[Senate Hearing 115-268]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-268
NOMINATION OF ALEXANDER ACOSTA OF FLORIDA TO BE SECRETARY OF LABOR
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EXAMINING THE NOMINATION OF R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA OF FLORIDA, TO BE
SECRETARY OF LABOR
__________
MARCH 22, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
24-848 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming PATTY MURRAY, Washington
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania
RAND PAUL, Kentucky AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
TODD YOUNG, Indiana TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM KAINE, Virginia
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
David P. Cleary, Republican Staff Director
Lindsey Ward Seidman, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Evan Schatz, Minority Staff Director
John Righter, Minority Deputy Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2017
Page
Committee Members
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, opening statement......................... 1
Murray, Hon. Patty, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State
of Washington, opening statement............................... 3
Rubio, Hon. Marco, a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida...... 5
Cruz, Hon. Ted, a U.S. Senator fro the State of Texas............ 6
Collins, Hon. Susan M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maine... 14
Bennet, Hon. Michael F., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Colorado....................................................... 16
Scott, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina. 18
Baldwin, Hon. Tammy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin.. 19
Young, Hon. Todd, a U.S. Senator from the State of Indiana....... 20
Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts.................................................. 22
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 24
Hassan, Hon. Margaret Wood, a U.S. Senator from the State of New
Hampshire...................................................... 25
Roberts, Hon. Pat, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas....... 27
Murphy, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 28
Enzi, Hon. Michael B., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming.. 30
Kaine, Hon. Tim, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia....... 31
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska.... 34
Franken, Hon. Al, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota..... 35
Paul, Hon. Rand, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kentucky....... 37
Witness
Acosta, Alexander, Nominee to Serve as Secretary of Labor, Miami,
FL............................................................. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.
Position Statement of Workplace Fairness--Sharon Rusz,
Executive Director and Paula Brantner, Senior Advisor...... 49
Wahington Post article by Marc Fisher........................ 50
Letters of Support........................................... 52
Letters of Opposition........................................ 65
Response by Alexander Acosta to questions of:
Senator Alexander........................................ 81
Senator Roberts.......................................... 81
Senator Collins.......................................... 82
Senator Murkowski........................................ 83
Senator Young............................................ 86
Senator Cassidy.......................................... 86
Senator Paul............................................. 87
Senator Murray........................................... 88
(iii)
Senator Sanders.......................................... 109
Senator Casey............................................ 116
Senator Franken.......................................... 123
Senator Bennet........................................... 127
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 128
Senator Baldwin.......................................... 134
Senator Murphy........................................... 134
Senator Warren........................................... 136
Senator Kaine............................................ 149
Senator Hassan........................................... 151
NOMINATION OF ALEXANDER ACOSTA TO SERVE AS SECRETARY OF LABOR
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:05 a.m., in
room 430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander,
chairman of the committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Alexander, Enzi, Paul, Collins, Cassidy,
Young, Hatch, Roberts, Murkowski, Scott, Murray, Casey,
Franken, Bennet, Baldwin, Murphy, Warren, Kaine, and Hassan.
Opening Statement of Senator Alexander
The Chairman. The Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions will please come to order.
This morning we're holding a confirmation hearing on the
nomination of Alexander Acosta to serve as U.S. Secretary of
Labor.
Senator Murray and I will each have an opening statement,
then we'll introduce our witness. We're delighted to have
Senator Rubio with us. Senator Cruz is coming. After our
witness testimony, Senators will each have two 5-minute rounds
of questions.
Just 10 years ago, in 2007, Steve Jobs announced that Apple
had reinvented the mobile phone, just 10 years ago. A micro-
blogging company named Twitter gained its own separate platform
and started to scale globally, and Amazon released something
called Kindle--all that in 2007, just 10 years ago.
The same year IBM began to build a computer called Watson
that within a few years defeated human contestants in the
Jeopardy TV show, and in 2007 the cost of sequencing a genome
started falling from $100 million in 2001 to $1,000 in 2015. In
a new book, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman puts his
finger on the year 2007, just 10 years ago, as ``the
technological inflection point.'' He uses the term ``great
acceleration'' for all the technological, social,
environmental, and market changes simultaneously sweeping
across the globe and argues we're living ``through one of the
great inflection points in history'' as a result.
Add to that Ball State University's finding that automation
is responsible for the loss of 88 percent of manufacturing
jobs; and globalization, add that. Add social, cultural,
climate changes and terrorism, you get a big mismatch between
the change of pace and ability of the average American worker
to keep up and fit into the accelerating forces shaping the
workplace.
A few weeks ago a group of Senators sat around in a forum
and listened to some very smart scientists talk about their
advances in artificial intelligence. After it was all over one
Senator asked where are we all going to work? Tom Friedman says
that probably the most important governance challenge is the
great,
``need to develop the learning systems, the training
systems, the management systems, the social safety nets
and government regulations that will enable citizens to
get the most out of these accelerations and cushion
their worst impacts.''
One of the Federal Government's chief actors in this drama
of acceleration should be the Secretary of Labor. In fact, as
many have suggested and the House of Representatives has done,
the title of the job for which Alexander Acosta has been
nominated should be changed to be Secretary of the Workforce,
not Secretary of Labor. Labor union membership in the private
economy today is down to less than 7 percent. The issue for
workers today is not whether they belong to a union; it's
whether they have the skills to adapt to a changing marketplace
and find and keep a job; to be accurate, to create and keep a
job. My generation found jobs. This generation is more likely
to have to create their own jobs.
In his inaugural address, President Trump said he heard
forgotten men and women who are struggling to keep up and fit
into the changing world. In his farewell address, President
Obama said he heard the same voices, too many families in inner
cities and in rural counties who have been left behind, he
said.
What can we do about it? The most important thing is to
work with employers and community colleges and technical
institutes and find ways to increase the number of Americans
earning post-secondary certificates and 2-year degrees, or
more. Georgetown University says that by 2020, 65 percent of
the jobs in this country will require some college or more, and
at the rate we're going Georgetown predicts the United States
will lack 5 million workers with an adequate post-secondary
education by 2020.
Unfortunately, too many of the Federal Government's actions
over the last few years have made it harder for the American
workers to keep up, adjust, create and find, and keep a job. To
begin with, the Obama administration unleashed a regulatory
avalanche that held job creators back. President Obama's
Department of Labor issued 130 percent more final rules than
the previous administration's Labor Department, an average of
85 major rules, rules with more than a $100 million impact on
the economy, compared with President Bush's 62 a year. Take the
overtime rule. In my State its cost would add hundreds of
dollars per student in college tuition, and it would force
small businesses to reduce the jobs that provide stability
families need. Or the joint employer rule and its attack on
franchising. Or the fiduciary rule that makes it more expensive
for the average worker to obtain investment advice. One after
another, a big wet blanket of cost and time-consuming mandates
on job creators.
There's the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's EEO1
form, requiring employers to provide to the government 20 times
as much information as they do today about how they pay
workers. There is the ridiculously complex 108-question FAFSA,
which I know the Dean is well aware of, the Federal aid
application form that turns away from college many of the
people who ought to be going. The Affordable Care Act, which
defined full-time work as only 30 hours, forcing employers to
cut their workers' hours or reduce hiring altogether.
Many of these, like the persuader rule, which chills the
ability of employers to retain legal advice during union
organizing activities, seem designed for the purpose of
strengthening the membership and power of labor unions.
We're fortunate today to have a presidential nominee for
Labor Secretary who understands how a good-paying job is
critical to helping workers realize the American Dream for
themselves and for their families.
Senator Rubio and Senator Cruz will introduce him in
detail, so I will not, but I do want to recognize that he--
after immigrating from Cuba to Miami--Mr. Acosta's parents
worked hard to create more opportunities for their son. He's
the first person in his family to go to college. He's been on
the NLRB and Assistant Attorney General for the Justice
Department, a U.S. attorney. He's Dean of Florida International
University's Law School. His school's president describes him
as conscientious, thoughtful, says he doesn't overreach, and
he's already been confirmed three times by the U.S. Senate.
Mr. Acosta, we welcome you today, and I look forward to
hearing more on your ideas about how to help American workers
adjust to the changing conditions in our workforce.
Senator Murray.
Opening Statement of Senator Murray
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Chairman Alexander.
Mr. Acosta, thank you for being here, and thank you to you
and your family for your willingness to serve.
The Department of Labor is really at the heart of one of
President Trump's core campaign promises, which was to put
workers first. DOL prioritizes the best interests of our
workforce, enforces laws that protect workers' rights and
safety and livelihoods, and seeks to expand economic
opportunity to more workers and families across our country. I
would hope that any president would share those basic goals,
but especially one who has made so many promises about fighting
for workers.
I have to say I was very surprised when President Trump
selected Andrew Puzder, a fast-food CEO who built his career on
squeezing workers, as his first nominee for Secretary of Labor.
We heard story after story from people who worked at his
restaurants about lost wages and mistreatment, and I was deeply
concerned that as Secretary of Labor his history of offensive
comments and marketing campaigns would signal it's acceptable
to objectify and marginalize women in the workplace. Puzder was
uniquely unqualified for this role, and I'm frankly relieved he
won't have the opportunity to serve in it.
Just because President Trump's first selection for
Secretary of Labor was so deeply unacceptable, that doesn't
mean we should lower our standards, because workers and
families across the country certainly are not. Instead, they've
made very clear they want a Secretary of Labor who will stand
up for the core mission of the Department and fight for their
interests, someone who will be an advocate within this
administration for workers if President Trump continues down
the path of breaking promise after promise to those he said he
would help.
With this in mind, Mr. Acosta, I have some serious concerns
about your nomination which I want to ask about today and in
written followup questions.
First, the Trump administration has already cemented a
reputation for flouting ethics rules and attempting to exert
political pressure over Federal employees. I expect our next
Secretary of Labor to be someone who can withstand
inappropriate political pressure and prioritize workers and the
mission of the Labor Department over, hypothetically speaking,
President Trump's business associates or Steve Bannon's
frightening ideology.
Mr. Acosta, I am concerned. A review of your history
suggests that when you led the Civil Rights Division at the
Department of Justice, you at best ignored an extraordinary
politicization of the work of this critical division, and at
worst actively facilitated it. A formal investigation by the
Inspector General showed that under your tenure, hiring in the
Civil Rights Division systematically favored conservative
applicants over those who appeared to be more liberal
regardless of their professional qualifications.
As Assistant Attorney General, you chose to stay silent on
a proposed Texas redistricting plan, instead allowing political
appointees to overrule long-time attorneys who believed the
plan discriminated against black and Latino voters. The Supreme
Court later affirmed the plan did violate the Voting Rights
Act.
You inexplicably sent a letter defending a Jim Crow-era
Ohio voter challenge law just 4 days before the 2004
presidential election, although the Justice Department had no
role in that lawsuit.
By the end of your time at the Civil Rights Division,
prosecutions for crimes related to gender and racial
discrimination had declined by 40 percent.
Altogether, these actions suggest a pattern of allowing
political pressure to influence your decisionmaking on issues
that should rise above partisanship. To me, this raises
questions about your commitment to defend the civil rights of
all workers, which of course is fundamental to the role of
Secretary of Labor.
Mr. Acosta, I'm also very interested in hearing more from
you about your vision for this Department, and specifically
where you stand on a number of key issues that will be heavily
engaged in over the coming years. President Trump has spoken
out against the updated overtime rule which would help millions
of workers get pay they earned. Our Federal minimum wage has
fallen far, far behind workers' needs. Women still make less
than their male counterparts, an economic drain on our country
that is especially pronounced for women of color. I've also
heard reports that President Trump's wrongheaded, cruel
immigration Executive order is causing undocumented workers not
to come forward for back wages and protections they are owed. I
feel strongly we need to ensure undocumented workers are safe
and receive fair treatment, especially in this time of
heightened fear and uncertainty.
These are all challenges I expect the Secretary of Labor to
be committed to working on, and I will be very interested in
your thinking and plans on each because, again, the Secretary
must be an independent voice for workers who will push back on
the President's agenda to hurt working families.
DOL also plays a pivotal role in making certain there are
consequences when companies discriminate or threaten employees'
safety on the job. It supports job training and the development
of new career pathways for unemployed workers, oversees the
quality of retirement programs impacting millions of workers
nationwide, collects and publishes independent foundational
data about our economy and workforce through the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, and much more.
In other words, the ability of this Department to operate
effectively has enormous impact on workers, on families, and on
our economy. I'm concerned about President Trump's proposal to
cut more than 20 percent of the DOL budget. It is difficult to
see how the Department could maintain, let alone improve its
performance were such dramatic cuts to go into effect. Under
the President's budget, workers would pay the price for a
budget designed to help those at the top, which is
unacceptable. I will want to hear how you, as someone who will
be responsible for carrying out the critical work of this
Department, view the President's proposal.
I'm looking forward to your testimony and your responses on
these and many issues, and I hope we receive clear and thorough
answers. I firmly believe that workers should have a strong
advocate at the Department of Labor, and that is what I will
continue to push for.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray.
We welcome Senator Rubio and Senator Cruz. We'll invite
each of you to introduce Mr. Acosta, and then I know both of
you have other commitments. You're welcome to stay or welcome
to go to your other commitments after that, and we'll move to
his statement.
Senator Rubio.
Statement of Senator Rubio
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the Ranking Member for the opportunity to be before the
committee today. It is my honor to be able to introduce Mr.
Acosta, and I wholeheartedly encourage the committee and the
full Senate to support his nomination to be our next Secretary
of Labor.
I begin by saying I know Alex well. As a fellow Floridian,
as a native of Miami, I've been familiar with his work for
many, many years. Later I came to know him personally as well,
and as I said when the President nominated him, I think he is
an outstanding choice to lead the Department of Labor.
He has a sterling record of public service to our State and
country. You'll learn about that today as you'll see not just
in the materials but in his testimony as well. He was a member
of the National Labor Relations Board, appointed by President
George W. Bush from 2002 to 2003. From there he was selected by
President Bush to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for
the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice,
where he also served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General in that office beginning in August 2013.
The two places I would refer you and the place I've watched
him most closely and am most proud of his work, the first is he
was the U.S. attorney in one of the most challenging districts
in the country, Florida southern district, and I encourage you
to look at the numerous cases and the complexity of many of
these cases that fall under their jurisdiction, and in
particular during his time there.
Most recently, he served as the Dean of Florida
International University's College of Law, where he has been
instrumental in getting the school off the ground after its
recent founding. He's raised its profile, and it's begun to
graduate well-prepared young men and women for their careers.
Florida International University is a place that I know
well. I actually was an adjunct professor there for over 10
years. More importantly, it has a unique role in our community,
where a significant percentage of the students, not just at the
law school but at the school in general, are the first in their
family to ever attend or graduate from college. It has a higher
percentage of such students than virtually any other college or
university in America, and under his tutelage and under his
leadership FIU's College of Law has opened that door for
hundreds of young people who ultimately would have had to do
what I did, and that is take on significant student loan debt
in order to get their Juris Doctor degree, and he has elevated
FIU's ability not just to do that but at a very high level.
With every challenge that he has confronted throughout his
distinguished career, Alex has continuously demonstrated his
ability to effectively tackle the problems at hand with ease.
He is a brilliant, brilliant legal mind, someone with deep
knowledge of labor issues and a proven leader and manager. For
these reasons and many more, I am confident that Alex Acosta
will serve this Nation admirably, and I am proud to introduce
him to the committee today, and I urge you to support his
nomination.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Ranking Member and
all the members of this committee for the opportunity.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Rubio.
Senator Cruz, welcome.
Statement of Senator Cruz
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
members of this committee. It is a privilege to be before you
today and have the opportunity to introduce my friend, Alex
Acosta. I've known Alex for 25 years. He and I went to law
school together. We've been friends a long time.
There's a lot you could know about Alex from looking at his
resume, looking at his bio. You could know that he's smart,
that he's academically accomplished, that he's led a life of
public service, making a difference in the lives of others.
One of the things, getting to know someone over the course
of 2\1/2\ decades, is you learn their character, and I can tell
you that Alex is a man of character, a man who takes very
seriously fidelity to the law, fidelity to the Constitution,
and a man who has a passion for justice.
