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


                 EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND PRIORITIES
                    OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

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

                                HEARING

                               Before The

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

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________



              HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 1, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-47

                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce
    
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    


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

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
58-670 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025                  
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------          
        
                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

                       Cyrus Artz, Staff Director
              Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on May 1, 2024......................................     1

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

    Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Committee on Education and 
      the Workforce..............................................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     4
    Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on 
      Education and the Workforce................................     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     9

                               WITNESSES

    Su, Julie A., Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor.....    11
        Prepared statement of....................................    13

                         ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

    Chairwoman Foxx:
        Civilian labor force participation rate from the U.S. 
          Bureau of Labor Statistics.............................    58
        Letter dated April 30, 2024, from the Associated Builders 
          and Contractors........................................   139
        Letter dated April 29, 2024, from Independent Women's 
          Voice (IWV)............................................   141
    Ranking Member Scott:
        Letter dated September 13, 2023, requesting a child labor 
          hearing................................................    99
        Letter dated July 21, 2023, to Comptroller General Dodaro   101
        April 2021 report titled ``A slap on the wrist, How it 
          pays for unscrupulous employers to take advantage of 
          workers''..............................................   104
    Adams, Hon. Alma, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of North Carolina:
        CFP Board of Standards...................................    32
    Steel, Hon. Michelle, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California:
        Article dated April 6, 2024, from the San Bernardino Sun.    72

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
        Acting Secretary Su......................................   145

 
                 EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND PRIORITIES
                    OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                              ----------                              


                         Wednesday, May 1, 2024

                  House of Representatives,
          Committee on Education and the Workforce,
                                            Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16, a.m., in 
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx, 
(Chairwoman of the Committee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Foxx, Wilson, Thompson, Walberg, 
Grothman, Stefanik, Allen, Banks, Smucker, Owens, Good, 
McClain, Miller, Steel, Estes, Kiley, Bean, Burlison, Moran, 
Scott, Courtney, Sablan, Wilson, Bonamici, Takano, Adams, 
DeSaulnier, Norcross, Jayapal, Wild, McBath, Hayes, Omar, 
Stevens, Leger Fernandez, Manning, and Mrvan.
    Staff present: Cyrus Artz, Staff Director; Nick Barley, 
Deputy Communications Director; Mindy Barry, General Counsel; 
Jackson Berryman, Speechwriter; Isabel Foster, Press Assistant; 
Daniel Fuenzalida, Staff Assistant; Sheila Havenner, Director 
of Information Technology; Alex Knorr, Legislative Assistant; 
Trey Kovacs, Professional Staff Member; Marek Laco, 
Professional Staff Member; Georgie Littlefair, Clerk; John 
Martin, Deputy Director of Workplace Policy/Counsel; Hannah 
Matesic, Deputy Staff Director; Audra McGeorge, Communications 
Director; Kevin O'Keefe, Professional Staff Member; Mike 
Patterson, Oversight Investigative Counsel; Rebecca Powell, 
Staff Assistant; Kelly Tyroler, Professional Staff Member; 
Heather Wadyka, Professional Staff Member; Seth Waugh, Director 
of Workforce Policy; Joe Wheeler, Professional Staff Member; 
Maura Williams, Director of Operations; Jeanne Wilson, 
Retirement Counsel; Nekea Brown, Minority Director of 
Operations; Ilana Brunner, Minority General Counsel; Scott 
Estrada, Minority Professional Staff; Daniel Foster, Minority 
Senior Health and Labor Counsel; Stephanie Lalle, Minority 
Communications Director; Raiyana Malone, Minority Press 
Secretary; Kevin McDermott, Minority Director of Labor Policy; 
Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director; Swetha 
Ramachandran, Minority Intern; Jessica Schieder, Minority 
Economic Policy Advisor; Dhrtvan Sherman, Minority Research 
Assistant; Bob Shull, Minority Senior Labor Policy Counsel; 
Theresa Tilling-Thompson, Minority Professional Staff; Jamar 
Tolbert, Minority Intern; Banyon Vassar, Minority IT 
Administrator.
    Chairwoman Foxx. The Committee on Education and the 
Workforce will come to order. I note that a quorum is present. 
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to call a recess at 
any time. Acting Secretary Su, I know Vice President Harris has 
lobbied hard to drop the appellation Acting from your title, 
but I'm afraid only a vote of the full Senate can grant you 
that promotion.
    This is something they have rightly not seen fit to do. 
Today marks the 417th consecutive day in which you have led the 
Department of Labor, DOL, as Acting Secretary without the 
constitutional required advice and consent of the Senate.
    In effectively abrogating the Senate nomination process, 
the Biden administration has treated the Constitution as but a 
footnote. That is unacceptable. In fact, Ms. Su, you are now 
the longest serving Acting Secretary since before the U.S. 
Civil War, a record that was best left unbroken.
    As we examine the Biden administration's Fiscal Year 2025 
budget request for DOL, it is important to keep that in mind. 
These unprecedented times demand the strictest possible 
scrutiny. To begin with, the Fiscal Year 202025 DOL budget 
requests an increase to 14.2 billion in discretionary spending 
to support the ``work'' of more than 15,600 bureaucrats.
    By work I mean showing up in person just 5 days over a 2-
week span, as is DOL's official policy. Moreover, as the old 
saying goes, the budget is not just a collection of numbers. 
The budget is a statement of priorities. An overzealous 
regulatory action has been a blatant priority of the Biden 
administration. The Fiscal Year 202025 DOL budget asks of the 
average American, ``Invest in the Davis Bacon Rule, which will 
make Federal construction projects more unaffordable.
    ``Invest in the Overtime Rule,'' which will force employers 
to cut hours'' Invest in the Independent Contractor Rule,'' 
which will bankrupt freelancers across the country. Invest in 
the Fiduciary Rule, which will limit options for individuals to 
invest in their own financial future and invest in an expansion 
of DOL's power over apprenticeships which will decimate the 
role of states, and further handcuff employers.
    While the Biden administration likes to misuse the word 
invest, Americans see what it really means. Attacks on workers 
and business in terms of both time and money. Money and effort 
that rightly belong to the taxpayer alone. The priorities 
pursued by this administration are detrimental to American 
workers, job creators and taxpayers. The very people DOL should 
be serving.
    Instead, DOL regulations have served the interests of big 
labor union bosses. That the administration would install an 
Acting Secretary to carry out what I see as a very radical 
vision raises serious concerns for this Committee. Do not take 
my word for it, American views of the Biden-Su economy have 
soured in poll after poll.
    Hugh Research finds that 26 percent of the electorate rates 
economic conditions as excellent or good, while 73 percent 
regards them as just fair or poor, 22 percent believe that they 
are better off than they were 4 years ago compared to 52 
percent who believe they are worse off.
    The American people cite inflation, cost of living, and the 
lack of good paying jobs as their top three concerns. In other 
words, when it comes to your records the American people are 
not buying what you are selling. I see at least three 
underlying economic conditions that explain why.
    First, Americans are being crushed under the weight of 
inflation. Groceries cost over 25 percent more than when Biden 
took office, and the real median wages have not kept pace. 
Second, the mirage of job growth is also subsidized by gains in 
the public sector. It has not escaped my notice that over the 
last 2 months the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 
employment growth in the government sector was second only to 
growth in the healthcare sector.
    In March the healthcare sector edged out the government 
sector by only about 1,000 jobs. In 2023, nearly 25 percent of 
added jobs were government positions, which inevitably will be 
paid for by private sector jobs. Third, job growth can be 
exclusively attributed to foreign born workers. Foreign born 
workers have gained nearly 4 million jobs over pre-pandemic 
levels.
    Conversely, native born workers are still down over 1 
million jobs since the beginning of the pandemic. Republicans 
will unleash the American economy. We will curb reckless 
spending, promote growth and innovation, cut through regulatory 
red tape, and create more opportunities in skills development. 
Thank you, and I yield to the Ranking Member for an opening 
statement.
    [The Statement of Chairwoman Foxx follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. Acting Secretary Su, good 
morning. I think it is important to note that your service as 
Acting Secretary has been verified as constitutionally proper 
by the Government Accountability Office, so there is no 
question as to whether or not you are serving consistent with 
the Constitution.
    Welcome back. It is great to have you appear before us on 
May Day, a day in which people from all over the world can come 
together and recognize the importance of the labor movement. 
Under your leadership, the Department of Labor has invested in 
registered apprenticeship opportunities for job seekers, and 
championed a pro-worker regulatory agenda, that includes 
protecting mine workers from silica dust, expanding overtime 
protections for millions of workers, ensuring that workers 
receive retirement investment advice that is in their best 
interest.
    The Department has also worked with the Biden 
administration to repeal the harmful restrictions imposed by 
the previous administration that allowed unscrupulous employers 
to misclassify workers as independent contractors, which would 
deny them the benefits of being an employee, such as minimum 
wage, overtime, worker's compensation, unemployment 
compensation, OSHA protections, health and pension benefits 
enjoyed by other employees, just to name a few.
    I also know that you are working on self-insurance for the 
black lung disease program. Since President Biden took office 
more than 12.2 million jobs have been created. This historic, 
economic progress is indicative of progressional Democrats and 
the administration's commitment to supporting workers, 
businesses, and families.
    A perfect example of our commitment is when congressional 
Democrats and President Biden saved the pensions of over 1 
million retirees, by saving the multi-employer pension funds. 
We also saved tens of thousands of businesses from going under. 
Those businesses were legally obligated to pay into the failing 
funds until the businesses went broke. We saved them too.
    As a reminder, not a single congressional Republican voted 
in favor of this fix, even though the cost of the fix was less 
than we calculated we were on the hook for in future expenses. 
In stark contrast, House Republicans have prioritized policies 
that undermine workers, and supported destructive budget cuts 
at the Department of Labor.
    Today we will hear Committee Republicans continue to 
attempt to discredit our economy's performance under President 
Biden and your leadership. For example, the record number of 
jobs, they consider that bad economy. Under the previous 
administration, worst job performance in almost 100 years. They 
praise that as good economy. You cannot make it up. You have to 
look at the numbers.
    The undisputable fact is, according to the Department of 
Labor, the unemployment rate of President Biden has remained 
below 4 percent for the longest time in 50 years. That is a 
good economy. I also want to remind my colleagues that despite 
what the Committee Republicans may say, every Democratic 
administration since President Kennedy has left for their 
Republican successors, a better budget deficit situation than 
the one they inherited.
    Every Republican administration since Nixon left their 
Democratic successors a worse deficit situation than they 
inherited, without exception. Using every microeconomic metric, 
the economy does better when Democrats are in charge.
    Today's hearing is an opportunity to set the record 
straight and tell the truth. President Biden and Acting 
Secretary Su have worked to support workers, businesses, and 
our economy, and we will continue to focus on concrete 
solutions to put money back into workers' pockets, keep workers 
healthy and safe on the job, ensure all workers can enjoy a 
dignified retirement, and protect children from being forced to 
work in illegal and dangerous conditions.
    To that end, the Committee Democrats released a new report 
just yesterday entitled, ``A Slap on the Wrist: How it Pays for 
Unscrupulous Employers to Take Advantage of Workers.'' The 
report details how employers feel emboldened to violate labor 
laws because of weak or non-existent civil monetary penalties. 
Monetary penalties are supposed to serve as a deterrent and 
hold employers accountable for labor law violations.
    However today, they have become in some cases the cost of 
doing business. In other cases, no sanctions at all. Later this 
month the Committee Democrats will introduce legislation to 
responsibly increase these penalties, to deter employers from 
violating workers' rights. I hope our Republican colleagues 
will put politics aside and work with us to deliver these 
priorities.
    Thank you, Ms. Su, for your leadership and joining us 
today, and thank you and the Department of Labor for all that 
you've done for the workers of America. I want to thank you for 
being responsive to oversight requests made by our Committee. 
We may hear that the Committee has sent letters.
    I am delighted to know that you have responded to the 
majority's 25 oversight letters, and that is how it should be. 
You should be making those responses, and I do not need to 
remind anybody, but I will, the previous administration was not 
nearly as responsive to Congress's oversight requests as this 
one has been. In most cases, they just ignored our requests 
altogether.
    Throughout the hearing I hope we will remain focused on 
what is most important, improving the lives of workers and 
their families. Thank you, Acting Secretary Su and Madam Chair, 
I yield back.
    [The Statement of Ranking Member Scott follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Pursuant to 
Committee Rule 8-C, all members who wish to insert written 
statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the 
Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5 
p.m., 14 days after the date of this hearing, which is May 15, 
2024. Without objection, the hearing record will remain open 
for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous 
material referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the 
official hearing record.
    I now turn to the introduction of our witness. Today we 
have as our witness, Acting Secretary Julie Su from the U.S. 
Department of Labor located in Washington, DC. We thank you for 
being here today and look forward to your testimony. I would 
like to remind the witness that we have read your written 
statement, which will appear in full in the hearing record.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 8-D and Committee practice, I 
ask you to limit your oral presentation to a 5-minute summary 
of your written statement. I also want to remind the witness to 
be aware of her responsibility to provide accurate information 
to the Committee. I now recognize Acting Secretary Su.

