they recovered 444 million dollars in benefits owed to workers 
and their families, and in some cases helped accelerate 
coverage of lifesaving treatments. One person called EBSA 
because his health plan denied precertification of a heart 
transplant. Without that transplant, he only had 6 months to 
live.
    Without the plan's approval, he could not be placed on the 
waiting list for the heart. EBSA intervened, the plan approved 
the procedure, and he received the transplant. He said that 
EBSA's work was nothing short of a miracle, for which he is 
forever grateful.
    These are just two examples of the countless stories in all 
of your districts that I could share about how EBSA helps real 
people in real ways every single day. EBSA's top priority is 
mental health parity. Through our proposed rulemaking and our 
dedicated enforcement efforts, we hope to increase the access 
to necessary treatment for families living with mental health 
conditions and substance use disorders.
    EBSA is also working on implementation of the No Surprises 
Act, which has eliminated 1 million surprise medical bills 
every month for people who might not know that their provider 
is not in their health plan's network. We have devoted time and 
resources to implement the Secure 2.0 Act through regulations 
and guidance to increase access for American workers to 
retirement savings and implemented a new initiative to support 
the creation and expansion of worker-owned businesses.
    We published the final Retirement Security Rule, which 
stands for a basic position that when investors look for 
trusted professionals about managing their hard-earned 
retirement savings, they deserve prudent advice in their best 
interest, free from misrepresentation and overcharges.
    In conclusion, I am proud of the accomplishments we have 
achieved, and I hope Congress will provide us with the support, 
tools and resources we need to continue to do so, and with that 
I thank you again, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The Statement of Ms. Gomez follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Chairman Good. Thank you. Under Committee Rule 9, we will 
now question witnesses under the 5-minute rule. I will wait to 
ask my questions, and therefore recognize Mr. Walberg from 
Michigan for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you Assistant 
Secretary Gomez for being here. EBSA pushed DOL's new final 
rule on fiduciary duties through the rulemaking process with a 
relatively short comment period, to say the least. Even though 
the rule was economically significant.
    The public had little time to prepare for participating in 
public hearings. You justified this by stating that DOL already 
heard from the public during prior rulemakings, including for 
the 2016 Fiduciary Rule that was invalidated by the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
    Is it your position that the public engagement during the 
2016 Fiduciary Rulemaking allowed DOL to write a rule 8 years 
later without robust engagement?
    Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman, for your question. The 
Retirement Security Rule is a critical rule for the Department 
of Labor and for the Employee Benefits Security Administration.
    With respect to the process that we engaged with on the 
rule, we engaged in a 60-day comment period, and during that 
comment period we received 400 comments, as well as 20,000 
individual petition submissions, and as, Congressman, you 
mentioned, this has been a long, ongoing process, and 
discussion between stakeholders, the Department, and there 
were--we received lots of----
    Mr. Walberg. I appreciate that, but that is the background 
of my question because it was not. It was not in relationship 
to other rulemaking hearing proceedings. It was very short, 
especially since the 2016 Fiduciary Rule was invalid by the 
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals--U.S. Court of Appeals.
    Let me just ask it this way. Did you, and do you believe 
that the 2024 Final Rule is similar enough to the 2016 Rule to 
shorten the process, because it was shortened.
    Ms. Gomez. In two different ways. There are two answers to 
your question, Congressman, and thank you for that 
clarification. With respect to the comparison to the 2016 Rule, 
we took a very close look at that 2016 Rule, and made many 
changes in our proposed rule to take into effect what he had 
heard from the Courts, what we had heard from stakeholders in 
the interim, and changes that had been made to the regulatory 
landscape.
    When we issued the proposed rule, we felt that we had a 
rule that had acknowledged and reflected those many changes. In 
issuing the final rule, we took into consideration what we had 
learned over the years from stakeholders, as well as what we 
had heard through the notice and comment process, as well as 
what we had heard through 2 days of hearings from interested 
parties.
    We made various changes to the final rule based on that 
feedback.
    Mr. Walberg. Referring to the stakeholders, earlier this 
year this Committee held a hearing with industry stakeholders, 
examining the impact the rule would have on everyday Americans. 
That is our specific interest. In response to one of my 
questions during that hearing, the witness representing states' 
insurance commissioners stated that DOL had no substantive 
contact, and no coordination with their industry in the 
development of the new rule.
    Additionally, the National Association of Insurance 
Commissioners stated that DOL discounted the work of the states 
to enhance consumer protections. Can you cite in concrete terms 
the coordination that DOL undertook with the states, which are 
the primary regulators of annuities?
    Ms. Gomez. Yes. Thank you for that question. I would be 
happy to do so, Congressman. We had meetings with both the 
Securities Exchange Commission and the National Association of 
Insurance Commissioners with whom you referenced.
    We engaged in discussions with them. We received their 
comments. We offered additional meetings with them to discuss 
the proposed rulemaking after it was issued. They did not take 
advantage of those comments.
    Nevertheless, we did make changes in the final rule to more 
greatly accommodate, in particular, some of the disclosure 
obligations that the NAIC requires so that they would be more 
in line and less burdensome.
    Mr. Walberg. Well, my time is expired, but their concern 
there was no substantive deliberation with them, and I think 
that is our concern, so we will continue checking in. I yield 
back.
    Ms. Gomez. I would be happy to provide more information.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. I will now recognize Mr. Courtney 
from Connecticut for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 
witness. It is good to see you again. Again, just about a year 
ago, you came up to Eastern Connecticut, and we had a series of 
meetings on issues regarding ESOPs, the worker-owned 
businesses, as well as the Mental Health Parity Rule.
    I would just say your command of this subject matter was 
really so impressive, and very accessible, and I would 
encourage any of the Members to invite you up because 
obviously, the breadth of your portfolio is something that is 
really huge and affects so many people on a really personal 
basis, so it is great to see you here again.
    Regarding the ESOPs again, in the 2023 Omnibus, a 
bipartisan measure was passed to again get the Department of 
Labor, in particular your office, you know, in a position where 
you could help businesses who are interested in converting to 
ESOP--employee stock ownership plans--the opportunity to really 
get upfront, a lot of good questions answered, and really run 
the traps so that a decision like that can actually happen more 
smoothly. Given again the rise of ESOPs around the country, 
clearly there is an appetite out there for that as a way of 
solving legacy issues for company ownership, as well as 
providing greater employment security.
    Could you talk a little bit about what the Department's 
been doing since, again, Congress acted to expand the 
Department of Labor's role?
    Ms. Gomez. Yes, Congressman Courtney, and again, thank you 
for that opportunity to be able to come to your district, and 
to visit with--I think that was the first ESOP that I had a 
one-on-one visit with, and was able to hear directly from 
employee owners about how it has benefited them and what they 
would like us to consider in looking forward to implementing 
the WORK Act.
    With respect to the WORK Act, as part of Secure 2.0, we at 
EBSA were very delighted to take on this additional 
responsibility, which is mainly two-fold. On the one part, 
dealing with setting up an Employee Ownership Initiative within 
the Department of Labor, which we did pretty swiftly about 6 
months after the WORK Act through Secure was enacted.