Alex began his legal career as a law clerk for Justice
Samuel Alito on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He worked
in a variety of locations, and has three times been confirmed
by the U.S. Senate. He was confirmed as a board member on the
National Labor Relations Board. He was confirmed as the
Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Civil Rights. He
was confirmed as the U.S. attorney for the southern district of
Florida.
All three of those positions are very challenging
positions. As each of you know, those are not easy assignments.
Those are assignments that, almost by their nature, guarantee
that there's going to be conflict, there's going to be
difficult and important issues presented to whoever is
entrusted with leading those offices.
One of the remarkable things about Alex is that he has been
able to lead each of those offices with an impeccable record, a
record of distinction, but also a record of inclusion. Alex, in
leading those offices, has demonstrated an ability to bring
people together even if they have disparate political or
ideological backgrounds, to bring them together behind a shared
vision and a shared commitment to justice. That is an important
characteristic in any position.
It's been an important characteristic in his role as the
Dean at Florida International University School of Law, which
as Marco described is a school that is expanding opportunity to
a great many people who would never have had the opportunity
otherwise. That's yet another demonstration of Alex's passion
for justice, stepping down as U.S. attorney. He could have
cashed out. There would have been plenty of law firms in
Florida that would have offered him a seven-figure check, and
he could have lived in a nice house and driven a big car and
had a very, very comfortable life, but he chose instead to be
Dean of the Law School, to make a difference in the lives of
students.
To those of us who have known Alex a long time, that is not
surprising. That is entirely consistent with the course of his
entire life.
I'll also tell you, on a personal level, Alex is a
surprisingly good poker player, and not nearly as good a squash
player.
One additional observation. Alex is a Cuban American. He
understands firsthand how incredible the miracle of freedom is,
how incredible this country is, the beacon of freedom that it
has served to the world. That is an appreciation that I think
is important in any government position, but as Secretary of
Labor, the mandate of Secretary of Labor, the kind of Secretary
of Labor I expect Alex will be, will be a champion for working
men and women, a champion for people who want jobs, who want
more jobs, who want higher wages, who want more opportunity,
someone who will fight for the working men and women of this
country.
I will say I take perhaps particular pleasure in the
observation that I suspect this is one of the first times, if
not the only time, that this committee has had three Cuban
Americans seated before it, and it is a testament of the
opportunity that our wonderful nation provides.
I commend to you Alex Acosta, who I think will make an
excellent Secretary of Labor.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cruz and Senator Rubio.
Thank you both for coming.
We'll now move to--you're welcome to go to your other
hearings at whatever time you choose to.
Mr. Acosta, we welcome you and your family. You're welcome
to introduce your family if you'd like. We'd be glad to have
your statement, and then we'll begin a round or two of
questions.
STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER ACOSTA, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS SECRETARY OF
LABOR, MIAMI, FL
Mr. Acosta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Murray,
and members of the committee. I thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you this morning. I know today is a very busy
day in the Senate and there are other ongoing hearings, and so
thank you. It is an honor to be here as President Trump's
nominee to be Secretary of Labor.
I want to take a minute to thank Senators Marco Rubio and
Ted Cruz for their very kind introductions. As both noted, I
have known them for many years. I appreciate their support and
I deeply admire and respect their dedication to public service.
I am also grateful for their support today because my
family was unable to be here. My wife Jan is an amazing woman,
a fantastic mother, and I am deeply grateful for her love and
her unending and unyielding support. My eldest daughter Delia
is in first grade, and there's something called an IOWA test,
which is a standardized test that she's undergoing this week.
My wife is with Delia and with my 5-year-old Rosalia, who will
be in kindergarten next year. Back in Miami, I don't know if
they're watching. I know my girls aren't watching. My wife may
or may not be. I really want to reach out to them and thank
them for everything that they do for me.
I want to thank my parents in particular. My parents are
very important to me not simply because of what they've done
for me but because my story really begins with them and informs
my perspective on what it means to be a Secretary of Labor.
They fled Cuban. They came to the United States seeking
freedom, and they found it. They met in Miami in high school.
They fell in love. They married young. My mother was in her
teens when she found out she was pregnant. Neither attended
college.
Growing up, they struggled, not as much as other Americans
have struggled, but they struggled. My mother started out as a
typist at a real estate firm. At times, she commuted 90 minutes
each way for her job. My father served in the Army. Later, he
tried to start a small business, but he quickly found that his
lack of higher education, his lack of ability to deal with
forms and rules made it very difficult for him to be a small
business owner. He went on to hold various jobs, and he ended
his working life as an inventory clerk at a cell phone store.
Our family lived paycheck to paycheck. My grandmother cared
for me while we grew up, and that was an incredibly helpful and
loving thing to do because both my parents worked full-time. At
times my parents went into debt, deep debt, the kind of debt
they tell you not to go into because credit card interest rates
are high, but they went into that debt and they took on second
jobs to make ends meet, and they did that because they wanted
to give me an education.
I am here because of them. My success is very much their
success. They were able to give me these opportunities because
even though they didn't have a college education, they had
something very important, and that's a job. Although at times
they lost their job, they were always able to find another job,
and that was very important.
Today Americans are facing the same struggles, but for many
Americans only worse. My parents had jobs, but not all
Americans have jobs. Some Americans have seen their jobs go
overseas. Some Americans have seen their jobs filled by foreign
workers. I've read and I've seen press reports that not only
have they been filled by foreign workers, but to add insult to
injury they've been asked to train their foreign replacements.
Some Americans have seen that jobs are available, but that
these available jobs require skills they do not have.
Helping Americans find good jobs, safe jobs, should not be
a partisan issue. In my visits with each of you, with each
member of this committee, it was crystal clear that every
member of this committee wants Americans to find jobs, good
jobs, safe jobs, even if you don't all agree on the how.
I share this goal with you. We may not always agree on the
how, but at least let us begin by agreeing on the need. If
confirmed, I hope to benefit from an ongoing dialog with each
of you as to how we can advance these goals within the context
of, as the Chairman mentioned, a global economy that is
changing rapidly with each passing year, and within the
constraints of limited resources.
I would like to close with a brief discussion of a few
items in particular. The first is the skills gap. As I visited
with members of this committee, I repeatedly heard that in your
States there are jobs, but the skills too often are not there.
In one of your States, for example, a community college was
teaching welding techniques, and it turns out that the
employers are no longer using that welding technique, so why
are they teaching an outdated technique? That's not how you
teach skills.
We can and we must work to reduce that skills gap. We need
to make better efforts to align job training with the skills
the market demands and the increasingly changing market will
demand of its workers, especially as advancing technology
changes the types of jobs that are available in our economy.
The Department of Labor cannot do this alone. It has to
work with local governments, with industry, with educational
institutions, public-private partnerships that can have
substantial positive impact on the American workforce. This is
the vision of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, of
apprenticeship programs, of Job Corps, and of many other
programs not only at DOL but across government.
If confirmed, I will work with you to maximize every
taxpayer dollar that is directed toward job training programs.
Second, good jobs should also be safe jobs. Congress has
enacted workplace standard and safety laws. The Department of
Labor enforces these, and if confirmed, I will work to enforce
the laws under the Department's jurisdiction fully and fairly.
As a former prosecutor, my enforcement efforts will always be
on the side of the law. If enacted by Congress, it should be
enforced fully, it should be enforced fairly, and it should not
be enforced in favor or against any particular constituency.
Finally, the Department of Labor was formed a bit more than
100 years ago, and it's an interesting history because
originally it was the Department of Commerce and Labor, and
then it was split into two. Why was it split? The reason was
this, that a voice for Commerce and a voice for workers, or the
workforce, as the Chairman mentioned, within the executive
branch would promote better decisionmaking.
I think this concept is absolutely correct. Advocates for
the American workforce within the administration are important.
Whether it is those who are working, those who still seek work,
those who are discouraged or underemployed, or those who have
retired, if confirmed as the Secretary of Labor, part of my job
will be to be one of those advocates.
President Trump has reached out to both business and to
labor in his first 100 days. I'm proud to have the support of
several dozen business groups and also of several private-
sector and key public safety unions who remember with respect
my work at DOJ and the NLRB. They know that while we did not
always agree, I was always willing to listen and to think and
to consider and to seek out principled solutions.
If confirmed, I hope that we, this committee and the
executive branch, can work together in the same way to address
the need for good jobs and safe jobs, and in particular access
to training in the skills that the changing workplace will
demand of its workforce.
I thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Acosta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alexander Acosta
Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the
committee: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this
morning. It is an honor to be here as President Trump's nominee for
Secretary of Labor. I know today is a very busy day in the Senate, and
I am indebted to the committee for taking time to conduct this hearing.
I want to thank Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz for their kind
introductions. I have known both of them for many years. I truly
appreciate their support and admire their dedication to public service.
I am especially grateful for their support given that my biggest
fans--my wife Jan and my two young daughters, Delia and Rosalia--cannot
be here. Jan is an amazing woman, a fantastic mother, and I am deeply
grateful for her love and support. She is in Miami because Delia, my
eldest, has her 1st Grade IOWA tests this week; her sister Rosalia will
be in kindergarten next year.
Mr. Chairman, I want, in particular, to thank my father and mother
because my story begins with that of my parents, and it frames my
perspective on the important responsibilities I would assume if
confirmed as Secretary of Labor.
My parents fled from a Cuban dictatorship in search of freedom.
They met in Miami, while in high school, fell in love, and married
young. My mother had me while she was still in her teens. Neither
attended college.
Growing up, I saw my parents struggle. My mother started out as a
typist at a real estate firm. At times, she commuted 90 minutes each
way to her job. My father served in the Army. Later, he tried to start
a small business. But he found the growing gap between his skills and
the demands of being a small business owner too difficult. He went on
to hold various jobs, ending his working life as an inventory clerk at
a cell phone store.
Our family lived paycheck to paycheck. My grandmother cared for me
while my parents worked full-time. My parents would often go into debt
and, at times, take a second job to make ends meet and to provide me
with the best education possible.
I am here today because of them. My success is their success. Their
sacrifice and perseverance made my education possible. They were able
to give me opportunities they did not have because even though they
didn't attend college, they had something very important--they had
jobs. And though at times they lost their jobs, they were always able
to find another job.
Mr. Chairman, today many Americans are facing the same struggles my
parents endured, only worse. My parents had jobs; but not all Americans
have jobs.
Some Americans have seen jobs go overseas.
Some Americans have seen jobs filled by foreign workers. Indeed,
I've read reports that some Americans have been asked to train their
foreign replacements.
And some Americans see that jobs are available, but these available
jobs require skills that they do not have.
Helping Americans find good jobs, safe jobs, should not be a
partisan issue. In my visits with each of you, it was crystal clear
that each Member of this committee wants to help American workers find
good, safe jobs--even if you do not all agree on how best to realize
this goal.
I share this goal with you. We may not always agree on the how, but
at least let us agree on the need. If confirmed, I hope to have the
benefit of an ongoing dialog with each of you about how we can advance
these goals within the context of a dynamic, global economy that is
changing more rapidly with each passing year, and within the
constraints of limited resources.
I would like to close with a brief discussion of a few items in
particular. The first is the ``skills gap.'' As I visited with Members
of this committee, I repeatedly heard that in your States the jobs are
there, but the skills too often are not. In one of your States, for
example, a community college was teaching welding techniques that
employers no longer used. Not surprisingly, the students could not get
a job when they graduated.
We can and must work to reduce the skills gap. We need to make
better efforts to align job training with the skills the market demands
of its workers, especially as advancing technology changes the types of
jobs available in our economy. The Department of Labor, along with
local governments, industry, and educational institutions, can partner
to have substantial positive impact on American workers. This is the
vision of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), of
apprenticeship programs, of Job Corps and of many other programs at
DOL. If confirmed, I will work with you to maximize the impact of every
taxpayer dollar Congress directs toward job training programs.
Second, good jobs should also be safe jobs. Congress has enacted
workplace safety laws. The Department of Labor enforces these, and if
confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the Department's
jurisdiction fully and fairly. As a former prosecutor, I will always be
on the side of the law and not any particular constituency.
Finally, the Department of Labor was formed a bit more than 100
years ago, when the Department of Commerce and Labor was split into
two. The intent was this: that a voice for Commerce and a voice for
Workers within the executive branch would promote better
decisionmaking.
I support this concept. An advocate for the American workforce
within the Administration is important. Whether it is those who are
working, those who still seek work, those who are discouraged or
underemployed, or those who have retired, if confirmed as the Secretary
of Labor, I will advocate for them. I am proud to have the support both
of several dozen business groups and of several private-sector and key
public safety unions, who remember with respect my prior government
work at DOJ and the NLRB. They know that while we did not always agree
on the outcome, I always listened and sought principled solutions.
If confirmed, I hope we--this committee and the executive branch--
can work together in the same way to address the need for good jobs,
safe jobs and access to training in the skills that the changing
workplace demands.
Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Acosta.
We will now begin a round of 5-minute questions, and if
Senators wish there will be a second round of 5-minute
questions.
Mr. Acosta, let's start with the skills gap that you spoke
about. If we're to think of you, as I think we should, as
secretary of the workforce, to help workers in this head-
spinning environment that we find ourselves in, adjust to it
and fit into it, we always spend a lot of money on helping
people get training. We spend more than $30 billion in Pell
grants. The average Pell grant is about the same as the average
community college tuition. We spend a lot of money on student
loans. Other countries do other things. Germany has an
apprenticeship system. Some people say our technical institutes
do a better job than our community colleges.
If you're the secretary of the workforce, and if you see
that, according to the Manufacturing Institute, 2 million
Americans' manufacturing jobs will go unfilled over the next 10
years due to the skills gap, specifically what are some of the
things we should be doing about it?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, thank you for the question. First, let
me touch on the first part of your comments, which is the
spending that we spend on education. It's critical, if
confirmed, that the Department of Labor work very closely with
the Department of Education, because there is a lot of spending
that's taking place in Education, and we want to make sure, to
the extent possible and feasible, that individuals have the
opportunity to align their education with the skills the
workplace will demand.
More specifically to the second part of your question, you
mentioned apprenticeships. As dean of a law school, I'm a big
fan of learning by doing. We recently started a program which
is a full semester internship at a law firm, in addition to the
public defender's office or a State attorney's office, and the
students have the opportunity to spend a full semester there
because they can learn by doing.
If you look at some of the apprenticeship programs where
individuals work and they get credit while they are working, or
some of the other programs that are available in community
colleges that focus on locational opportunities in partnership
with individual businesses, those are all options that we
should be looking at because they're alternative ways of
educating, they're alternative ways of providing skills; and
importantly, it is a way for students to acquire skills to be
used in jobs without taking on the enormous debt that we're
seeing in some secondary programs right now.
The Chairman. Let me ask you one other question. The
overtime rule, fortunately it's not in effect, thanks to a
court. In my view, it's one of the worst examples of regulation
by the previous administration. It caused millions of Americans
to punch time clocks that they didn't want to punch. It raised
tuition, according to our universities, by hundreds of dollars
per student because of its cost. It cost my local Boy Scout
council to have to dismiss counselors. It received widespread
condemnation around the country, and even in Congress there was
bipartisan opposition.
There was a doubling of the threshold. There was an impact
on non-profits. What are you going to do about the overtime
rule?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, it's
pending in litigation. Let me offer a few observations.
First, the overtime rule hasn't been updated, I believe,
since 2004, and I think it's unfortunate that rules that
involve dollar values can sometimes go more than a decade,
sometimes 15 years without updating, because life does become
more expensive over time.
The Chairman. Let me press you a little bit. Doubling the
threshold, applying so heavily the impact of it to non-profits,
doesn't that concern you?
Mr. Acosta. Mr. Chairman, it does. The point that I was
making is that I think it's unfortunate that it goes so long
without adjusting, because when they are adjusted, you see
impacts such as the doubling of the amount that does create
what I'll call a stress on the system, as the Chairman
mentioned, particularly in areas, both industry and geographic
areas, that are lower wage historically.