  STATEMENT OF ACTING SECRETARY JULIE SU, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
                    LABOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Acting Secretary Su. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, 
and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today on President Biden's Fiscal Year 2025 budget 
request for the Department of Labor. As the Acting Secretary of 
Labor, I get to travel the country to meet with workers.
    Workers like Mariah, a single mom, who was living paycheck 
to paycheck worried about how she was going to get by. She went 
to her local social services office to apply for Medicaid and 
SNAP benefits, and that is where she saw a flyer for a job 
training program in the pipe trades. Today, Mariah is in a good 
union job, and she has quadrupled her income.
    What struck me about Mariah was not just how much a good 
income meant to her. It was the pride she felt in putting in a 
hard day's work and getting rewarded for it, and the pride that 
she saw in her children's eyes. It is undeniable, good jobs 
change lives. Our 13.9-billion-dollar budget request will help 
more people like Mariah get good jobs that can support 
families, lift up communities, and bring the dignity and pride 
that are core to the American dream.
    I want to frame our request under two priority areas. 
First, pathways to good jobs for all of America's workers. I 
have met with thousands of workers like Mariah who are in 
programs that work. Programs that exist because we have 
invested in them. That is why we are requesting investments to 
develop and expand proven models to connect workers to the good 
jobs they want and need, and employers to the workers that they 
want and need.
    For example, we are requesting 8 billion dollars for the 
Career Training Fund. That investment would help as many as 
750,000 people who do not see 4-year college as their path, 
enroll in evidence-based, high-quality training programs for 
actual jobs in their communities.
    Workers who complete high-quality programs do not end up 
with a job search, they end up with a good job. We also seek 
335 million dollars for apprenticeship programs. Registered 
apprenticeships provide training for the actual skills that 
employers need. They allow workers to earn while they learn, 
and they increase job pathways for underrepresented groups, 
including women, people of color, veterans, and individuals 
with disabilities.
    When I talk to business owners, many tell me that their top 
concern is recruiting and retaining workers. Well, the 
investment in our budget requests are how Congress and the 
Department of Labor can tap into the talents and skills of all 
of America's workers, and make sure that the supply of skilled 
workers meet the demand right now and well into the future.
    The second priority I would like to highlight is the 
Department of Labor's mission to protect workers, including and 
especially, those most vulnerable to exploitation. Too often 
employers who hire 13-year-olds to work in hazardous conditions 
fail to pay overtime for a 60-hour work week, or who put 
workers at risk of losing their limbs, or even their lives on 
the job, do it because they believe they will get away with it, 
that no one will stop them. That they can operate in blatant 
disregard of the laws that Congress has passed.
    Not on our watch. That is why we are requesting modest, but 
important increases for the Department's worker protection 
agencies because we cannot do this vital work without dedicated 
public servants. The wage an hour investigators who combat 
child labor, the team that ensures work places are free from 
safety hazards, the benefits advisers who answer the phone when 
panicked patients have been denied coverage for mental health 
services by their health insurance company.
    We are asking for 7.5 million dollars for additional staff 
to combat wage theft and child labor, an additional 23 million 
dollars to investigate high hazard workplaces, protect 
whistleblowers, and give employers compliance assistance, and 
an additional 10.7 million dollars for my solicitor's office, 
which has been essentially flat funded for more than a decade.
    The President's request would also help us advance worker 
rights and promote a level playing field internationally for 
U.S. workers and businesses. It would better support the 
implementation of Congress's SECURE 2.0 Act, the Mental Health 
Parity and Addiction Equity Act, and the No Surprises Act. When 
you pass laws, we should make them real.
    In all, this budget request will help make sure that 
workers can come home safe and healthy at the end of the 
workday and get high-quality jobs with the power to truly 
change lives. Again, I thank this Committee, and I look forward 
to your questions.
    [The Statement of Ms. Su follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Under Committee Rule 9, we will 
now question the witness under the Five Minute Rule. I ask 
members to keep your questions succinct, so the witness has 
time to answer within your 5-minute allotment. I want to 
respond briefly to the Ranking Member's comments about the 
Department responding in a timely fashion.
    It is really clear that our standards on what is a timely 
response is very different from the Ranking Member's standard 
on what's a timely response. Our standards for what composes a 
complete response is very different from what the Ranking 
Member believes is a complete response. We got, 19 hours before 
this Committee hearing, a traunch of material we had asked for 
months ago, we got last night.
    I would also like to provide notice to the Ranking Member 
that I intend to serve a subpoena to the Acting Secretary if we 
do not receive by May 6th, the Department's return to office 
plan, which the White House Chief of Staff instructed each 
agency to prepare and submit by January 26th. You do not even 
follow your own lax request by your own chief of staff, and 
this Committee requested on March 6th.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member--thank you. Acting 
Secretary, after months of Committee oversight, the Central 
States Pension Fund returned 127 million in taxpayer money it 
accepted when the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation paid it 
to fund then-Teamster's pensions. As Acting Secretary of Labor, 
you are the Chair of the PBGC Board. This allowed DOL to be 
involved in PBGC decisionmaking.
    What role did you and DOL play in PBGC's original 
outrageous decision not to attempt to recover these 
overpayments?
    Acting Secretary Su. There was never a point where there 
was not an attempt to recover the payments. Basically, let me 
just State four points. The first is that there were no moneys 
paid to anybody who should not have received it. The second is 
that as you know, I think, the money has been returned.
    The third point is that the PBGC has taken steps to make 
sure that all of the records that are submitted----
    Chairwoman Foxx. You are not telling me what role you 
played?
    Acting Secretary Su. What we have played is--this is a 
little bit technical, so bear with me for a moment. When the 
money goes to the Central States, the Central States have a 
fiduciary duty over that, over those funds. The Department of 
Labor issued an analysis that allowed----
    Chairwoman Foxx. We are not interested in the processes 
that went on. We want to know, and I will submit this as a 
question, and you will need to answer specifically what you did 
in terms of getting back taxpayer dollars.
    Acting Secretary Su. I can answer that. We submitted----
    Chairwoman Foxx. No. I have other questions I would like to 
ask now. In September and again in November, Chairman Good and 
I wrote to you expressing concerns about the Employee Benefits 
Security Administration's failure to conduct its investigations 
in a timely manner. The Department's responses did not provide 
full answers to our questions. Therefore, I am asking you here 
and now, can you tell the Committee how old EBSA's 
investigations are?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, our investigations--the timeline 
depends on the complexity of the cases. There is not a, like 
statutory timeline based in the reality that some cases are 
much simpler than others. Some cases involve much larger 
plans----
    Chairwoman Foxx. Okay. I understand that. You are the 
supervisor, so what have you done personally to ensure that 
they are closed in a timely manner? All of our offices have to 
deal with this kind of thing. Where do you step in to say this 
is long enough, let us get this settled?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, one of the things that you are 
highlighting Chairwoman, is the importance of our budget 
request. One of the challenges we have is that we have far more 
cases, and we need investigators----
    Chairwoman Foxx. Sorry. As long as people are only coming 
in 5 days in 2 weeks, that is not going to fly with me. Bring 
people back into the office, then you can come and talk to us 
about more money. People are not working, so I want to know 
will you commit to providing the aging reports on every 
outstanding EBSA investigation on a monthly basis?
    We want to know where you are. We have our oversight 
responsibility. We need to know where you are with these aging 
reports?
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean, Chairwoman, I just want to, as 
the Ranking Member said, I want to note that we have responded 
to oversight letters, and I do take your oversight 
responsibility very seriously. You have mentioned that you also 
want to make sure that we are responding to acknowledge when we 
get requests. My team does do that. It is very common for us to 
respond within minutes or hours of getting a request----
    Chairwoman Foxx. What you are sending does not answer our 
questions. Let me go on to another question. I understand you 
are interested in expanding apprenticeships, and I want to 
remind you that apprenticeships do not exist without employers 
willing to participate. The Department's nearly 800 page 
proposed regulatory overhaul of the registered apprentice 
system is chop full of new mandates on employers.
    Can you name a single burden, or existing requirement on 
apprenticeship sponsors that you removed in the proposed rule?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, one of the things that the 
proposed rule seeks to do, Chairwoman, is align high school 
programs and CTE better with apprenticeship programs because we 
are seeing both a demand for workers, and a desire among young 
people, and I need to open up opportunities for more young 
people. That is one of the goals.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Okay. I want to be a good role model, so I 
am going to end my questioning. I will send you a specific 
question on that, and give you a chance to give me a specific 
response. I now recognize Mr. Sablan for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning 
and welcome Acting Secretary Su. I want to first thank you for 
your unwavering commitment. This is your second appearance here 
I understand, even as Republicans block your confirmation. 
Thank you also for addressing the concerns I raised last year 
regarding delays in processing temporary labor certificates, 
certification for businesses seeking Mariana transitional 
worker visas.
    We are entering the application system now, and processing 
time is on time. Thank you and your Department and your staff 
for that. The Marianas does continue to have a need for foreign 
workers, but during my time in office we have worked to 
minimize that dependence, and we are seeing that dependence 
come down, but the need still exists.
    One way to ensure that there are sufficient U.S. workers 
for our economy is through apprenticeships. Let me ask, your 
Department has calculated that for every one dollar an employer 
invests in a registered apprenticeship program they get $1.44 
back. That is a very good return.
    Unfortunately, in the territories, in the insular areas, in 
the outlying areas as told in this Committee, only territories, 
only those with more than 100 apprenticeships are eligible for 
federally funded registered programs and reach small 
populations. I would like to ask you and get your commitment 
that we could work with your Office of Apprenticeship to see 
what this requires. I appreciate that.
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, Congressman, thank you so much 
for each of those comments. If I may first start with thank you 
for acknowledging the Department, and my staff who have worked 
to make sure that the processes for something that you raised 
with me last time, are actually working.
    I do feel the need to say that my staff of about 15,000 
strong work very, very hard every single day to deliver for 
America's workers. Many of them work in the field to do it. 
Many of them are at places of employment doing investigations, 
and their work is incredibly important, and we should honor 
that, so thank you for your acknowledgement.
    Mr. Sablan. Madam Secretary, the compliment is my pleasure 
because do not worry, we have seen them in the past too, so 
they have come all of this way and so I am very happy with 
that, thank you.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you.
    Mr. Sablan. The--can I have your commitment that we will 
work with your Office of Apprenticeship please?
    Acting Secretary Su. Absolutely. To your point about 
registered apprenticeships, yes, the return on investment is 
very good. That is partly why we continue to invest in it as a 
proven model. You absolutely have my commitment to work with 
you on this.
    Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Maintaining again, this again this 
Federal employment service program, you know, this Committee 
recently succeeded in having the House pass H.R. 6655 A 
Stronger Workforce for America Act. This included my long sold 
goal of including the Marianas in the Federal Employment 
Service Program, which helps place workers in jobs.
    Could you explain how this program works?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes.
    Mr. Sablan. For a small community with a great need.
    Acting Secretary Su. Those programs are very important 
because what they do is help to connect jobseekers to jobs, and 
employers to the people that they need. There are services that 
include connecting people to training programs, recruitment, an 
understanding of what skills are needed in certain communities. 
It is a really important part of our overall workforce.
    Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Madam Secretary Su. Again, we need 
to ask your Department to work with us, and addressing the lack 
of workforce data in the insular areas to ensure that your 
promulgated rules, you know, affecting overtime and extensions 
and those things, reflect the economic reality in which they 
are for because the Department acknowledges it does not have 
that data. I understand it may take a while, but start the 
work. I appreciate that, Ms. Su, and thank you very much for 
your continued service, and I have other questions I may submit 
for the record.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you. You have my commitment on 
that.
    Mr. Sablan. I am over my time.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Sablan. Mr. Wilson, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much Chairwoman Virginia Foxx. I 
want to thank the Secretary for your service, and indeed, hey 
we want you to be successful, but it really concerns me that 
the policies of the Biden administration spend, borrow, tax, 
have resulted in the highest inflation in 40 years.
    That makes job creation that much more important, and that 
is why your position is so critical. Putting that in mind too, 
the Biden executive orders, the regulations, the mandates, as 
cited by Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, these destroy jobs. This has 
just got to be addressed. On the topic of reclassification of 
independent contractors.
    Independent contractors are so important in our economy. I 
was an independent contractor myself in my life, so I know how 
important it is. The Department has received several thousand 
public interest comments from independent workers raising 
concerns about the destruction of jobs from the new rule. 
However, the Department chose to ignore many of the comments in 
the final rule by stating, ``The Department of Labor does not 
believe there will be any job loss from the new rule.''
    However, neither the rule nor the background materials 
produced by the Department during the rollout for the final 
rule provides any backing as to the status of creation or 
destruction of jobs. What research do you have to support the 
Department's jobs position?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congressman. Since 
President Biden came to office, we have seen over 15.2 million 
jobs created in this economy. At the same time unemployment 
levels remain below 4 percent for the longest stretch since the 
1970's. We also see real wage gains, especially for low-and 
middle-income workers, including gains that outpace inflation, 
which means that working people and working----
    Mr. Wilson. Madam Secretary, the jobs created were ones to 
be that were actually were below where we were, but the jobs 
created were in recovery from the COVID Wuhan virus, and so but 
I am particularly interested in independent contractors, and 
because hey, these are entry level jobs, giving people an 
opportunity. There has been no citing specifically of how this 
rule affects and a justification for what is destroying jobs.
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, respectfully sir, we have not 
only recovered the jobs lost during the pandemic, we are--we 
have exceeded that number, so the total job gains are not just 
more than it was when President Biden first came into office, 
but also it is faster than anybody predicted. We have been able 
to do that in a way that does not sacrifice the well-being of 
workers, meaning unemployment having remained low while labor 
participation rate is also at an all-time highs across just 
about every single demographic.
    Mr. Wilson. Madam Secretary, I respectfully disagree. The 
jobs have not achieved where they were. The achievement of 
President Donald Trump of the lowest level of unemployment in 
history for African Americans, for Asian Americans, for women, 
for young people, has simply not been restored.
    By having these new regulations and mandates it is 
destroying jobs, destroying opportunities, particularly for 
entry level employees. Another issue that is so important are 
H-2A adverse wage rates that have steadily increased in the 
last 10 years. I continue to hear from the agriculture 
community in the district I represent that it has led to 
unsustainable and detrimental situation for them.
    What is your response to the agricultural community to say 
that the H-2A adverse effect wage rates are too costly or 
unworkable?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you. That is a very important 
issue, so thank you for giving me a chance to talk about it. 
This Department, we issued a rule about the adverse effect wage 
rate because the purpose of the H-2A program is to make sure 
that employers have the workers that they need, but at the same 
time that that workforce does not undermine the working 
conditions and the job opportunities for U.S. based workers.
    The specific question I think you are asking about, is our 
rule about the adverse effect wage rate. Recognize that there 
were some occupations in which the wage rate was actually 
higher, but these were, you know, some of them are heavy duty 
operators. They are construction work in agriculture.
    Mr. Wilson. I look forward to working with you on that, and 
I will be. Another question that I want to get to because my 
time is up about H-2A, the rules on that make it almost 
impossible to terminate a worker for cause, and some of these 
people are dangerous, and so putting fellow workers in danger. 
I will be getting a question to you about the ability to 
terminate H-2A, so I yield back, thank you.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Courtney, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and Acting 
Secretary it is great to see you here today, and thank you for 
your amazing service. Again, just to chime in a little bit on 
your last colloquy. In the State of Connecticut, we have 
roughly about 90,000 job openings. Our labor participation rate 
is above the national average, it is about 64 percent, higher 
than pre-during the Trump administration or during COVID for 
sure.
    The way, you know, we clearly realize that we have to sort 
of, you know, fill those positions, is to close the skills gap. 
The labor departments, Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act 
is hard at work right now. They graduated 935 metal trades 
folks last year, or some are in the shipyard, that again, that 
would not have happened if it was not for WIOA. We also have 
WIOA programs in the healthcare sector.
    I was just with a group called CNA bootcamp, where again it 
is a WIOA funded 8-week intense program to get people trained 
and certified to fill all of the gaps that we have in nursing 
homes and hospitals. Immigrant population is probably the 
largest cohort that is benefiting from that program, a Haitian 
community that we have in Eastern Connecticut.
    Again, it is a really highly efficient good return on 
investment in terms of job training hours in an accelerated 
fashion to help deal with again, what is still a lot of job 
openings in the economy. That was not what I wanted to ask you 
about today. As you know, you came up and visited my district 
about 4 months or so ago and visited with a nursing community 
in the State there.
    Again, at the time as you recall, well I am sure, we lost a 
valuable compassionate nurse who was the victim of workplace 
violence. She was stabbed to death at a home visit with a very 
high-risk patient, never should have happened. Again, OSHA has 
done an investigation, and there is a penalty, but it is after 
the fact and a relatively meager amount in terms of the value 
of a human life that was there.
    The Department's working on workplace violence prevention, 
OSHA rule. Can you give us an update, and you know, obviously 
it is something that I think the entire healthcare profession 
is desperately looking for.
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. It was a 
pleasure to be in your District with you when we went to Three 
Rivers Community College, and talked to people who both knew 
about that tragedy and who talked about the challenges in the 
profession. We are working on a rule on workplace violence. We 
want to make sure that we go through every step as we always do 
in our rulemaking.
    We have completed the small business review part of that 
process, and are working on the proposed rule, which will be 
coming out soon. Also, you mentioned, you know, the importance 
of OSHA and safety investigations. Obviously, we investigate 
cases after there are injuries, or deaths, but to your point 
the more we have a system in which employers are motivated to 
prevent those things from happening before they happen, that is 
obviously the ideal situation, and penalties that are not seen 
as a cost of doing business are very important for that.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Again, the folks that heard from 
you were totally convinced of your sincerity and commitment to 
doing this. One way Congress could help is for us to pass the 
Workplace Violence Prevention for Healthcare, H.R. 2663, which 
has 165 bipartisan cosponsors. It passed in the last Congress 
with over 240 votes in the House.
    Really one of the key things that it would do is it would 
accelerate this rule process so that we can get these 
protections in place quicker. That is exactly what Congress did 
during the AIDS Crisis to get, you know, emergency rules 
through so that, you know, today people wearing gloves, 
disposable needles, all that flowed from the fact that Congress 
acted to accelerate those rules.
    Last, we have a bill in Committee, the Federal Employees' 
Worker Compensation Act, which would empower nurse 
practitioners and physician assistants under the Federal 
workers' compensation system to be able to evaluate patients 
and issue reports that could be connected to benefits.
    Could you talk about the Department's position on that 
measure?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, thank you Congressman. One of the 
things that we have seen is that a lack of adequate medical 
professionals to evaluate those Federal workers' compensation 
claims is a problem. We have tried to address it. We have 
increased the number by about 20 percent, but it remains a 
challenge. I very much am anxious to welcome the opportunity to 
work with you on that proposal.
    Mr. Courtney. Great, thank you. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Courtney. Mr. Walberg, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 
Acting Secretary for being here today. I want to followup on my 
friend, colleague from Connecticut relative to the H.R. 618 
legislation that we have offered to enable nurse practitioners 
and physician assistants to be able to practice with a--under 
FECA, which has not been updated since 1974, that is when I was 
married.
    In those 50 years, I have had to update myself over those 
years to make sure I made it to the 50th wedding anniversary 
soon. I would hope you would support us with that legislation 
to update FECA, so we can add to in an evolving situation in 
healthcare, these component parts that can do a great job. Do I 
have your commitment on that?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Thank you very much, Congressman. 
Like I have said, we have definitely identified that also as a 
challenge in the system that creates problems for people who 
are seeking worker's compensation claims, so you absolutely 
have my commitment to work with you.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Let me move to two issues here that 
have very similar concerns. First, being the Overtime Rule 
question. As you know, DOL recently published its Overtime 
Rule, which unfortunately attempts to revise policies from the 
2016 Rule that the courts threw out.
    They threw out for being arbitrary and capricious, and 
specifically the rule seeks to impose automatic updates to the 
overtime threshold every 3 years. A policy, which a witness at 
our Workforce Protection subcommittee hearing testified would 
likely violate the Administrative Procedure Act because this 
would not allow for notice and comment on the updates.
    A fiduciary rule question is almost the exact same, along 
the same lines of previous and validated rules, the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the 2016 Fiduciary 
Rule exceeded DOL's authority. The Department recently 
finalized Fiduciary Rule would cover the same sales practices 
as the 2016 rule. I guess I have the same question for both 
those issues, the Overtime Rule and the Fiduciary Rule.
    Why do you expect that the courts will view the 2024 Rules 
on these two issues differently than they ruled before when 
they threw it out?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, in the process of making 
the rules, we did engage in the process of--we have listening 
sessions, we had open comment period, we responded to and took 
into account all the different comments.
    Mr. Walberg. Did you check the court record on it?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. We are very confident that the 
rules not only are within our authority, but that they take 
into account the existing case law about what was--why the 
prior rules were struck down.
    Mr. Walberg. Why would these be any different? The Sales 
Rule and the Fiduciary Rule, I mean is in violation.
    Acting Secretary Su. I do not know how much you want me to 
get into the details of each rule, but they are--they take into 
account what the court said about why the prior rules could not 
stand. They are different. The Retirement Security Rule, for 
example, the definition of a fiduciary is different. What is 
covered under it is different.
    I mean it does--trust me, Congressman, we want to make sure 
that when we go through the----
    Mr. Walberg. Yes. I do not read it that way at all, and I 
do not know how the court will read it that way at all, so I 
guess we wait and see, but otherwise it is a waste of time. It 
is concerning for the industries themselves, when we are going 
back and doing something that I mean the uncertainty that goes 