    We set up the Employee Ownership Initiative within the 
Department of Labor, in our Division of Employee Ownership. We 
have been staffing that and have a chief that will be starting 
any day now. Regarding the visits to the ESOPs, t hose visits 
have been just so incredibly important to my learning about how 
they work, how employees benefit, how they can be an integral 
part of retirement planning for workers. I have been embraced, 
I would like to say, by the ESOP community, who has been really 
just thankful to have someone who is coming in and trying to 
genuinely learn about all of the advantages that can be gained 
from that system.
    Parallel to that, under the law, we are required to issue 
formal guidance on adequate consideration and valuation of 
employer stock in the context of ESOPs.
    We have committed to--because ESOPs are retirement plans at 
the end of the day--and we are committed to issuing final 
notice and comment rulemaking, which we are hoping to do very 
shortly, and to engage further with the community to get 
information on how to best offer these types of programs.
    Mr. Courtney. Well, thank you. I mean, as you and I 
discussed, this was an initiative, the WORK Act, which the ESOP 
community had been pushing for a number of years, and the fact 
that again, now the Labor Department has embraced that role, I 
think is something that is very welcome, and I really look 
forward to supporting it.
    It was, however, a new sort of portfolio for the 
Department, and as Mr. DeSaulnier stated in his opening 
remarks, again, it requires people and staff, and so having a 
budget cut that was just announced yesterday afternoon to your 
Department, which again has taken on the surprise billing 
initiative, which is another bipartisan measure that many 
people on this Committee were patting themselves on the back in 
terms of enactment.
    Again, it cannot happen by itself. We need to really 
robustly and fully fund your Department, and it is not a frill. 
This is about really protecting people's access to health care 
and their retirement security. Thank you for your great work, 
and with that, I yield back.
    Ms. Gomez. I appreciate that.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Mr. Allen 
from Georgia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Assistant 
Secretary for appearing today before our Committee, to continue 
the conversation about the Fiduciary Rule. It has already been 
proven, the failed recycle policies of the DOL Fiduciary Rule 
on the very people it claims to protect, retirees and savers.
    According to a Deloit study, more than 10 million lower, 
middle-income individuals lost access to investment assistance 
during the short time of the Obama Era 2016 Fiduciary Rule. 
Fortunately, the Fifth Circuit Rule rescued the American people 
from that terrible rule, and invalidated the rule.
    It is clear that your administration has deliberately 
chosen again to ignore what is best for the American people. 
This is why I have introduced four congressional Review Act 
Joint Resolution of Disapprovals in the House to disapprove the 
2024 Fiduciary Rule.
    These four CRAs will rescue the American people from the 
Biden administration's overreach in this matter. Madam 
Secretary, did the DOL consider the loss of investment advice 
the Fiduciary Rule would cause to these individuals?
    Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman Allen, for those 
questions. The Department of Labor certainly, as part of 
looking toward whether or not to move forward with the 
Retirement Security Rule, considered a number of different 
effects, including what the effect would be on small savers, on 
underserved communities, and----
    Mr. Allen. What steps did you take to ensure that fewer 
individuals would be--actually be harmed by this rule? What did 
you actually do?
    Ms. Gomez. Sure. Well, at bottom, the rulemaking requires 
that people who are holding themselves out as trusted advisors 
are going to adhere to basic standards of fair dealing when it 
comes to dealing with retirement investors. That if someone, 
anyone, whether they are a small saver, or a larger saver, that 
when they seek recommendations from a trusted professional 
about how to invest their hard-earned retirement savings, that 
those retirement professionals, their advice needs to be 
prudent. They need to be in the retirement investor's best 
interest. They need to not be misleading and not have 
overcharges, and those protections are important for----
    Mr. Allen. Who decides that? Does the government decide 
that now, or do the peer groups in the industry decide it. 
These are all certified professionals.
    Ms. Gomez. Well, thank you, Congressman, they are not all 
certified financial professionals, and they are not all 
necessarily professionals who claim to be, or put themselves 
out as, fiduciaries. Some of them do indicate that they will 
provide certain responsibilities and duties that they are not 
in fact legally required to provide, and so----
    Mr. Allen. The Department of Labor is going to decide then 
who is certified and who is not?
    Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman. The Department of Labor 
is not going to define who might be certified. The Department 
of Labor will, however, decide whether in providing advice in a 
certain manner----
    Mr. Allen. Well, this rule is going to do much harm, and I 
need to move on here. Under your watch, EBSA mischaracterized 
and misled the public about the Trump ESG investment ruling, 
which required the fiduciary, including an investment manager, 
perform his duties solely in the interest of the participants 
and beneficiaries, and for the exclusive purpose of providing 
benefits under the plan.
    Your administration encourages financial institutions to 
participate in left wing activism and ideological preferences 
when investing American's hard-earned savings. Last year I 
introduced the Roll Back ESG To Increase Retirement Earnings, 
or the Retire Act, which requires ERISA retirement plan 
sponsors to prioritize financial returns over environmental, 
social governance ESG factors when making investment decisions 
on behalf of their client.
    Madam Secretary, why does the DOL continue to blatantly 
ignore ERISA and the Supreme Court ruling by allowing financial 
advisers to invest American's retirement savings into ESG 
funds, which are proven to carry a higher risk?
    Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. The 
Prudence and Loyalty in Plan Investments Final Rule that was 
issued at the end of 2022 is very clear as to what the 
fiduciary responsibilities are with respect to plan 
professionals who are making decisions how to invest plan 
assets.
    In that rule, we were crystal clear that fiduciaries may 
not subordinate the interests of participants and beneficiaries 
in their financial plan benefits to any other objectives. They 
may not sacrifice individual return, or take additional 
investment risk to promote other goals that are unrelated to 
the interests of participants and beneficiaries.
    Mr. Allen. I hate to cut you off, but my time has expired, 
and you know, I am telling you there is a lot of confusion out 
there, and if you know, it is been created by your decisions, 
and it needs to be fixed, and I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Allen. I will now recognize 
Mr. Norcross from New Jersey for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman, and Ms. Gomez, it is 
good to see you, and we are going to begin my questions today 
with a statement of how incredibly important, not only the 
Department of Labor, but your Department is to the American 
worker.
    Ms. Gomez. Thank you.
    Mr. Norcross. We kind of tend to forget that a little bit. 
Your single focus is to make sure that workers are treated 
fairly, get the benefits that they deserve and that they have 
earned. That we can talk about all the nuances, and they are 
extremely important, but at the end of the day, it is about 
trying to make the American worker get his or her fair share, 
and nothing more.
    I just wanted to reset the field because sometimes in this 
Committee, we kind of forget about that, not all of us, but 
certainly some of us. Well, when we start talking about 
retirements, and the Butch Lewis Act, Ranking Member Scott, 
myself and several others sat on a bicameral, bipartisan 
committee for the better part of the year. At the end of that, 
nothing came out of it.
    Then the Butch Lewis Act came, which literally 80 billion 
dollars, saving the American worker's retirement with not one 
vote from those who are saying, we care about the American 
worker. Not one vote from the other side. Let us remember who 
we are here for, and why we are working that way.