One of the challenges that we face in addressing the
overtime rule is since 2004 there's been no change, now there
is a very large change, and how should that be addressed as a
policy matter I think is a very difficult decision but a very
serious one, because the economy does feel a substantial impact
from such a large change.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me follow on
that.
As the Chairman mentioned, the Department of Labor did
finalize the updated overtime rule last year, and that rule
helped restore the 40-hour work week, which is the cornerstone
of protection for middle-class workers. Before that overtime
rule, workers could be asked to put in extra hours--60, 70, 80
hours a week--without earning a single extra dollar for the
overtime hours that they spent away from their families. That
new overtime rule expanded the number of workers who qualify
for overtime pay, increasing economic security actually for
millions of families.
After months of Republicans in Congress and big business
fighting to block that overtime rule, as you stated, the court
is now considering the rule and blocking overtime for workers
from taking effect.
Let me ask the question a little bit differently. Do you
believe that workers should be paid overtime for the overtime
hours that they work?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I do believe that workers who are
entitled to overtime pay should receive pay for their overtime.
Senator Murray. Will you defend this rule in court?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, as I was saying in response to the
Chairman's question, the overtime rule hasn't been updated
since 2004. We now see an update that is a very large revision,
and something that needs to be considered is the impact it has
on the economy, on non-profits, on geographic areas that have
lower wages.
I'm also very sensitive to the fact that it hasn't been
updated since 2004. If confirmed, I will look at this very
closely.
Let me also add that a related issue to this is the
question of whether the dollar threshold is within the
authority of the Secretary. When Congress passed the statute,
it provides, in essence, for a duties test. One of the
questions that's in litigation is does a dollar threshold
supersede the duties test? As a result, is it not in accordance
with the law? I mention that because I think the authority of
the Secretary to address this is a separate issue from what the
correct amount is, and the litigation needs to be considered
carefully both with respect to what would be the appropriate
amount if the rule were to be changed or revised, but also what
is within the authority of the Secretary to do.
Senator Murray. OK. This is an issue I'm going to be
following closely. It's an issue of fairness, and I really do
believe the Secretary of Labor's job is to make sure that
workers are treated fairly.
Let me move on to another issue. You have served as a high-
ranking Federal official, one of the few Cabinet nominees of
this President who has done so. However, in your time leading
the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, staff
under your supervision broke Federal law by systematically
discriminating against individuals based on their political
affiliations. An Inspector General investigation found that
staff on your management team sought out conservative
candidates and rejected liberal ones. Your staff referred to
conservatives as ``real Americans'' who were ``on the team,''
and according to the IG report your staff called liberal
Department lawyers commies and pinkos and told a subordinate
that,
``Your division shouldn't be limited to hiring
Politburo members who belong to some psychopathic left-
wing organization designed to overthrow the
government.''
Your deputy said he should get an award for effectively
breaking the will of liberal staff.
These were your staffers acting under your supervision. Do
you take responsibility for the acts of discrimination that
occurred under your leadership?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, you're referring to the actions of one
of the deputies in the division. I believe the Inspector
General's report found that the other deputies that oversaw the
other divisions or the other sections of the Civil Rights
Division did not engage in that conduct. That conduct should
not have happened. It happened on my watch. It should not have
occurred. That language should not have been used, and I deeply
regret it.
Senator Murray. OK. It leads me to ask you, will you stand
up to the President or others in the Administration if they ask
you to use political views on statements and hiring decisions?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, political views on the hiring of
career attorneys or staff should not be used, and the answer to
your question is if I am asked to do that, I will not allow it.
I'm very aware of the Inspector General's report, of the impact
it had on that section, and I would not allow that to happen.
Senator Murray. OK. I appreciate that very much. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray.
Senator Collins, and then Senator Bennet.
Statement of Senator Collins
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Acosta, first of all, thank you for sharing your
inspiring personal story. It really is a story of opportunity
in America, and in many ways that is the mission of the
department that you've been nominated to lead, to create more
opportunities for American workers.
The Department has a program known as the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Program that helps Americans who, through no fault
of their own, have lost their jobs as a result of foreign and
often unfair competition. In Maine, for example, we've lost
more than 38 percent of our manufacturing jobs. That's nearly
31,000 jobs in total over the last 17 years.
The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program has been crucial in
helping many Maine workers, who have been hit very hard by mill
closures and shuttered factories, get the skills that they need
for the jobs in higher demand industries. For example, in
fiscal year 2015, 740 Mainers benefited from TAA, and more than
70 percent of those who went through TAA-provided education or
re-training found employment within 3 months of completing the
program.
The so-called skinny budget that was released last week
proposes large cuts in the Department of Labor, but it's
unclear what happens to TAA. What is your view on that program?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, thank you for the question. I
appreciate the way you set up the question because you provided
data. If confirmed, something that I think I would need to do,
and do very quickly because budget season has already begun, is
assess the efficacy of the job training programs. Budgets are
to be determined. The skinny budget has been submitted.
Congress will have the final say on the ultimate budget, but
dollars are going to be more scarce. That is the reality, and
so we're going to have to make difficult decisions.
You've provided data that shows how successful that program
has been, and I think the principles that need to be used to
guide the spending are how successful is the program, does the
program address particular needs such as the needs of displaced
individuals who have lost their jobs because of, for example,
the closing of a mill. In that context, the rate of return on
the investment of taxpayer dollars in the skills I think is
particularly high, because if you have someone who has been
doing a job most of their life and that job no longer exists,
and now you provide them the skills to do another job, they're
going to hold that job for a long time, and they're going to
become part of our economy again, and they're going to be
paying taxes. That rate of return on those programs I think is
very strong.
Based on your information, I hope that program remains
because it sounds like it's incredibly successful, at least in
your State. Let me add, there's also room for differences
within States where some program might make sense in Maine but
it might not make sense in another State, and I think we need
to be very sensitive that one-size-does-not-fit-all.
Senator Collins. Thank you for that response.
Despite the success of the TAA program, there still is a
category of workers in my State who are older workers who are
in many ways the forgotten story of this economic recovery.
Older workers are having increasing difficulties in finding
employment. In Maine, almost half of the private industry
workers are over 44 years old, and our paper mills, which have
lost more than 1,500 jobs over the past 3 years alone, have a
disproportionately high number of older workers. For many of
them, working the paper mills has been the only job they have
ever known. Their families have worked there for literally
generations, and it's very difficult to tell someone who is 54
years old, who has done this his entire life or her entire
life, that they need to retrain for a new job or leave a
community that's been their home their entire life.
If confirmed, what ideas do you have for helping older
workers in my State and others who have lost jobs due to mill
closures and other factors?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, very briefly, because I see the clock,
I will just say that I think those ideas can't come from
Washington. What Washington needs to do is go to them and ask
them what ideas do they see in their local area and then work
with them and the local governments to address that, because I
don't think we here in Washington can understand what they're
going through in their small town in Maine.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Collins.
Senator Bennet.
Statement of Senator Bennet
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing.
Mr. Acosta, congratulations to you on your nomination, and
thank you for your willingness to serve.
I want to press you a little bit on what Senator Collins
was just asking you. Let me come back to that in 1 second.
In Colorado we are trying to establish an apprenticeship
program throughout our universities, community colleges, school
districts and businesses, and I'd like to invite you if you're
confirmed to come out there and meet with the people that are
working on that project to see how the Department of Labor
might help them or help us do that better.
Mr. Acosta. Gladly.
Senator Bennet. Good. Thank you.
Virtually this entire campaign was about bringing back jobs
and wages to places in America where people who suffered huge
economic dislocation because of, some would argue, trade, some
might say automation, but the dislocation has been real. Median
family income has fallen in many places, and there's a
hopelessness about what the economy is going to bring.
With respect to you, I'm not sure the answer that it's all
up to local communities suffices. The President ran for
president saying he was going to make that huge difference, he
was going to bring those jobs back.
Apart from training, which I stipulated when we talked
about it in my office is an enormously important thing that we
need to do better and we're wasting billions of dollars not
training people for jobs that exist in the 21st century,
putting that aside, what's the plan?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, thank you for the question, and let me
first make the point that one of the reasons that I said it's
important to go to the local communities is because when the
Senator and I met in private, she gave me information about the
educational background and the abilities and the other
opportunities in that area, and that is, by definition, going
to be different than what's available in Colorado. I do think
it's important to visit Colorado and visit Maine and understand
the different areas.
Going to your point, we need to look at several different
levels for job creation. The President has made clear that
every Cabinet agency should review regulations for unneeded
regulatory burden. Small businesses produce--depending on whose
numbers you look at--between 7 and 8 new jobs, 7 and 8 out of
10 new jobs. Efforts to encourage small business will foster
job creation.
It's important to look at the issue I highlighted about
foreign workers taking American jobs, particularly in those
circumstances I highlighted, where Americans are being asked to
train their foreign replacements. That is not the intent of the
H1B. As a matter of fact, there's an attestation that has to be
made that you are not affecting the working conditions of an
American worker when you do that. One question I would have is
how often is that happening and is that something we should be
looking at with a greater degree of care?
We also need to work with public-private partnerships. I
know that there is a lot of discussion about an infrastructure
program, and an infrastructure program will certainly bring
back a lot of jobs. For all of these, it's not just the jobs as
part of an infrastructure program or jobs that are developed
for small business, but as individuals get jobs, they spend
money. Then those individuals that spend money go to
restaurants, and you have this multiplier effect throughout the
economy that I think is incredibly valuable.
Let me finally touch on education. I do think it's
important to touch on education because the economy is changing
rapidly, and our educational institutions cannot ignore what
the workplace is going to be demanding going forward.
Senator Bennet. Mr. Acosta, I also just wanted, for the
record, to note that, and I appreciate this, you've been a
supporter of immigration reform in the past with Senator Rubio
as part of the Gang of Eight here who passed the Senate bill on
immigration, and part of what you observed in 2012 was that the
current system allowed the abuse of immigrant workers. Do you
still feel that way, and do you still support immigration
reform?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, there is a need to have immigration
laws that are transparent and clear, and I do think that we
have an issue of abuse with immigrant workers. When workers are
not part of the system, the system can abuse them. I also think
it's important that we enforce our immigration laws, and I
don't see enforcement of immigration laws as separate from
immigration reform.
Senator Bennet. Mr. Chairman, I realize I'm 15 seconds
over. I apologize.
Along those lines as well, you mentioned the H1B program.
We have huge difficulties with the H2A and H2B program being
administered in a way that's actually useful to workers and to
businesses. I look forward to having a chance to talk with you
about that at a later time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Bennet.
I was going to call on Senator Hatch, but he's not here, so
I'll call on Senator Scott.
Statement of Senator Scott
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for being here again.
A couple of questions that I've heard so far during this
hearing have to do with the overtime rule. Moving from $23,600
to about $47,000, according to some studies, would cost about a
half-a-million jobs in the economy, so your comments seem to be
a mixed bag. According to Tammy McCutchen, who was an hourly
and wage person at the Department of Labor under the Bush
administration, moving it up from $23,000 to maybe $32,000
would make sense based on the previous formula that's been used
for decades. What would be your approach?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, thank you for the question. If you
were to do a cost-of-living adjustment--and, as I mentioned,
the world has gotten more expensive and salaries have changed
since 2004--if you were to apply a straight inflation
adjustment, I believe that the figure if it were to be updated
would be somewhere around $33,000, give or take.
I think the question that I will have to face if I were to
become Secretary of Labor is, No. 1, what to do with the
litigation; No. 2, if we determine that the rule as it
currently stands should not be the rule that eventually takes
place within this litigation context, what would be the correct
amount. I understand that there's a desire on the part of
members of this committee for me to State this is exactly what
I would do, but this is an incredibly complicated rule. This is
something that gets updated about every 15 years.
For me to sort of on the fly at a hearing State with
certainty, I don't think it's the responsible approach. What I
would say is, No. 1, I understand the extreme economic impact
that a doubling has in certain parts of the economy. I
understand that it goes beyond a cost-of-living adjustment. I
understand as well that because of the size of the increase,
there are serious questions as to whether the Secretary of
Labor even has the power to enact this in the first place,
which is what a lot of the litigation--not a lot--which is what
the basis of the litigation is. Those are issues that I would
want to consult with the individuals at Labor and at Justice
that are overseeing the litigation before determining.
Senator Scott. I certainly hope that you have already
invested a lot of time contemplating what you would do as the
next Secretary, as opposed to not having invested any time in
that conversation, which will be a very important conversation
between the overtime rule and the fiduciary rule. These are
things that you should be contemplating already.
Let's move to a different topic. Senator Bennet has
mentioned it, perhaps Chairman Alexander, and the Ranking
Member as well have talked about the importance of
apprenticeship programs. South Carolina is perhaps the leading
State, at least one of the leading States in the country, on
the success of our apprenticeship programs. I'd love to hear
how you would encompass or integrate into your objectives going
forward an apprenticeship model, taking into consideration the
one that Corey Booker and myself have sponsored, over 17,734
apprenticeships and 6,400 participating programs in South
Carolina. We have companies throughout the country in South
Carolina, from BMW, Boeing, Continental, General Electric, Blue
Cross Blue Shield, Bosch, also industries like health care and
finance, that all integrated in South Carolina and involve
apprenticeship programs. I'd love to hear your model.
Mr. Acosta. Senator, first let me say that South Carolina
really is a model of apprenticeship programs. Some of the
qualities that make it so successful are the integration or the
public-private partnerships where employers are not involved in
name but they're really deeply involved in directing. These are
the types of apprenticeships we need. This is what the
workforce is demanding, and I think that involvement of
employers is very, very important.
I know that South Carolina at the State level also provides
incentives for employers to engage in apprenticeships and to
hire apprentices, and particularly when someone is learning,
when someone is quite literally an apprentice, my understanding
is that makes the South Carolina program particularly
noteworthy and attractive for an employer to hire an
apprentice.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Scott.
Senator Baldwin.
Statement of Senator Baldwin
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Acosta. Congratulations on the nomination.
One of the first responsibilities--and you alluded to it a
moment ago in terms of the fact that it's budget season. One of
the first responsibilities of the Secretary is going to be
identifying where to cut, frankly, because President Trump's
budget calls for a $2.5 billion cut to the Department of Labor,
a 21 percent decrease from current enacted levels. This is
really significant. President Trump's budget only specifies
$500 million of cuts, mostly to seniors seeking job training,
and leaves about $2 billion unspecified.
I'd like to ask you how are you going to approach this
incredible task of making this math work. You could eliminate
15 Job Corps centers for vulnerable youth. You could eliminate
the entire Employee Benefit Security Administration, charged
with protecting workers' retirement funds from fraud, or get
rid of the Women and Apprenticeship Grant Program. How are you
going to approach this? Are you going to do 20 percent across
the board? Are you going to cut various bureaus? What are you
going to do?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, thank you for the question. First let
me say that as the nominee I haven't had the opportunity to
provide input yet into the budget process, and if confirmed
it's something I'm going to have to take on very quickly
because it's moving.
My personal perspectives--and again, Congress will make
ultimate decisions on this, and so Congress may have a
different view. My personal perspective is this should not be
across the board, and at the same time it shouldn't focus on
particular programs because that's a little bit too--because
programs aren't quite that--how can I put this?
Let me come at it this way. You mentioned, Senator, the Job
Corps centers. There are some Job Corps centers in some States
where the Job Corps centers are highly successful, and for
those States those Job Corps centers work exceedingly well
given the population, given the geographic diversity of that
State. Those Job Corps centers, from my understanding, are
working well.
There are some other Job Corps centers that have a history
of violence associated with them that concerns me. As a matter
of fact, the Department of Labor has looked at some of those
Job Corps centers and has identified some of those issues. This
requires an analysis on a few levels----
Senator Baldwin. I want to just cut you off because we have
limited time. You're not going to look at across the board, and
what I think I hear you saying, to summarize, is that you
wouldn't eliminate programs per se, but you would look at
success. I think you said that earlier in a response to the
Trade Adjustment Assistance question for Senator Collins.
Mr. Acosta. That would be fair.
Senator Baldwin. What troubles me is in areas where we're
not seeing success, is pulling it away and not offering those
programs the answer, or is it going in and fixing and adjusting
and providing those opportunities? If you pull it away, you've
left people high and dry in training and many other areas.