on relative to these two rules, the slap back, back and forth, 
but in these two cases, the court determines it. Let me move to 
another one.
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean Congressman, I have a simple 
answer.
    Mr. Walberg. Independent contractor direct seller issues of 
concern. The Department of Labor's Independent Contractor Rule 
will have a devastating impact on the ability of millions of 
Americans to engage in flexible work in a modern economy. At 
the Workforce Protection Subcommittee Hearing in February, I 
asked Wage and Hour Administrator Jessica Looman about the 
clarity that would be provided under the Rule to industries 
such as real eState agents, and direct sellers, who are 
specifically classified as independent contractors on the 
Internal Revenue Code.
    Ms. Looman expressed commitment to developing guidance and 
resources to assist these legacy independent contractors in 
compliance. Has the small entity compliance guide, or 
frequently asked questions document been reflected to provide 
this clarity, and is there any update and outreach to 
stakeholders?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, one of the most important 
rules at the Department of Labor is to make sure that working 
people in this country are protected. Our rulemaking is a part 
of that. To your prior question, I had an easier answer on the 
retirement security, which is the overtime threshold, that 
threshold is lower than it was in the 2016 Rule. When it comes 
to our outreach and compliance assistance, this is a very 
important part of our work.
    Mr. Walberg. My time is expired, and I will have to submit 
the question, thank you.
    Chairwoman Foxx. If you would submit your question, Mr. 
Walberg, to get an answer. Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Acting Secretary Su. Thank you for 
being here. Thank you for your work and thank you for your 
testimony. Thank you also for visiting Northwest Oregon, really 
appreciate your visit, all the visits that we did and the sites 
that we visited where we talked about the work that you are 
doing to prepare workers, to protect them, their health and 
their rights, and to empower them with a voice on the job.
    One of the things we talked about during your visit was 
really emphasizing the importance of workforce development 
opportunities, and having that path to a good job, how 
important that is. The partnerships that are so critical, 
partnerships between businesses, education, training programs, 
that are really key to the success of these programs.
    While you were in Oregon we visited Portland Community 
College's Mechatronics Lab, which has partnered with state-
based employers, including Intel, to offer programs like the 
Quick Start Semiconductor Technician Training Program, and also 
the Hillsboro Advanced Manufacturing Apprenticeship, where we 
are seeing some great paths to good jobs.
    These sector strategies are really important for 
prospective workers to enter and succeed in the workforce, so I 
am glad to see that the President's proposed budget will invest 
in the Department's new SECTOR program, the Sectorial 
Employment through Career Training for Occupational Readiness, 
so SECTOR program, to support these evidence-based partnership 
models.
    This is a program that I proposed, along with 
Representative Suzie Lee in our Community-Based Workforce 
Development Act. Acting Secretary Su, will you tell us a little 
bit more about the benefits of that SECTOR program, and its 
goals for the upcoming year, and importantly, if you could 
describe the potential, if it is fully funded?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Thank you so much, Congresswoman, 
and I was delighted by our time together, and also to be able 
to put in place programs that you have envisioned because you 
have seen firsthand how important it is for workforce training 
programs to be aligned with the needs of employers in a 
community, and to be able to bring all the pieces of the 
workforce system together, so that as I said in my opening, a 
job training program does not end with a job search, it ends in 
an actual job.
    That the skills that somebody learns are actual skills that 
they are going to need for the job, so that the educational 
system, including community colleges, are aligned with all of 
that, and so that we are recruiting from, and making available 
these training programs to all communities, including those who 
have been shut out of good opportunities in the past.
    The SECTOR program is precisely about that, looking at 
growing sectors, growing industries, recognizing that in this 
moment of historic job growth and opportunity, we should be 
creating training programs that align with industry needs. That 
is the way to create the most opportunity.
    The industries and employers coming together to say here 
are the skills that we need, and then training programs for 
that are the best way to build what I often call an 
infrastructure for the workforce system that matches the 
physical infrastructure that we are trying to build.
    Ms. Bonamici. Appreciate it. Well, I look forward to 
working with you on that program, and I certainly do hope it is 
fully funded. I also wanted to ask you about heat stress. We 
are experiencing more extreme weather events, extreme heat. We 
had a heat dome in Oregon that was devastating, and many people 
lost their lives.
    That means we need OSHA to issue a standard on heat to 
protect workers, both indoor and outdoor settings, and without 
a standard workers continue to be at risk of serious, or even 
fatal illness. There are some estimates that show that there 
could be as many as 170,000 heat related occupational 
illnesses, and every year, including up to 700 fatalities. What 
is the status of this important and lifesaving effort?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, thank you Congresswoman. It is a 
very important effort that we have because heat has become an 
occupational hazard. It is something that people lose their 
lives on the job when there are relatively common-sense 
measures that could be taken to prevent that from happening.
    We are working on what would be the first nationwide 
standard for heat, indoor and outdoor heat, to prevent exactly 
those kinds of tragedies from happening. We are in the midst of 
that work now. We are engaging with the small businesses as we 
are both required to do, and is important to do, and we expect 
to put out a notice rule also later this year.
    Ms. Bonamici. Any chance of anything before the heat comes 
in this summer?
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean our--what people often complain 
about is how long the rulemaking process takes. Part of the 
reason it takes a long time is that we do have to be 
thoughtful, we have to engage with all the stakeholders. There 
are a lot of pieces to making sure that a rule is thoughtful, 
is consistent with our authority, and is going to have the 
impact that we want it to have.
    Ms. Bonamici. I will mention some states have already taken 
action. We really need a national strategy. My time has expired 
but thank you again for your testimony and for your work, and I 
yield back.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congresswoman. We will 
continue to do the enforcement to make sure that workers are 
healthy and safe on the job. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. Mr. Grothman, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Grothman. Department of Labor refers to registered 
apprenticeships. It is the gold standard of work-based 
learning. As you know there are currently 3,500 apprenticeship 
models registered under the competency-based model. Do you 
believe these competency-based registered apprenticeships are 
good programs?
    Acting Secretary Su. I am sorry, Congressman, you were 
saying--are what programs good programs?
    Mr. Grothman. We are talking about registered 
apprenticeships, okay. Do you believe competency-based 
registered apprenticeships are good programs?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congressman, especially 
because your State has been such a leader when it comes to 
registered apprenticeships. We have a million-dollar State 
apprenticeship expansion grant in Wisconsin to help build the 
infrastructure to make sure that registered apprenticeships can 
thrive, and employers can get what they need, and working 
people in your State can get opportunity.
    I believe that registered apprenticeship programs are the 
gold standard. They provide for earn while you learn, so that 
people who, you know, cannot afford to just stop earning in 
order to train can actually get into training programs. They 
provide for a good job at the end.
    They provide for wage progression and other protections for 
skill standards, and we are seeing across the country right 
now, again especially because of the historic investments that 
are being made in construction, in infrastructure, in clean 
energy and manufacturing, that there is a need for good, 
reliable tested job training programs, and registered 
apprenticeships are one of the best examples we have of that.
    Mr. Grothman. Your department, and I am going to ask you, 
what was the basis for your department issuing a proposed rule 
that eliminates the successful competency-based model for 
registered apprenticeships, a model that has been referred to 
the bread and butter of apprenticeship expansion, and will 
constitute more than one-third of the overall growth in the 
apprenticeships in the next decade according to labor zone 
projections?
    Acting Secretary Su. Again Congressman, just in this 
administration the Department of Labor has invested over 445 
million dollars in apprenticeship programs across the country, 
and another 200 million that is out now that will be announced 
in June. We believe in programs that are tested, that have 
support, so that workers are actually going to end up in the 
job that they are training for, and that have real standards.
    In part, because the standards in registered 
apprenticeships also give working people a chance to work in 
the job that they get, but also continue to grow in it, so 
registered apprenticeships are a model that have shown they are 
tested over time, and really have been a pathway into the 
middle class for many, many American workers.
    Mr. Grothman. Okay. Wisconsin is a big manufacturing State. 
We are actually percentagewise, the biggest manufacturing State 
in the country, 20 percent of our workforce is in 
manufacturing. When I meet with industry leaders they say 
workforce issues, such as attracting or retaining skilled 
employees is their biggest challenge.
    The Biden administration's Department of Labor has proposed 
increasing the overtime salary threshold by about 70 percent, 
which would subject millions of currently salaried workers to 
overtime laws. Instead of increasing pay, the proposed rule 
would cause employers to shift millions of salaried workers to 
hourly workers, eliminating the remote and flexible work 
options, and potentially resulting in fewer work hours, 
irregular paychecks, and lower overall compensation.
    Would you comment on the negative consequences of the big 
increase in the overtime salary threshold? How you believe that 
is going to affect American industry?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, there is nothing about 
the rule that would require that outcome. The reason why we did 
an overtime rule was because it is really important for working 
people to get a fair day's pay for a hard day's work. Our 
Overtime Rule helps to ensure that working people who work on a 
salaried basis have more money in their pockets.
    A couple decades ago the overtime threshold covered over 60 
percent of working people. In the last administration the 
threshold was set to a point where it was less than 10 percent, 
and so the overtime protections have been eroded over time 
because of that threshold, and that is why we undertook a 
rulemaking process to make sure that the threshold combined 
with the duties test, that is the heart of protecting salaried 
employees when it comes to overtime remained real.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Grothman. Dr. Adams, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you Acting 
Secretary Su for testifying before the Committee again. I had 
the pleasure of attending a roundtable with you in Charlotte 
back in March, and I really appreciated your being there, but 
also admired how much attention you pay to the concerns of 
ordinary workers.
    Can you tell me more about the efforts that your office 
makes to hear from workers on the ground, and how your meetings 
with workers across the country have informed your budget 
requests?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, thank you for that, 
Congresswoman, and thank you for our time together in your 
District. Just to give an example from that, we got to visit an 
organization called She Built This City. I love the title of 
it. The idea was to recruit from communities, especially women, 
and women of color who might not see themselves in some of the 
jobs that are being created.
    To give them the basic, you know, exposure to using tools 
to what it would be like to work on a constructionsite, to meet 
with others who have those jobs so that they could see 
themselves, and those opportunities as well. Those kinds of 
interactions are incredibly important to me, as the Acting 
Labor Secretary.
    I think our policies, our enforcement priorities, and our 
budget requests all have to be informed by the real needs of 
working people. Everywhere I go there are working people who 
are looking to find their pathway into the middle class, their 
shot at the American dream, and our workforce investments are 
meant to help create those connections. Sadly, I meet with too 
many workers who report that wage theft is a regular 
experience.
    Workers who say that they work in jobs where injuries are 
common but when somebody gets injured, they get fired, and so 
they are the ones who are punished, and that also deters 
workers from reporting. I have met with workers who are working 
on a salary basis.
    A single mother recently, who told me that our Overtime 
Rule is going to put another $1,000.00 a month in her pocket. 
That is going to make a very big difference for her and for her 
children, which will also make a very big difference in her 
community. Being able to hear from workers, to understand what 
they need, to get outside of these buildings, and even outside 
of Washington, DC, is a privilege for me so that in my role, 
and in the Department's important role, we can make sure that 
we are being really responsive to what workers need.
    I also meet with employers on a regular basis and 
understanding what employers who really struggle when there is 
not a level playing field, with the standards they have to put 
in place in order to recruit and retain their workers, are not 
being respected by their competitors is very challenging.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you. Let me move--I want to ask you a 
couple of other questions. We have had some recent reports 
about the Federal workforce funds that have been used to 
subsidize child labor violations and of course Equus was one 
that found several children were found working in violation of 
labor laws. One of them was injured, so what tools are at your 
disposal, and what tools do you need to prevent WIOA funds from 
placing children in harm's way by firms that--with records of 
child labor and health and safety violations.
    Acting Secretary Su. That is a very important question, and 
it also ties to our budget request because the reason why the 
child labor in that situation came to light is because our wage 
and hour division discovered it, and exposed it, and held that 
employer to account.
    Having enough investigators on the ground in order to 
combat child labor is just critically, critically important. 
Our budget request includes 5 million dollars for that and then 
35 million dollars overall for the wage and hour division to 
continue to combat wage theft.
    Ms. Adams. Okay.
    Acting Secretary Su. On the point of WIOA, what we have 
done is once we learned about it, we did let the local 
workforce board know about it, and have been working with them 
to make sure that Federal funds should never be used in a way 
that would condone or subsidize any kinds of labor law 
violations.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you. Let me move on. Many opponents of 
DOL's Retirement Security Rule have cited the National 
Association of Insurance Commissioner's best interest standard 
as a sufficient fix to the problem. Critics believe that the 
Model Rule renders DOL's rule unnecessary, but let me just ask 
you could you explain some of the differences, and why DOL's 
rule is necessary to ensure workers?
    Let me, before I do that, we are just about out of time, 
but I do want to enter into the record, Madam Chair, the CFP 
Board's Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct. I do not think 
I am going to have time. You can just send me a response to 
that question. Madam Chair, I would like to enter this into the 
record.
    Chairman Foxx. Without objection, and we will ask Ms. Su to 
answer your question in writing.
    [The information of Ms. Adams follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Adams. Okay. Thank you very much, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Mr. Allen, you are recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. Secretary Su, thank 
you for being--right here, OK--Thank you for being here with us 
today. The DOL received a sizable number of comments on its 
Fiduciary Rule, even though the comment period was far too 
short. Many comments called for significant changes to the 
proposal, and many called for the proposal's withdrawal.
    DOL has emphasized that changes were made to the proposal 
based on the input it received, however Assistant Secretary 
Lisa Gomez said in the New York Times, ``There is nothing in 
these clarifications to the changes that one should interpret 
as a watering down, or a real change in the position of the 
proposal.''
    Which is it? Were changes made to reflect stakeholder input 
on the rule, or was input ignored because DOL had already 
decided the desired outcome?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, putting aside whether we 
ignored, I think that both things can be true, that we take 
into account comments, and we do. I could go through each of 
the rules that we have finalized, and we not only take 
comments, we also respond to all of the comments.
    In many of the rules that we do----
    Mr. Allen. Why did Ms. Gomez make this--I mean are you 
familiar with Undersecretary Gomez's quote to the New York 
Times? I mean in other words, the short comment period, it was 
there only to make it appear that there was no predetermined 
outcome on this, and yet you know, you have these comment 
periods to understand how these things are going to affect the 
business community out there.
    Let me move on. Georgia represents around 30,000 franchise 
establishments, represents over 315,000 employees. Recently the 
National Labor Relations Board issued a final rule 
systematically reversing the course of what constitutes joint 
employer. This rule had previously cost franchises, small 
businesses over 33.3 billion and a loss of 376,000 jobs.
    The last time you appeared before the Committee you did not 
provide a clear response as to whether the Department of Labor 
plans to issue a similar rule under the Fair Labor Standards 
Act. After almost a year, can you now commit to no rulemaking 
process as it relates to joint employer?
    Acting Secretary Su. I believe that last time I said that 
it was not on our regulatory agenda. I will repeat that again 
because it is still not on our regulatory agenda. As you know, 
the NLRB is a separate body, but the Department of Labor does 
not have such a rule on our proposals.
    I do just want to say, Congressman, that when it comes to 
our rulemaking, we do not approach it with predetermined 
outcomes. We take the comment period very seriously. You will 
see, I mean I do not even know which rule to try to give an 
example of on this, but one way that you will see it is 
sometimes the timing of when rules go into effect are also 
based on the feedback we get, including from the regulated 
community, about what it would take in order to----
    Mr. Allen. Well, again we have the information from the New 
York Times, which does not exactly match your, you know, what 
is going on there. Yes. I want to followup on a line of 
questioning that I have not been able to get an adequate answer 
for, for almost a year now.
    When you testified in front of this Committee last June, I 
raised my concerns about DOL's amendments to the qualified plan 
asset managers, the TPA and exemption, which would disrupt and 
unnecessarily burden workers and retiree's retirement plans who 
rely on QPAMs to manage the daily operations in investment of 
employee benefit plans.
    Unfortunately, when I brought this to your attention last 
year, I did not get a straight answer from you, and today I am 
still trying to get a satisfactory response. Again, let me ask 
you, has the Department of Labor conducted a detailed and 
realistic cost benefit analysis of its amendments to the QPAM 
exemption?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, I believe that that rule 
has been finalized, and we always conduct financial analysis of 
the impact of our rules when we do them. Our rules in that 
space are entirely meant to make sure that the retirement 
security of working Americans, which is often the largest 
savings that somebody has, often saved year after year, 
paycheck by paycheck, that that is secure.
    We do analyses on all of our rules that are public, they 
are part of the Public Notice Rule.
    Mr. Allen. Well, we need that information, and I have an 
additional question on apprenticeships. I will submit that to 
you in writing. I am out of time, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Ms. Jayapal--pardon 
me--Ms. Jayapal, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary Su, I am 
thrilled to welcome you here today. We are so lucky to have a 
lifelong champion for workers like you leading the Department 
of Labor, and you have really fought tirelessly for working 
people, especially the lowest wage workers in our country, 
domestic workers, immigrant workers, folks of color.
    Workers who are just trying to make it and deserve to be 
paid, no matter who they are, no matter where they are. In just 
the last year, President Biden and you have delivered 
tremendously for the American people. I have personally 
witnessed you helping break stalemates in labor negotiations, 
and delivering critical protections for workers, longshore 
workers, healthcare workers, graduate students, research 
students, in my district.
    You are very popular. I hope you come out and visit. I have 
also watched you deliver on a top priority of increasing the 
overtime threshold so that millions of workers ultimately get 
paid for the work that they are already doing, putting 
critically needed money in their pockets. It is a fact, it is 
truly a fact that you and President Biden have presided over an 
incredible 39 straight months of job growth, and 26 consecutive 
months of unemployment remaining below 4 percent.
    That is the longest stretch we have seen in over 50 years, 
congratulations. I want to clear up a few things, and I am 
hoping you can help me. Do you believe that bona fide 
independent contractors play a vital role in the U.S. economy 
and deserve a place within it? Just a yes or no is fine.
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, of course, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Jayapal. Do you--Secretary Su, does the Department's 
Final Rule on Misclassification prohibit people from entering 
bona fide, independent contractor relationships in any way?
    Acting Secretary Su. Absolutely not. It does not.
    Ms. Jayapal. Does the rule just simply reState the existing 
case law?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. It restores decades of case law 
on how to determine whether someone is an independent 
contractor or an employee.
    Ms. Jayapal. Does it in any way prohibit flexibility?
    Acting Secretary Su. It does not.
    Ms. Jayapal. It seems to me that this rule simply ensures 
that workers are not unlawfully denied a century of labor 
protections because a business decides to label them as 
``independent contractors'' when in fact they are employees. Is 
that correct, Secretary Su?
    Acting Secretary Su. That is correct, Congresswoman, and we 
see that. We see dishwashers in restaurants called independent 
contractors. We see workers on constructionsites called 
independent contractors. It is both very harmful to working 
people who should have the protections of minimum wage, 
overtime, unemployment insurance and the like.
    It is also--it makes it very difficult for businesses who 
play by the rules to compete and to thrive.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. You talked about the investments in 
workforce training, and just yesterday I was in front of my 
Chamber of Commerce. They were visiting, and I heard the same 
desperate plea for those kinds of investments in workforce 
training. One area that you know I focused a lot on is the area 
of care work, the care economy and domestic workers.
    I am very proud to be the House sponsor of the Domestic 
Workers Bill of Rights. There are 2.2 million domestic workers 
who care for our children, elders, people with disabilities, 
and our homes. They do the work that makes all other work 
possible. Despite the essential nature of their work, and the 
high demand that we have for the workforce, domestic workers 
have long been excluded from the basic protections of the Fair 
Labor Standards Act.
    They are amongst the lowest paid, with nearly 90 percent 
getting no benefits at all. Do you agree that we in government 
have an essential role to play to eradicate these exclusions, 
and ensure that protections for domestic workers such as those 
in the Federal Domestic Workers Bill of Rights are enacted into 
law?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congresswoman, thank you so much for 
your leadership in that space. As you know, President Biden has 
also called for investments in our care economy. All of you in 
the American Rescue Plan Act made sure that there were 
investments that helped to keep about 225,000 childcare 
facilities open when the pandemic was still in 2021 and 2022. 
Those investments helped to increase childcare giver wages as 
well, so it is a recognition that we should not have to choose 
between affordable, reliable, care and the well-being of those 
care workers. I would be delighted to work with you in any way 
to make sure that those twin aims are met, and it is something 
that again the President has been very clear about, as have 
you, and I really appreciate how much you have raised the 
importance of the issue.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much for your commitment to 
American Workers everywhere. I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Thompson, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairwoman. Acting Secretary, as 
you know I have co-chaired the bipartisan Career and Technical 
Education Caucus for more than a decade. Since that time with 
the help of critical investments from the Strengthening Career 
and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act, I championed 
in the 115th Congress, we have made tremendous strides in 
helping students of all ages access these high-quality 
affordable programs.
    Ones that lead to certificates, in one hand, diplomas in 
one hand. Quite frankly, more job offers than the other. I am 
very concerned, however, with your Department's proposal to 
expand Federal control over successful CTE programs through the 
regulatory concoction that you are calling CTE apprenticeships.
    Obviously, we have both very supportive of CTE and 
apprenticeships, but I have not heard from a single student, 
employer or program who thinks it is necessary to combine the 
two. Just because each of these are successful on their own 
does not mean the Department of Labor should have any role 
enforcing them together through regulation.
    I have significant concerns with your proposed rule, as do 
many CTE advocates across the spectrum, including State Perkins 
Agencies and National Advocacy Associations. Question No. 1, 
did the Department engage with CTE stakeholders in the 