    With that being said, back in 1908, the Mental Health 
Parity and Addiction Act was passed. This talks about treating 
mental health issues, addiction being one of those, the way you 
would as a physical injury or broken leg. It was quite frankly 
the stigma of mental health in this country, although moving in 
a much better direction, particularly back then, it was 
horrific. People did not talk about it. It was a dirty little 
secret, yet people were dying left and right. Addiction was 
skyrocketing, and unfortunately still is. The idea that our 
plans that are covered by your Committee, or your 
administration, talks about--you have to, you must, by law, 
treat physical and mental equally.
    We have one glaring omission on this, and in this room 
everybody can relate to it. It is called--the example is a 
speed limit going down the highway says 55. If everybody here 
knows there are no police officers, there are no cameras, there 
is no enforcement, we know what happens. Nobody pays attention. 
That is what happens currently when yes, you are supposed to 
treat them differently, but unless you get caught, nothing 
happens.
    If you do get caught, you just have to pay what you 
originally had to pay, so there is no loss, there is no 
incentive to do the right thing here, when the American worker 
takes a hit. I have a bill that has addressed this, putting 
some teeth into this. Can you talk about the difference between 
having enforcement and penalties versus the world we are in 
now, where the only thing that happens is if you get caught you 
have to pay for what you already had to pay for?
    Ms. Gomez. Yes, so thank you, Congressman Norcross, and I 
want to say also, thank you for your support with respect to 
Special Financial Assistance that has protected over 1 million 
pensioners at this point, with more to come, so I sincerely 
appreciate that. It has been wonderful to work with you on 
that.
    With respect to mental health parity, this is a subject 
that is critical, not only for the administration, and the 
Department, and the Employee Benefits Security Administration, 
but for me personally. This is a high priority, and as, 
Congressman, you referenced, we are working to address a mental 
health care and substance use disorder care crisis in this 
country.
    In order to do so, we need to have, at EBSA, the 
enforcement tools in order to be able to investigate and 
enforce when we have bad actors and folks who are not complying 
with the rules. Currently, we have very limited authority in 
this area, and one, as Congressman, you mentioned, relates to 
civil monetary penalties.
    We do not have authority to assess civil monetary 
penalties. We have noted in our report to Congress that that is 
an issue that should be looked at, and anything that we can 
have to put teeth in this law to assist us, including having 
additional resources, so that we are not so farly outnumbered 
as I mentioned, when we are trying to go out there and find and 
address these problems, is sorely needed.
    Mr. Norcross. In my few seconds left, I just want to talk 
about the budget side of the equation because A, you need the 
authority. There is no question about this, and it will save 
lives. You also have to have the people to do the enforcement, 
as we say, the police, the radar, in the example I pulled back. 
Budget is a reflection of our values.
    When we see the cuts are coming here--I am just answering 
in the amount of time that you gave the other gentleman.
    Chairman Good. The gentleman's time is expired, thank you. 
The gentleman's time is expired. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Norcross. I just say we give the same amount to other 
people to be treated fairly, which obviously, you do not 
remember this. Enjoy your few days.
    Chairman Good. I now recognize Dr. Foxx for 5 minutes. The 
gentleman will suspend, thank you. Dr. Foxx is recognized.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our witness for 
being here. Chairman Good and I asked for a report listing 
outstanding EBSA investigations based on the day each 
investigation was opened.
    We made this request by letter dated September 19, last 
year, and again by letter dated November 2d, on December 14, 
2023, this Committee staff asked your Deputy Assistant 
Secretary, Ali Khawar, for the same report, yet our staff has 
still--that your staff has yet still not produced that report 
to the Committee.
    Why have you refused to produce that report to the 
Committee?
    Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. It is nice to 
finally----
    Mrs. Foxx. Can you pull your mic up a little closer?
    Ms. Gomez. Certainly. Apologies. It is nice to finally meet 
you in person, and I wish you a happy advanced birthday, since 
you are the only one that has a close birthday, I believe, on 
the Committee. With respect to our investigations, we feel that 
we have been responsive to all of the requests and information 
that has been asked of us. We have----
    Mrs. Foxx. I am sorry. You may feel one way, but we--that 
is not evidence. Why have you not produced the report, and will 
you commit to producing it within 7 days of this hearing?
    Ms. Gomez. We have provided, Congresswoman, and Chairwoman, 
we have provided much information regarding the investigations, 
including metrics, and we are committed to continue to respond, 
and to address any additional----
    Mrs. Foxx. No, no. I need a simple answer. Will you give us 
that report, which we first asked for September last year?
    Ms. Gomez. Congresswoman, I would commit to continuing to 
work with your staff on any additional information that you 
have not received.
    Mrs. Foxx. Okay. The answer is no. Last year, the Labor 
Department submitted an amicus brief in the case of 
Pharmaceutical Care Management Association v. Mulready. The 
brief suggests that ERISA, which is the lynchpin of multi-State 
group health plans, does not preempt State regulation of health 
plan administration. Why did the Department take this position?
    Ms. Gomez. Congressman, thank you for that--Congresswoman, 
thank you for that question. With respect to preemption, ERISA 
preemption, it can be a very complicated and fact-specific 
question, and there was litigation on that where we took the 
position that under those specific circumstances that, that was 
the result that the Department took. Again, we----
    Mrs. Foxx. Okay. You are saying that ERISA is very 
complicated. ERISA preemption is very complicated. Has not been 
complicated for a long time. It is only since the Biden 
administration that it appears to be complicated. Will you 
fully commit--will you commit to fully defunding--defending, 
excuse me, defending strong ERISA preemption moving forward?
    Ms. Gomez. Congresswoman, I can commit to working together 
with the Department, and with the Department of Justice, on 
fully evaluating any case that comes before us that involves 
preemption, and determining whether in that specific case, a 
position by the Department, either advocating for preemption, 
or indicating that preemption is not appropriate under those 
circumstances, would be appropriate.
    It is difficult to answer without knowing the specific 
facts of any future case. Preemption is not always the way.
    Mrs. Foxx. I have one more question I need to ask. There is 
bipartisan consensus on the need to boost mental health care in 
this country, however, the administration's recent rule on 
mental health parody adds more burdensome regulations, raising 
costs for patients, and reducing access to mental health care.
    How much does the administration estimate that premiums 
will increase under the Final Rule?
    Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question. I 
do not have in front of me exactly the amounts on any increased 
cost.
    Mrs. Foxx. We will ask you to give it to us immediately, 
since you have it, but do not have it in front of you, we would 
like to have that by the end of the day. How will stakeholder 
comments be reflected in the Final Rule?
    Ms. Gomez. Thank you, Chairwoman. There are--we have 
considered all of the comments that were received, both for and 
against the rule, and they will be addressed in the final rule 
when they are issued.
    Mrs. Foxx. What is the timeline for releasing the Final 
Rule?
    Ms. Gomez. Congresswoman, I cannot say exactly the 
timeline, but I can tell you that it is a high priority for the 
administration.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I apologize for going 
over. I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. Pursuant to the previous order, 
the Chair declares the Subcommittee in recess, subject to the 
call of the Chair for House--for votes on the House floor. We 
will reconvene immediately following the last vote of the 
series, thank you, the Subcommittee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Good. The Subcommittee will reconvene, come to 
order following our recess, and I now recognize Ms. McBath from 
Georgia for 5 minutes.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
DeSaulnier, and our witness, Assistant Secretary Lisa Gomez. 