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I understand your question, and I
think we don't disagree. First it's a question of what is
success, right? Because if you have a particularly troubled
area, a little bit of movement can be success. Second, just
because you pull--if there's a Job Corps center in a particular
geographic area that isn't working, that doesn't mean you pull
away from that geographic area. That just means that maybe in
that area the money is better spent on another program than on
the Job Corps center.
I don't think it would be right to abandon any one area.
That's why it needs to be an analysis based on the program and
the geography to ask what does this State need, what does this
part of that State need, and really look at it on a local
basis.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.
Senator Young.
Statement of Senator Young
Senator Young. Welcome, Mr. Acosta. Great to be here with
you today.
I'd like to first get your thoughts on how we can better
link our unemployed Americans to job opportunities. As
Secretary of Labor, this is something you'll have direct
oversight over. There are already programs out there to help
facilitate these linkages. Less than half the available
workforce has the appropriate training to fill available jobs.
Some communities are innovative in serving local need.
In my own State, we have Jeffersonville, IN. They partnered
with Ford for their next-generation learning program. This
partnership engages businesses, educators, community leaders,
various other stakeholders to enhance the workforce system
throughout the region, which is in southern Indiana. It's going
to connect high school graduates to relevant post-secondary
education that will directly filter into businesses around that
community.
Every member here can no doubt cite localized, specific
examples of creative solutions to this linkage issue, which is
so important if we're going to have flexible, effective labor
markets, which in turn leads to faster economic growth and
higher wage growth. Perhaps you could speak to how you as
Secretary of Labor will foster this sort of engagement and
maybe serve as a conduit for information related to best
practices so that folks back in the States and our localities
can scale up what's working.
Mr. Acosta. Senator, thank you for the question. It's
interesting that even in this hearing, several members are
pointing to successes in their particular States. And you're
right, those need to be compiled and put into best practices so
that they can be duplicated.
The other point that I would identify is not only are these
successes based on local partnerships, but they're based on
public-private partnerships. It's not the Department of Labor
going in on its own. It is businesses working at a local level
with educational institutions and with other local entities to
align the training opportunities with what the workforce--the
employers--are demanding, and that partnership I think is so
critical.
Going back to Senator Baldwin's question of wouldn't you be
walking away from a particular area if a program isn't working,
the point I was trying to make is, no, if there's a program
that's not working in a particular State, if there's a program
that's not working in Indiana, for example, but there's a
program that's working fabulously well, then we should look at
that program that's working fabulously well and perhaps double
down on that program if that program is going to address the
needs that were otherwise addressed by the program that isn't
working.
Senator Young. I like to hear common sense from my would-be
Secretary of Labor. That strikes me as common sense. That's a
good thing. I look forward to working with you to
operationalize that concept through programs or policies and so
forth.
In my remaining time, perhaps I could pivot to the gig
economy. The availability, the preference for so many of our
workers to take multiple part-time jobs, to do freelance work,
is just the way so much of our economy is moving. It's creating
unique challenges for our workers, and we, from a public policy
standpoint, are going to have to adapt to these challenges.
One of those challenges is for parents, their daycare
responsibilities, if, in fact, they either require a job
outside of the home or they wish to work outside of the home. I
have four young children. We have some flexibility, my wife and
I in our lives, and some family members that help out. We
figured out a way to make it work. A single father who is
caring for a few children works the night shift of Walmart, I
don't know how they do it. I don't know where they find
acceptable, available daycare for their children.
I'm not asking you to solve this problem, but could you at
least speak to this problem as perhaps the next Secretary of
Labor and how you might explore innovative ways to deal with
it, partnering with our States and localities to make the gig
economy work for more people?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, thank you. The gig economy is
something that the Department of Labor needs to address, and at
several levels the rules at DOL aren't designed--they haven't
caught up to the gig economy. They assume a more traditional
workplace. It goes beyond the issue that you raised to several
issues within the Department of Labor.
It's incredibly important. There are individuals in my
office who are single parents, and I see them, and they have to
juggle. They have the means to juggle, and it's still
incredibly difficult. It's something that we're going to have
to talk about and address, but it has to be at the local level.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Young.
Senator Warren, and then Senator Hatch.
Statement of Senator Warren
Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Acosta, you are the President's second choice for
Secretary of Labor, and I'll be honest, I'm glad it's not his
first choice, Andrew Puzder, who is sitting here today. It is
hard to imagine a candidate who would be worse than a man who
made his fortune by squeezing workers on wages and benefits, a
man who repeatedly broke the laws that he would be charged with
enforcing, a man who bragged about replacing his workers with
robots who would never sue him for race or sex discrimination.
That said, the test for Secretary of Labor is not are you
better than Andrew Puzder. The test is will you stand up for
150 million American workers, and that starts by making sure
that workers are safe on their jobs.
A Department of Labor rule to protect 2.3 million American
workers from exposure to lethal, cancer-causing silica went
into effect last summer. SI just want to know, Mr. Acosta, will
you promise not to weaken the silica rule in any way, and not
to delay future compliance by even a single day?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, as you mentioned, the silica rule went
into effect. I should, however, make clear that the President,
through an executive action, has directed all Cabinet
secretaries to put together a group to review all rules within
each Cabinet agency.
Senator Warren. I'm aware of that.
Mr. Acosta. And to examine them.
Senator Warren. This is a rule that has gone into effect.
Mr. Acosta. Yes, Senator.
Senator Warren. I just want to make sure you're not going
to delay this rule any further.
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I understand. The point I'm trying to
make is that the President has directed each Cabinet officer to
review all rules and to make determinations if any rules should
be revised. Based on that executive action, I cannot make a
commitment without--because the Department of Labor has been
ordered to review all rules.
Senator Warren. I want to understand what that means when
you say Department of Labor has been ordered to review all
rules. You're about to be named as Secretary of Labor, and your
name goes on the bottom line for enforcing the law. Either
you're going to stand up for 150 million American workers,
including people who are being poisoned by silica, or you're
not, and I think that's a fair question for us to ask. Are you
going to stand up for the people? Finally we have a rule in
place so that people will not be poisoned by silica.
You're saying that's just open and you don't want to give
an answer one way or the other on how you look at that?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, what I'm saying is that the rule is in
effect, but there is an order--the rule, the final rule was
promulgated, but there is an order, an executive action, asking
all Cabinet officers----
Senator Warren. You can't give us your own sense of whether
or not the silica rule is something that ought to be enforced?
You're going to do this review, and you're telling me you can't
say whether or not we ought to just take out rules that will
cause people to die?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I am not advocating taking out rules.
I am making the point----
Senator Warren. Can I take that, then, that you will
enforce that rule?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, all Cabinet officers have been asked
to review----
Senator Warren. You've said that, and I've heard it.
Mr. Acosta. Fair enough.
Senator Warren. I'm trying to ask for your opinion, and
you're telling me, evidently, that you want to be Secretary of
Labor but you have no opinion on whether or not high on your
list of priorities would be to protect a rule that keeps people
from being poisoned.
Mr. Acosta. Senator, high on the list of priorities will be
to protect the safety of workers with appropriate rules.
Senator Warren. You will decide what appropriate rules are,
but you don't want to give a hint right now?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, there is an entire staff at the
Department of Labor----
Senator Warren. Yes, there is, and they've already looked
at this rule, and they already have comments on this rule, and
they already received comments from the public about this rule,
and they strongly support this rule. I raised this rule with
you when we talked about it 2 weeks ago, so this should be no
surprise that I'm asking you about this.
Mr. Acosta. I gave the same answer, and I look forward to
hearing from that staff, if confirmed, their views on this
rule.
Senator Warren. And following their advice?
Mr. Acosta. If that advice is appropriate, yes.
Senator Warren. You will decide if it's appropriate? I
think we've got how this dance works.
Let me ask you another question. Another huge
responsibility of the Secretary of Labor is to make sure that
workers are paid fairly, and last December a new Labor
Department rule requiring employers to pay their workers
overtime when they work more than 40 hours a week was set to go
into effect. It would mean a raise for 4.2 million people. Lots
of employers were preparing to comply, but just days before the
deadline a Texas judge blocked the rule, siding with giant
companies over American workers.
Will you commit to appealing the judge's ruling to protect
these workers?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, as I previously mentioned, I will
commit to examining both the rule and the legal basis of the
judge's decision.
Senator Warren. Let me stop you there. I appreciate that
because that's exactly what you said to me 2 weeks ago. You've
had time to take a look at it, and it's not a long ruling, to
read the ruling and to look at the comments, to look at what
went behind this. It's time now for an answer. Are you going to
appeal it or not?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, again, the Department of Labor has
staff that spent a long time working on this rule. It is also
in litigation. It would be important to consult with the legal
officers at DOL regarding the position that they're taking in
litigation----
The Chairman. We're a minute over, Senator.
Senator Warren. All right. I'll quit there, but I'll say,
Mr. Acosta, the Department advisors have already made clear
their position. I just want to know if you're going to follow
through on it. They have prepared an appeal. That, evidently,
at least by measuring their actions, is their advice. I just
want to know that you're going to be part of that.
The Chairman. We'll have time for a second round of
questions.
Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Warren.
Senator Hatch.
Statement of Senator Hatch
Senator Hatch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Acosta, welcome. Happy to see you again. We know that
you've given this government a lot of effort in the past, and I
know that once confirmed you'll do a very good job in this
particular position.
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs protects
workers and potential employees of Federal contractors from
employment discrimination. It is my observation that the OFCCP
is using statistical analysis rather than equal consideration
and opportunity in evaluating contractor hiring practices and
is falling short of addressing real employment discrimination.
In the fiscal year 2016 Labor HHS appropriations bill, the
committee pointed out,
``OFCCP appears to prioritize specific quota results
rather than equal consideration and opportunity because
of its reliance on statistical analysis in evaluating
contractor hiring practices.''
How would you go about leading the Office to enforce non-
discrimination standards on actual evidence of actual
discrimination rather than on statistical generalizations?
Let me add just one more question. How do you propose
promoting actual discriminatory treatment instead of presumed
discrimination based solely on statistical benchmarks that may
not be uniformly equitable?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, thank you for your question, and let
me say that I remember appearing before your committee in a
room very similar to this, and thank you for the courtesies
that you extended me at that time as well. I think it was two
floors down.
The issue that you raise is the use of disparate impact in
employment cases within OFCCP. The disparate impact is a valid
and legally acceptable part of liability in employment
litigation. Without more, I would hesitate to say that OFCCP
shouldn't use acceptable tools that are generally considered
valid in employment contexts in enforcing the Executive order
that it is charged with enforcing.
Senator Hatch. OK. Utah has several large employers in
health care and financial services. I hear all the time from
these businesses about the need for skilled workers, and I've
heard you talk about your ideas of how can we modernize one
such model, apprenticeship. I'm working with Ranking Member
Murray on promoting and supporting employers with
apprenticeships. In addition to apprenticeship efforts, what
role do you see DOL playing in encouraging other employer-led
training best practices?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, thank you. DOL needs to take a
leadership role in compiling best practices and working with
employer groups to encourage employers. As you were asking the
question, I had a remembrance of a project that we had with the
Restaurant Association around disability compliance, and we
worked with the Restaurant Association when I was with the
Civil Rights Division to encourage restaurants to comply with
the ADA. The point that we made to them is that compliance can
make business sense.
Working with associations that have access to employers to
encourage apprenticeship programs, to encourage job training
programs, to learn from them what needs to be done and what can
be done I think is important. This can't just be government. It
has to be in partnership with employers.
Let me also add that I don't think the Department of Labor
can do this alone. The Department of Education is such a key
player in this, and in all candor their funding is somewhat
deeper than the Department of Labor's funding. It's very
important to break down the silos, to not have this department
doing this and that department doing that, but to really work
together as one executive branch addressing these issues.
Senator Hatch. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my time is almost up.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hatch.
Senator Hassan.
Statement of Senator Hassan
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Murray.
Good morning, Dean Acosta. Nice to see you here.
I will just add support to the comments you've heard from
just about everybody on the committee about the importance of
job training. It's critical to the State of New Hampshire, as
is our Job Corps center, which is one of the newest, if not the
newest, Job Corps centers in the country. I had the opportunity
to be at its first graduation just recently, and it was great
to see the lives that were changed through that Job Corps
center. I hope you will do everything, should you be confirmed,
to support both job training and our Job Corps centers.
I wanted to focus a little bit on the importance of OSHA to
the men and women who constitute our country's workforce.
Strong and targeted enforcement by the Labor Department not
only saves lives but also saves valuable resources for
employers. A substantial body of empirical evidence
demonstrates that OSHA inspections reduce injury rates at
inspected workplaces and lowers workers compensation costs to
the tune of billions of dollars annually.
The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration
has about 45 percent fewer inspectors today than it had in
1980, when the workforce was almost half of current levels. In
New Hampshire, we have only seven OSHA inspectors to oversee
safety and health at 50,000 worksites. With these numbers, it
would take OSHA 122 years to inspect every workplace in New
Hampshire just once.
President Trump's budget blueprint proposes to cut DOL's
budget by 21 percent. Can you commit that if confirmed as
Secretary of Labor, you will advocate for and seek funding that
will maintain OSHA's enforcement budget at no less than current
levels?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I can certainly commit that I--let me
come at it this way. I would be very concerned in a situation
like you mentioned, where there are only seven inspectors,
because going from seven to six has a substantial impact.
Senator Hassan. Right.
Mr. Acosta. Can I commit to no less than current levels?
That's a very precise statement. Something is going to have to
give somewhere in the budget. My background is a law
enforcement background. Worker safety is incredibly important.
I mentioned it in my opening statement for a reason, and I
would have a lot of concern if the number of inspectors in any
one area fell to the point where they could not do their job.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. I want to move on to the area of
making sure that we are including more people who experience
disabilities in this country in the workforce. Section 14(c) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act authorizes employers to pay sub-
minimum wages to workers who experience disabilities.
Oftentimes, this type of employment occurs in a secluded
environment, some might say a segregated environment, known as
a sheltered workplace.
In 2015, with the support of the New Hampshire business
community, New Hampshire was the first State to eliminate the
payment of sub-minimum wage, and there have been efforts in
Congress as well to end this practice.
First of all, do you support this practice of paying people
who experience disability sub-minimum wage?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I certainly support the authority of
any State to eliminate that. With respect to at the Federal
level, this is a very difficult issue because you don't want to
disrespect individuals in any way by--the very phrase ``sub-
minimum wage'' is a disrespectful phrase. Yet, you want to
provide incentives or systems to ensure that individuals that
might not otherwise have a job have access to a job and are
trained into a job. That's a very difficult balance that I'm
happy to have a further discussion about.
Senator Hassan. I hope we can, because I think it isn't the
phrase ``sub-minimum wage'' that is disrespectful; it is
disrespectful and, frankly, discriminatory to pay people who
are qualified to do a job sub-minimum wage on the basis of the
fact that they experience a disability. It's going to be really
important that we continue this conversation. If you go back
and look at the work of the National Governors Association, for
instance, around this, it was employers who came to us and said
this is a population that's doing the job, why are we paying
them, why are we allowed to pay them sub-minimum wage? I would
look forward to working with you on that.
I do have additional questions, but I understand we'll have
a second round. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. That's correct. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
Senator Roberts.
Statement of Senator Roberts
Senator Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Acosta, thank you for coming by on your courtesy visit.
Thank you for being here today. You were certainly well
introduced. I think you should be confirmed.
I'm going to take a little bit different tack here than
some of my colleagues. I'm not going to ask you about President
Trump or whether or not you will follow his Executive orders.
Despite what some may think to be contrary to current law, I'm
not going to ask about the budget, I'm not going to ask you
about the campaign, and I'm certainly not going to ask you
whether you are for death by silica.
I've got a different view. Many folks here, not only on
this committee, with a lot of exceptions, but in Washington
look at this through a telescope, and we have an entire
regulatory agenda, and it is intended for job safety, it's
intended for non-discrimination. I can just go down the entire
alphabet soup of agencies we have here--clean water, clean air,
et cetera, et cetera.