development of this proposed rule? How was their input and 
feedback incorporated into the proposed rule?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congressman. It is actually 
a pleasure to meet you. I share your interest in how we make 
sure that our training programs are leading all communities 
into actual jobs. That is why there is a 1.5-million-dollar 
grant in your District for our--it is our Workforce 
Opportunities in Rural Communities Grant, something that we 
created t his administration recognizing that when we talk 
about equity and making sure everybody is included, we have to 
make sure that our rural communities are not left behind. Our 
rule, and all of our policies, are not intended to limit the 
operations of CTE programs, or registered apprenticeship 
programs.
    Our hope is to actually braid together more connectivity 
where it is needed, again so that we are not creating training 
programs that are not connected to actual jobs at the end of 
them. That has been a long-time criticism of the workforce 
development system.
    In this administration we have leaned in very hard, 
especially again because of the historic job growth that we are 
seeing.
    Mr. Thompson. Yes.
    Acting Secretary Su. Many jobs do not actually require a 4-
year college degree. These programs----
    Mr. Thompson. I could not agree more that there needs to be 
more of a pathway to success, but under the old adage if it is 
not broken do not fix it, and when I visit career and technical 
education programs today, there is no longer less enrollment, 
there is actually waiting lists, and schools are looking to add 
programs, add in capacity because of the interest.
    The proposed rule empowers your Department to create 
``industry skills frameworks,'' and that new CTE 
apprenticeships would have to adhere to. The Department of 
Education, which implements the Perkins Act is explicitly 
prohibited from developing and imposing curriculum for CTE 
programs.
    You are violating the intent of Congress and law by doing 
what you are doing. Why is your Department attempting an end 
run on this prohibition, and seeking to dictate CTE curriculum 
without the authorization of Congress? Where does your 
Department believe--what attorneys in some dark corner of the 
Department--why do they believe this--where this authority 
comes from?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, I hope I do not say this 
wrong because I am not 100 percent positive, but to your 
question about whether we have engaged with CTE providers and 
others in our rule, I believe the comment period might still be 
open, and if it is then I would encourage your constituents to 
engage with us.
    Mr. Thompson. Well, I would encourage constituents all 
across 435 Districts to engage with the impact.
    Acting Secretary Su. To your second question about the--I 
think that is about the Perkin's Act, which is something that 
is under the purview of the Department of Education, not the 
Department of Labor. We do not seek to regulate or to change 
that.
    Mr. Thompson. Well, quite frankly, though apprenticeships 
are a part of the Perkin's Act. We strengthened within the 
Perkin's Act, stored the power and the effectiveness of that. 
Let me move on with my last question. Over 30 states, including 
Pennsylvania, currently are recognized by the Department as 
State apprenticeship agencies, and granted the authority to 
register and oversee apprenticeship programs in our State.
    Yes, however do you believe that the Federal Government 
understands the needs of employers, and the specific 
occupational requirements in each of these states better than 
the State apprenticeship agencies?
    Acting Secretary Su. No, Congressman, which is why many of 
the ways that we have approached our workforce funds have been 
to invest in creativity and partnerships and efforts that 
originate on the ground. We believe that employers, local 
workforce boards, local community-based organizations, unions, 
and other workforce partners who are invested in creating an 
effective infrastructure to connect people to good jobs.
    Mr. Thompson. My time has expired, and I appreciate what 
you are saying, but it is counter intuitive, and completely 
opposite for what you are doing, because you are actually, your 
Department is proposing a rule that would strip states, and 
those wonderful State level agencies you have talked about. It 
would strip them of their ability to recognize and approve 
occupations that are eligible for registered apprenticeship, 
and you are forcing all programs to adhere to a one size fits 
all. It is just a bad rule, thank you.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Ms. Stevens, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Madam Chair, and it is such a 
delight to be in the presence of a phenomenal leader in this 
Presidential administration, and for the country. Ms. Su, you 
have been with the Department of Labor during some of the most, 
pardon me, critical times in this country's economic--thank 
you. All of a sudden, I lost my voice.
    I have been sitting here for hours. Thank you. Hopefully I 
can go a little over Madam Chair. No. I am okay. I was just on 
the phone. You have been at the Department of Labor during some 
of the most critical times in this country's recent economic 
trajectory. Record job growth during unprecedented challenge, 
and that needs to be recognized as well as the symbolism of 
your leadership, which means so much, not only to the workers 
of this country, but to women.
    Women who are being tried and stretched every step of the 
way, seeking daycare, managing 40-hour work weeks, and looking 
for a pay raise. Ms. Su, I would like to start with a topic 
that is certainly on the minds of so many of my constituents, 
which is pension and retirement savings. We have seen pension 
risk transfers emerge as a method for companies to partner with 
insurance companies to manage some of their pension risk.
    As you know, in 2002 Congress asked the Department to 
undergo a review of the regulatory standards surrounding the 
sale of PRTs, known as IB 95-1, which really had not been done 
since 1995. I was just wondering if you could give us an update 
on the timing for when the Department's report on IB 95-1 will 
be released?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you so much, Congresswoman, and 
thank you for your comments. I think it is also worth noting, 
to your point, that under President Biden's leadership the 
labor force participation rate for prime age working women has 
reached an all-time high since this data was first collected.
    Especially coming out of a pandemic where women were so 
devastated by so many things, including a lack of 
infrastructure to support the responsibilities that women bear. 
Yes, thank you for giving me a chance to say that.
    Ms. Stevens. I know you can talk too about the transparency 
standards for companies engaging in PRTs too?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you for that Congresswoman. At 
the Department of Labor, we regularly review our rules and 
regulations as you know, to make sure that they keep up with 
the times. That is why, as I mentioned earlier, overtime 
regulations, our retirement security rules, and our guidance on 
pension plan transfers.
    As you know a lot has changed since 1995 when our pension 
risk guidance was first put out, and so we are taking a look at 
that now. We are still in that review process, and I look 
forward to sharing our findings with you as soon as we complete 
it.
    Ms. Stevens. We salute your efforts to protect the 
interests of pension holders who are just at the front and 
center in this labor market and are certainly eager to see 
their hard-earned retirements be there for them. We know that 
we have just been at a tremendous moment with regard to the 
21st Century labor movement and its proliferation.
    Michigan has been front and center. We were so delighted to 
see your boss, not deliver from a podium, or a large rally, but 
to stand there on a picket line. I was just wondering if you 
could talk briefly about the value that labor organizations 
bring to the workforce to meet that, the needs of our cutting-
edge economy?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, I think there is no better way 
to say it than what the President himself says regularly, which 
is that the middle class built America. He often says Wall 
Street did not build it, although they are good guys too, but 
the middle class built America, and unions built the middle 
class.
    That is in part why I am very proud that we have a 
President who is presiding over a moment in which labor unions 
are organizing in ways that has not happened in some time, 
where the outcomes at the bargaining table are wins for workers 
and for their employers, and for the industries that are 
represented. Where public sentiment about unions is at a 
historic high.
    Ms. Stevens. You are certainly playing a role in making 
sure that unions have a seat at the table as we implement some 
of these very historic investments that the Democratic caucus 
was so proud to make alongside President Biden. An 
Infrastructure Bill, things that were not blocking, that are 
delivering for the American people. A CHIPS Act, and certainly 
the Inflation Reduction Act as well.
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman. The law 
says that workers should have a free and fair right to join a 
union, and the President believes that, and so do I, and the 
unions have provided opportunity and the middle-class life for 
so many Americans, including, I have told this story before, 
but you know, my parents both worked minimum wage jobs 
initially.
    Through the job that my mom got at a county in a union, it 
really helped to provide us with the middle-class life that 
allows me to----
    Ms. Stevens. Thank you for your remarkable leadership. I 
yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. The gentlewoman's time is expired. Mr. 
Banks, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you. Acting Secretary Su, your proposed 
Apprenticeship Rule cites the Advisory Committee on 
Apprenticeship's recommendations to justify its DEI policies, 
which say that some apprenticeship sponsors are, ``Are actively 
hostile to hiring minorities.'' Can you explain what that 
means, and do you agree that some registered apprenticeship 
programs are managed by racists? If so, who are they?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, I believe that we have 
the opportunity in this country at this time, given the 
unprecedented investments that are being made in American 
industry, in American jobs, in what the President says all the 
time, ``We should be able to make things here.'' We invented 
semiconductors, and there is no reason why we cannot be the 
ones to manufacture them.
    Mr. Banks. I understand. I understand all that, but the 
Committee's justification for the rule specifically says, 
``That some apprenticeship sponsors are actively hostile to 
hiring minorities.'' Does that mean that there are racist 
apprenticeship programs in our country?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, so I do not know specifically 
the quote that you are reading from, but let me just say----
    Mr. Banks. It is the recommendations for the rules from 
your Department.
    Acting Secretary Su. Because of the opportunities that are 
being created right now, I think that there is no reason why we 
should not be able to tap into the full talent and ability and 
promise of every single American in every single community.
    Mr. Banks. Fine but----
    Acting Secretary Su. Part of what has held people back from 
that though----
    Mr. Banks. What are the racist apprenticeship programs that 
we are talking about?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, part of what has held people 
back from being able to participate fully in American life and 
take advantage of the opportunities that should be available to 
everybody is discrimination.
    Mr. Banks. Okay. A simple question. What are the racist 
apprenticeship programs in our country that you are referring 
to?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, I think that what we should be 
doing is both making sure the opportunity is broadly shared, 
and our investments should----
    Mr. Banks. I take it you do not want to answer that 
question, so I will move on. The recommendations also say that 
registered apprenticeships have been, ``The domain of white, 
able-bodied men,'' that is a direct quote from the 
recommendation, from the Committee in your Department. Do you 
agree with that comment?
    Acting Secretary Su. I do not know what you are reading 
from, Congressman. What I believe is that everybody----
    Mr. Banks. I am reading from the Advisory Committee on 
Apprenticeships biannual report to the Secretary of Labor, 
dated May 10, 2023, page 14, that is the justification for the 
rule, the new Apprenticeship Rule that justifies forcing DEI 
programs and mandates on apprenticeship programs. I am reading 
directly from something that comes from your Department, and I 
am asking if you agree with it. Do you agree with the statement 
that apprenticeships have been the, ``Domain of white, able-
bodied men.'' Do you agree with that?
    Acting Secretary Su. Sir, it sounds like you are reading 
from a report that was submitted to me----
    Mr. Banks. That you quoted and used to justify the DEI 
programs and the Rule. I mean this is all coming from your 
Department. I am just asking if you agree. If you do not agree 
with it, say you do not agree with it.
    Acting Secretary Su. What I believe, Senator, Congressman, 
is that we are a country that was----
    Mr. Banks. I take it you do not want to answer the 
question. Let me ask you this a different way, is having fewer 
white men in apprenticeships the goal of all of the DEI 
provisions in the proposed rule?
    Acting Secretary Su. I am sorry, say that again?
    Mr. Banks. Is having fewer white men in apprenticeships the 
goal of the proposed DEI rules and mandates in the rule? Is 
that the goal to have fewer white men in apprenticeships?
    Acting Secretary Su. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Banks. Okay. Will the Department punish states that do 
not meet the proposed rule's racial quotas?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman.
    Mr. Banks. I have a good reason for asking you that because 
the proposed Section 29.27 B-2 would require states to submit a 
strategic plan for increasing participation from underserved 
communities that include the current participation by each race 
and demographic group and set specific targets for increasing 
participation for each race.
    Can you explain to me how that--would you or would not you 
punish states that do not meet that? Those racial quotas for 
apprenticeships.
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean Congressman, we have never gone 
wrong in this country when we have expanded opportunity to more 
individuals, to more communities, and to make sure everybody 
gets to participate.
    Mr. Banks. You will seek to states like Indiana that do not 
meet that mandate?
    Assistant Secretary Su. I do not even know what punitive 
scheme you are talking about. When we engage with employers, 
with workforce boards, with unions, with community-based 
organizations, these are all the stakeholders that I regularly 
engage with when I travel the country to talk about how we are 
going to help meet the workforce needs of employers, and the 
desire to work of Americans of all communities, urban and 
rural, of all colors.
    Women, individuals with disabilities, veterans, our 
apprenticeship programs and our investments are meant to open 
up opportunities.
    Mr. Banks. I suggest that you read your own rule, your 
justification behind it, it is very offensive, I believe 
dangerous and un-American. With that, Madam Chair, I yield 
back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms. 
Manning, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Acting Secretary Su, I 
would like to thank you so much for your many years of 
extraordinary service to our country.
    In response to remarks made at the top of this hearing, I 
would like to clarify for the record that the prior President 
used the cabinet and cabinet level jobs as a virtual temp 
agency, with 22 cabinet and cabinet level officials, who served 
in an Acting capacity for a total of 2,736 days, including 
Acting Secretary of Defense, Acting Secretary of Homeland 
Security, Acting Secretary of the Interior, Labor, Veteran's 
Affairs, Secretary of State, OMB, EPA and Acting Chief of Staff 
to name just a few.
    Our job here today is not to beat up on you for things that 
are beyond your control, but to find out how we can help solve 
the workforce shortages our employers are facing, how we can 
help protect workers, our constituents, who are taken advantage 
of by unscrupulous employers, and help those businesses that 
are doing the right things for their workers, but have trouble 
competing with employers who cheat or abuse their employees.
    I would like to start by talking about wage theft. Wage 
theft occurs when employers do not pay the full wages due to 
their employees. This includes paying workers less than minimum 
wage, not paying overtime to workers who work more than 40 
hours a week, or asking your employees to work off the clock, 
before or after their shifts.
    We know this happens. Do you have an estimate of the total 
amount of U.S. Department of Labor--the total amount the U.S. 
Department of Labor has recovered on behalf of workers due to 
wage theft?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you so much, Congresswoman, for 
that. In Fiscal Year 2023, we recovered 156 million dollars in 
wages for working people, and it is worth noting that the 
overwhelming amount of those wages come from unpaid overtime 
wages.
    Ms. Manning. Over the last several years the wage and hour 
division's total enforcement staff has declined. This has 
resulted in fewer onsite investigations, yet my colleagues 
across the aisle are proposing significant cuts to that 
division. Can you explain why it is important to have funding, 
necessary to put boots on the ground to ensure workers are 
being paid what they are owed?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, Congresswoman. I mean oftentimes 
the Department of Labor's enforcement is the first and last 
line of defense, especially for workers who do not have the 
benefit of a union, who do not have other ways of protecting 
themselves against wage theft.
    Now, it is worth noting that the vast majority of employers 
are trying to do the right thing. They have a business model in 
which they are supportive of their workers and understand why 
investing in their workers is the best investment that they can 
make. Those employers also need a strong enforcement to ensure 
that there is a level playing field for them to compete on.
    If we do not have adequate resources to investigate, and 
even as it is, we are thoughtful and smart and strategic about 
how we devote our resources. We do not investigate every 
employer. We do not need to. We should not--we should not 
investigate anybody who is in full compliance with the law.
    Even there, the wage theft that we see, the child labor 
that has grown, we need to have the resources to be able to 
combat this.
    Ms. Manning. Let me move to the child labor issues because 
we have really seen an explosion in child labor abuse cases in 
the last decade. Again, you are addressing this problem with 
record low numbers of staff in the wage and hour division, and 
also a resource starved solicitor of labor office. What are the 
effects of your ability to enforce with less staff, and how 
would proposed cuts harm this mission?
    Acting Secretary Su. Right. I mean it is really horrific 
the kinds of child labor cases that we are uncovering. We are 
talking about 13-year-olds working on the kill floor of a meat 
packing plant, on the overnight shifts, with dangerous 
chemicals. We are talking about a 16-year-old who recently lost 
his life working as a sawmill operator.
    I mean these are jobs that are dangerous, and illegal for 
children to be doing. We are not talking about a young person 
learning how to show up on time and do a good job, and deal 
with customers in a job that is appropriate for a young person. 
Our ability--children working on roofs. Our ability to be clear 
that when employers engage in those practices, that they cannot 
just consider it, you know, the change of getting caught to be 
slim, and the consequences if they do get caught to be minimal.
    We have to change that calculus, and having a strong 
investigative capability is really important to that.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. My time is expired, it is expired, 
and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Manning. Mr. Good, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Good. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Secretary Su, from 
your official Twitter account 29 days ago on April 2 you 
tweeted or X-d, ``If your boss says everyone at work is like 
family, you might need a union.'' Do you think it is a negative 
thing to treat people like family at work?
    Acting Secretary Su. No. I do not, Congressman.
    Mr. Good. You would say that treating people like family at 
work is a good thing, a positive thing, or do you think it is a 
negative thing?
    Acting Secretary Su. I think that treating people with 
dignity, with respect----
    Mr. Good. I want to ask do you think that treating people 
like family at work is a good thing or a bad thing?
    Acting Secretary Su. I think that----
    Mr. Good. I would like you to say it is a good thing or a 
bad thing.
    Acting Secretary Su. I think all working people should be 
treated with dignity and respect, and that the laws that 
protect should be complied with.
    Mr. Good. You would say treating them like family does not 
accomplish that?
    Acting Secretary Su. No. No.
    Mr. Good. Your response was if they say, if your boss says, 
the quote again, ``Your boss says everyone at work is like 
family, you might need a union.'' Why would that be?
    Acting Secretary Su. I think that all working people 
deserve a just day's pay for a hard day's work.
    Mr. Good. If you are treating them, and if you have a 
workplace culture that is like family, I do not know if you 
ever visit small businesses or not, if you have ever been 
around a small business where they have long-time employees, 
they have a family like atmosphere. They like it there. They 
want to work there. They have worked there a long time. They 
are building retirement for themselves and so forth. They say 
hey, this is like a family atmosphere here. You would say that 
is a negative thing, they need to be rescued by a union?
    Acting Secretary Su. I would not. I mean my----
    Mr. Good. Okay. You do not agree with that tweet? You do 
not agree with what you said?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, my parents had small businesses 
growing up, and we, you know, what I learned from them was that 
you should always treat your workers the way that you would 
want to be treated.
    Mr. Good. I would suggest that treating them like family 
meets that threshold better than anything else. Let me ask you 
another question.
    Acting Secretary Su. If I could, Congressman. I think 
sometimes----
    Mr. Good. I am going to change subjects. I am going to 
change subjects please.
    Acting Secretary Su. Okay.
    Mr. Good. Do you think--why should not every Federal 
employer come to work in person every day?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well----
    Mr. Good. Why should not every Federal employee show up to 
work every day?
    Acting Secretary Su. First, I do want to say again because 
any suggestion to the contrary is both non-factual, and I think 
highly offensive. That the employees at the Department of 
Labor----
    Mr. Good. Should every Federal employee show up to work 
every day?
    Acting Secretary Su [continuing]. Have been working very 
hard----
    Mr. Good. Should every Federal employee show up to work 
every day?
    Acting Secretary Su. Through incredibly difficult 
circumstances, and without all of the resources that we need, 
which is why we come with this budget request.
    Mr. Good. You proposed a recent policy change instead of 
reporting 2 days a week, we are going to report 5 days a week 
to work, instead of 2 days a week. That is what you reported? 
That is your new rule supposedly for the Department of Labor 
that's not even been implemented yet because they are literally 
protesting showing up to work.
    I will tell you, I hope you have seen the irony in this. On 
March 19, a group of Department of Labor employees showed up in 
person, you see the irony there. They showed up in person to a 
Federal building in Boston, not to work mind you, but to 
protest the proposed plan to show up to work 50 percent of the 
time.
    They would not show up in person to work. I do not know why 
they did not protest remotely, but they thought they needed to 
show up in person to protest having to come to work in person. 
Do you see the irony in that?
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean Congressman, I think it is not 
right to ridicule the hard work of Federal employees.
    Mr. Good. Well, I would suggest that if they are not 
showing up to work, they may not be hard working Federal 
employees. Would you maybe agree with that?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, for example, many of my staff 
show up not to an office to work because that is not their job.
    Mr. Good. We agree on that. Many of your staff do not show 
up in person to work. That is what we agree on that.
    Acting Secretary Su. That does not mean they are not 
showing up to work. I said show up to an office, so.
    Mr. Good. You are going to suggest they work better when 
they are not in person?
    Acting Secretary Su. I am saying that some of----
    Mr. Good. I can tell you our constituents would say they 
are not getting adequate and effective service from most 
Federal agencies, especially since some 80 percent of them do 
not come to work, they do not show up to work. Our constituents 
have to show up to work. We choose to show up to work.
    Our constituents expect us to do that, but you think--you 
are not even implementing your own rule, they have to show up 
to work 50 percent of the time.
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean, Congressman, I do not believe 
that your constituents would be the ones who are getting 
Federal worker's compensation claims, which we have continued 
to process, and have cut down the timelines for doing so. I do 
not believe that those--that your constituents are the ones who 
are relying on the Department.
    Mr. Good. This administration, excuse me, this 
administration is trying to change the rules to make it harder 
to fire Federal employees, in anticipation of a new 
administration. Why would they do that? Why would they 
anticipate with a new administration they might need to protect 
Federal workers from being held accountable, and unperforming 
workers, maybe those who do not want to show up to work by the 
way, that it might be easier to fire them.
    Why would this administration be fighting that in 
anticipation of a new administration?
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean Congressman, Federal employees 
are civil servants. They are public servants. Most of them 
could do another job and get paid much more to do it.
    Mr. Good. I am going to submit that they are not serving 
when they are not coming to work. They are not serving when 
they are not coming to work, and they are taking full advantage 
of 3-year-old COVID--four-year-old COVID policies, I should 
say, and still not reporting to work every day. That is 
offensive to the people that they are supposed to serve. I 
yield back, Madam Chairman.
    Chairwoman Foxx. The gentleman yields back. I would like to 
enter into the record, without objection, a correction of a 
statement made by the Acting Secretary earlier that the labor 
force participation rate is at an all-time high. That is not 
correct. According to the BLS, the labor rate participation 
rate for March 2024, was 62.7 percent.
    In the past 10 years the labor force participation rate 
reached its highest level under the Trump administration, at 
63.3 percent. We will enter the appropriate charts into the 
record, and with that, I recognize Mr. Norcross for 5 minutes.
    [The information of Mrs. Foxx follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8670.025
    