Thank you so much for taking the time to come before us this 
morning, making this hearing possible. Assistant Secretary 
Gomez, earlier this year, my colleague, Congressman Rick Allen, 
and I sent a letter to the Department of Labor highlighting the 
concerning practice of alternative funding programs run by 
alternative funding vendors.
    In a 2023 survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 
164.7 million Americans have employment-sponsored health 
insurance. Employers who choose to fund their own health 
insurance plans are responsible for providing their employees 
with affordable and accessible health insurance.
    As employers and employees continue to grapple with the 
soaring costs of specialty drugs, alternative funding vendors 
have found a loophole that keeps costs down, but actually, it 
is at the price of the patients, their health, and their access 
to medication. Under the guise of saving money, these third-
party vendors are pushing employers toward health plans that 
exclude specific specialty drugs, and are steering 
beneficiaries toward patient assistance programs that are meant 
to help the uninsured.
    Directing beneficiaries toward these charitable patient 
assistance programs does not actually guarantee coverage of 
specialty drugs, and oftentimes these patients must shoulder 
the full costs of lifesaving medications or experience delays 
that can result in harmful and long-lasting implications and 
complications of their health.
    Health care is very personal to me. I am a two-time breast 
cancer survivor, and I was lucky to have really good health 
insurance and coverage that kind of helped bear the expense of 
the lifesaving treatments that I needed, that I otherwise 
really could not afford. I know what it is like to navigate the 
complicated health care system as a patient.
    When you get a diagnosis, your mind just kind of spirals in 
all kinds of directions, you know, you have a thousand 
questions. How much is my treatment going to cost? What are my 
treatment options, and how soon will I start my treatment, and 
how can I afford this? The list of these questions goes on and 
on and on.
    Facing an illness is stressful enough as it is, and I can 
only imagine how devastating it would be to be told that we 
will have to delay your access to a lifesaving medication, or 
we will not be able to cover the treatment that you need. I 
worry that this emerging practice will exacerbate a healthcare 
crisis that we already have in America, one that leaves 
patients to their own devices, pushing them to navigate a 
complex payment system alone, or forcing them to choose between 
a lifesaving medication that they need and keeping food on the 
table.
    When we play middleman in personal decisions made between 
patients and providers, we risk what matters most. Our workers 
deserve better. I really believe that, and our patients deserve 
clarity, and our constituents deserve affordable and timely 
access to health care.
    Let me ask you, does the use of these alternative funding 
vendors cause concern that patients will lose access to care, 
or experience delays that could worsen their symptoms?
    Ms. Gomez. Yes. Thank you so much for the question, 
Congresswoman, and also thank you for both you and Congressman 
Allen's interest in this topic, which is a growing issue for 
the Department as well. I wanted to just mention I so 
appreciate you sharing your own personal experiences, and if I 
could take a point of personal privilege to just mention that 
we have Benefits Advisors across the country who help steer 
folks like you, who are having issues with their medical 
coverage, and have questions.
    I am proud to say that we have one of our Benefits Advisors 
from our Atlanta regional office, who was very excited to see 
you in the audience today, and she is here with us today, so I 
wanted to just highlight her.
    Mrs. McBath. Just so you know, I have one more question to 
ask.
    Ms. Gomez. Oh sure, so I will be quick.
    Mrs. McBath. Okay.
    Ms. Gomez. On your interest in this issue, these 
alternative funding programs are service providers who are 
going to employers and telling them that they will be able to 
save money on these high-cost specialty prescription drugs. We 
appreciate you bringing what you and your staff have learned on 
this, and employers find that these programs are not what are 
being sold to them, and more importantly, participants find 
that.
    We are working on that, and continuing to work on that, and 
looking forward to working further with you.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you. Does the Department of Labor have 
the statutory authority to address this issue?
    Ms. Gomez. Yes. Thank you. We do have the statutory 
authority to address this issue with respect to the plans that 
are offering these programs.
    Chairman Good. Your time has expired, thank you very much.
    Mrs. McBath. Okay, thank you.
    Chairman Good. I now recognize Ms. Manning from North 
Carolina for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Assistant Secretary 
Gomez, I want to thank you for taking the time to be here with 
us today and share with us the important work of the Employee 
Benefits Security Administration. Outside of purchasing a home, 
investing retirement funds are often the largest single 
financial decision Americans make for themselves that will 
impact their future.
    Many people turn to trusted advisors to provide sound 
advice. However, these advisors are not required to provide the 
best possible financial advice to their clients, and that is 
something that most people do not know. When they learn it, 
they find it extremely alarming.
    I was pleased to see the EBSA attempt to correct this 
through the Retirement Security Rule. The Retirement Security 
Rule would finally require financial professionals to put their 
client's interests first when they advise retirement investors. 
What is the impact, in your experience, of having conflicted 
advice coming from a financial advisor? What is the impact on 
consumers?
    Ms. Gomez. Yes, and thank you, Representative Manning, for 
that question. The Retirement Security Rule is a tremendous 
priority for us because as you mentioned, individuals who are 
looking for recommendations for retirement advice should be 
able to trust that they are getting advice from someone who is 
acting in their best interests, is not going to overcharge them 
or misrepresent to them, and that they are giving prudent 
advice.
    When we looked at how this could affect savers, the numbers 
were really staggering, and these are studies not only done 
that we have looked at, but independent entities who have 
looked at it. We are talking about the effects of having 
conflicted savings, if we were able to eliminate this, which we 
hope to do that through the rule, we are looking at billions of 
dollars over 10 years.
    If I could just give you the numbers. We are looking at 
some studies that are showing increases of 55 billion dollars 
in fees, in savings of 55 billion dollars in fees over 10 
years. In just certain products, fixed annuities, those savings 
amount to 32 and 1/2 billion, so this is real money.
    Ms. Manning. We know that opponents of the Retirement 
Security Rule are trying to force this body into rescinding the 
rule through congressional Review Act Resolutions. How--what 
would the impact be if this policy were reversed?
    Ms. Gomez. Yes. Thank you so much for raising that. If the 
policies were reversed, and if a CRA resolution was successful 
here, we would not be able--we, at the Department of Labor, 
would not be able to regulate in this area, or we would be 
severely limited in regulating in this area going forward, so 
we would not be able to protect--and folks, retirement savers, 
would continue to be subject to not knowing what they are 
getting when they are going to these professionals.
    Ms. Manning. One of the arguments against this rule is that 
low-and middle-income retirement savers will lose access to 
investment advice. We heard similar things when the SEC 
implemented its best interest standard, and no access problems 
actually arose. We also heard similar things when the Obama 
administration finalized its more expansive Fiduciary Rule in 
2016.
    During the short time that the expansive Obama-era rule was 
in effect, did we see any credible evidence to show that low-
and middle-income retirement savers actually lost access to 
advice?
    Ms. Gomez. Yes. Thank you for that. This rulemaking shows--
requires that people provide better, non-conflicted advice.
    Ms. Manning. Did we see any loss of access to advice in 
those two instances I just asked about?
    Ms. Gomez. We did not see loss of access, and in fact, 
there was better advice being given.