When it gets down to 105 counties in Kansas, people wonder
what in the heck is going on. Here come regulations that
they've never seen before, and I know this because I go to town
hall meeting after town hall meeting after town hall meeting. I
don't get the questions saying so-and-so is running a business
where my safety--if I go in there, or if I'm a customer--is
endangered, or his workforce is endangered.
They hold up the piece of paper, maybe two and three, and
say, ``what is this regulation?'' I don't understand it. They
do not have, normally, a CPA or an attorney or somebody to
figure out exactly why they have received that.
I used to work for my predecessor in the House. I'm one of
these people who are below the swamp; they can't drain me out.
[Laughter.]
My job was to go out and figure out what this new animal
was, called OSHA. We had the first OSHA person go out, way out
west. They went out to Sharon Springs. Sharon Springs is not
the end of the world, but you can see it from there. We have
Mt. Sunflower. It's 4,000 feet high. The trick is not to climb
it. The trick is to find it so you can see it out there on the
high prairie.
The OSHA person was supposed to go out to Goodland, KS but
just missed it. I don't know how you could do that, but he fell
short, but could stay all night, and looked high and low for
somebody, somebody, anybody that he could walk in and say,
``hey, you're not performing your job right.'' He went into a
manufacturer on canvas webbing that goes on the top of grain
trucks, and they had a stamping machine in there that put a
hole in the canvas webbing, obviously to tie the rope to put it
over the grain truck.
They fined him--him, one person. I think the fine was
$1,000. He came to the courthouse, and he was giving my
predecessor a hard time, and he says I've got just the guy who
will take care of it. Roberts, you go over there and take care
of that. I go over and I look at this stamping machine, and the
fine was because it endangered a person's leg, the way it was
constructed, and it was constructed so that a wounded veteran
from Korea who had lost a leg could pull the stamping machine.
Obviously, that was not explained to the OSHA inspector.
Mr. Molstead, who ran that company 40-some years ago, never
paid the fine. Multiply that by thousands in the entire
business community. I don't need to go down all of the
regulatory agenda and the job losses and the red tape and the
paperwork. What I want to know is can we get a cost/benefit
yardstick that makes sense where you have the regulatory cost
and obviously the regulatory benefit?
You're on the benefit side. The small business community is
on the other side. I want to know what is your overall
philosophy on regulation on behalf of an awful lot of people in
Kansas who feel that they are being ruled and not governed. I
can tell you if they're in business in a small community on the
town square and they're not performing their job right and
they're discriminating against people and they're just pretty
much bad news and it's a bad workplace, they're out of
business. That's just the way it works.
Can you give me your overall philosophy on regulation?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, briefly, because I noticed the clock,
I'd make two points. No. 1, the President, through execution
action, has ordered--and it is important that we eliminate
regulations that are not serving a useful purpose, because they
are impeding small business. Small business is what creates
jobs in this country, 7 out of 10 jobs by best estimates. If
we're going to create jobs, we need to free up small business.
That would be my big-picture view on regulation.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Roberts.
Senator Murphy.
Statement of Senator Murphy
Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Acosta, thank you for your willingness to serve. Good
to see you again.
Just a followup on Senator Warren's line of questioning, a
point of clarification. During this pending review in which
you've been charged to look at all regulations, determine which
ones are appropriate according to your standards and the
President's standards, you still have an obligation to enforce
existing regulations.
The silica rule, for instance, will be enforced by your
department pending this review?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, we would enforce all rules that are in
effect pending that review, yes.
Senator Murphy. Including the silica rule.
Mr. Acosta. I believe--I'm hesitating only because of one
item that I remember, to the extent it is in effect. I know it
was promulgated. Assuming there is no stay, then yes.
Senator Murphy. OK. Second, to followup on Senator
Baldwin's questioning regarding funding, I get a little worried
when I hear you talk about accepting a lower level of funding
for job training. The President's budget has winners and
losers. There's a lot more money for defense. There's money for
a wall, and that comes at the expense of other programs. We
would hope that you would be an advocate for the programs that
the Department of Labor funds.
In Connecticut, for example, the plus-up in defense dollars
doesn't do us the maximum amount of good without the Department
of Labor dollars. We can build additional submarines at
Electric Boat, but if we don't have the workforce pipeline
necessary to staff the supply chain, those jobs will go
overseas. At the Eastern Connecticut Manufacturing Pipeline,
it's not about mismatched resources. It's simply about not
having enough resources. We have a 92 percent placement rate in
manufacturing jobs from the pipeline program. Three thousand
people are trying to sign up, and they can only take a couple
of hundred a year. The consequence of not fulfilling that need
is that the jobs will just go to other countries because we
can't hire the folks here.
Let me ask you Senator Baldwin's question in a little
different way. Do you support the 20 percent cut that's been
proposed to your department?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, thank you for rephrasing, because I
never said that I accepted when I was speaking, or I don't
recall saying I accepted when I was speaking with Senator
Baldwin. I wrote myself a note when the budget, the skinny
budget came out, and it was a quote from the OMB director. He
said, to paraphrase, ``we've got $20 trillion in debt.'' It's
not enough that a program sounds good. A program has to be
shown to be good. I wrote myself that note because, if
confirmed as Secretary of Labor, one of the things that I want
to do--and I forget which of your colleagues had great data,
but I want to go through these programs and compile the data,
because for a lot of these programs I believe the rate of
return on investment of taxpayer dollars is quite significant
and would pay for itself very readily in money saved and taxes
paid by the fact that individuals have jobs.
I readily embrace that as part of the job, and if
confirmed, I'm certainly going to speak up and present all that
information and advocate.
Senator Murphy. You'll find an abundance of programs that
are underfunded that will allow you to make that case.
Last, I appreciate the number of times in which you've made
references to the intersection between the Department of
Education and the Department of Labor. The fact of the matter
is, as Senator Alexander pointed out, most of the workforce
training in this country is funded by the Department of
Education.
You and I had the chance to talk in my office about the
migration of public dollars away from not-for-profit education
to for-profit education and really the stunning lack of results
we're getting from for-profit job training programs. One-third
of for-profit graduates are today making less than a minimum
wage over the course of a year. Twelve percent of students are
attending for-profit schools, but 36 percent of students who
have loan defaults today come from those for-profit schools.
I know you've thought about this in the context of your
work in graduate education in Florida. Shouldn't there be a
role for the Federal Government to ask more of all centers of
job training, not just the ones you fund but of colleges as
well, and demand results, results that we're not getting today
from a lot of these for-profit operations?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I have thought of it in the context of
law. In law schools, the accrediting agencies are looking more
for results. It's less about the input and more about the
output. What is the bar passage rate? What is the job rate?
What you are seeing is that some of the for-profit law schools
are facing challenges and have faced challenges with the
Department of Education because they haven't--because the
results are not necessarily on par.
To the extent that these are--well, I don't want to go
beyond--to the extent that these are Department of Labor
programs, I certainly would want to see the results and the
metrics to make sure that it is being done appropriately.
Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thanks, Senator Murphy.
Senator Enzi.
Statement of Senator Enzi
Senator Enzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Acosta, for being willing to go through this
process and serve. You have a tremendous amount of background.
I have a number of areas that I'm interested in. The Senator
from New Hampshire, of course, mentioned Job Corps, and she was
the next-to-the-last State to finally have one Job Corps
center. We were the last State to have one Job Corps center,
and ours is in the middle of a reservation inhabited by two
warring tribes, with high unemployment. They're working
together to get kids into this Job Corps, and it's making a
huge difference. They're doing energy industry training, and
that's heavy equipment and mechanics and welding and other
things that are tied to the economy, so their job placement is
tremendous. I'm hoping that you'll take a look at that.
Another pet thing that she happened to mention was the OSHA
inspectors. Something that we keep overlooking is the VPP
program where we allow big companies to hire an inspector, a
trained inspector to come in and look at their business, and if
there's anything the matter, they have to fix it immediately.
If they do that, they continue to be a VPP company. There isn't
any provision for the small companies, though. I've suggested
that the small companies ought to be able to hire an expert for
their particular type of business.
One of the high places for injuries is in the printing
industry. If all the newspapers in Wyoming went together and
hired somebody, they would really like to be able to have
somebody come in and inspect their premises, and if there's
anything that's found wrong they fix it right away, and then
they still get to be a part of this program. I hope that you'll
take a look at that.
She also mentioned the sub-minimum wage. Senator Harkin and
I worked on that for years while I was the chairman of this
committee. We knew that the purpose of that was to be able to
get an evaluation for people that haven't been evaluated so
they could find their place in the workforce. It was not
intended to be a lifetime sub-minimum wage. We tried to do some
things to eliminate that possibility and get people who are
trained into the workforce.
Are there any of those three things that you'd like to
comment on?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, thank you. I will gladly followup on
the programs that you have mentioned. It's important that we
think outside the box and that we--on the private enforcement
matter, I would just say I think there can be a role for that,
but we need to ensure that it's under appropriate guidelines.
Senator Enzi. OK. Thank you.
At the start of the Obama administration, the Department of
Labor's Wage and Hour Division ended the longstanding practice
of providing opinion letters but answered questions about the
specific applications of the labor laws. These letters were
made public and they were a useful tool for employers and
employees alike who were trying to understand the law. A
typical administration issued dozens of these letters each
year. The last administration, though, replaced opinion letters
with administrator's interpretations that only give broad
opinions on a subject chosen by the agency, leaving many
specific details unanswered. They only issued a total of seven
interpretations during the entire Obama administration. Many
employers and employees who were trying to comply with complex
labor and hour laws and regulations and who want to be in
compliance would like to see a return to the opinion letter
system.
Will you commit to restoring the most robust and
interactive compliance assistance system so folks can spend
less time trying to decipher the law and more time complying
with the law and growing successful businesses and creating new
jobs?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, there's a value to opinion letters,
and I think the value comes from the fact that they're grounded
in a specific set of facts and not in broad legal premises. I
see no reason why I would not encourage opinion letters.
Senator Enzi. Thank you. One of the innovations we're
seeing right now is the on-demand economy, the Uber, the Lyft,
the Air BNB and other services where users can connect to goods
and services more directly through an app on their phone or
through a Web site.
What kind of information or data do we need to ensure that
we properly understand that segment of the economy? Do you
think the Bureau of Labor Statistics is able to capture that
information?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I do not know if the Bureau of Labor
Statistics is capturing that information. I think that's a very
important question and one that I will followup on if
confirmed.
Senator Enzi. Thank you. I have some other questions. I'll
submit them. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Enzi.
Senator Kaine.
Statement of Senator Kaine
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks, Dean Acosta. I appreciated our visit in your office
and appreciate your public service.
The committee needs to ask about, and you're entitled to
respond to, an article that appeared in the Washington Post
online version last night and this morning, and I'm just going
to read the opening to it. I'm going to ask you some questions
because you deserve an opportunity to address it.
``Labor nominee Acosta Cut Deal with Billionaire Guilty in
Sex Abuse Case.'' Just the first three paragraphs, and then
I'll introduce the article into the record.
``There was once a time before the investigations,
before the sexual abuse conviction, when rich and
famous men loved to hang around with Jeffrey Epstein, a
billionaire money manager who loved to party. They
visited his mansion in Palm Beach, FL. They flew on his
jet to join him at his private estate on the Caribbean
island of Little St. James. They even joked about his
taste in younger women. President Trump called Epstein
a terrific guy back in 2000, saying that `he's a lot of
fun to be with. It's even said that he likes beautiful
women as much as I do, and many of them were on the
younger side.' ''
``Now Trump is on a witness list in a Florida court
battle over how Federal prosecutors handled allegations
that Epstein, 64, sexually abused more than 40 minor
girls, most of whom were between the ages of 13 and 17.
The lawsuit questions why Trump's nominee for Labor
Secretary, former Miami U.S. attorney Alexander Acosta,
whose confirmation hearing is scheduled to be on
Wednesday, cut a non-prosecution deal with Epstein a
decade ago rather than pursuing a Federal indictment
that Acosta's staff had advocated.''
I'd like to introduce the article for the record, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. It will be introduced.
[The information referred to may be found in Additional
Material.]
Senator Kaine. I'd like to ask you about this. First, a
couple of questions. My understanding is that there is a
pending civil lawsuit filed by a couple of the victims in that
case seeking to argue that they should have been given notice
prior to the plea deal being entered into. Is that your
understanding as well?
Mr. Acosta. My understanding is that there is a pending
civil lawsuit. The Department of Justice has defended the
actions of the office in that matter under both President Bush
and President Obama's administrations.
Senator Kaine. The opening that I read suggests that you
decided as U.S. attorney to cut a non-prosecution deal, that
part of the decision was that that non-prosecution deal be held
private, not appear in the public record, and there's an
allegation that I just read that you did not pursue a Federal
indictment even though your staff had advocated that you do so.
Is that accurate?
Mr. Acosta. That is not accurate. Let me address that one
of the difficulties with matters before the Department of
Justice is that the Department of Justice does not litigate in
the public record or in the media and litigates in court. Let
me set forth some facts.
This matter was originally a State case. It was presented
by the State attorney to the grand jury in Palm Beach County.
The grand jury in Palm Beach County recommended a single count
of solicitation not involving minors, I believe, and that would
have resulted in zero jail time, zero registration as a sexual
offender, and zero restitution for the victims in this case.
The matter was then presented to the U.S. attorney's
office. It is highly unusual, and as I was speaking to some of
your colleagues that have been involved in prosecutions, they
mentioned that they don't know of any cases personally where a
U.S. attorney becomes involved in a matter after it has already
gone to a grand jury at the State level.
In this case we deemed it necessary to become involved, and
we early on had discussions within the office, and we decided
that a sentence or--how shall I put this--that Mr. Epstein
should plead guilty to 2 years, register as a sex offender, and
concede liability so the victims could get restitution. If that
were done, the Federal interest would be satisfied and we would
defer to the State. That was very early on in the case.
I say that because the article goes on to talk about a view
that the U.S. attorney's office was not aggressive in this
matter.
Senator Kaine. Can I read one other statement from the
article,
``Federal prosecutors detailed their findings in an
82-page prosecution memo and a 53-page indictment, but
Epstein was never indicted.''
And then there's a quote, ``The agreement you described
will not be made part of any public record, the deal between
Epstein and Acosta says.'' The document was unsealed as part of
the civil suit in 2015.
The Chairman. I'm going to give you, Senator, time to ask
your question and the nominee time to answer the question, even
though it goes over the 5 minutes.
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
Mr. Acosta. Senator, again to address your question, I
can't discuss the details of the case, but let me take it
generally. It is pretty typical in a prosecution for an
indictment, a draft indictment, to be written. That doesn't
necessarily mean that that draft indictment is filed because
that draft indictment does not consider often the strength of
the underlying case.
As part of any plea, it is not unusual to have an
indictment that says these are all the places we can go, yet at
the end of the day, based on the evidence, professionals within
a prosecutor's office decide that a plea that guarantees that
someone goes to jail, that guarantees that someone register
generally, and that guarantees other outcomes is a good thing.
Senator Kaine. Was that a consensus decision in your
office?
Mr. Acosta. It was a broadly held decision, yes.
Senator Kaine. I'm over my time, Mr. Chairman. I may come
back to this in a second round. Thank you.
The Chairman. OK. Do you feel like you've had time to
sufficiently answer?
Mr. Acosta. Mr. Chairman, I think I have.
The Chairman. We can come back to it if you'd like to.
Senator Murkowski, thank you for waiting.
Statement of Senator Murkowski
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Acosta, for the time that you gave me in my
office a week or so ago.
The issue of Job Corps has been raised by a couple of my
colleagues, and we had an opportunity also to speak about that,
and I've indicated to you that I think the Job Corps that we
have in Alaska has been successful. We have seen good support
in that those who graduate are actually finding jobs in the
area that they're trained for. I noticed that the President's
skinny budget doesn't really look as favorably on Job Corps as
I might or as Senator Enzi might.
I would ask you, you indicated that evaluating the Job
Corps centers not by the percent of graduates but by the
percent of students who get jobs for which they're trained is
something that you would be looking to, and I would again urge
you in that vein as you're looking at Job Corps and other job
training.
Mr. Acosta. Understood, Senator.