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to 
our witness for coming here today. It is great to have you. A 
couple things I would like to talk about, but let us start with 
should a worker who has active COVID show up for work at the 
workplace?
    Acting Secretary Su. I do not think anybody who is sick and 
could get other people sick, should show up to work, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Norcross. Okay. Just for the record there are many 
members that did not come to work during the pandemic that 
voted remotely, and some of those are in this room. Maybe we 
should go back and try to get their pay back because they did 
not show up to work either, according to some people, but that 
is just my view.
    It is not just the ones who are serving us here in 
Washington, but I remember seeing many of them back home 
sitting in their homes saying they are working, so it as a 
little ironic that this is now a big issue. Let us switch to 
something a little bit more important, at least to the way I 
look at it, it is registered apprenticeship programs.
    I think they are incredibly important, and I would suggest 
one of the most successful Federal workforce programs in the 
history of our country, 93 percent of those people who complete 
a registered program are employed upon completion. That is 
pretty good. The average wage is $77,000.00.
    I continue to hear about these unregistered programs. Madam 
Secretary, is there anything in the law that prevents a company 
from privately creating their own registered program?
    Acting Secretary Su. Right. There is nothing preventing 
that, Congressman.
    Mr. Norcross. At any time, any company can say I am 
creating this unregistered program and do it, nothing in the 
law. It is only when they want to receive monetary dollars, or 
accreditation from the Federal Government that they have to 
follow those registered rules.
    Remember that. They can do it any time they want. It is 
when they want us to give them the money that we are saying you 
must follow the rules. Let me give you a good indication why. 
There is something called Storm Break, it is the largest group 
of employers and employees in this world when a hurricane, a 
tornado, and natural disaster hits an area, it wipes out the 
power systems the utilities provide.
    It is something called mutual aid, or Storm Break. People 
come from around the country. What makes that work because 
historically it used to be one of the most dangerous times for 
workers being killed because people turn on electric, there is 
back feeding from solar panels.
    A registered apprenticeship program allows this to happen, 
so that those who are being trained in California on the 
utilities are the same in New Jersey, are the same in Florida. 
We all come together understanding there is a certain way to do 
it. This is just one example of the value of a registered 
apprenticeship program.
    Can you talk to us where that is today? Is it now the law 
of the land to have registered apprenticeship programs?
    Acting Secretary Su. You are 100 percent right, 
Congressman, that employers can set up programs to train, to 
recruit, to retain and call them apprenticeship programs as 
well. For me, what I see around the country in this moment is 
because of the jobs that are being created in communities all 
across America to rebuild roads and bridges, to make sure that 
every family has clean drinking water when they turn on the 
faucet.
    To make sure that every community has access to high speed, 
reliable internet, to make sure that we are making investments 
in the clean energy and a future where everyone can breathe 
clean air. We are in a moment of tremendous job growth, and 
registered apprenticeship programs are helping to deliver the 
workers that are needed.
    I talked about Mariah in my opening statement. It is not 
just having a worker fill a need, it is about a worker getting 
to do a job, getting to do it in a way that keeps themselves 
healthy and safe, and it gets them to, you know, to learn a 
skill that they might not have had, and to start their job 
without debt, and to continue to grow in that job, and get what 
I hear from working people, and people in apprenticeship 
programs all the time, a little bit of security. A little bit 
of what the President calls breathing room.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
    Mr. Kiley. [presiding]. The representative from Michigan, 
Ms. McClain is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for being 
here today. I want to talk about the Independent Contractor 
Rule. What is the goal of that rule, or that piece of 
legislation?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you for that question.
    Mrs. McClain. I am sorry.
    Acting Secretary Su. I said thank you for the question. The 
goal of the rule is under the Fair Labor Standards Act 
employees are entitled to a host of protections, minimum wage, 
overtime and others. The definition of who is an employee is 
important because independent contractors do not have those 
protections and employees do.
    What we were doing with the rule----
    Mrs. McClain. Is that the choice of the employee? I am 
still going back to, it very simply put, what is the goal of 
the Independent Contractor Rule?
    Acting Secretary Su. The goal of the rule was to restore 
decades-worth of interpretation about who was an independent 
contractor and who was an employee.
    Mrs. McClain. Okay. You think you are best suited to make 
that definition?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, let me say, Congresswoman, I did 
not make up the test, when I say it comes from decades of case 
law----
    Mrs. McClain. I am still confused on what the goal of the 
rule is. Where is the problem? It seems to me like we are 
trying to fix a problem that does not exist.
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, Congresswoman, misclassification 
is a real problem. Misclassification refers to a----
    Mrs. McClain. What is the problem? People have a choice. Am 
I not mistaken?
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean here is an example. It is a 
problem----
    Mrs. McClain. I am not looking for an example, I am looking 
for an answer.
    Acting Secretary Su. It is a problem if you are hired to do 
a job in which you should have all the protections of employee 
status.
    Mrs. McClain. Then do not be an independent contractor. 
Choose an employer. You can either be a 1099 or you can be a W-
2. That is your choice, right? If I do not want to be an 
independent contractor, is there a law out there that says I 
can only be an independent contractor? The answer to that, 
because I know you are going to give a 20-minute dissertation 
is no.
    Acting Secretary Su. No, no, please Congresswoman. I will 
just say this----
    Mrs. McClain. Let me ask you this. Have you ever been a 
business owner?
    Acting Secretary Su. I will be brief about this. I will 
just say that for the many workers who have come to us and said 
I was not paid what I should have been paid, and I was called 
an independent contractor----
    Mrs. McClain. Okay. The confusion--stop, you are mixing 
apples and oranges. I go and I am an independent contractor. I 
know I am an independent contractor. Then, what is the problem? 
You know what you are doing. You are either an independent 
contractor, or you are not.
    What my biggest concern is, you have not even been able to 
clearly articulate what the goal of that rule is. I mean we 
talk in circles. Do you believe in capitalism?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes.
    Mrs. McClain. Wonderful. Have you ever owned a business?
    Acting Secretary Su. I have said this before, and I am sure 
I am going to get cutoff saying it now, but I am the daughter--
--
    Mrs. McClain. That would be a yes or a no.
    Acting Secretary Su [continuing]. Of small business owners 
who have----
    Mrs. McClain. That is great. I am a daughter too, so this 
should be really easy for you. Let us try this again, let us 
try this again. Listen carefully. If you need to write a note 
down, that is fine. Have you--it is kind of comical when you 
are supposed to be the Acting Secretary, and you cannot answer 
a question. I am with you on the comedy.
    Unfortunately, it is not that comical because it is real 
life, so let us try it again. Have you, not the daughter, not 
the mother, not the sister, not the aunt. Have you ever owned a 
business?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congresswoman, you asked me why----
    Mrs. McClain. Have you--okay, let us try this again. You 
are making a ton of money, you are trying, you are making 
legislation for business owners, you are supposed to be in 
charge as the Acting person, yet you cannot answer a simple 
question. Amazing to me.
    Maybe we should just pay you more money and that would help 
you answer the question. I am going to go back to the question 
again. Have you ever owned a business? Not a trick question.
    Acting Secretary Su. Congresswoman, there are working 
people in this country that do not choose to be independent 
contractors.
    Mrs. McClain. This is the very reason why you cannot get 
confirmed is because you cannot answer a question, right? It is 
simple. I will even accept an I do not know. Have you ever 
owned a business? Yes, I am Congresswoman, so have you ever 
owned a business?
    Acting Secretary Su. Working people in this country are 
entitled to basic protections under the Federal law. It is our 
job as the Department of Labor----
    Mrs. McClain. Is that yes, you have owned a business, or 
no, that is not. I mean you are brilliant at answering a 
question that I did not ask, and this is the very reason why 
you cannot get confirmed in the Senate, because nobody trusts 
you because you cannot answer a simple question.
    If you are supposed to be in charge, I would think it is 
not too much to ask to be able to answer a question. With that, 
my disappointment continues to grow, and your smugness 
continues to be very unacceptable, but you continue being 
Acting Secretary, making policies of which you know nothing 
about, and with that I yield back.
    Mr. Kiley. The representative from California, Mr. 
DeSaulnier, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Madam Secretary, Julie, I am very, very 
proud of you as a friend and a colleague for many years, and as 
a former business owner who has made lots of payrolls. As much 
as I admire people who own businesses, it is not discovering 
the cure for cancer.
    In that regard, I did want to talk to you specifically 
about the work you are doing that helps small businesses. When 
we enforce labor laws, when we make sure our workforce is 
protected, and again as somebody who has been in the restaurant 
business and my success was directly related to my employees, 
and making sure that I respected them, and they respected me as 
an owner and a manager.
    A lot of what we are doing here is making sure that the 
underground economy and people who do not respect their 
employees, who do not pay them, who do not go by the law, we 
found out in California, actually former Congresswoman Mimi 
Walters and I did an underground economy.
    I think you might have been there then, and just looked at 
how hard it was for business owners who complied with labor 
laws, amongst others, to compete with the underground economy, 
which at that time was about 25 percent. We aggressively, in a 
bipartisan way went about that.
    A lot of the work you have done is actually not just in 
protecting the employees, but protecting high road employers, 
the COSTCOs of the world as opposed to the Walmarts of the 
world, I would say.
    In that regard, a perfect example is something we worked on 
together, our staff and your staff on the multi-employer 
pension. By doing what we did, no taxpayer money was expended. 
We saved retirement for 800,000 American workers. Let us see, 
40,000 in Michigan, 40,000 in Ohio, 22,000 in Wisconsin.
    That was a real accomplishment. We really struggled with 
how we were going to save Central States and make that hold. 
One quote, amongst the many, many stories we heard about 
individual Americans, from a gentleman from Wisconsin: ``I 
saved and planned for my pension to help me pay my bills in 
retirement.
    ``I have bad back and knees and do not see a job I could 
accomplish after working for the trucking industry for years. 
My wife worked at a public school and has a small pension which 
will not cover our bills. How do I get a job in my mid-70's, 
given that my retirement might go away? I worked long hours in 
terrible weather to earn my pension, and thought I planned for 
my retirement and trusted it.
    ``I really worry about how we will survive with no 
pension.'' Who saved that man's retirement? You did, your 
department and our committee. It is sort of surprising to hear 
the Majority even bring this up, given the Subcommittee work on 
this, where I would describe it as political malpractice, of 
their assertions that dead people get paid, and taxpayers pay 
for it.
    Could you respond a little bit more? You did not have time 
to respond when the Chairperson was asking you. This was a real 
success story, and it was a success story for small business. 
We estimated that up to 3,000 businesses, small businesses, 
would have gone bankrupt because of their obligations, had we 
not done and had you not done and your department done the work 
you did?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much, Congressman. That 
was a big accomplishment, in making sure that working people 
who had saved their entire careers for retirement were able to 
actually have a secure retirement. As you noted, it was also 
very important for the employers who would have been stuck 
without real options and would have either gone bankrupt or had 
to try to get loans without the ability to do so.
    This was a real example of Congress coming together, 
certainly in partnership with President Biden who has long been 
a champion of making sure that every working person who saves 
for retirement actually gets that retirement into their, into 
their hands.
    I mean this is about basic security, and the fact that some 
of that money came back from Central States was actually, you 
know, the process worked. None of the money went to somebody 
who should not have had it, and now there has been new 
safeguards put in place to make sure that that continues to be 
the case.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Did we find anywhere, any place, at any 
time any evidence that dead people got money?
    Acting Secretary Su. No. There is no evidence of that at 
all.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Do you have any idea where that came from?
    Acting Secretary Su. That talking point you mean. I mean 
that did not happen. The money has been returned. There are 
safeguards in place, and we continue to implement a program 
that has had an incredibly impactful, incredibly impactful 
outcomes for working people and their families.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and some people 
do not like competent women, but I certainly appreciate your 
work.
    Mr. Kiley. The representative from Illinois, Ms. Miller, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Miller. Thank you. Acting Secretary Su, the Department 
of Health and Human Services and Homeland Security have 
acknowledged the spike in child trafficking under the Biden 
administration. Even the left-wing New York Times has been 
forced to report on the child trafficking crisis at our 
southern border, which has been caused by Joe Biden.
    On this chart here, you can see the massive spike in child 
trafficking during the Biden administration, because Joe Biden 
is allowing cartels to traffic children across our border.
    Acting Secretary Su, do you believe that the open border 
policies of the Biden administration have caused an increase in 
the child labor violations?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congresswoman, as somebody who has 
worked directly with survivors of trafficking, I think that 
human trafficking is--it is devastating. It is terrible, it is 
harmful----
    Ms. Miller. That is not my question at all. Do you believe 
the open border policies have caused this spike in child 
trafficking and exploitation, yes or no.
    Acting Secretary Su. No.
    Ms. Miller. No? Okay. Well, look at the statistics here. 
How do you--how do you explain this? Better put your glasses on 
there, see? The spike is during your administration. You own 
this because your policies have created this crisis at our 
border.
    I want to know do you or Joe Biden take any responsibility 
for the spike in child exploitation.
    Acting Secretary Su. Congresswoman, to be clear trafficking 
is one thing and child labor is something else. Sometimes the 
two could--it could be because of trafficking that children are 
working in illegal conditions.
    Ms. Miller. DHS is reporting--DHS is reporting that 85,000 
children who cross the border are missing. Does the Department 
of Labor have any idea where these 85,000, actually plus. When 
I was at the border, the Border Patrol suggested it is over 
100,000 children.
    Americans are just outraged over this. Do you have any idea 
where these children are?
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean Congresswoman, when I talk 
about child labor and the increase in child labor, one of the 
reasons why we are able to document an increase is because the 
Department of Labor is doing our enforcement duty. The cases 
that have come to light have come to light because we are 
investigating, we are working on the ground to identify where 
you have children----
    Ms. Miller. Okay. This is for--you are not dealing with it. 
You have lost 85,000 children, okay. You do not know where 
these children are. Are you horrified that you do not know 
where these 85,000 children are?
    Acting Secretary Su. I am horrified by the child labor that 
we have uncovered in too many workplaces.
    Ms. Miller. You are responsible. You have lost it. Joe 
Biden and his administration have caused this. Moving on, 
Acting Secretary Su, the job estimates from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics are consistently false. Financial media outlets have 
reported the numbers are repeatedly false. As you can see here, 
the reports.
    Either you are putting out fake numbers to get Joe Biden 
good headlines and then quietly revising the job numbers down, 
or the Bureau of Labor Statistics is failing to report 
accurately the numbers. Why should we continue to fund the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, when it's clearly not fulfilling 
its duties?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congresswoman, the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics puts out the most reliable data about our workforce, 
about unemployment, about job growth and industries that there 
is. Now----
    Ms. Miller. Okay. Never to this level have the numbers been 
so inaccurate. Who is responsible for this and has anybody been 
held accountable for----
    Acting Secretary Su. Congresswoman, those headlines do not 
show that they are inaccurate. Those headlines demonstrate that 
part of the core of what BLS has always done is----
    Ms. Miller. Is it wrong? They are wrong.
    Acting Secretary Su. They are not wrong.
    Ms. Miller. They are constantly doing revisions.
    Acting Secretary Su. The Bureau has always done revisions, 
ma'am. The BLS does revisions as a matter of course, and the 
reason----
    Ms. Miller. Never to this level has it been so inaccurately 
reported. I mean we have seen here today why you cannot 
continue to serve as Acting Secretary. You are allowing cartels 
to traffic children into child labor sweatshops, and then 
losing track of them. You are wildly misreporting the jobs 
numbers and revising them down, which suggests either political 
motives or incompetence.
    You are violating the Constitution by remaining in office 
when the Senate has stated they would not confirm you. You 
should step down. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Kiley. The representative from Connecticut, Mrs. Hayes, 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. Welcome, Acting Secretary Su. I 
would just like to State for the record that we have asked for 
multiple hearings on child labor on this Committee. The 
Democrats have asked, and the majority has refused to do that.
    I would welcome the conversation to have a real honest 
discussion about what child labor looks like in this country, 
and ways that we can address that as a problem.
    Thank you for being here. I jotted down a few things, 
before I get to my questions. I just want to ask you very 
directly, have you ever been an employee?
    Acting Secretary Su. Have I ever been an employee? Yes, I 
have.
    Ms. Hayes. Yes. Does the Department of Labor have any 
responsibility to workers, employees if you will.
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, we do.
    Mrs. Hayes. The idea that only business owners should have 
any input in this space is completely flawed, because a 
majority of your job and the work that you do affects 
employees; am I correct?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Our fundamental mission is to 
serve the working people of this country.
    Mrs. Hayes. That is what I thought. It is actually quite 
appropriate that someone who has been an employee would lead 
the Department of Labor, yes?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, yes. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    Mrs. Hayes. I also want to bring up another interesting 
thing that I heard. In my district, I have seen a lot of 
businesses who hire individuals with disabilities, with 
disabilities, cafes that are thriving, and new businesses that 
have opened.
    It is actually a very, just exciting trend in the district, 
where the community is involved and invested. We have also seen 
a lot of second career older Americans who are getting trained 
for a new career as a result of workforce development.
    Can you tell me why the Department of Labor even cares 
about programs like diversity, equity and inclusion?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congresswoman. As I have 
said, we have seen record labor force participation of prime 
age working people in this country. We are also seeing record 
levels across various communities, including people with 
disabilities, and that is really important to us. We have an 
Office of Disability Employment Policy at the Department of 
Labor because it is so important to make sure that when we 
create opportunity, everybody gets to, gets to participate.
    Part of what we are seeing when it comes to individuals 
with disabilities is because of really changes over the last 
couple of decades, more and more individuals with disabilities 
are doing work through something called competitive integrated 
employment, which also allows them to participate more fully in 
the workplace. This is----
    Mrs. Hayes. Diversity, equity and inclusion includes 
bringing all people into the workplace, and making sure that 
they have a full workplace experience?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, yes.
    Mrs. Hayes. That is what I thought. Thank you for sharing 
that, because I think people are confused about what that means 
and how we all benefit when we put more people back to work.
    Another thing that I heard come up in this hearing over and 
over is just the idea of people working in person. I think that 
if we are looking, if our programs are geared to training the 
next generation workforce, we have to be creative and 
innovative and get people out in the communities.
    To your point that you said over and over, showing up to 
work does not mean sitting at a desk all day. Sometimes it is 
face to face in the community talking to people. In the time 
that I have left, I will get to my actual questions.
    I am really, really interested in the Career Training Fund 
that the Department of Labor has included as part of their 
proposed budget. $8 billion for this program. I have two 
questions. One kind of dovetails on what I just asked.
    How would this program incorporate the existing workforce 
but also keep pace and prepare for a changing workforce? What 
supports would be provided for participants, you know, things 
like food, transportation, things like that that people need to 
remove the barriers, so that they can get this training?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you so much, Congresswoman. I 
often say that I think of the workforce system as a form of 
infrastructure too. It is not physical roads and bridges, but 
it is the roads and bridges that connect people to the jobs 
they need and employers to the people that they need.
    That infrastructure has to be as strong as our physical 
infrastructure. The programs we have been talking about today 
are part of that. Registered apprenticeships, for example, 
sector-based training; the role of educational institutions.
    The $8 billion grant is meant to help to supplement, to 
make sure that every individual who is looking for a job and 
who needs to be in a training program to do so has some support 
to do that. It is one piece of the overall puzzle for how we 
meet this demand that employers have, of again in a growing 
economy we are seeing more and more employers looking for 
workers, that everybody has the support they need to do that.
    We look forward to working with you and other members of 
the Committee and of Congress to do that.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. I am over my time, but I do 
appreciate you being here, and the last thing I will just say 
is that we worked really hard on the legislation to get people 
back to work, to make things here and to get language like fair 
labor standards into that legislation, to make sure it affects 
our communities.
    I would really appreciate a commitment from the Department 
to make sure that that is followed all the way through, so that 
my constituents feel the benefit of that work.
    Acting Secretary Su. You have my commitment, Congresswoman.
    Mr. Kiley. The representative from Texas, Mr. Moran, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Acting Secretary Su, my 
name's Nathaniel Moran. I have got a few questions today about 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the new independent 
contractor rule.
    First, let us start with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
Can you tell me if you know what that is?
    Acting Secretary Su. I believe that you are talking about a 
rule, a law that we adhere to in our rulemaking, to make sure 
that we are hearing from all stakeholders, including small 
businesses, in the process of our rulemaking.
    Mr. Moran. I will give you a B, because you are exactly 
right. You have to do it. You have to listen to the small 
business owners, but then you have to quantify in your 
rulemaking process exactly what the effect would be, the 
administrative burden, the cost burden on small businesses if a 
rule was to go into place.
    From 1980, it has been around for a long time. Most 
agencies actually do not do it. About 75 percent of the time, 
they actually do not go through the process they are supposed 
to go through.
    In this particular case, I am glad you even know what it 
is, because I want to ask you about how you are--how the 
Department of Labor goes through this process, and how it went 
through that process on the independent contractor rule. Do you 
know?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congressman. I hope my 
parents are not watching, because they will not like that B, 
but thank you. I know the rule because we take our obligations 
in the rulemaking space very, very seriously. People always 
complain, often complain that we take too long to put out 
rules.
    Mr. Moran. All right. Well, then, I am going to give you 
another grade.
    Acting Secretary Su. Okay.
    Mr. Moran. The grade for the Department on this one is an 
F, because the estimated--on the rulemaking for the independent 
contractor rule said that the estimated compliance cost of the 
administrative burdens and the expenses to small businesses, if 
the independent contractor rule were to go into place, was in 
your opinion, in the Department of Labor's opinion a mere 30 
minutes and less than $25 for a small business.
    Now, you and I know better than that, because the proposed 
original rule was 200 pages. We know that it is going to take 
longer than 30 minutes just to at least read the proposal as we 
are going down that process.
    For businesses, if they are going--if they have got people 
going from independent contractors to now employees, we have 
got a ton more expenses that are going to be on the line, 
including new health care expenses, tax expenses, workers 
compensation expenses, retirement, paid leave.
    All of that stuff that you tout as a benefit to businesses 
is actually a burden on businesses. Did you guys take that into 
account when you determined that it was going to be merely 30 
minutes and less than $25 impact if the independent contractor 
rule went into place?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, as I said, we take all of 
our obligations seriously. When it comes to rulemaking at the 
Department of Labor, when we do OSHA rules in fact, we have 
another requirement to engage with small businesses, and then 
in all of our rules we comply with the--with the Act that you 
named.
    Mr. Moran. Who is it in your--in the Department of Labor 
that should get the F? Is it you or the person--a person under 
you, and I would be glad to get a name of the person that 
actually said it is a mere 30 minutes and $25 for this 
independent contractor rule?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well Congressman, being that it is 
National Small Business Week, I also want to say one of the 
things that we make sure to do is to provide as much compliance 
assistance as we can, so that once our rules are put in place, 
we are helping especially small businesses who we know bear 
different burdens, who we know do not have the H.R. shops or 
the legal shops that might help them do all of that work.
    Mr. Moran. Between the two of us, I am the only one of us 
that was a small business owner. I can tell you the Federal 
Government is not there to help you. It is there to put a 
burden and regulatory barrier in front of you most of the 
times, to exceed and succeed in this life. I am going to stop 
there----
    Acting Secretary Su. Well thankfully though sir, the small 
businesses who really need a level playing field on which to 
compete, so that when they play by the rules, others do too----
    Mr. Moran. Yes, and I can tell you most small businesses 
are people that want to try to get into small business, 
minority-owned businesses and women-owned businesses in 
particular, need the independent contractor rule to be what it 
was, not it is. I am going to yield the remainder of my time to 
Mr. Kiley, and then he is going to pick up where I left off.
    Mr. Kiley.
    Mr. Kiley. Good morning, Acting Secretary Su. I only have a 
few seconds here, so maybe just to lay some groundwork, can you 
just let me know how things are going with the implementation 
of the independent contractor rule? I think it is been about 7 
weeks or so.
    What has changed? What--have there been enforcement 
actions? What is going on there.
    Acting Secretary Su. We have some tools in place. We have--
they are basically small entity guides to, following up on 
Congressman Moran's question, to help small businesses, but 
employers, to understand the rule and to be to comply. That is 
one.
    Mr. Kiley. Okay, those are educational. In terms of the 
Department, doing enforcement actions or otherwise acting to 
enforce the new rule, what have you done that is different 
under the old rule?
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean misclassification has been a 
concern of the Department. Making sure that employees who 
should receive all of the labor law protections to which they 
are entitled, actually get them. I do not know if we are 
talking past each other deliberately or unintentionally.
    Let me just say I think there is a difference between 
somebody who sets up shop to do something that--they have a 
talent; they have an ability. They--it could be somebody, you 
know, like somebody sets up their independent contractor to do 
plumbing and we hire them to come do plumbing in our building.
    There is something different between that and someone who 
is an employee working in a situation, sometimes side by side 
with other people who are actually called employees, but they 
are called independent contractors and therefore denied their 
basic rights under the law.
    Mr. Kiley. Okay. We will continue this conversation in a 
little bit. At this point, I will recognize the representative 
from Pennsylvania, Ms. Wild.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you very much. Secretary Su, let me just 
say thank you for coming back to endure yet another hearing 
before this Committee. I apologize for the occasional lack of 
civility.
    In my many years of courtroom experience before I came to 
Congress, this kind of lack of civility, cutting witnesses off, 
not letting them finish an answer, not really caring what the 
truth of the matter was or drawing upon their experience to 
provide a full picture, would never have been tolerated by a 
judge.
    I know we are not in a courtroom. Sometimes I often wish 
that we were, so that we had somebody independent who could 
call out that kind of thing.
    I have never owned a business, but I as a lawyer for 35 and 
some years, represented many businesses, both small and large. 
During those years, I often had occasion to counsel one of my 
clients on whether they could classify an employee or certain 
employees as independent contractors.
    Often, the business was very anxious to classify them as 
independent contractors for reasons that I think we all are 
aware. Just to summarize, because the wage laws, safe workplace 
protections, retirement benefits and other benefits would not 
go to such employees or such independent contractors.
    I many times had to go through with these employers the 
six-factor rule that has for a very, very long time been the 
rule in this country until the Trump administration decided to 
get rid of it, and explain to the employer why these people 
that they--that worked for them could or could not be 
classified as independent contractors.
    It is a very detailed process, and I will say sometimes I 
did not have--did not give my clients, the business owners the 
answer they wanted, but it was the truthful legal answer. I 
think it is really important that people understand more about 
the independent contractor rule, and the misinformation that 
has come from my opponents on the other side of the aisle about 
this rule.
    Can you explain what it does and does not do? The Biden 
rule I am talking about, that was put back into place to 
reinState that six-point test----
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Wild. Sure.
    Acting Secretary Su. The test for whether someone is an 
employee or an independent contractor has been developed over 
many decades, mainly by courts, and our rule takes the criteria 
that courts have put into place and makes them the rule under 
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
    That is what the rule is if you just look at the case law. 
As you mentioned, the last administration's rule was out of 
step with that case law, and so we have now restored it. I did 
not make up the factors. My team did not make up the factors.
    We put in place a rule that--that was the standing rule for 
a very long time, and it is multi-factor----
    Ms. Wild. Let me interrupt briefly. It was not in fact a 
rule that was fashioned on the California Assembly bill AB 5, 
but rather was a reinstatement of what has existed for decades?
    Acting Secretary Su. Correct, and in fact we were explicit 
in doing it, that we did not have the authority to adopt what 
was AB 5, but the ABC test which is existent in a number of 
states.
    Ms. Wild. Okay, and so what kinds of cases have you seen 
that are problematic in your position, in terms of violations 
of the independent contractor rule? Tell us how it hurts 
workers.
    Acting Secretary Su. I mentioned, for example we have had a 
case recently that involved home care workers, residential home 
care workers. These are caregivers that Congresswoman Jayapal 
talked about, just how so many workers in that industry end up 
working long hours, low wages without basic protections.
    We see this in restaurants, where someone is washing dishes 
and is called an independent contractor. We have seen it in 
hotels, where a hotel operator will hire some housekeepers, 
cleaners to do the work as employees, and others doing the same 
work, call them independent contractors.
    Ms. Wild. Those are great examples. By the way, often that 
enables the employer to avoid certain kinds of payroll taxes; 
am I correct?
    Acting Secretary Su. That is correct.
    Ms. Wild. In turn, the worker is not getting the benefit of 
those payroll taxes, such as paying into Social Security and 
benefits and that kind of thing; correct?
    Acting Secretary Su. Correct.
    Ms. Wild. Is it correct, by the way, there sometimes seems 
to be a difference of opinion on this in this Committee, but 
the Department of Labor is not there just to protect the rights 
of employers. Am I right about that?
    Acting Secretary Su. Correct.
    Ms. Wild. Workers.
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, and in doing so, we also help 
create a level playing field and support a strong economy that 
also benefits employers.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Kiley. The representative from California, Ms. Steel, 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Steel. Thank you very much. I want to submit for the 
record this article from San Bernardino Sun published on April 
6th, titled ``Julie Su Prepares to Forgive Herself or Julie 
Su's Mistakes.''
    The article references guidance issued by the Department of 
Labor in December 2023, and potential for forgiveness of an 
estimated $30 million, $30 billion in fraudulent pandemic 
unemployment benefit payments issued by California Economic 
Development Department.
    After looking at guidance from December regarding State 
laws, it appears that DOL is in effect allowing states to sweep 
fraud under the rug and not pursue fraudsters and recoup the 
billions lost to them. This is what the article says.
    Acting Secretary Su, thank you very much for coming out 
today, because I have been really wanting to ask this to you 
directly, because this is a very important hearing. I want to 
request, before I ask a question, to provide this Committee 
with a copy of February 2024 letter referencing this article, 
and any relevant correspondence between California EDD and DOL.
    Mr. Kiley. Those exhibits are submitted without objection.
    [The articles of Mrs. Steel follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