    Ms. Manning. Okay. Is that something that has been 
documented that you can provide to us?
    Ms. Gomez. We have in our retirement--in our regulatory 
analysis, there is information on that, and so we can provide 
that.
    Ms. Manning. That would be great. I would like to see that, 
and my time has expired, is about to expire. With that, I yield 
back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. I am going to before I recognize 
Mr. Burlison, I am going to ask the witness to please refrain 
from thanking us for the questions, saying our names, and that 
sort of thing, just get right to the answers, that way we can 
use less time, and it is a lot, or else I will just add time to 
cover for that delay tactic when you answer questions please. 
Mr. Burlison is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burlison. Ms. Gomez, on Monday your office sent the 
final report. I think it was long expected on the interpreted 
bulletin 95-1 for pension risk transfers. Now, Congress had 
required that in Secure 2.0, how late was that report?
    Ms. Gomez. The 95-1 report was--had a due date of the end 
of December 2023, and so we did our best to meet that, but we 
were not quite on time.
    Mr. Burlison. About 6 months late. Would you think that 
after all that time, you know, you would be ready to modernize 
the standard to make sure that retirees can count on their 
retirement benefits because while you laid out the reasons why 
the standards should be updated, you still did not actually 
modernize the standard. Do you have a timeline for that?
    Ms. Gomez. Just to go back one moment. We were requested by 
Congress to review our interpretive bulletin and determine 
whether or not any changes might be warranted, without actually 
making changes, so we have decided to look at changes through 
notice and comment rulemaking, and I do not have an exact 
timeframe as to when that would happen, but we intend to engage 
with the public, so that we can have full input from the public 
as to what will work best.
    Mr. Burlison. In April, the White House--this is a 
different topic. The White House held an event with a group of 
``asset owners'' representing a trillion dollars in public 
pension fund capital. At this event, union leaders were able to 
promote strong labor commitments among funds that the asset 
managers were investing in.
    Does diverting pension funds to promote collective 
bargaining, which it goes against the statutory protections for 
pension funds that are subject to ERISA, which mandates the 
funds be used exclusively for the exclusive purpose of 
providing benefits to participants.
    In other words, it is not for the purpose of being 
politically active. Ms. Gomez, what are you doing to prevent 
the improper use of pension funds such as what the White House 
is doing to basically politicize these retirees funds?
    Ms. Gomez. Yes. Under our Prudence, Loyalty, and Plan 
Investment Rule that was issued at the end of 2022, we were 
very clear as to whether and under what circumstances 
fiduciaries of ERISA plans could consider any type of 
environmental, social and governance factors in making 
investment decisions.
    Of the meeting that you speak about at the White House, 
there were several different types of plans participating. They 
were not all ERISA plans that are governed by our statute.
    Mr. Burlison. You issued a rule that allows them to use ESG 
as a standard when investing in funds?
    Ms. Gomez. We issued a rule that made clear that 
fiduciaries may under no circumstances subordinate the interest 
of participants and beneficiaries in their financial plan 
benefits, and they may, under no circumstances, sacrifice 
investment return, or take any additional investment risk.
    They may, however, take into consideration certain factors, 
and certain environmental, social and governance factors, and 
if they--investments that consider those factors will equally 
serve the participants, then they can consider them, but they 
are not required to.
    Mr. Burlison. As a former advisor, I find it puzzling that 
you would even need to do that. I think making that statement 
is steering advisors in a direction of taking their client's 
funds, or the pensioner's funds, and becoming politically 
active with it. As someone who used to manage retiree's funds, 
I would never, ever consider trying to apply my political views 
to someone's retirement.
    When you are sitting across the desk from someone who is 
asking the question, are they going to have enough to retire? 
Are they going to run out of money before the end of their 
life? The last thing you are thinking is how can I make sure 
that their funds are funding, you know, some social justice 
cause or climate cause. Thank you, my time is expired.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. We will now recognize Ms. Jayapal 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Employee Benefits 
Security Administration has the important mandate of enforcing 
employer-sponsored benefit plans, ranging from health to 
disability to pension plans.
    I want to start by congratulating you, Assistant Secretary 
Gomez, and the EBSA, for your agency's work to restore 1.4 
billion dollars, billion with a B, back into the hands of 
workers, retirees, and their families, who are simply asking to 
receive the benefits that they are paid for, and entitled to.
    The work you do is critical, but I do want to be clear, 
most of these problems stem from corporate greed and our broken 
for-profit health care system. I am the proud lead sponsor of 
the Medicare for All bill in the House of Representatives, 
because it is long overdue, to guarantee health care as a human 
right, as most of our other countries in our income brackets 
do.
    Private health insurance companies motivated by profit 
raise already exorbitantly high premiums, while simultaneously 
lowering patients' standard of care and arbitrarily denying 
coverage. In the richest country on earth, no one should be 
denied access to care or have essential care delayed.
    It is unfortunately no surprise that my Republican 
colleagues have convened this hearing to attack an already 
underfunded agency that puts billions of dollars stolen by 
private insurance companies back into the pockets of everyday 
Americans. I wish we could be working together to ensure 
greater access to quality care and making sure that EBSA 
actually has the resources it needs to ensure that Americans 
get restitution when their private health insurance company 
illegally denies coverage.
    Assistant Secretary Gomez, what are the most prevalent 
issues that you are seeing people face with private health 
plans, and what tools does EBSA have, or what tools does EBSA 
need to address those issues?
    Ms. Gomez. Yes, thank you for that, and thank you for 
advocating for coverage for folks everywhere. Our mission is to 
protect the health and retirement coverage for all workers, and 
so in whatever form that may be, but currently we are working 
with the employer-sponsored health system.
    As you have pointed out, we at EBSA oversee all of the 
employer-sponsored health and retirement plans in this country. 
With respect to health plans, we are talking about 2.8 million 
health plans across this country, covering--all of our plans 
cover about 153 million workers and their families.
    With only 850 employees at EBSA, with a relatively austere 
budget, and less than--we have about less than 1 investigator 
for every 1,300 plans that we oversee. There are a lot of 
opportunities for bad actors to be slipping through the cracks, 
and, you know, try as we may, there is only so much that we can 
do.
    We do have a very comprehensive enforcement strategy, and 
we try to be mindful about--given the small number of folks 
that we have that are enforcing the law, how we can be best--
how we can best do that through looking at the cases where we 
will be able to have the most effect. Even given that, we 
cannot possibly get to everyone out there and be able to 
protect everyone as we would like to.
    Ms. Jayapal. Yes. You really need more funding to do that 
important work. I just want to be clear about what a worthwhile 
investment it would be to invest in EBSA. With the amount of 
money that EBSA recovered for taxpayers in Fiscal Year 1923, 
your agency paid for itself more than seven times over, more 
than seven times over.
    Can you talk about the unique value add of the EBSA for 
Americans on employer-sponsored pension plans and how 
inadequate funding for EBSA impacts your ability to deliver 
benefits?
    Ms. Gomez. I would be happy to, and thank you for the 
opportunity to do so. We have a really great, but I have found, 
little-known service that is available to American workers and 
their families, that allows anyone to be able to call upon our 
Benefits Advisors. We have 130 Benefits Advisors across the 
country who are available just by going to our website--
EBSA.dol.gov, or calling our--I sound like an infomercial, but 
calling us at 866-444-3272.