Senator Murkowski. Let me bring up the issue of our
fisheries and the seasonal employment aspect of it. As we have
discussed, we have a limited labor pool in Alaska made more
complicated and difficult because of the very compressed season
in the summer where our fisheries are going full tilt, and a
reality that for us to be able to meet the immediacy of the
demand for that labor pool it's been important to rely on these
H2B visas.
What we have seen, unfortunately, is that we've got a
processing bottleneck that has been left unresolved. Our
processors have been in a situation where they're not able to
buy fish from the fishermen. That ripple-back effect is really
very, very detrimental to our seafood industry.
Current H2B regulations State employers cannot submit
applications for H2Bs prior to 90 days before the first date of
employment. Then the number of workers that have requested each
application are counted against that cap. What we see is,
because Alaska's fishing season is later, that cap is used up
by the time our employers and those in the industry are
requesting their H2B visas. Add that to the slow processing
times and it has really been complicated and very, very
difficult.
I would just urge you, as you review the situation with the
H2B visas, I would urge that you seek permanent solutions to
this. We recognize that there are perhaps some administrative
remedies that could be made immediately that could help States
like Alaska and others that face this same seasonal aspect to
our labor force but later in the season. I would just ask this
morning if you will commit to review the way that these semi-
annual caps are structured that really leave Alaska's fish
processors at a clear disadvantage simply due to the timing of
their season. Whether it's quarterly caps rather than halves,
maybe that is the fix, but I would ask that you not only look
at that but also commit to working with me to ensure that we
have more timely processing of these H2B applications.
We also had an opportunity to discuss the unused worker
applications and the prospect of being able to return those to
the available pool. Whether or not there's an audit of that to
determine how much is out there, again a commitment that you
will be working with us, because we've got a situation where if
we can't get the workers, the fishermen can't fish, the tender
stock tendering, the dollars that pass over at the fuel dock
stops, the welding shops aren't working, the grocery stores
aren't working, the gear stores aren't working. Everything
shuts down in a very small economy.
Can you speak to where we are with your view on these
visas?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I am happy to commit to work with you
on all the issues you raised. I have a concern, which is what
you articulated, because your local economy in Alaska is
dependent on these workers, and if you're out of cycle, that is
not the fault--that is not your fault.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Mr. Acosta. You have my commitment to look and understand
why this hasn't been adjusted and if possible to find an
appropriate solution.
Senator Murkowski. I thank you for that. I would also urge
that this be placed as a very high and an immediate priority--
--
Mr. Acosta. Absolutely.
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. Because of the timing that
we are up against currently.
Mr. Acosta. I fully understand, and I'm glad to do that.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Franken.
Statement of Senator Franken
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Acosta, thank you for coming to my office for a visit.
We talked a lot about workforce training, which I plan to get
to in a moment. But now I want to talk about pensions.
If you're confirmed, you'll be the leading Federal official
charged with protecting the pensions of more than 10 million
Americans. Among those are 400,000 Central States members
across the country, including 20,000 in Minnesota. The pension
fund faces insolvency and could run out of money in less than a
decade.
Last December I spoke with over 300 retirees in Minnesota.
These are middle-class workers, warehouse workers, truck
drivers and other demanding blue-collar jobs. They are very
worried about what will happen if Central States goes insolvent
and their pensions are slashed. Many of them are disabled or
too elderly to return to work. If this looming crisis isn't
addressed, these workers could lose their homes, their ability
to pay for prescription drugs, and the ability to put food on
the table.
If confirmed as Secretary of Labor, you'll be the chair of
the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which ensures pension
funds like Central States. Based on current projections, PBGC
Multiemployer Fund may actually run out of money before the
Central States plan runs out of money. That's two major
insolvencies totaling nearly $60 billion. If you're confirmed,
that means one of the largest pension crises in American
history could land on your desk.
Yes or no, have you or the Trump administration proposed a
plan to make the PBGC's Multiemployer Pension Insurance Fund
solvent?
Mr. Acosta. I have not proposed a plan. I have not seen a
plan that's been proposed that has worked in the past decade.
Senator Franken. OK. What about a plan to help the Central
States fund?
Mr. Acosta. Again, Senator, I have not proposed a plan.
Senator Franken. OK. How about this? Yes or no, will you
commit to ensuring that no one will have their pension benefits
cut from what they're receiving right now?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, this is an issue that this Congress
has been working on for years, that the prior administration
tried to address and had difficulty addressing. I wish I could
commit to that. That has a $60 billion price tag, as you
mentioned, and if you expand it further to include city and
State pension funds, you're talking about an approximately $2
trillion price tag.
This is a fundamental issue that we've got to think about,
and it's not just the executive branch but the executive branch
working with Congress, because these workers worked, they have
expectations. I fully understand that. I get it. I also
understand that this is an issue that has not yet been solved,
and if I could come up with a solution right on the spot, I
wish I could.
Senator Franken. Thank you. During his campaign, President
Trump said that he would help working Americans. We have a
situation where hundreds of thousands of these workers or
retirees may lose their pensions. There are a number of ways
this could be paid for and we could fulfill the promise that
was made to these workers. We should raise the funds needed to
support these workers by closing the carried interest loophole
that benefits Wall Street and private equity managers. By
closing this loophole, which even President Trump wants to get
rid of, we would raise more than enough money to fix the
Central States fund, and I just would urge that.
I'll move on to workforce development. Last Friday during a
press conference with Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, the
President said,
``Germany has done an incredible job training the
employees and future employees and employing its
manufacturing and industrial workforce. It's crucial
that we provide our American workers with a really
great employment outlook.''
In this case, I completely agree with the President.
I see I'm getting down to my time, so let's just kind of
review what we talked about. Will you, if you're confirmed,
work with me on making sure that we follow some of Germany's
and Switzerland's models and that we do focus--and we talked
about some of the funding cuts. Will you work with me to make
sure that we have a robust plan to train our workers for the
jobs of the present and the future?
Mr. Acosta. We discussed it during our meeting, and I will
recommit to working with you on that, yes.
Senator Franken. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Franken. We'll have time
for a second round if you want to follow that up.
Senator Paul.
Statement of Senator Paul
Senator Paul. Congratulations, Mr. Acosta, on your
nomination. As you know, we're in a big, huge national debate
over what to do with healthcare, how to fix healthcare, and
there is an aspect of it that may cross your desk and that you
can actually participate in.
The Chairman and others have mentioned how really the
biggest problem we have is in the individual market. It's about
11 million people, maybe another 10 or 20 million people who
don't have insurance that might get individual market. The
problem with the individual market is it's a crummy place to
be. You're kind of by yourself hanging out there. If you get
sick, you're worried about your prices rising, et cetera. It's
better to be in a group plan.
If you had your choice to be in the individual market or be
in a group plan, you'd rather be in a group plan, which gets to
the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor gets to
approve--let's see if I can quote it here--whether an
association, a health association, ARISA group plans, qualify
as a health plan under single large cap. The definition is they
have to be bound together by a commonality of interest.
I would think that gives a significant degree of latitude.
I'm not a lawyer and I haven't read the whole statute, but my
encouragment is to get really involved with this because
imagine this: Imagine that the AARP, which has over 30 million
members, what if they formed a health association and they had
one person negotiating with the insurance company? All of a
sudden, it's 33 million people negotiating instead of you and
your wife. This could really change the whole insurance market.
It might be changed simply by having someone at the Department
of Labor say that everybody in the AARP has a commonality of
interest.
This is one of those things where the law may not even need
to be changed but we could expand health associations simply by
having someone there who says, ``gosh, what a great idea this
would be.'' I just wanted to bring it to your attention. I
don't expect you to have a full-blown answer on this, but I
would love it if you would assign someone to look into it and
that really within a month of being approved I hope somebody
can come back to us and talk to my office and anybody else
interested about how we can expand these health associations
and maybe announce it so everybody knows there are State
associations.
Many of them--like I was at the Chamber recently, and they
have 2,000 members. I'd like to see all of the Chambers in the
whole country get one buying representative, and then you have
this enormous leverage. It's a whole game-changer in the
marketplace, and there's no mandate, there's no law, there's no
subsidy, there's nothing other than enabling people to
organize, similar to the prospect of what labor did. When labor
wanted to organize to have leverage against management, they
organized. Consumers ought to be able to organize, and anything
we can do or you can do to help that, I would appreciate it. If
you'd like to make a comment, that would be great too.
Mr. Acosta. Senator, let me just agree to, commit to that.
The timeline of 30 days is very reasonable.
The Chairman. Thanks, Senator Paul.
We have time for additional questions if you'd like to.
Senator Enzi, do you have any additional questions?
Senator Enzi. I don't.
The Chairman. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. I do. Thank you very much.
Mr. Acosta, thank you. Women in this country earn about 80
cents on the dollar of what men earn, resulting in a gap of
nearly $10,470 each year. This is true actually across
professions, ages, and education levels, and the gap in pay is
far worse for women of color. The marketplace alone will not
fix this problem.
Do you believe there is a pay gap? If so, do you agree that
it hurts women and families?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I have seen data that reflects the
statement that you made, and to the extent that that pay gap is
there, it shouldn't be.
Senator Murray. What steps, if you're confirmed, will you
take as Labor Secretary to address that pay discrimination?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, certainly gender discrimination, which
includes pay discrimination, should not occur. I know that
there is a Women's Bureau within the Department of Labor, and I
certainly would as a first instance consult them and charge
them with looking at this issue.
Senator Murray. Will you commit to maintaining the budget
for that Women's Bureau?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, ultimately I make recommendations as
to the budget. The recommendations go to OMB. Ultimately they
are issued by the President and decided by this Congress. I
cannot make a commitment as to what the budget may or may not
look like at the end of the day. I can only talk for my own
views and recommendations.
Senator Murray. Do you think it should be a priority?
Mr. Acosta. I certainly do think it's important to have an
office----
Senator Murray. As Secretary, will you fight for keeping
that, or----
Mr. Acosta. It's important to have an office within the
Department of Labor that focuses on women's issues. I know that
there is a lot of focus on women entrepreneurship as well
that's very important, and I am happy to look at that closely
and try to make sure that that is available.
Senator Murray. Will that be a priority for you?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I can certainly say--I hesitate with
the word ``priority'' because if everything becomes a priority,
then things are no longer priorities. I can certainly say it is
a priority. We talk about small businesses, and women running
small businesses is a great thing, and that's something the
Department of Labor should focus on and encourage.
Senator Murray. OK.
Mr. Acosta. Certainly I can say that that would be a
priority.
Senator Murray. I appreciate that. I worry because your
answer was you look at it, you make recommendations, then OMB,
all this. Either you as Secretary say this is a priority for me
or not.
Mr. Acosta. I'm happy to say it's a priority. I believe in
a unitary executive, and so I don't think any Cabinet secretary
can make commitments because ultimately we have a boss.
Senator Murray. That's what worries me. I would just say
that you answered that by saying you would go to the Women's
Bureau to give your advice on this. If it's not there, that's
going to be a problem.
Let me go to another question. It's one about an issue that
happened in 2004, and I want to go back and have you have a
chance to answer this, because just days before the
presidential election back in 2004 you made a controversial
decision to weigh in on an Ohio case about voting rights and
access. That was a departure from standard practice of the
Department of Justice so close to an election, and you wrote to
an Ohio judge saying that laws like Ohio's, which allowed one
voter to challenge another, helped election officials enforce
the law.
At the time you sent the letter that the Ohio Republican
Party had announced plans to use the law to place 3,500
challengers in polling places around the State on election day.
Experts testified a disproportionate number of challengers were
to be placed in predominantly African American precincts. You
wrote the letter even though the Justice Department had no role
in this case. The Justice Department was not a party to the
case, and it had not filed a motion to intervene.
Mr. Acosta, you involved the Department of Justice in a
case in which it had no role days before an election and with
full knowledge that the law was going to be used to mount
challenges in ways that suppressed the vote of African
Americans in the State where the electoral outcome determined
the outcome of the election. I wanted to ask you if you regret
the decision to send that letter in 2004.
The Chairman. Mr. Acosta, the time is up, but you may take
whatever time you need to answer the question.
Mr. Acosta. Senator, let me first start by--sorry, I should
have brought glasses. There is a sentence that is very
important from that letter, and you paraphrased it.
``Thus, a challenged statute permitting objections
based on United States citizenship, residency, precinct
residency, and legal voting age, like those at issue
here, are not subject to facial as opposed to as-
applied challenges under the Act because these
qualifications are not tied to race.''
I would say, first, we provided amicus information in part
because the Ohio statute, as I recall, did not have a
provisional voting requirement, and early on in the letter we
say that if you're going to have a challenge statute, you need
to have a provisional voting requirement under HAVA, which was
enacted by this Congress. It was the first major election where
HAVA came into play.
Second, I read that sentence because that sentence was put
there with intentionality, and it was put there to make clear
that we were not weighing in on how this was being applied in
Ohio. We were not taking a position on what was being done in
Ohio specifically. It was on its face these are permitted, but
we are not taking a position as applied. We did not take a
position as to how this was being applied in Ohio.
Senator Murray. OK. That was a very legal answer to a
question. In your own words, do you regret sending that letter?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, as an attorney for the Department of
Justice, sometimes you have to do things that are unpopular but
are legally correct. The letter is legally correct. I wish the
letter was not interpreted the way it's interpreted, but the
letter is legally and substantively correct, and sometimes
lawyers have to do what is legally correct.
Senator Murray. OK. I'm way over my time, but let me just
finish by saying as Secretary of Labor, I want to know if you
will--and you don't have to answer it, it's just a concern I
have--bow to political pressure, which I have seen under this
Trump administration a tremendous amount of political pressure,
and you'll have to stand up for workers, and that's why I raise
this issue and others, because that will be your job.
Mr. Acosta. May I answer, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I've heard that, and I've heard that
concern a lot, and let me say this. I'm a lawyer. I've been a
prosecutor. I have prosecuted UBS, the international bank, and
as a result of that prosecution they changed Swiss law. I
prosecuted major drug cartels for 200,000 kilos, the heads of
the Cali drug cartel for 200,000 kilos of cocaine. I have been
in public service the better part of my professional career,
and I've seen pressure, and I don't for a second believe that
senior officials would or should bow to inappropriate pressure.
We work for the President. He is our boss. All Cabinet
officials, as I believe--in preparation for this hearing I
watched Secretary Chao's hearing, and she made the point that
we all work for the President and we all will ultimately follow
his direction unless we feel that we can't, and if we can't,
then we resign, and that's our choice.
Senator Murray. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray.
Senator Enzi.
Senator Enzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't have any
questions but Senator Murray stepped on a nerve that I'm very
sensitive to, and that's the disparity in women's pay.
I'm interested in the disparity of anybody's pay and know
that there's a Federal law that says if you're doing the same
job in the same company, you're supposed to be getting the same
pay. As I travel around Wyoming, I explain to people that if
they're not in those circumstances getting paid the same
amount, let me know and I will help them take it to court.
On the other hand, if I have a female engineer working for
a coal company making a lot of money, and the guy that runs the
meal room makes a lot less money, he doesn't have a case.
That's a different job. What we've got to do is get people
moving up the ladder to where they're getting paid what they
ought to be getting paid.
In this hearing room, one of my favorite hearings was a
young lady that wanted to try something non-traditional, and
she became a brick mason. When they started as a brick mason
she got to do pavers out on yards and in courtyards and things
like that. After she'd done that for a while, she got to build
some of the fountains in New York City, and she was so prolific
at it that she got to hang the marble on the outside of
skyscrapers.
I asked her what her job progression had been through these
different things, and I can tell you that hanging marble on
multiple stories pays a lot better than a U.S. Senator. That's
what we want to have for people.
In Wyoming, we have something called Climb Wyoming, and
it's for single moms who want to get into a non-typical job. In
Gillette, my hometown, the jobs that they're trained for is a
warehouse supervisor or a truck driver. They're amazing people
that pick up these skills, and they make more money than some
of the men in our community. I got to speak at one of the
graduations. It was for the truck drivers, and I was amazed at
how much they can make even if because of the family they can
only work around town. I think they started at $18 an hour just
around town. If they were able to make day trips out and back
and still comply with the needs of their family, it went to
$25. If they were willing to take long-distance trips, it
really went up.