    Mrs. Steel. Thank you. Does DOL intend to forgive the 
nearly $30 billion in fraudulent payments that the California 
EDD paid out to fraudsters, scammers and known international 
organized crime rings that occurred under you in California?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congresswoman, for giving 
me a chance to address that. It is absolutely false that the 
guidance that the Department of Labor put out would forgive any 
fraud.
    Fraud is never okay. We do not condone it. We should not 
overlook it, and in fact both our OIG and others have been 
trying to combat the fraud that was overwhelmingly paid in a 
program that was set up by Congress to address the pandemic, 
that allowed for both automatic backdating and self-
certification in its design.
    The fraud is not acceptable, and we, the Department of 
Labor, certainly did not waive any kind of efforts to combat 
the fraud or to recover fraudulent payments. In fact, just 
recently my Inspector General chased some funds all the way to 
another country, in which fraudulent funds were used to 
purchase property, and we are now trying to seize that property 
in order to get the money back.
    We are serious about combatting fraud. What the guidance 
did was within the CARES Act, there is the ability to waive 
non-fraudulent overpayments that might have been made to 
individuals, working people who struggled through the pandemic 
like anybody else, and got overpayments that were not their own 
fault. The waiver is meant to----
    Mrs. Steel. Let me just ask you then, out of $30 billion 
from California, how much is just overpayment, not fraud by 
those criminals? How much are we talking about?
    Acting Secretary Su. It is a good question. I do not know 
the answer to that, ma'am, because after I left California 
there was still work being done, and I think all states are 
still trying to assess exactly what happened during that period 
of time.
    Again, overwhelmingly in a program that was not typical 
unemployment insurance, it was----
    Mrs. Steel. I will just reclaim my time. Thank you very 
much for assuring us that you are not doing it because 
forgiving these fraudulent payments would appear to be a major 
conflict of interest.
    Acting Secretary Su. Congresswoman, can I also clarify, the 
guidance was not just for California. The guidance about non-
fraudulent payments----
    Mrs. Steel. I got that. I get that, because out of $130 
million, 25 percent actually fraudulent payments was made in 
California. That is why I am asking you for that, and not only 
the State controller of California, but the State controller 
knows California is waiting for final Federal approval of EDD's 
request on indicated the--in the February 2024 letter before 
the event can be recognized in the financial statement as a 
forgiveness of debt.
    That is what--actually, they wrote it on the financial 
report on the California, you know, financial reports. I really 
want to see why they created this kind of language on their 
financial statement, because you already knew, because you are 
the one stated that EDD's lack of preparation left it unable to 
manage.
    You knew they were stealing Cares Act money that you know 
what? All these criminals, they might take money, and then you 
already stated that California did not have enough security 
measures in the place when you were actually Labor Secretary in 
California.
    You know what? This is actually under your watch that 
happened. If you are actually forgiving these fraudulent 
payments to California, it is not really acceptable, and I 
really thank you for your assuring us that you are not going to 
do it. You did it on AB 5, actually AB 5 is wiping out all the 
independent contractors, except a few industries that you said 
that you would not and could not to implement in the national--
nationwide in United States.
    You did it anyway on March 11th, that your department 
issued new rules on AB 5----
    Mr. Kiley. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
    Mrs. Steel. You know what? I really want to make sure that 
you are not forgiving this $30 billion in California, that that 
money went to all these criminal rings. Thank you. My time is 
up, and I yield back.
    Mr. Kiley. The representative from Indiana, Mr. Mrvan, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mrvan. Thank you, Acting Secretary Su. Thank you for 
being here today to discuss the President's budget requests for 
the upcoming fiscal year. After months of deliberation, 
Congress recently came to a consensus and passed the Fiscal 
Year 2024 budget, which I was proud to support on behalf of the 
workers and families of northwest Indiana.
    Today, the Committee has come together to discuss continued 
investment in these programs for the upcoming fiscal year. I 
would like to highlight the rule recently finalized by the 
Department, to ensure fiduciary investment advice is provided 
in good faith across industries, including stakeholders 
representing retirees, public safety, educators, government 
employees, transit and airlines, the trades and more.
    The retirement fiduciary rule has been widely supported. 
Recently, an estimation by the Council of Economic Advisors 
determined that conflicted advice could cost savers up to $5 
billion a year. That is why I was proud to co-lead a letter 
with Congresswoman Kaptur in support of the retirement security 
rule.
    For people in my district and across the Nation, deciding 
how to invest their retirement nest egg is the biggest 
financial decision they will have to make. For families 
planning their budgets around rising costs of living, passing 
up vacations and going out to dinner, so they can responsibly 
put money away for retirement, a devalued investment in their 
retirement is just not feasible.
    Can you explain how congressional action through the 
congressional Review Act, for example, would negatively impact 
workers and their families.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congressman. As you already 
said, the retirement security rule is meant to protect the 
retirement savings of hard-working Americans, to make sure that 
when you put away money throughout, you know, throughout all 
your working years, that when you seek to invest that money, 
that the advice that you get is based on your best interests as 
the investor, rather than on any financial benefit or the 
conflict of interest that might come to the advisor.
    Most people think that that is what they are getting anyway 
but as you noted, there are studies that demonstrate that 
conflicted advice can be very costly to working people. In 
fact, the study that you mentioned by the Council of Economic 
Advisors was just about one retirement product.
    It was only about fixed indexed annuities, and so this is 
just an area in which we want to make sure that working people, 
when their retirement savings are being invested and they go to 
someone for advice about that, that they can actually land that 
advice, maximizing their savings and giving them some real 
peace of mind in retirement.
    Mr. Mrvan. Additionally, how does the President's budget 
request for the Employee Benefit Security Administration ensure 
the Department has the resources to protect retirement 
benefits, particularly those of small savers from poor, 
conflicted investment advice?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, thank you so much. The rule is 
important because it sets a standard. The budget request for 
our Employee Benefit Security Administration is so that we can 
enforce the law.
    I will just give two quick examples of what our EBSA does. 
In one example, we had a situation where a retiree had worked 
for 30 years, and at the end of his work life, he did not get 
any of his retirement benefits. He became one of--part of what 
is known as like a lost participant in a program.
    When we got involved, we were able to identify that he was 
entitled to that money, and he and his family got a significant 
lump sum payment and then payments going forward. One of them 
is just making sure that people who save for retirement are not 
lost in the system and actually get their benefits.
    Once we did that for one individual, it ended up being 
something that the employer and the plan sponsor did for others 
too.
    The second example I want to share is because EBSA also 
helps to make sure that people get the health benefits to which 
they are entitled. We had a case recently where an individual 
needed a heart transplant, and his insurer, his employer-
sponsored insurer said it was not a necessary surgery.
    We got involved. We found that it was covered, and that man 
is alive today because of it. I have not even talked about our 
work in the mental health space, but it is so important to 
enforce laws in order to make sure that they actually feel 
meaningful and real for working people in this country.
    Mr. Mrvan. I want to thank you for standing up for working 
men and women, and for setting guidelines to make it a fair and 
level playing field. I thank you very much for your work.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congressman.
    Mr. Mrvan. With that I yield back.
    Mr. Kiley. I would like to play a quick video.
    Acting Secretary Su. I am sorry. Did you ask me a question?
    Mr. Kiley. I recognize myself. We are going to play a quick 
video.
    [Video Playing.]
    Mr. Kiley. Do you support reclassifying independent 
contractors as employees against their will.
    Dr. Wells. For those workers who work in the gig economy, 
absolutely.
    [Video Stops.]
    Mr. Kiley. That was with the chosen witness of the minority 
at a recent hearing, so Dr. Katie Wells of Georgetown. Do you 
agree with her? Do you support classifying independent 
contractors as employees against their will?
    Acting Secretary Su. I am so sorry, Congressman. I did not 
realize--can you just do that again?
    Mr. Kiley. Sure. Let us play it again.
    [Video Playing.]
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, Congressman, let me say, I do 
not agree that the Acting Secretary of Labor has the authority 
to force any kind of classification against people's will. I 
will say that the laws of this country protect working people 
when they should be called employees and are misclassified as 
independent contractors.
    Mr. Kiley. When you say--okay. When you say that you do not 
have the authority to do that against people's will, what do 
you mean? There is a new rule that you are going to go around 
enforcing, that is going to change people's status, right?
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean, I am sorry. I watched that 
very quickly. It sounded like your question was do you support 
forcibly making people who are independent contractors in the 
gig economy into employees?
    Mr. Kiley. Sure, and yes, or no? Do you support that?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, what I am saying is nothing that 
we are doing at the Department of Labor, including putting out 
a rule that restores the employee versus independent contractor 
rule, to decades of case law, again not criteria that I made 
up, not a test that I thought was--should be put in place that 
I wrote. It is based on decades of case law interpreting the 
Fair Labor Standards Act.
    Mr. Kiley. Nothing to do that, force--nothing about that 
would force someone into employee status against their will; 
correct? That is what you are saying.
    Acting Secretary Su. I do not--that is a different question 
from the first question that you asked though.
    Mr. Kiley. Not really. If someone says, ``I want to be an 
independent contractor,'' that is good enough for you. You are 
not going to try to challenge that?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, the law says, again this is not 
just about what I think, the law says that what you call 
someone, even if let us say they signed an agreement saying--
like let us say that is what you would use, right? They signed 
an agreement saying they are an independent contractor.
    Mr. Kiley. Right.
    Acting Secretary Su. They signed an agreement saying they 
would get 1099s, that that should be enough. The case law is 
clear that that is not sufficient to find that someone is an 
independent contractor. If the other indicia----
    Mr. Kiley. Okay. You have just created a new rule that you 
are heavily involved in creating, that received a lot of notice 
and comment, and you finalized it, you signed off on it. The 
question is, under that rule, someone will be forcibly 
reclassified against their will.
    Let us take a concrete example. There is a group called 
Women in Motion. This is a group of truck drivers. Do not know 
if you have met with them; I would really encourage you to. 
They are a great group, and they have told some stories.
    For example, we have Bambi, is that Bambi behind me? Yes, 
it is, who says that she likes to be an independent contractor. 
She had chosen to do so ``because I wanted to run my own 
business. I felt it was time for me to grow.''.
    When asked how a ban on independent contracting would 
impact her life, she said ``It would be devastating. My family 
depends on my income and the flexibility that being an 
independent contractor provides. A ban or restriction would 
limit both of those.''
    Can you assure Bambi, who is an owner-operator, a truck 
driver, that this new rule will not change her status?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well Congressman, the outcome of 
applying the test really does depend on the facts of a 
particular circumstance.
    Mr. Kiley. Okay. She is an independent owner-operator, a 
truck driver. There are a lot of examples--do you know how many 
of those people there are by the way in the country, 
independent contractors who are truck drivers?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, I understand that--I understand 
what you are saying.
    Mr. Kiley. How many are there? Do you know?
    Acting Secretary Su. I do not know the answer to that.
    Mr. Kiley. Okay. There are about 350,000 I believe. Just 
take your standard typical example, Bambi. Can you assure her 
that you are not going to come after her and tell her that she 
has got to run her business differently now? Can you assure her 
of that?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, the purpose of having a 
rule and a test is so that we can make sure that working people 
who should be entitled to the protections of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act get them. That is not inconsistent with the 
ability of bona fide independent contractors to operate----
    Mr. Kiley. Okay. I am asking you a simple question about 
this particular person, and you can answer these questions, 
because when you were Labor Secretary, you did not enforce AB 5 
against whole categories of people that were exempted and were 
defined in the statute as it not being subject to.
    I am asking you right now, are independent owner-operator 
truck drivers going to be treated differently under the rule 
that you just published than they were under the pre-existing 
rule?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well first let me say Congressman, 
what you just said yourself is that several categories were 
exempted from AB 5. Therefore, not enforcing against them is 
what they law said. They were not covered by AB 5.
    Mr. Kiley. Right.
    Acting Secretary Su. The point you are making and saying it 
is simple, I am telling you it is not simple, because you have 
to apply the facts of a case to the law.
    Mr. Kiley. You are missing the point. At the point at which 
in a statute you could say this whole category, this whole 
profession is exempt from the law, that was not a fact-
dependent determination.
    I am asking this particular profession, truck drivers, 
independent owner-operators, hundreds of thousands of them that 
are vital to our supply chain, can you give us an answer right 
now as to how they will be treated under this new rule?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, our new rule does not have 
entire exemptions for entire industries. That is not what the 
case law says, and so we were following both the plain language 
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the cases that have 
interpreted it. That is what is within my authority to do, and 
that is what the final rule does.
    Mr. Kiley. Ms. McBath is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you so much Mr. Chair, and thank you so 
much Secretary Su, for taking the time to be with us today, and 
I have read your remarks, I have read your testimony. By every 
measure, the economy under yours and President Biden's 
leadership is doing quite well, despite what others would have 
you--have us believe. It is doing quite well.
    We continue to see a strong job market, with record low 
unemployment. There is more than this that can be done to 
ensure that, of course, every American has access to the 
opportunities that will lead them to highly skilled and quality 
careers, and enable them to provide a good life for themselves 
and for their families.
    Almost all of the good-paying jobs in our economy actually 
require some sort of post-secondary credential or education, 
and that could be an apprenticeship, a short-term training 
program or a two or a 4-year degree program and higher.
    However, most Americans in the labor force have either some 
college education or actually less and lack a high school 
diploma or maybe even equivalent. Despite most Americans not 
having a college degree, the Federal Government still only 
spends a fraction on workforce development programs compared to 
what is spent on traditional higher education programs, as you 
can actually see behind me.
    We spend five, ten or even 20 times more in any given year 
on our university system than we do actually on employment and 
training services. The fact of the matter is that you do not 
have to have a college degree to be successful, although it 
certainly helps. It is not the only path to a good-paying job.
    That is not the message that we are sending to these vastly 
different funding levels. Should we not be meeting our students 
where they are and provide support for these necessary training 
programs? It is a disservice to our students and our employers, 
as shown by the huge amounts of college debt and workforce 
shortages that we see across the country.
    This failure to invest in our workforce is just not leaving 
working families and businesses behind; it is risking our 
competitive advantage on the world stage globally. As you can 
see here, we spend drastically less on these efforts than our 
allies in other comparable countries around the world.
    The U.S. spends just four hundredths of a percent of our 
GDP on workforce training and employment programs. America 
should lead, but that is unfortunately not possible when we 
habitually underfund our workforce programs.
    Secretary Su, can you talk about how important it is for us 
to fully fund these efforts, and expand upon the work that you 
have done on apprenticeships, with apprenticeships and other 
non-traditional workforce development programs?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. We 
have models for what works, to connect people to good jobs and 
employers to people. I have traveled the country and I have 
seen them. You are hopefully seeing them in your districts too.
    We need to scale those models, both because employers are 
looking for working people and because working people are 
looking for good jobs. Registered apprenticeships are one of 
those. I have talked about our workforce system as being a kind 
of infrastructure, too, roads and bridges that connect people 
and employers.
    If that is the case, then registered apprenticeships are 
like superhighways. They are, they are a very effective way of 
bringing people who do not have a 4-year degree and do not want 
to get a 4-year degree into the workforce, into a good-paying 
job with security and a lifelong opportunity to be able to 
contribute to build, to make things.
    Our budget request is really about making sure that we take 
things that we know can be done to fulfill employer needs and 
to make opportunity broadly available, and double down on those 
investments.
    Those investments are good for everybody. I mean they are 
good for people of all races, you know, from every community 
because the desire for people to be in a good job that would 
change their lives is something that I know you see in your 
district, and I see everywhere I go.
    Mrs. McBath. Well thank you for that, because as you and I 
have discussed, you know, the new nature of work is what we 
have now, in particular coming through COVID. Workers now are 
caregivers. They are themselves looking for education, they're 
working. So we have to make sure that we are able to address 
all of the needs that they have, specifically in being able to 
find the educational resources they need, but more importantly 
that they deserve, and thank you for your testimony.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you.
    Mr. Kiley. The representative from Florida, Mr. Bean, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bean. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon 
to you, the Committee. Acting Secretary Su, welcome. We are 
glad to have you here. How long have you been the acting 
secretary?
    Acting Secretary Su. I was--I am not going to necessarily 
get this exactly right, the date, but I believe I was nominated 
in March of last year.
    Mr. Bean. Okay. Is that like March of last year. That would 
be 13 months. Would that be accurate? About that. Yes, about 13 
months. Congratulations, I think you have set a record. My team 
says that you are the longest-serving acting secretary that we 
have had in quite some time. How long do you plan to stay 
without being confirmed? You have been nominated twice.
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, I came to the 
administration as the Deputy Secretary of Labor. I was 
confirmed for that job in 2021. When my predecessor left, I 
became the acting secretary through the regular statutes that 
govern succession--
    Mr. Bean. How long do you plan--is it okay for somebody to 
serve in the capacity? Article II, Section 2 of the 
Constitution, our Founding Fathers said, you know, there should 
be advise and consent, that secretaries should be confirmed. My 
question is how long do you plan to stay if you are not 