    I am proud to have one of those Benefits Advisors with me 
today, and anyone can call and ask their benefits and be able 
to get assistance. If you will allow me to just give one 
example from your State. There was an individual from the State 
of Washington who contacted a Benefits Advisor looking for 
help, trying to get retirement benefits from an old employer, 
and he was a union worker who was 71 years old, should have 
been receiving benefits since age 65, and the benefits----
    Chairman Good. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Jayapal. She is in the middle of her answer, Mr. 
Chairman. I asked my question before my time expired.
    Chairman Good. The gentlelady's time has expired. We will 
recognize Mr. Scott please for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jayapal. Well, thank you so much for your incredible 
work on behalf of workers. I am sorry that the Chairman won't 
let you finish your answer about exactly how you have been 
putting money back into the pockets of people across this 
country. I yield back.
    Ms. Gomez. There is a good result.
    Mr. Scott. Well, I will let you finish and tell the rest of 
the story about the gentleman from Washington.
    Ms. Gomez. We were able to find, thank you Congressman, we 
were able to find the previous employer, and connect him to 
this pensioner, and he was overdue for a pension about $398.00 
a month.
    Mr. Scott. About how much?
    Ms. Gomez. I can tell you many stories like that.
    Mr. Scott. About how much?
    Ms. Gomez. $398.00 per month that just that one person 
received.
    Mr. Scott. Well, thank you. You indicated you had 2.8 
million plans and 153 million people. Do you have time to 
proactively advise small businesses on how to set plans up?
    Ms. Gomez. Yes. We have 2.8 million health plans, so those 
are only the health plans, not the retirement plans. We do 
definitely make time to--in trying to increase retirement 
access to all, our outreach and education group meets with 
small businesses.
    We have put together publications for small businesses, to 
try to encourage employers who would be interested in setting 
up these plans, what they need to look for and how we can help.
    Mr. Scott. When people call in, are they able to get people 
on the phone with the staff you have?
    Ms. Gomez. Yes. We have people who are available by phone. 
Those folks are very stretched since there are so few, and we 
are trying to help so many, but we do help both participants 
and employers with questions they have.
    Mr. Scott. Now, your agency reversed the Trump rule that 
expanded Associated Health Plans. What is wrong with Associated 
Health Plans?
    Ms. Gomez. Well, thank you. There is nothing inherently 
wrong with Association Health Plans, however, and we had had 
guidance for many years on what factors could be considered in 
determining whether an Association Health Plan could exist 
under ERISA.
    In the 2018 Health Plan Rule broadened those requirements 
so that employers who had a more tenuous relationship with each 
other could form an Association Health Plan. In doing so, they 
would be subject by ERISA, but they might not be responsible. 
They might not be subject to the requirements under the 
Affordable Care Act for individual and smaller health plans 
that were more strenuous.
    Mr. Scott. Is it true that if you expand these Associated 
Health Plans, everybody else on average would end up paying 
more if they pay less?
    Ms. Gomez. That is exactly right.
    Mr. Scott. Do some of these things become insolvent?
    Ms. Gomez. It is quite possible that some of these plans 
could become insolvent and that it would affect the individual 
and small group health plan systems.
    Mr. Scott. Do these plans have the consumer protections 
like minimum benefits, and the right to appeal, and that kind 
of thing?
    Ms. Gomez. The Association Health Plans have certain 
protections, but they are not as strenuous as the protections 
that would apply to the individual and group health plan 
market.
    Mr. Scott. With ESG plans, it is my understanding that they 
are just part of what an employee could pick. They are not 
required to have that plan. Is that right?
    Ms. Gomez. That is correct.
    Mr. Scott. Is it true that when you consider environmental, 
social and governance considerations, that many of those plans 
actually do better than other plans?
    Ms. Gomez. Yes. That is correct, and we were in fact 
hearing from the market, from the investment market, that they 
were looking for additional flexibility, so that they could, if 
they wanted and decided it was in the best interests, consider 
those types of factors for that very reason.
    Mr. Scott. Is it true that you could only do those to the 
extent that you do not diminish the value of plans for the 
consumers?
    Ms. Gomez. Correct. They need to consider both the 
investment return and the risk return on those types of 
investments before doing that.
    Mr. Scott. On your fiduciary rule, you made it clear that 
the advice has to be in the best interest of the consumer. What 
kind of rip-offs occur when you do not have that arrangement?
    Ms. Gomez. Yes. When you do not have that type of 
arrangement, and investment professionals are allowed to put 
their own interests above the interests of the consumer, there 
are savings lawsuits to the tune of billions of dollars.
    Mr. Scott. A lot of this could be overcharging. You could 
provide a service at a higher fee than----
    Ms. Gomez. Diminished returns.
    Mr. Scott. Than what other things that are available on the 
market. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, Mr. Scott. I will now recognize 
Ms. Hayes for 5 minutes if you're ready.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. Thank you, Assistant Secretary 
Gomez, for your testimony today. According to data published by 
the U.S. Census Bureau, about 86 percent of U.S. private sector 
employees work for establishments that offer employer-sponsored 
health insurance.
    Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that 73 
percent of civilian workers had access to retirement benefits 
as of March 2023, with 56 percent of workers participating in 
those plans. Put simply, a majority of Americans rely on 
employer-sponsored plans for crucial benefits, and to ensure a 
strong retirement.
    I do not believe any member of this Committee would dispute 
that health insurance and retirement can be difficult to 
navigate under the best of circumstances. Assistant Secretary 
Gomez, I want to discuss some of the work that the Employee 
Benefits Security Administration does to protect workers and 
retirees.
    Most people are probably unaware that EBSA employs Benefit 
Advisors at its regional offices to assist in underlying 
misconduct or help workers and retirees navigate their plans. 
In Connecticut, an EBSA Benefits Advisor was able to help a 
retiree access nearly 2 million dollars in retirement benefits 
from a former employer.
    Assistant Secretary, what policy changes can Congress enact 
to increase access to services like this for our constituents? 
Additionally, can you provide the perspective of a benefits 
advisor on how these policy changes can improve outcomes in 
other cases?
    Ms. Gomez. Yes. Thank you for the opportunity. As far as 
policy changes are concerned, we do have--there are several 
areas in which we do not have sufficient teeth in our laws that 
we enforce, including civil monetary penalties that are not 
available for violations.
    There's an inability to enforce the law with respect to 
service providers who are not subject to the law, to ERISA, and 
so several people who are involved, we just do not have 
enough--we do not have enough power, enforcement power to be 
able to most efficiently administer our laws.
    Separate from that, from a funding perspective, we are, as 
I have stated before, a miniscule agency compared to our 
responsibilities with less, with only about 850 employees. The 
Benefits Advisors that you speak of, we have 130 across the 
country.
    The amount of calls that they get in on every single day, 
and these are emotional calls with people calling up because 
they need a transplant, or they are missing their pension, or 
they cannot get a call back from their health coverage.
    It is a lot to ask of 130 people who are answering phones 
for so many people, and they are so committed to their job. 
Again, with additional funding, to be able to add to our staff, 
that would be incredible in how we can serve.