When I was at the graduation for them I said, ``you can do
something that I can't do.'' They said, ``what?'' I said,
``back up a semi-trailer.'' That's one of the requirements for
it, and they can do that. Women have more concentration than
men do. They have more multi-tasking skills than men do.
Consequently we ought to be encouraging them into the markets
where they make more than the men do, and that's one of the
things that I think if you can encourage through Job Corps and
the other training sessions, I hope you'll do that, and I'm
asking you if you will.
Mr. Acosta. Fair enough, Senator. Yes.
Senator Enzi. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Enzi.
We'll go to Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dean, I would like to close the loop on the previous
discussion. I have a question about the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
I asked you whether the agreement not to prosecute
federally in exchange for an agreement on other matters was
something that was a consensus within your office, and I think
your testimony was that it was the generally held position of
your office. I've not been a prosecutor, although I've
practiced law.
The Chairman. It was broadly held----
Senator Kaine. Yes, broadly held position of the office.
Thank you.
I want to just read this.
``In 2007, Acosta signed a non-prosecution deal in
which he agreed not to pursue Federal charges against
Epstein or for women who the government said procured
girls for him. In exchange, Epstein agreed to plead
guilty to a solicitation charge in State court, accept
a 13-month sentence, register as a sex offender, and
pay restitution to the victims identified in the
Federal investigations. This agreement will not be made
part of any public record''--the deal between Epstein
and Acosta says.
What is the reason why a deal of this kind has the
specification that it will not be made part of any public
record?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I wish I could respond to that. You're
asking for--I hesitate not because of concerns but because this
is a matter that's pending litigation. Let me try to answer
your question----
Senator Kaine. Then maybe you can answer it generally. I
understand.
Mr. Acosta [continuing]. In a different way. There are
times when in negotiating an outcome, there are agreements that
are made that are ancillary. What we sought and what we
presented at the very beginning was 2-years plus registration,
plus individuals being able, victims being able to----
Senator Kaine. Seek restitution.
Mr. Acosta [continuing]. Seek restitution. What was
obtained was 18 months plus registration, plus individuals
being able to----
Senator Kaine. This says 13 months.
Mr. Acosta. The agreement called for 18 months. As it was
applied by the State of Florida, it ended up being 13 months,
which is a separate issue.
Ultimately, there are other provisions that are part of
that, and that is part of the give and take of a negotiation.
Senator Kaine. I understand your concern since the matter
is still pending, but as a general matter, if something is
allowed to be part of the public record, then more people
become aware of it. In this case there were allegations that, I
guess eventually, somewhat more than three dozen women had been
victimized by the individual. If something is allowed to be
public, it informs the public and provides opportunities for
people to come forward. If something is prohibited from being
part of any public record, it has a way of making it more
difficult for people to bring forward claims. Isn't that
accurate?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, something that I think has changed
over time is trust of government, and that's relevant to the
issue that you raised because there was a time when keeping
something--when having something confidential was less of an
issue. The public expectation today is that things be very
public. If there is something that I have learned or thought
about it's how careful someone should be when something is not
made public, because often a very positive outcome--again, not
talking about this case but generally--a very positive outcome
can become a negative outcome not because of a change in the
underlying substance but because by something not looking
public it is looked at with suspicion.
Senator Kaine. This is a question. The U.S. attorney
position is a position of great power, and you're dealing with
a lot of people who are in very vulnerable positions. The
Secretary of Labor position is a position of great power, and
you'll also be responsible for situations when there are a lot
of vulnerable people. This is why I've been asking this
question. Let me ask one other one.
During the campaign, President Trump often ridiculed the
BLS unemployment numbers, calling them ``phony'' or ``a hoax.''
Will you commit to keeping the Bureau of Labor Statistics
independent and maintain and defend the integrity of its
conclusions and data?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I'll answer your question, but if I
could circle back, I just want to make one final point.
Senator Kaine. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Acosta. At the end of this case, I received a telephone
call from the special agent in charge of the FBI who had been
part of this entire process and had been at the meetings and
had been involved, and he called to just say congratulations,
this was really hard fought and well won. I say that because
this truly was a point of pride.
There was a New York Times article that was written
concurrent to this that said, ``But then the United States
Attorney's Office in Miami became involved.'' Initially, the
Epstein team was elated Mr. Epstein would avoid prison. Then
the U.S. Office became involved, and last summer Mr. Epstein
got an ultimatum, ``plead guilty to a charge that would require
to register him as a sex offender, or the government would
charge him with sexual tourism.''
Senator Kaine. Since you've added on, then I want to add
on. You are aware that Mr. Epstein served that 13 months, he
was allowed out during the day. He had to sleep at a county
jail, but he was basically allowed to move and go around the
community and do whatever he wants, and then that became a
subject of significant criticism.
Mr. Acosta. I am on record condemning that, and I think
that was awful.
Senator Kaine. You would say that was a problem with the
way the State administered the State sentence.
Mr. Acosta. Yes, and I think it was wrong.
Senator Kaine. OK. How about on the Bureau of Labor
Statistics?
Mr. Acosta. On the Bureau of Labor Statistics, briefly, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics has kept statistics for decades, and
it has a procedure. It's a transparent procedure that makes
clear how they calculate, that publishes for public comment any
changes that may take place, and that procedure is very
important because BLS keeps data that is used not just for
today but for the future, and that process is very important.
Senator Kaine. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thanks, Senator Kaine.
Senator Warren.
Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Acosta, so far you've refused to answer my questions,
hiding behind an Executive order that President Trump issued
asking agency heads to review pending regulations. I'm not
asking you how you will respond to President Trump's Executive
order. I'm asking you about what your priorities will be if
you're confirmed as Secretary of Labor. You'll be called on for
your judgment, and hard-working Americans want to know what
your values are, what it is that you prioritize.
So far, you've said you can't commit to enforcing a rule to
protect 2.3 million Americans from exposure to lethal, cancer-
causing silica, and you won't commit to appeal an injunction to
the Labor Department's overtime rule that would give 4.2
million Americans a $1.5 billion raise in a single year.
Let me try a third one. Let's see if you'll protect workers
saving for their retirements from financial advisors who would
cheat them. On April 10, a Labor Department rule is set to go
into effect that would require advisors to recommend retirement
products that are in the customer's best interest instead of
products that give advisors the highest commissions or the
fanciest prizes.
Those conflicts of interest now cost Americans $17 billion
every year. President Trump has said he is currently working on
a 60-day delay of the April 10 implementation date.
My question is, if you are confirmed before this delay is
finalized, will you promise to stop it?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, there is an executive action that
addresses with specificity the fiduciary rule, and it has asked
the Department of Labor to look at the rule and to assess
specific questions. Will the rule reduce the investment options
available to investors I believe was one of them. Will the rule
increase litigation? Will the rule financially impact retiree
investors? The executive action, as I recall, directs the
Secretary of Labor and the Department of Labor to repeal or
revise the fiduciary rule if any of the criteria laid out in
that Executive order is found. That criteria really regulates
and determines the Department of Labor's approach to the
fiduciary rule.
Senator Warren. That's the question I'm asking you. We
know, for example, that a 60-day delay is estimated to cost
Americans about $3.7 billion that they're just going to get
cheated out of by unscrupulous retirement counselors, and
that's money they'll never get back. That is gone to them.
That's the question I'm trying to ask, about where your
values lie, how you see what this retirement rule does, how
committed you are to protecting the American investor here, and
retirees, so they have a chance to retire with some dignity.
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I don't have access to the specific
numbers that you have, but if the question is, do I think it's
important to protect the American retiree?, absolutely. I
understand that, particularly with the demographic changes that
we're seeing, retirees are shifting from 401(k)'s to IRAs, and
that the protections under IRAs----
Senator Warren. Sir, let me stop you there. You say you
think it's important to protect--because the Chairman rightly
will catch me for being over time. You think it's important to
protect retirees. It's important to protect retirees. We've got
a rule here that will protect retirees, documented, to the
terms of $17 billion a year. I just want to know generally, do
you support this rule? Do you think this rule is a good idea?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, with respect, the rule goes far beyond
simply addressing the standard of conduct that investment----
Senator Warren. How does it go beyond addressing the
standard of conduct of investment advisors? I've read this
rule. This is about the standard of conduct, and it says the
standard of conduct is an investment advisor can no longer
recommend products that are going to earn a whole lot more
money for the investment advisor at the cost of giving a worse
product to the person, the retiree, the investor. That's all
it's about. That is what it's about, is that conduct.
That's the question I'm asking. On behalf of millions of
retirees around this country, do you support this rule?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, with respect, there is an executive
action that directs how the Department of Labor will approach
this rule. If I'm confirmed as Secretary of Labor, I believe
and support my following Executive orders of the President, who
would be my boss.
Senator Warren. I have to say, Mr. Acosta, this has really
been frustrating. You have dodged every one of my questions.
None of these were trick questions. I asked you exactly these
questions when you were in my office 2 weeks ago, and you said
in all three cases not that you would hide behind an Executive
order from Trump; you said you would get me answers to these.
I understand that you may not want to answer my questions,
but there are about 150 million American workers who are pretty
interested in the answers to these questions. These are
questions that determine whether or not they can go to work
every day without worrying about getting lung cancer at their
workplace, whether they're going to be paid fairly for their
work so they'll have enough money to put food on the table and
send their kids to college, and whether after a lifetime of
back-breaking work they're going to have a chance to retire
with some dignity.
If you can't give me straight answers on your views on
this, not hide behind an Executive order but your views on this
and commit to stand up for workers on these obvious and very
important issues, then I don't have any confidence you're the
right person for this job.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Acosta, we'll go to Senator Murray, but I
wouldn't have any confidence in you for the job if you did
answer the question that way, because I have a completely
different view than Senator Warren does. The fiduciary rule
deprives millions of Americans of an opportunity for advice. We
have a different point of view, and I'll ask you this question:
Have you been asked, have you been directed by the President,
should you be confirmed, to review regulations once you're
Secretary of Labor?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I have been directed pursuant to the
executive action.
The Chairman. Are you the Secretary of Labor yet?
Mr. Acosta. I am not, sir.
The Chairman. No. Would it be presumptuous of you to
announce--I wonder how many regulations you may be reviewing as
a result of that direction. Do you have any idea?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I do not because I haven't spoken to
individuals at the Department of Labor about that issue because
I'm not yet confirmed.
The Chairman. Under the fiduciary rule you've got specific
directions about how to conduct the review should you be
confirmed.
Mr. Acosta. That is correct.
The Chairman. If you are confirmed, you will conduct the
review according to the directions of the President of the
United States, and then you'll try to deliver a fair opinion.
Is that correct?
Mr. Acosta. That is correct.
The Chairman. I might not like it, and the Senator from
Massachusetts may not like it. I hope she doesn't like it
because I hope you come down on the side that I am. It's
thoroughly reasonable for you to review a regulation according
to the President of the United States' direction after you're
Secretary of Labor. That's my own opinion.
Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that it's
critical that workers have a true advocate in the Department of
Labor, a Secretary of Labor. I have some questions and I know
some of my other colleagues do as well. I hope we get clear,
thorough responses on that.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to ask unanimous consent to enter
15 letters from 105 organizations expressing concerns with Mr.
Acosta's nomination to lead the Department of Labor into the
record.
The Chairman. They will be included.
[The information referred to may be found in Additional
Material.]
The Chairman. I will ask consent to introduce 19 letters of
support----
[Laughter.]
Senator Murray. Does that mean I trumped you?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Nineteen letters of support representing 85
groups, business groups, including some labor unions, in
support of your nomination.
[The information referred to may be found in Additional
Material.]
We've had a good, thorough opportunity to ask questions.
Are there further questions? Senator Kaine? Senator Warren?
Senator Murray?
[No response.]
I have one question, then we'll conclude the hearing. Thank
you for being here.
I talked at the very beginning about Tom Friedman's book,
which I found really very good in trying to capture a lot of
the conditions that probably surrounded the last election,
which is the head-spinning acceleration of so many different
forces, especially causing American workers to not be able to
fit into the workplace.
One area where American workers are still able to fit into
the workplace is our franchisees. There are hundreds of
thousands. The number is about 700,000 Americans who have
franchises. In other words, they have an opportunity, typically
in their hometown, to take a restaurant franchise or some other
franchise, and typically work 12 hours a day for many years,
and often it's a family working that long for many years, and
it's a way that you can still live in your own community and
work in your own community and be reasonably independent and
move your way into the middle class.
In my way of thinking, the prior administration's Joint
Employer definition that was first established by the National
Labor Relations Board begins to up-end the whole concept of
franchising and to threaten it, making it more likely that a
large company would decide not to have franchises but to just
own all the stores itself. A restaurant company that had 800
restaurants, for example, instead of having 700 franchises
might just say, under the broad Joint Employer definition
that's in the NLRB and that seems to be spreading in the
Department of Labor, it makes more sense for the parent company
to own it, depriving hundreds of thousands of Americans to be a
franchise owner.
Let me ask you these questions. In order to be treated as
the employer of an employee, shouldn't the business person have
direct and immediate control over an employee?
Mr. Acosta. That is one of the traditional criteria,
Senator.
The Chairman. Do you believe that indirect control or even
unexercised potential to control working conditions could make
a franchisor and a franchisee joint employers?
Mr. Acosta. That would be an untraditional approach.
The Chairman. Do you think that the person who hires,
fires, pays, sets work hours, and issues directions to
employees should be considered the employer?
Mr. Acosta. I'm sorry, that hires, fires----
The Chairman. Hires, fires, pays, sets work hours, and
issues directions----
Mr. Acosta. Yes. That is----
The Chairman [continuing]. To employees should be
considered the employer?
Mr. Acosta. That is the usual approach, Senator.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Acosta, for your patience and
for your answers and for your willingness to subject yourself
to a confirmation session. All in all, it went very well. Part
of the reason may be your experience, the fact that you've been
before the U.S. Senate three times, nominated by the President
of the United States, and you've been confirmed by the Senate.
I have no doubt that you will be this time. I look forward to
working with you as the Secretary of America's workforce at a
time when many Americans are trying to find a way to fit into
work, and hopefully working together with Congress we can make
that easier.
This committee has a broad array of views, but many times
in the past, very important times, we've been able to take our
differences of opinion and come to a consensus such as our law
to fix No Child Left Behind, which President Obama called a
Christmas miracle, and our 21st Century CURES Act was passed
last year, which Senator McConnell called the most important
bill of the last Congress.
Maybe some of the most important work we can do during the
next couple of years would have to do with helping the American
workforce adjust to the head-spinning conditions in which we
all find ourselves and fit more easily into the workplace. I
know that's a concern of the Senator from Virginia. He's talked
to me many times about that. Both of us used to be Governors.
We understand that most of that work, much of that work has to
be done, as you said in your response to the Senator from
Maine, we have to understand what it's like in Culpepper and
Nashville before we issue orders from here. Nevertheless, we
can have a national interest in it.
If the Senators wish to ask additional questions of our
nominee, questions for the record are due by the close of
business tomorrow, March 23. For all other matters, the hearing
record will remain open for 10 days. Members may submit
additional information for the record within that time.
Thank you very much for being here today.
The committee will stand adjourned.
Mr. Acosta. Thank you for the courtesy.
[Additional Material follows.]
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Position Statement by Workplace Fairness--Sharon Rusz, Executive
Director and Paula Brantner, Senior Advisor
As the Senate HELP Committee prepares for the confirmation hearing
of Alexander Acosta as Secretary of Labor, Workplace Fairness weighs in
on what he must prioritize to be a suitable selection for the post.
There are three points of particular interest to Workplace Fairness
and the working people that we serve.
A Labor Secretary must guard against politicized hiring in
the Labor Department.
A Labor Secretary must aggressively pursue investigation,
litigation, and enforcement against employers who violate workers'
rights.
A Labor Secretary must commit to providing comprehensive,
up to date, easy to understand information to the public about workers'
rights in the workplace and procedures for pursuing remedies.
While Mr. Acosta's positions in the Civil Rights Division at DOJ
and NLRB called for him to recognize and protect the rights of
minorities and other under-served communities, his involvement
politicized hiring at DOJ, and his lack of any real record on workers'
rights issues are concerning.