confirmed?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, I was very honored to be 
nominated by the President to be the Secretary.
    Mr. Bean. Oh, I am with you on that. It is a big deal. It 
is a big deal where I am, it is a big deal. How long are you 
planning to stay?
    Acting Secretary Su. Our statutes and I believe this was 
already mentioned by the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Bean. You do not know.
    Acting Secretary Su. No, no. They indicate that I am 
legally serving----
    Mr. Bean. Okay. You have an idea of how long you are going 
to stay?
    Acting Secretary Su [continuing.] In the position. In fact, 
the reason why we have a GAO opinion about that is because this 
body asked, I believe.
    Mr. Bean. You would say then--you would say people can stay 
as long, Secretaries can stay as long as they want? As long as 
they have a ruling, they can stay without being confirmed. Is 
that what I am hearing?
    Acting Secretary Su. No. I said I was confirmed as the 
deputy secretary in 2021.
    Mr. Bean. I am with you, but no. I was asking about----
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes.
    Mr. Bean. You are Acting Secretary. You are no longer the 
deputy. You are the person. You are the person in charge, and 
our Constitution says you are to be confirmed. You are not 
confirmed. How long you staying?
    Acting Secretary Su. When my predecessor left, I became the 
Acting Secretary.
    Mr. Bean. Would you say it is okay then, by saying you are 
not leaving, you are saying future secretaries or the next 
administration, we do not even have to worry about the 
Constitution. We can just stay as long as you want. Are you 
saying that Acting Secretary Su?
    Acting Secretary Su. Absolutely that is not what I am 
saying. This question about whether I am legally serving has 
been asked and answered and thank you for being the body that 
asked.
    Mr. Bean. Yes. I am just saying, but you have not really 
answered it, but here is the next question. I do not know that 
you see the precedent. It is the Su loophole if you stay 
forever without getting confirmed because----
    Acting Secretary Su. It is not a loophole at all, sir. It 
is--I was confirmed----
    Mr. Bean. You are staying without--I am just asking how 
long you are staying, which by the way, Happy Small Business 
Week. This is the week. You have acknowledged it. I am on the 
Small Business Committee. We are having a showcase in the 
Visitor's Center today at three o'clock.
    If you go talk to those business owners, I encourage you to 
do it, they are going to tell you that they are getting 
strangled with new rules, new regulations that makes it very 
hard. I have owned four small businesses. It is tough. You are 
often the first one to come, the last one to leave, and the 
last one to get paid.
    It is a struggle all the way. Sometimes, that small 
business is an independent contractor. The last survey I saw 86 
percent. 86 percent of independent contractors love it what 
they are doing, love the gig economy, love doing what they are 
doing. They do not want to change.
    I know Chair Kiley asked you this but are you willing to 
continue to reclassify with over 86 percent of independent 
contractors saying I want no change. I love my job and that is 
going to threaten their livelihood. Are you still willing to go 
forward, even though this is going to be against their will, to 
reclassify them as an independent contractor?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, Congressman, in addition to the 
15.3 million jobs that have been created in this country since 
President Biden came into office, we are seeing a small 
business boom at the same time. I think--I do not know the 
exact number. It is over 15 million small business 
applications----
    Mr. Bean. Yes. They do not want to lose their jobs. They do 
not want to lose their jobs. California did something very 
similar, AB 5 in California. They had to exempt over 100 
professions, because it was going to be a disaster. Are we 
prepared that this could be a disaster and people lose their 
jobs?
    Finally, let me ask you this. You believe, as do I, people 
should have choice in their health choice, to quality health 
care. Would you agree with that?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, I believe people should have 
quality health care.
    Mr. Bean. I would too. I would agree that they should have 
quality health care but let me tell you what you and DOL did. 
The previous administration published a rule to allow those gig 
economy workers--the independent contractors. Their rule 
allowed independent contractors to join the employer's health 
plan.
    CBO projected 400,000 people are now getting their health 
care through this rule. What you did, your agency just did a 
rule that is finalized this week, reversing that and 
essentially kicking off 400,000 people that get their health 
care from their employer, and that rule changed that.
    We have just kicked 400,000 people off. I am bummed out 
about that, and my time's expired. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 
Thank you so much.
    Mr. Kiley. The representative from Florida, Ms. Wilson, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Wilson. Thank you, and I would like to thank Acting 
Secretary Su for being here today. Welcome. Welcome to you. 
Jobs, jobs, jobs, has always been my mantra, and our economy 
added 303,000 jobs in March, and the unemployment rate tricked 
down to 3.8 percent. The jobless rate has been below 4 percent 
for 26 months in a row, the longest stretch in more than 50 
years.
    Am I correct that these numbers are right, and they are 
night and day compared to what occurred during the Trump 
administration? Can you talk about the economy that the Biden 
administration inherited, and the policies that congressional 
Democrats and President Biden implemented to turn things 
around.
    I think people are forgetting where we were and how far we 
have come.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congresswoman. Yes, when 
President Biden first came into office, just to do what you 
just said, to think about where we were, unemployment rate was 
an all-time high. The pandemic was raging. People did not know 
if they were going to be able to get toilet paper or baby 
formula when they needed it.
    Today, we have seen 15.3 million jobs created. We have seen 
an unemployment rate less than 4 percent for the longest 
stretch since the 1970's. Labor force participation rate is 
strong.
    Real wages, especially for low and middle income Americans 
are up, meaning that it has outpaced inflation, which translate 
into more money into working people's pockets, and we are in 
midst of delivering historic investments in our Nation's 
infrastructure, in manufacturing, in clean energy, in bringing 
industries back to the United States so that working people can 
have good jobs and good union jobs right here in the United 
States.
    It is important to also note that none of this was 
promised. In fact, most people, even as it was happening, kept 
saying that it was impossible, or that it was going to--it was 
too hot, it was going to crash, or that the recession was 
coming.
    I think it is important to just acknowledge that while we 
still have work to do and we need to continue to do it, and we 
know that working people still need more support and that is 
partly reflected in our budget, that the recovery that we have 
seen would not have been possible without strong leadership, 
good economic policies, investing in working people and in 
really trying to expand opportunity to all Americans.
    Ms. Wilson. Thank you. Thank you so much. We need that. We 
need to know. Secretary Su, 86 percent of public-school 
districts reported challenges hiring teachers this year. As 
wages have increased in other sectors, teacher pay has not kept 
pace. The average teacher's salary when adjusted for inflation 
has actually decreased over the last decade.
    This has led to more educators leaving the profession, and 
that turnover negatively affects student learning. Next week is 
Teacher Appreciation Week, and so with the support of fellow 
lifelong educators and Congress, I introduced the American 
Teacher Act in the 118th Conference.
    The intent of the Act is to address teacher shortage by 
directing the Department of Education to award teacher salary 
incentive grants. My bill establishes grants to increase the 
minimum salary of public elementary and secondary school 
teachers. It also authorizes a national campaign regarding the 
value of the teaching profession.
    In fact, in the last two State of the Union addresses, 
President Biden declared from the podium increasing teacher pay 
as a national priority, and I quote ``I want to give public 
school teachers a raise'' is what he said, and the next year he 
said, ``Let's give public school teachers a raise.''
    Do you have any thoughts or guidance on teacher pay raises 
from the Department of Labor?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much for that, 
Congresswoman. As you noted, the President has been very 
supportive of making sure that teachers do well in our country, 
and he has said many times that billionaires should not pay a 
lower tax rate than teachers.
    One of the ways that we have seen teacher pay go up over 
the last year is unions at the bargaining table negotiating for 
higher wages. We have seen that not just in teachers, among 
teachers but in other industries too.
    We are also working to make sure that we help to fill 
that--the need for teachers through programs like the workforce 
ones that we are talking about. To your point, sometimes the 
challenge of getting workers into a certain field is because 
the job quality needs to be improved, that people need to be 
able to know that when they do the work, they can make a decent 
living and feel secure and support their families, and have 
security and retirement. We have started----
    Mr. Kiley. The time has expired.
    Acting Secretary Su. [continuing]. Apprenticeship programs 
for teachers
    Mr. Kiley. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Burlison, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Acting Secretary Su. As it has 
been mentioned, you are now breaking records for the longest-
serving acting secretary in the history of the United States 
really. As it was mentioned, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 
says that you're to serve but only with the consent of the 
Senate. How many times has the Senate rejected your 
confirmation?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, the Senate confirmed me 
in 2021 to be the Deputy Secretary of Labor.
    Mr. Burlison. To be the Deputy, but not the Secretary. How 
many times have they rejected your, your application to be 
Secretary?
    Acting Secretary Su. The reason I am sitting here as the 
Acting Labor Secretary is because of that confirmation.
    Mr. Burlison. They did not confirm you. How many times?
    Acting Secretary Su. Once my--no, once my predecessor left, 
I became the Acting Secretary by virtue of having been 
confirmed as the Deputy Secretary.
    Mr. Burlison. Okay. You have not been confirmed. It has 
been over 13 months. At what point do you think that you are in 
violation of the Constitution?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, sir, you all asked that question 
of the GAO and you got your answer. I am not in violation of 
any law sitting here, but I do want to say that I do respect 
the role of the Senate, and I think it is important.
    Mr. Burlison. Well, that is the point. Like, to me, I think 
that you continuing to serve is, if anything, a disrespect for 
the Constitution and a disrespect for the Senate. Clearly the 
Senate feels, feels--gives deference to other secretaries under 
the Biden administration that they have approved. They have not 
given that deference to you.
    At what point will you acknowledge that you have not been 
accepted by the Senate and will step down?
    Acting Secretary Su. I was confirmed by the Senate as the 
Deputy in 2021.
    Mr. Burlison. You were not--you are not confirmed as 
Secretary. Let us move on. Despite the fact that, in my 
opinion, you're operating as an illegitimate Secretary, your 
agency, even though you have zero jurisdiction over union 
election procedures, you have created a pro-union propaganda 
website called workercenter.gov, that provides----
    That basically regurgitates information from many of the 
acting, like the think tanks for labor unions and labor unions, 
to encourage people to organize. What authority, what 
jurisdiction do you have to create such a website?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, one thing that has come 
up here today is the importance of listening to workers, 
understanding what they want, what they need, and trying to be 
responsive to that.
    One thing that we found before we created that website was 
some 60 million Americans would join a union if they could, if 
they knew how to do it, if they felt like they could do it 
without fear, if they could do it without retaliation.
    Mr. Burlison. My question was under what jurisdiction?
    Acting Secretary Su. It is one of many ways that we do 
education outreach. This website was responsive to what we were 
hearing that workers wanted. It was something that they wanted 
to know.
    Mr. Burlison. How much money did you spend on the website? 
This is taxpayer money that most people would objectively call 
propaganda. How much did you spend?
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean it is a worker organizing 
resource and knowledge center. It is meant to give anybody 
really; I mean it is public, it is on our website, knowledge 
about the steps to take if they want to join a union. Even 
just, you know, what does a union do? What is it? It is part 
of----
    Mr. Burlison. I have got little time, so I am going to move 
on to fiduciary rule. You publicly justified the short notice 
for hearings that are required under ERISA and the short 
comment period for the new fiduciary rule, by stating that the 
Department of Labor has already heard comments.
    My question is, is the 2004, you know, Department of Labor 
fiduciary rule a new rule or not?
    Acting Secretary Su. It is a new rule that was just 
finalized last week.
    Mr. Burlison. If you--if it is a new rule, we are now in, 
you know, we are now at May 1, okay. How, how long did you give 
for comments before you issued this new rule?
    Acting Secretary Su. That is a good question, thank you 
Congressman. We had a 60-day comment period. That comment 
period is quite standard, not just for the Department of Labor 
but also for other agencies. During that comment period, we 
held two public hearings and we----
    Mr. Burlison. Did you get input from the National 
Association of Insurance Commissioners?
    Acting Secretary Su. I have to say sitting here I don't 
know for sure, but I can certainly get that answer for you.
    Mr. Burlison. They were not involved in formulating the 
rule, because you recognize that each State insurance 
commissioner serves a vital role in the process?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, the comment period is public, 
meaning we invite and frankly benefit the more widely known----
    Mr. Burlison. The answer is no, because their association 
issued a statement saying that there was virtually no 
coordination with State insurance regulators in implementing 
the rule. My time has expired, thank you.
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, I am sorry. Oh no, sorry. 
We are out of time.
    Mr. Kiley. The representative from--the representative from 
Minnesota, Ms. Omar, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Omar. It is good to see you again, Secretary Su. I 
wanted to talk a little bit about the child labor violations 
that are soaring that we are seeing throughout the country. We 
are also seeing some states rolling back labor protections for 
minors from Florida to Iowa. Republican lawmakers have been 
weakening child labor laws.
    Could you provide update on the Interagency Task Force on 
Child Labor, and how the Department of Labor is following up on 
potential hot spots?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congresswoman. The 
Department of Labor has been very hard at work trying to combat 
the scourge of child labor.
    One of the reasons so much attention is being paid to it 
today is that we have uncovered some really horrific cases, and 
there is just no mistaking that these are both really young 
children, some of them working the night shift under very, very 
hazardous situations, as young as 13 years old working on the 
kill floor, using toxic chemicals and working and losing limbs 
and their lives.
    Last year, the last fiscal year, the Department of Labor 
assessed the most penalties that we have ever assessed under 
child labor laws.
    We also lead an Interagency Task Force that you mentioned, 
in order to make sure that all of government is working 
together on the various pieces that it will take to keep 
children safe, to engage with all the other parties that might 
be helpful to us as we try to identify these cases, and to hold 
employers accountable who engage in those practices in such 
blatant disregard of the law.
    That task force continues to work together to identify gaps 
and to--and to try to make sure that we are putting a stop to 
this practice.
    Ms. Omar. Yes, thank you for that. The Bureau of 
International Labor Affairs plays an essential role in leveling 
the playing field for all workers. ILAB helps enforce our trade 
commitments and strengthens compliance with labor standards.
    Could you explain how the interests and priorities of 
workers across the globe are interconnected, and how should we 
be thinking about the plight of workers in Mexico, for example, 
as it relates to the plight of workers here in the United 
States, and what would it mean if Republicans were successful 
in slashing the budget for ILAB?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Omar. If you could be as precise as possible. I have 
got one more question.
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. The well-being of workers in this 
country is tied to the well-being of workers in other 
countries. When we have the ability for, you know, to create a 
race to the bottom, in which all workers are vulnerable to 
exploitation and abuse, it is not good for any worker.
    Through our ILAB, we both produce reports and advocate to 
make sure that, for example, prohibitions against goods made 
through forced labor from coming into this country are 
enforced. We work closely with our partners at the Department 
of Homeland Security on that.
    In terms of Mexico, there is the USMCA, the U.S.-Mexico-
Canada agreement and we, through ILAB, play a role in making 
sure that those provisions are enforced, and that working 
people in Mexico also have a full and fair right to join a 
union of their choice, and we believe that that will improve 
not just working conditions for workers in Mexico, but also the 
competitive disadvantage that working people in the U.S. have 
to face when we don't ensure that workers across the globe are 
protected.
    Ms. Omar. Yes, thank you. I commend you for that work. I am 
also proud of the work that the Biden administration and 
congressional Democrats did in enacting in the American Rescue 
Plan to save many multi-employer pensions.
    Actually, in my district, the Twin Cities Bakery Drivers 
Pension Plan was one that benefited from it. 1,075 pensions 
were saved. What would happen to my constituents, to businesses 
and to employees across the Nation if we did not address the 
multi-employer pension plan?
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean this is so important. This is 
about basic security and retirement. This is about working 
people who have saved and are relying on having the retirement 
savings, so that they can, you know, stop working at the end of 
a career and know that they can continue to live with security.
    The multi-employer pension fund saving that--that this 
Congress passed, and the President signed into law, helps to 
make sure that those individuals and those funds actually get 
the retirement savings that they are entitled to.
    As you have seen in your district, as I have heard going 
across the country, that has made a world of difference to a 
lot of working people, and at the same time those employers who 
are part of that multi-employer pension fund also benefited, 
because it allowed them to continue to operate.
    It has prevented them from going into bankruptcy, and so it 
was really a win-win, and I appreciate the work that was done 
to make that happen. I am proud to be part of implementing 
that.
    Ms. Omar. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Kiley. The representative from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Smucker, is recognized.
    Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Acting 
Secretary Su for being here today. In August of last year, the 
Biden administration rolled out a final rule updating the 
Davis-Bacon Act regulations, which of course, as you know, 
requires contractors that perform work on Federal or federally 
funded construction projects to pay a government-determined 
prevailing wage to onsite construction workers.
    I myself, I worked in the construction industry for 25 
years. Very proud to have been part of an industry that creates 
great family sustaining, well-paid jobs. There is a lot of 
opportunities there. I do know though that artificially setting 
the wages will have an impact on the cost of Federal projects, 
and I wondered if you are aware of that?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, one thing I want to say about 
that, Congressman, is that when--when workers are protected, 
when they are paid decent wages, part of the principle, I know 
you know this----
    Mr. Smucker. Do you think without the Federal Government 
setting wages, they will not be paid decent wages?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, the goal of the Davis-Bacon and 
related acts is to ensure that federally funded construction 
projects don't depress local wages in the area where that work 
is being done.
    The other point I wanted to make is that I understand. 
There are many studies that demonstrate this, that when working 
people are--are paid prevailing wages and treated well, that it 
actually ends up having cost savings on a project because there 