    Instead, we are faced with funding--with cuts in our 
funding, and specifically, aside from a cut in our funding, we 
have supplemental funding that was given to us under the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, that is specifically directed 
to enforcing the No Surprises Act, which protects again, 1 
million claims a month, saving people from surprise bills, as 
well as in our mental health enforcement, which is saving 
people every single day.
    We are set to lose that funding at the end of this year. 
Losing that funding, rather than being able to increase our 
team, will force us to attrit almost 120 employees. We are in a 
very bad situation and very worried about that.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I did not want to stop you, although 
I have other questions, I wanted to hear that because it's all 
very important information. In February, this Subcommittee held 
a hearing on the Biden administration's proposed Retirement 
Security Rule, and one of the witnesses testified that as many 
as 97 percent of savers believe that their financial 
professionals were their fiduciaries, meaning every decision 
they made was in their best intention.
    We found that not to be true. Unfortunately, that is not 
always the case, and many people who are working hard to save 
their retirement end up receiving conflicting advice, and it is 
too late by the time they realize it. I am going to submit a 
question for the record that talks about the Retirement Savings 
Lost and Found, and Secure 2.0 that we fought really hard to 
make sure that was in there.
    Just really ask that you provide information on how EBSA is 
making important changes to meet the goals of that initiative, 
so that people who think that they are saving for retirement, 
are in fact saving for retirement. I will submit that question 
for the record.
    Ms. Gomez. Thank you.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you for your time today. With that, I 
yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. I will now recognize myself for 5 
minutes. Ms. Gomez, EBSA oversees retirement health and welfare 
plan benefits for 150 million plus workers, retirees and their 
dependents. What is EBSA's top priority?
    Ms. Gomez. We have several top priorities. Our top priority 
is to make sure that we are serving on that mission.
    Chairman Good. Let me stop you for a second. In your 
testimony you said EBSA's top priority is a mental--``EBSA's 
top priority is the Mental Health Parody and Addiction Equity 
Act.''
    Ms. Gomez. Yes. That is our top priority on the health 
side. I should have--I left the word ``health'' out, but yes.
    Chairman Good. I mean if that is your top priority, what 
does that say about your focus, or lack thereof, on the massive 
scope of your other responsibilities that affect 150 million 
Americans with a nearly 14 trillion assets for which you have 
oversight, so that is your top priority. I thought that was 
just very interesting.
    I understand it is very important, but to say that is your 
top priority. With democrats, it is always about the money and 
more funding. How many of EBSA's--you mentioned several times 
hey, I have got 850 employees, and one of the members on the 
minority side was bemoaning that they said somebody wants to 
cut 14 percent of the workforce of EBSA.
    How many of the 850 employees actually report to work in 
person every day?
    Ms. Gomez. Currently, the Department of Labor's policy is--
--
    Chairman Good. I did not ask about the policy. How many 
EBSA employees actually report to work in office every day?
    Ms. Gomez. I do not have that information.
    Chairman Good. What would you estimate the percentage to be 
of the 850 employees, or the number of 850 employees who report 
to work every day at an office?
    Ms. Gomez. Our policy----
    Chairman Good. Okay. I want a number. I want a number or a 
percentage please?
    Ms. Gomez. I do not have a number for you today.
    Chairman Good. Okay. You should be able to ballpark it. You 
supervise these 850 people. How many of them come to work? You 
have no idea? Are you telling us today you have no idea how 
many of the employees come to work at an office in person every 
day?
    Ms. Gomez. All of our supervisory, non-bargaining unit 
employees----
    Chairman Good. I would like the question to start with a 
number or a percentage of an estimate? I am not going to hold 
you to the exact number. You can be approximate here.
    Ms. Gomez. I do not have that approximate number.
    Chairman Good. You have no idea how many of your employees 
come to work every day at an office?
    Ms. Gomez. I do not have an exact number.
    Chairman Good. I did not ask for an exact number. I asked 
you to give me an approximation. You have no idea. You cannot 
even guesstimate. You do not even think you can be in the 
ballpark of how many come to work and report in person every 
day?
    Ms. Gomez. There is no one who comes in every single day. 
That is the policy.
    Chairman Good. No one does. Okay. How many comes in--do the 
ones that do not come into work every day, how many days a week 
do they come into work?
    Ms. Gomez. For our supervisory employees, they are required 
to come in 5 days a pay period.
    Chairman Good. Five days per pay period, so define that for 
folks who might not know a pay period. That means 5 days per?
    Ms. Gomez. Per biweekly.
    Chairman Good. Every 2 weeks 5 days for supervisors. How 
about the other 800 employees or so?
    Ms. Gomez. For the bargaining unit employees, the 
Department is working with the unions to negotiate the terms of 
that as----
    Chairman Good. There is no requirement for the others?
    Ms. Gomez. There is a requirement currently for 2 days 
every pay period.
    Chairman Good. Two days every 2 weeks.
    Ms. Gomez. That is being negotiated.
    Chairman Good. How about you personally? How often do you 
report to an office to work.
    Ms. Gomez. I report to my office pretty much----
    Chairman Good. In person?
    Ms. Gomez. Pretty much every day in person.
    Chairman Good. That is where?
    Ms. Gomez. My office?
    Chairman Good. Yes?
    Ms. Gomez. I am either in my office here at the National 
Office on Constitution Avenue.
    Chairman Good. I thought you resided in New York?
    Ms. Gomez. I do not. I reside in Penn Quarter in 
Washington, DC, and I go home to see my family on the weekends.
    Chairman Good. Okay. Under your leadership, EBSA repealed 
two healthcare regulations from the previous administration, 
which has eliminated choice for Americans who desperately want 
options, in an increasingly consolidated marketplace.
    As you know, EBSA repealed the Association Health Plan's 
Rule, which permits individuals from small businesses and 
similar lines of work to pull together and negotiate better 
rates. When it was in effect, it was reported it saved these 
plans 29 percent.
    EBSA also repealed the Short-Term, Limited-Duration 
Insurance Rule, and these plans can be a lifeline for someone 
who loses their jobs and needs insurance to fill in the gap 
between positions or enrollment periods.
    The previous rule allowed for Americans to stay in these 
plans for 12 months, while the Biden rule only allows for 3 
months. Many democrats, including some on this Committee, 
continue to push for single-payer, government run healthcare, 
because the government does such a great job with everything.
    Everything always gets better when the government takes it 
over. Medicare for all of course is the dream there. The left 
will claim, and they have done it today already, that anything 
that is not government run healthcare is junk insurance, that 
employers and employees cannot choose for themselves.
    It doesn't provide full coverage because everything is 
better again when the government runs things. Given your role, 
you are a steward of employer-sponsored health benefits. Will 
you commit to opposing Medicare for all?
    Ms. Gomez. I do not have enough--that has not come before--
--
    Chairman Good. Are you opposed to Medicare for all, or do 
you support it?
    Ms. Gomez. That is not, I think a part of the priorities.
    Chairman Good. You cannot answer that question? Do you 
oppose it or support it?
    Ms. Gomez. I am not----
    Chairman Good. The thought has never occurred to you 
before?