is continuity and there is----
    Mr. Smucker. That is certainly--that is not borne out by 
the studies. In fact, there is a nonpartisan Beacon Hill 
Institute estimates that Davis-Bacon methodology increases 
Federal project costs by 7 percent. I have seen that firsthand 
with Pennsylvania prevailing wages. I have seen the additional 
cost.
    Do you think that is fair to taxpayers, at a time when 
construction costs are--are increasing dramatically due to 
inflation, do you think it is fair at this time to add an 
additional cost to taxpayers?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well again, I think the reason why the 
laws are in place is to make sure that federally funded 
construction projects do not depress wages in the area, and 
that is--that is policy. I also think it is fair to make sure 
that does not happen.
    Mr. Smucker. Do you think--do you think the Federal 
Government should set wages in other areas as well?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, my role as the Acting Labor 
Secretary is to enforce provisions that Congress passes. We 
have a Federal minimum wage. We have prevailing wages.
    Mr. Smucker. This--this update, this update came from--did 
not come from Congress. In fact, we oppose it. We sent a 
letter. I sent a letter with Chairwoman Foxx opposing this 
change, specifically because it will increase Federal costs. 
This is not Congress that has done this. This is coming 
directly from the Biden administration.
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, so the rule was a Department of 
Labor rule, but the basic principle that federally funded 
construction projects should be set at a prevailing wage, so 
that it does not have a negative effect on the wages in that 
area, is part of the Davis-Bacon and related acts, acts of 
Congress.
    Mr. Smucker. Why should the--why should the government set 
construction wages but not nurses wages, for instance?
    Acting Secretary Su. Right. I think that is a question for 
Congress. I mean if you set nurses wages at something, I would 
be enforcing those wages as well. I think----
    Mr. Smucker. Do you think the Federal Government should set 
wages in other sectors other than construction?
    Acting Secretary Su. I think a basic wage floor beneath 
which nobody should be forced to live and work is incredibly 
important.
    Mr. Smucker. That is not what Davis-Bacon is. This is not a 
minimum wage. This is literally having the Federal Government 
abandon free market principles and set wages at some level. 
That is what this is. This is not minimum wage.
    I do want--a very quick question on apprenticeships as 
well. I know others have been talking about this. You have said 
you want to cooperate with states. I just want to put in the 
record that many states, not in a bipartisan manner, have 
talked about these new regulations.
    For instance, Michigan. This is a quote, said ``The new 
regulations requirements will be an added formidable burden to 
employees.'' Connecticut said the rule would ``have a chilling 
effect on employers entering apprenticeships.''
    Your home State of California said, ``The rule does not 
clearly demonstrate the evidence and value of adding another 
component to a current CTE structure that can accomplish many 
of the same intents without new constricting Federal rules.''
    I just want to express my concern, but also the concerns of 
many states, where we will see less individuals involved in 
apprenticeship programs. I think you and I do agree that 
apprenticeships are a very great career path to a great job, 
and to a great career. These regulations will not help to allow 
more people to enter. It will have the opposite effect, and I 
am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Kiley. The representative from New Mexico, Ms. Leger 
Fernandez, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you and thank you so much Acting 
Secretary Su. I want to begin with an apology for the 
disrespectful behavior by some of my colleagues. Rather than 
allowing you the opportunity to provide substantive answers to 
their questions, you have been interrupted numerous times.
    I also want to clarify. The Senate has never rejected your 
nomination. In fact, your nomination as Deputy Secretary was 
passed, and your nomination as Secretary was passed out of the 
appropriate committee. The fact that you have stood with 
workers and workers' families should be something that we all 
celebrate, because that is indeed in your job description.
    We appreciate it. I know that the workers and the workers' 
families in my district and in my State appreciate it. I want 
to also thank you for doing a great summary in response to some 
of the other questions about how far our economy has grown, how 
many jobs we have added in the last 4 years, especially when 
you think, when you answer the question are we better off today 
than we were 4 years ago?
    Four years ago, was dark under former President Trump, 
right? People were unemployed. They were worried about losing 
their apartments. As you pointed out, you could not buy toilet 
paper, right? It was scary, it was dark.
    Because of the investments that were done, we have come out 
of that. There is a lot more work to do, especially in rural 
areas that I represent. We know that education scales, 
apprenticeships, those make a big difference in securing 
better-paying jobs.
    You need the better-paying job if you are going to fight 
the inflation that has been, let us be honest about it, fueled 
by greedy corporations who record profits are basically on the 
backs of consumers.
    Let us be honest about where inflation comes through, and 
there are some great Federal Reserve articles about that. These 
certification courses that are really important, I think, for 
apprentices and other ones, they do not always apply in rural 
areas.
    In my district, an aspiring welder or commercial driver 
would have to drive 3 hours on a trip to get to some of these 
federally funded training programs. I want to see if you can 
talk about expanding the Department of Labor force's Workforce 
Opportunity for Rural Communities initiative, so that we could 
start granting those funds in western rural communities.
    On a bipartisan basis, right. Well, the rest is--the rest 
is checkerboard blue, red. We need to get that funding out 
there. How do you see how that would make a difference, if we 
moved it to the west in rural communities?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congresswoman, and yes, the 
Workforce Opportunities in Rural Communities is something 
that--that we wanted to do in order to make sure that we are 
really achieving equity, that every community is seeing 
benefits from the investments that are being made.
    We are now I think on the fifth round of those--of those 
investments. Being able to expand them will only allow us to 
further reach individuals, families, and communities who have 
been left out for far too long. It is an important time to do 
it as well, because part of President Biden's vision is that we 
invest in every single community.
    For example, when we build--make sure that there is broad, 
reliable, high-speed broadband in every community, the ability 
of people who live in that community to actually work on those 
jobs is really, really significant.
    Our work, Workforce Opportunities in Rural Communities, 
that helps to make sure that that can happen. Congresswoman, if 
I could also just mention, because you were here and 
Congresswoman Wilson just left, but you both have YouthBuild 
grants as well that we just announced in your districts, and 
that is another way that we supplement the workforce programs, 
to make sure they are reaching all communities and that one is 
obviously one you know.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Great. I have an appropriations letter 
where hopefully we will start seeing some of these programs in 
my district. I want to quickly turn to something else that both 
New Mexico and other places like Arkansas and Missouri, the 
arts and recreation.
    The creative sector really makes a difference, about a 
trillion dollars to the economy. I want to have the Department 
of Labor work with us to explore how Federal workforce 
development programs, such as apprenticeships, can better serve 
non-traditional sectors like the arts, like outdoor recreation.
    We just passed the EXPLORE Act on the floor of the House 
led by Chairman Westerman, my Republican colleague from 
Arkansas. He talked about what they are doing in terms of 
their, that kind of economic growth in these rural areas. Would 
love to work with you on that and look forward to talking about 
that more in the future.
    I have run out of time, and I am going to yield back. Thank 
you so much, Acting Secretary Su.
    Acting Secretary Su. I would love to work with you.
    Mr. Kiley. The representative from Kansas, Mr. Estes, is 
recognized.
    Mr. Estes. Thank you, Chairman and thank you Acting 
Secretary Su for being here. I know you have been here for a 
long time, so I will try to go through quickly with my 
comments.
    I know last week, the Department of Labor issued a so-
called retirement security rule, better known as the fiduciary 
rule. I have some major concerns about the substance and the 
impact of the rule, but I will get to it in a minute. The 
administration's rollout of the rule is also disappointing.
    I know several of my colleagues before how--have talked 
about how it was rolled out. There were only 45 business days. 
It was over a holiday period, so it really, really was not the 
appropriate approach of how you get comments back for the 
comment period.
    What--instead of talking about that, I want to talk about 
the White House in the rollout of that, used the term 
``eliminating junk fees'' as part of the reason for doing this, 
and that is the first time ever that annuities have ever been 
accused of having junk fees. Clearly my concern is just the 
propaganda aspect of that.
    Can you explain how that term applies to the proposed and 
the final rule, and if not for this rationale of the White 
House trying to hype some phrase, can you explain why there is 
no single reference to junk fees in any of the preambles for 
the proposed or the final rules?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. Our 
public comment period was 60 days. We held two public hearings 
as well. We received 400 individual comments, over 400, and 
just under 20,000 petition submissions.
    I will say again that that public comment period is 
incredibly valuable. It is very important. We take into account 
the comments that we get, and we try to put out a rule that is 
as--achieves the goals of whatever that rule is and----
    Mr. Estes. The junk fees is what I really wanted to focus 
on, and not the number of comments.
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, that is a fair question. Our rule 
seeks to make sure that any retiree and investor, that the 
advice they get from a financial advisor is in their best 
interest, not informed by conflicts of interest of the 
financial advisor.
    One way that that conflict of interest could come into play 
is that there could be a fee that the--that the retiree has to 
pay.
    Mr. Estes. Yes, but there is a difference and I understand, 
and we would expect people to get paid a fee for providing 
their service. I guess it is just--it is an insulting 
terminology that is used for folks that are actually trying to 
help people save for their retirement. I take offense at the 
term ``junk fees'' being used in that manner.
    I would shift gears a little bit on this, just from the 
standpoint of the cost as we are talking about fees. Just prior 
to the release of the fiduciary rule, the inflation numbers 
came out. Hotter again for the third month in a row.
    Since President Biden's been in office, the cost of 
inflation on a monthly basis has gone up over 19 percent, and 
the Joint Economic Committee has determined that in my home 
State of Kansas, people are paying $1,000 more a month for the 
same food, the same rent as they did in January 2021. Wages are 
down 3.9 percent in terms of net wages since the President's 
come into office.
    At a time when people are struggling to meet their daily 
needs due to inflation, I am concerned a little bit about the 
higher costs that are being applied to people that are trying 
to save.
    There was a Deloitte study done after the earlier fiduciary 
rule was brought out, that more than 10 million low-and middle-
income individuals lost access to investment assistance during 
the short time that that 2016 fiduciary rule was effective.
    I mean, I personally saw middle class savers who were 
having to pay more in fees because of that fiduciary rule. 
Fortunately, the 5th Circuit rescued American people from that, 
and with this new rule, it seems like the administration is 
wanting millions of more people of lower and middle income to 
be able to lose access to investment assistance and have to 
spend more money to keep that access.
    How many individuals does the Department expect to lose 
access to investment because of the new fiduciary rule?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well Congressman also to be clear, I 
was not referring to any fee that an advisor charges as being a 
junk fee. I am referring to fees that are charged to an 
investor that would not be charged but for that conflict of 
interest, right, a fee that they are paying for an investment 
vehicle that is not in their best interest.
    We certainly--our goal is for--to expand retirement 
security, not to--not to shrink it and----
    Mr. Estes. I guess my concern on this question was people 
losing access because of cost and because of the additional 
burden placed on the investment advisors.
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, our hope is that by eliminating 
conflicts of interest that retirement savers actually do 
better. They actually--their investments are actually being put 
into--into vehicles that maximize their savings. As was noted 
earlier, there are studies that show that just----
    Mr. Estes. Okay. I am glad that is a shared hope, but I am 
sorry to cut you off. I am out of time, and it is just that 
prior studies, particularly the Deloitte study, shows people 
that have lost access, and that is my concern, that we are not 
helping people save for their retirement. I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Kiley. The Ranking Member, Mr. Scott, is recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Su, a lot of 
the Republicans on the Committee may not like the law. The fact 
is the Constitution and present statutes have you legally 
serving as Acting Secretary of Labor. They may not like it, but 
you are there and it is certainly legal.
    In terms of child labor, we have another example of some in 
Congress complaining about something, as if it is a solution. 
We have seen this in immigration. There are a lot of complaints 
about what is going on in immigration.
    When you have a bill come up to do something about it, they 
kill the bill, say out loud that if we pass the law, it means 
that we wouldn't be able to campaign on it, and then go back to 
complaining. Well, we have--previously I sent a letter, along 
with Dr. Adams, to Chairman Foxx in asking for a hearing on 
child labor. Have not had it yet.
    We had, with Senator Casey and Representative Kildee, we 
sent a letter to the GAO asking them, since you could not get 
it done through the Committee, to study the situation with 
child labor. There is also no support for our bill to increase 
fines for child labor violations. We find that even adjusting 
for inflation, the funding for enforcement funding is down.
    With all that going on, can you tell us what the--what some 
Republican Governors are doing in the child labor space?
    Acting Secretary Su. Unfortunately, Ranking Member, at the 
same time that we see devastating cases involving children 
working in illegal and harmful conditions, there are some 
rollbacks in states of child labor protections.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. You mentioned showing up for work. Is 
it not a fact that many Department of Labor, employees work at 
places other than their offices, working hard like inspections 
and things like that?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes.
    Mr. Scott. Okay.
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, yes.
    Mr. Scott. We had this incredible back and forth about a 
choice about being an independent contractor or an employee. 
Can an employee elect to be an independent contractor and not 
be eligible for minimum wage and other protections, or probably 
more accurately in real life, can an employer tell a 
prospective employee if you want to work here, you are going to 
be an independent contractor?
    If you want to work here--if they say okay, can the 
employer than strip the employee of their right to minimum 
wage, overtime, workers comp, unemployment compensation, OSHA 
protection, or health and pension benefits that other employees 
get, because he can call them--because the employee agreed to 
be an independent contractor and the employer can save a lot of 
money doing that? Or does the employer have to follow the law?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, Ranking Member. Employers have to 
follow the law.
    Mr. Scott. The job numbers have been discussed, and first 
of all, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, does it happen every 
month to revise last month's numbers?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Thank you, Ranking Member.
    Mr. Scott. Does that happen every month? Has that been 
going on forever?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Revisions to the numbers are part 
and parcel of what the BLS does, and the reason why they do 
that--and the reason why they are recognized as the most 
accurate and reliable source of employment information is 
because they have a vast body of data on which they rely.
    Mr. Scott. This is nothing new. The fact that they are 
revising numbers is nothing, is nothing new.
    Acting Secretary Su. Quickly, and then they make revisions 
to be accurate.
    Mr. Scott. Okay. In terms of numbers, in the first 3 years 
of the Trump administration, he created 6.4 million jobs. Biden 
created 14.7. Total numbers for the Trump administration ended 
up losing 2.7 million jobs total. So far, the Biden 
administration has created 15.2.
    They talked about the black unemployment. The lowest Trump 
got was 5.3. Lowest Biden has gotten, 4.8. I'm just putting the 
numbers out there. When Trump left office, it was African 
American unemployment, 9.3; it's now 6.4, the lowest 
unemployment period for under 4 percent for 50 years.
    I do not know how you can spin that, other than those are 
good numbers. Furthermore, the pandemic, President Trump did 
not get any credit for having a pandemic. He had 10 months of 
the pandemic; President Biden had 2 years of a pandemic to deal 
with. He was able to create all this great economy in spite of 
the pandemic. Under President Trump, the wheels just came off 
the--came off in the ditch. Mr. Chairman, thank you for--and I 
have to yield back.
    Mr. Kiley. I will recognize the Ranking Member again for a 
closing statement.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is 
evident that the Department of Labor, under the leadership of 
the Biden administration and legally serving Acting Secretary 
Su, remain committed to uplifting workers and families through 
policies and prioritize the rights and well-being of workers.
    Despite attempts to undermine this progress, the facts 
speak for themselves. Thanks to Acting Secretary Su, wages have 
increased, and critical protections have been restored, and the 
truthful numbers show it.
    Moving forward, our priorities should be to support the 
Biden administration's pro-worker, pro-union agenda and advance 
policies that protect workers' rights and foster the economic 
growth for all. I thank you, Acting Secretary Su, for your 
leadership and being focused on improving the lives of workers 
and their families. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Kiley. Acting Secretary Su, I am going to be blunt. It 
ius time for you to step down. This has gotten ridiculous.
    You have shattered all records as far as an unconfirmed 
nominee clinging to power, and regardless of whether this is 
technically a legal arrangement--which is very much an open 
question, that is why everything the Department does right now 
is under a legal cloud--It is just wrong. Most people, I think 
every reasonable person looking at this, knows that it is 
wrong. This is not the way that it is supposed to work. This is 
not what our Constitution puts in place when it comes to the 
separation of powers.
    There are plenty of people in this country who are 
qualified to be Secretary of Labor, and while you are correct 
that you had the--it was appropriate for you to become an 
interim Acting Secretary for a short period while a new nominee 
was being confirmed, the fact is it became different when you 
came that nominee and did not get confirmed.
    You tried. You tried really hard. You met with lots of 
Senators. The President, the White House set up a war room to 
try to get people to confirm you. There was a whole ad campaign 
about it, and it just did not work out. The Senate had ample 
opportunity to confirm you last year. They elected not to. In 
fact, they returned your nomination at the end of the year.
    The Senate has had ample opportunity to confirm you this 
year, and they have chosen not to. I would implore you to let 
us do the right thing. It is time for you to resign and we will 
get a new Secretary who can go through the process and be 
confirmed by the Senate.
    That is what the American people deserve, that is what 
American workers deserve. There being no further business, this 
Committee stands adjourned.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
letters I referenced earlier be entered into the record, along 
with the report ``Slap on the Wrist: How it Pays for 
Unscrupulous Employers to Take Advantage of Workers'' be 
entered into the record of the Committee hearing.
    Mr. Kiley. Without objection.
    [The letters of Mr. Scott follow:]
  [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Kiley. This Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:49 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]