    Ms. Gomez. I did not say that, but that is not part of my--
--
    Chairman Good. All right. Thank you. My time has expired. I 
will recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. DeSaulnier, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. 
Gomez, for being here. As been said, you have the 
responsibility of protecting the retirement and health benefits 
for 153 million Americans, almost half of the population, with 
up to 14 trillion dollars in assets.
    No small job, and in terms of always throwing money, I do 
not agree with that, Mr. Chairman. As a former small business 
person, I believe in efficiency, and I think that we should 
have a commonality, but sometimes you have to spend money to 
make money, and in this instance, you have to spend money to 
get good people to enforce the laws.
    Unfortunately, there has been a very aggressive attempt--
and it reminds me of the mortgage industry 15 years ago--by 
some health plans to just blanketly deny medical claims and 
behavioral health claims even worse. The Kaiser Foundation has 
estimated that some plans reject 90 percent of the claims.
    I have had individual doctors talk about how for years they 
put the same claims in, and now they do not have the staff to 
constantly call and help the clients. ProPublica found that 
Cigna actually had constructed a policy where they would just--
their doctors, Cigna's doctors, would blanketly refuse claims 
without even opening the patients' files.
    On the medical side, you already mentioned this, you do not 
have enough regulators to enforce the laws, and the good health 
plans have to decide whether they are going to maintain their 
profitability, even though they do follow the letter of the 
law, and with integrity, and confidence for the people, the 
employers and the employees, but the bad actors are driving the 
market to the bottom, like the mortgage industry.
    Could you add anything to your observation that it is not 
just the risk assessment by these bad actors that they are not 
going to get caught because they are having some friends here 
on the Hill complicit in reducing the oversight, the literal 
cops on the beat, but they are also the disincentives--whether 
it is a private right of action, or fines--that people know 
there is very little consequence for them, financially or 
personally, by ignoring the law, and just denying claims 
blanketly.
    Ms. Gomez. Yes, thank you, Congressman for that. A couple 
of things. First, we certainly do not have enough people on the 
beat, as I mentioned, the incredibly over--under-balanced, you 
know, lack of balance ratio between what we can do.
    We know that we are not possibly getting to all of the bad 
actors out there, and so there are many who know it is very 
unlikely that they will get caught. Unless someone contacts us 
and knows to contact us and tell us that there is a problem, 
that could very well happen without additional resources.
    In addition to that, because we have very limited authority 
to do something once a person is violating--once a plan is 
violating the law, we cannot do much other than require them to 
correct that and pay the benefits, which might just delay the 
process, and in some cases be, you know, detrimental, 
financially detrimental, or could be--cost a life if someone is 
delayed treatment.
    We need additional enforcement power so that we can really 
put teeth in what we are doing, and be able to get them.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Let us switch to behavioral health. George 
W. Bush signed a landmark Parity Act, and since then as many as 
three-and-a-half individual people applying for behavioral 
health under their health plan, which they have paid for and is 
required to be equally distributed under the Affordable Care 
Act in George W. Bush's signed legislation, we know that they 
are being denied and ignored.
    Three and a half times they have to go outside their plan, 
even though they have paid for it. This is in an atmosphere 
where there has been a 300 percent increase in requests for 
behavioral health in this country since the Affordable Care Act 
was passed, but a similar decrease in the number of people 
going into the field.
    In addition to all that, the people who want to go into 
this field, there is no business model for them to get their 
return on investment, to get a bachelor's degree, a master's 
degree, or a doctorate degree. This just seems to be willful. 
As you said, the ripple effect on the mental health in trying 
to break that tendency--the Surgeon General just issued a 
warning about social media, and what that is doing to young 
people.
    We know that adolescent girls have been attacked, and there 
is a high rate of suicide rates. How do we enforce these laws 
when there is no real enforcement mechanism to the bad behavior 
of some of the health plans, even though they are required by 
law to provide these services?
    Ms. Gomez. I appreciate the question, and I honestly wish I 
had an answer to that, but unless we have additional resources, 
we simply will not be able to do that.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, I yield back.
    Chairman Good. Thank you, and I will now recognize Mr. 
DeSaulnier for his closing remarks.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, this is 
a good hearing, and I think it has exposed some of the 
challenges, and as someone who does not believe throwing money 
without accountability, particularly on things that risk 
Americans' lives, and their families' financial health and 
their behavioral health, health, and practices.
    The exponential crisis we are in, particularly on 
behavioral health and costs. I would really think that we would 
keep our eye on the ball and not just spend money for the sake 
of spending money, but spend money where the cost returned to 
American consumers is justified.
    In this case, it is clear to me, and our message is to the 
investment community that is doing this, clearly is a green 
light to let them continue, and for the good providers who want 
to provide good services, it is an admonition that if they play 
by the rules, they are going to be punished, which I think is a 
sad State of this Committee and this Congress.
    The ERISA Advisory Council recently released a report on 
improving long-term disability benefits, and the Council found 
that 99 percent of long-term disability plans imposed duration 
limits for people with disabilities. In addition to the 
behavioral health, medical health, then people most vulnerable 
with disabilities also get attacked.
    All of this is to say, in my closing comment, we have a lot 
of work to do. It is my hope that we support your efforts and 
the administration's efforts, and in a bipartisan way, because 
this is a return on investment and people's lives, American's 
lives, and the quality of their lives.
    The absence of that, as you have said, is people will die. 
They will suffer, even though they have paid into these plans. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Good. Thank you. I will now recognize myself for 
closing remarks. Ms. Gomez, thanks again for coming before this 
Committee and answering questions. Unfortunately, I am even 
more convinced after this hearing that EBSA has woefully 
misguided priorities that distract from its intended mission of 
protecting the financial health and security of millions of 
Americans.
    It appears you are more interested in expanding EBSA's 
regulatory power than in faithfully executing the laws. We have 
heard today about the negative consequences of repealing 
healthcare regulations and advancing the Fiduciary Rule and ESG 
Rule.
    The last thing the American people want, or need is an 
agency that will push forward policies that courts overturn, 
and aren't popular enough to pass Congress. You know, the 
American people's representatives who are supposed to make law. 
Instead, bureaucrats should focus on providing helpful customer 
service, which would be better served by in person work, by the 
way, and faithfully administering the law.
    Sadly, it seems that EBSA has abandoned its important 
duties like providing timely investigation to the benefits 
plans that it actually has a responsibility to oversee. It is 
also important that our agencies demonstrate the highest level 
of integrity in their work, improper payments to pension plans 
have obviously destroyed that notion.
    I am also confident that EBSA, and more importantly, the 
American people that you are supposed to serve, would benefit 
from your workforce actually coming back to in person work. It 
is certainly concerning that you said a few moments ago that 
your employees are negotiating essentially against the American 
people, regarding their requirement to coming back to in person 
work.
    Perhaps they will show up in person to protest coming back 
to work as the Boston Department of Labor employees recently 
did. Let me say that again. They showed up in person to protest 
having to come back to in person work. Your agency certainly 
has its work cut out for it, and this Committee will do 
everything possible to hold you accountable.
    Without objection, and there being no further business, 
this Committee stands adjourned.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    [Whereupon, at 1:06 p.m., the Subcommittee hearing was 
adjourned.]

                            [all]