In light of these things, and the many questionable appointments
already being made by the Trump administration, Mr. Acosta must assure
us that the Department will engage in nonpartisan hiring in order to
most effectively pursue its mission. Mr. Acosta must further provide
assurances that he will act to protect and advance the rights of
workers by aggressively pursuing enforcement actions against employers
who take advantage of workers, especially those who are most
vulnerable. Immigrants and members of the LGBT community, for example,
are already seeing frightening signs of animosity from the Trump
administration that have had a chilling effect on the likelihood that
these workers will speak up and pursue justice when their employers
violate their rights. The Labor Secretary must be sensitive to these
concerns and take steps to address them, lest employers be allowed to
run roughshod over the most underserved people in the workforce.
The Department of Labor's mission is to promote worker welfare and
assure workers' benefits and rights. In order to effectively protect
workers and their rights, the Secretary of Labor must also place a high
level of importance on continuing to provide workers with
comprehensive, accessible information about their rights in the
workplace, and transparency about the aims and goals of the Department
going forward. It is key to the Department's mission that workers know
their rights, and more importantly, know what steps to take to make a
complaint when their rights are violated. Under a new presidential
administration, workers and workers' advocates must be kept apprised of
rules changes, and changes in guidance and enforcement actions. But
just as importantly, the Department must continue to provide
information about all of the established laws and regulations that it
enforces.
With the recent spate of agencies removing large sections of
content from their websites, workers and their advocates are concerned.
Removing vital legal and procedural information from the Department's
website would have a detrimental effect on the enforcement of the laws
that protect workers because they may not understand their rights, or
know how to seek remedies for employer violations. We must be assured
that as Secretary of Labor, Mr. Acosta would recognize the need to keep
the people he is charged with protecting informed about their rights,
their employers' obligations, and how they can go about making
complaints.
______
about workplace fairness
Workplace Fairness is a nonprofit organization that provides
information, education and assistance to individual workers and their
advocates nationwide and promotes public policies that advance employee
rights.
Our goals are that workers and their advocates are educated about
workplace rights and options for resolving workplace problems and those
policymakers, members of the business community and the public at large
view the fair treatment of workers as both good business practice and
sound public policy.
Workplace Fairness works toward these goals by:
Making comprehensive information about workers' rights--
free of legal jargon--readily available to workers and to advocates and
organizations that assist workers;
Providing resources to support the work of legal services
organizations, community-based organizations, law schools and private
attorneys that provide free legal information and services to low-
income workers; and
Presenting the employee perspective in publications,
policy debates & public discussion.
The award-winning workplace fairness website,
www.workplacefairness.org, has newly updated information throughout the
site, as part of the web's most comprehensive resource educating
workers about their legal rights in the workplace.
[The Washington Post, March 21, 2017]
Labor Nominee Acosta Cut Deal With Billionaire Guilty in Sex Abuse Case
(By Marc Fisher)
There was once a time--before the investigations, before the sexual
abuse conviction--when rich and famous men loved to hang around with
Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire money manager who loved to party.
They visited his mansion in Palm Beach, FL. They flew on his jet to
join him at his private estate on the Caribbean island of Little Saint
James. They even joked about his taste in younger women.
President Trump called Epstein a ``terrific guy'' back in 2002,
saying that, ``He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he
likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the
younger side.''
Now, Trump is on the witness list in a Florida court battle over
how Federal prosecutors handled allegations that Epstein, 64, sexually
abused more than 40 minor girls, most of them between the ages of 13
and 17. The lawsuit questions why Trump's nominee for labor secretary,
former Miami U.S. attorney Alexander Acosta, whose confirmation hearing
is scheduled to begin Wednesday, cut a non-prosecution deal with
Epstein a decade ago rather than pursuing a Federal indictment that
Acosta's staff had advocated.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Read the non-prosecution deal Acosta made with Epstein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Epstein's friends and visitors once included past and
future presidents, rock stars, and some of the country's richest men,
he is no longer a social magnet. Epstein pleaded guilty to a Florida
State charge of felony solicitation of underage girls in 2008 and
served a 13-month jail sentence. Politicians who had accepted his
donations, including former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and
former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, have scurried to give them
back. (Harvard University kept a $6.5 million gift, saying it was
``funding important research'' in mathematics.)
But Epstein's unusually light punishment--he was facing up to a
life sentence had he been convicted on Federal charges--has raised
questions about how Acosta handled the case.
Former Palm Beach police chief Michael Reiter, whose department
conducted the initial investigation into Epstein's behavior, said in a
civil lawsuit deposition that Epstein got off easy.
``That wasn't an appropriate resolution of this matter,'' Reiter
said, arguing that the charges leveled against Epstein were ``very
minor,'' compared with what the facts called for. In a letter to
parents of Epstein's victims, Reiter said justice had not been served.
Prosecutors in Acosta's Miami office who had joined the FBI in the
investigation concluded, according to documents produced by the U.S.
attorney's office, that Epstein, working through several female
assistants,
``would recruit underage females to travel to his home in
Palm Beach to engage in lewd conduct in exchange for money. . .
. Some went there as much as 100 times or more. Some of the
women's conduct was limited to performing a topless or nude
massage while Mr. Epstein masturbated himself. For other women,
the conduct escalated to full sexual intercourse.''
Epstein has a near-legendary reputation in New York financial
circles as a money manager who made many millions for his clients.
Although he never graduated from college, he taught advanced math at
the Dalton School, one of the city's top private schools, and went on
to be a successful trader at Bear Stearns before starting his own firm,
J. Epstein & Co., which managed the finances of clients who had a
minimum of $1 billion in assets.
Federal prosecutors detailed their findings in an 82-page
prosecution memo and a 53-page indictment, but Epstein was never
indicted. In 2007, Acosta signed a non-prosecution deal in which he
agreed not to pursue Federal charges against Epstein or four women who
the government said procured girls for him. In exchange, Epstein agreed
to plead guilty to a solicitation charge in State court, accept a 13-
month sentence, register as a sex offender and pay restitution to the
victims identified in the Federal investigation.
``This agreement will not be made part of any public record,'' the
deal between Epstein and Acosta says. The document was unsealed by a
Federal judge in a civil lawsuit in 2015.
Reiter said in the 2009 deposition that Federal prosecutors in
Miami told him, ``that typically these kinds of cases with one victim
would end up in a 10-year sentence.'' Reiter said he was surprised not
only by the decision to pull back from prosecuting the case, but also
by the light sentence and liberal privileges granted to Epstein during
his jail term.
Acosta did not return a call seeking comment. He explained his
decision in a ``To whom it may concern'' letter that he released to
news organizations 3 years after the decision:
``The bottom line is this: Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, a
billionaire, served time in jail and is now a registered sex
offender. He has been required to pay his victims restitution,
though restitution clearly cannot compensate for the crime.''
Acosta wrote that the case against Epstein grew stronger over the
years because more victims spoke out after Epstein was convicted.
Acosta is Trump's second nominee to be Secretary of Labor; the
first, Andrew Puzder, withdrew last month after Senate Republicans
questioned his past employment of an undocumented housekeeper. Support
for Acosta seems strong, as some Democrats and union leaders have
joined with Senate Republicans in praising the nominee, who has been
confirmed for Federal positions three times in the past.
In the 2011 letter explaining his decision in the Epstein case,
Acosta said he backed off from pressing charges after ``a year-long
assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors'' by ``an army of legal
superstars'' who represented Epstein, including Harvard Law professor
Alan Dershowitz; Kenneth Starr, who as independent counsel led the
investigation that brought about President Bill Clinton's impeachment;
and some of the Nation's most prominent defense attorneys, such as Roy
Black, Gerald Lefcourt and Jay Lefkowitz.
``The defense strategy was not limited to legal issues,'' Acosta
wrote, ``Defense counsel investigated individual prosecutors and their
families, looking for personal peccadilloes that may provide a basis
for disqualification.''
Dershowitz said in an interview that no such effort to rattle the
prosecutors ever took place. ``That's just dead wrong,'' he said. ``I
would never participate in anything of that kind. Of course we
investigated the witnesses but not Acosta's deputies. That's absurd.''
Acosta's ``intention was to indict, and he fought hard and tried to
get the best deal he could,'' Dershowitz said. '``We out-lawyered
him.'' Epstein did not return a call seeking comment.
Conchita Sarnoff, the author of ``TrafficKing,'' a book on the
Epstein case, said in an interview that Acosta told her a few years
after his decision not to prosecute that ``he felt incapable of going
up against those eight powerful attorneys. He felt his career was at
stake.''
In his letter about the decision, Acosta, who has been dean of the
law school at Florida International University since 2009, acknowledged
that, ``some prosecutors felt that we should just go to trial, and at
times I felt that frustration myself.'' He also complained that Epstein
``received highly unusual treatment while in jail,'' including being
allowed to serve much of his sentence in the county jail rather than a
State prison, and being permitted to leave the jail 6 days a week to
work at home before returning to jail to sleep.
``The treatment that he received while in State custody undermined
the purpose of a jail sentence,'' Acosta said.
Dershowitz said Acosta ``was very anxious to prosecute'' Epstein,
but ``we persuaded them that they didn't have enough evidence of
interstate transportation'' of the underage girls to warrant Federal
charges.
But Reiter, the former police chief, said the FBI had evidence
``from flight logs or something'' that an underage victim ``was
transported on an aircraft of Mr. Epstein.''
``Some may feel that the prosecution should have been tougher,''
Acosta wrote. ``Evidence that has come to light since 2007 may
encourage that view.'' But the prosecutor argued that his office's
investigation allowed State prosecutors to strengthen their charges
against Epstein. And Acosta said that those who disagree with his
decision ``are not the ones who at the time reviewed the evidence
available for trial and assessed the likelihood of success.''
The deal Acosta made with Epstein precluded any new Federal
prosecution based on offenses he may have committed between 2001 and
2007, but in Florida, Trump is on the witness list in a civil case in
which two attorneys accuse Federal prosecutors of having deceived
Epstein's victims by failing to inform them that they would not charge
Epstein.
Lawyers for the women argue that they had a right under the Federal
Crime Victims' Rights Act to know about Acosta's deal with Epstein.
They say Acosta sought to keep the deal under wraps to avoid ``the
intense public criticism that would have resulted from allowing a
politically connected billionaire'' to escape from Federal prosecution.
Although Trump and Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's plane and visited
his homes, neither President has been accused of taking part in the
sexual misdeeds. But lawyers for Epstein's victims say Trump
nonetheless may have useful information. Trump banned Epstein from his
Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach ``because Epstein sexually assaulted an
underage girl at the club,'' Bradley Edwards, an attorney who
represents three of the young women, said in court documents.
Lawyers involved with the various Epstein cases said there is
virtually no chance that the President will be required to testify in a
matter in which both sides agree his involvement was tangential.
Trump and Clinton are both among the dozens of names that appeared
in a ``black book'' of Epstein's phone contacts that his houseman,
Alfredo Rodriguez, obtained. Rodriguez, who died in 2015, was convicted
of obstruction of justice in 2010 after he tried to sell the book for
$50,000 to lawyers representing Epstein's victims. In the book,
Rodriguez circled the names of contacts he said were involved in sexual
misbehavior at Epstein's properties. There were no circles around the
names of Trump, Clinton or other boldfaced names such as former Israeli
prime minister Ehud Barak, former British prime minister Tony Blair,
and celebrities Mick Jagger, Michael Jackson, David Frost and Jimmy
Buffett.
Rodriguez spent 18 months in prison, 5 months longer than Epstein
served in jail.
Epstein has continued to move among his homes in New York City,
where he owns one of the largest private residences in Manhattan, Palm
Beach and the Caribbean.
______
Letters of Support
Corry & Associates,
Denver, CO 80204,
March 3, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Mr. Chairman and committee members: This letter is to express
strong support for R. Alexander Acosta as Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Labor. I know Mr. Acosta on both a professional and
personal level.
Mr. Acosta is first-rate nominee to lead the Department. I have
been a practicing litigator for over 20 years, politically active,
served as Counsel to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, and graduated
from Stanford Law School. In these capacities over decades, I have been
acquainted with thousands of bright and accomplished people. Mr. Acosta
rises above even the most qualified people for his exceptional brain,
combined with a large heart, and unparalleled creativity. There is no
person better than Mr. Acosta for this job, and respectfully, he should
have a swift hearing and confirmation.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. My office phone is
(303) 634-2244 and my e-mail is [email protected] if you have further
questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Corry, Jr., Esq.
Delta Industries, Inc.,
Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1292,
March 15, 2017.
Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Charles Schumer, Democratic Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer and
Senators Alexander and Murray: My name is Dave Robison and I work for
Delta Industries located in Jackson, MS. We manufacture and deliver the
ready mixed concrete that builds our Nation's heavy highway system and
residential and commercial construction, creating jobs and accelerating
economic growth. I applaud President Donald Trump's selection of R.
Alexander Acosta to head the U.S. Department of Labor.
I support the President's nomination for Labor Secretary because
Mr. Acosta knows and has seen first-hand the negative consequences of
overregulation and enforcement from the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB), having served as a member. During his tenure on the NLRB, Mr.
Acosta drafted more than 125 opinions in which he demonstrated a
balanced approach to both employers and employees. It is only fitting
that someone with Mr. Acosta's background lead the Labor Department--
the agency responsible for ensuring the Nation's labor and safety laws
are properly balanced to benefit our Nation's most valuable asset, the
American workforce.
Most notably I am confident that Mr. Acosta's nomination will
garner bipartisan support. He has been previously confirmed by the U.S.
Senate three times with bipartisan support--for the NLRB, as Assistant
Attorney General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern district of
Florida. Mr. Acosta's nomination to serve as Secretary of Labor should
garner the same bipartisan support.
I respectfully ask you to support Mr. Acosta as the next Secretary
of Labor so that he can immediately begin helping the American economy
get to work.
Sincerely,
Dave Robison,
President, Delta Industries, Inc.
International Association of Fire Fighters,
Washington, DC 20006-5395,
February 24, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington DC 20510.
Re: IAFF Support of the Nomination for R. Alexander Acosta
Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: I am writing to
express the strong support of International Association of Fire
Fighters, which represents over 304,000 members, for the nomination of
Alexander Acosta as the Nation's 27th Secretary of Labor.
On a personal level, I have worked with every Secretary of Labor
since John Dunlop in the Ford administration. I believe that Mr. Acosta
possesses the appropriate qualifications, experience and temperament to
fulfill the obligations and responsibility of the office.
Mr. Acosta is truly an American success story. The son of Cuban
immigrants, he has achieved success in multiple governmental positions,
the private sector and in academia. While the majority of IAFF members
are not covered under the National Labor Relations Act, we are familiar
and appreciative of his history of issuing balanced rulings during his
service as a commissioner of the National Labor Relations Board.
I first became acquainted with Mr. Acosta when he was the Assistant
Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of
Justice. We had several sensitive issues regarding promotions and
hiring issues. Mr. Acosta approached the issues in fair and
dispassionate fashion. I was very impressed with his acumen and
professionalism.
Subsequently, he built a stellar reputation as the U.S. attorney
for southern Florida successfully prosecuting high several profile
cases on political corruption, terrorism, drug trafficking and
financial crimes. Mr. Acosta had the longest tenure in that capacity
since anyone since the early 1970s.
In closing, the IAFF urges your committee to act favorably of the
nomination of this eminently qualified nominee and work to ensure the
rapid confirmation of R. Alexander Acosta as Secretary of Labor.
Respectfully,
Harold A. Schaitberger,
General President.
Miles Sand And Gravel Company,
Puyallup, WA 98372-2516,
March 15, 2017.
Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Charles Schumer, Democratic Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer and
Senators Alexander and Murray: My name is Jerry Trudeau and I work for
Miles Sand and Gravel Company located in Puyallup, WA. We manufacture
and deliver the ready mixed concrete that builds our Nation's heavy
highway system and residential and commercial construction, creating
jobs and accelerating economic growth. I applaud President Donald
Trump's selection of R. Alexander Acosta to head the U.S. Department of
Labor.
I support the President's nomination for Labor Secretary because
Mr. Acosta knows and has seen first-hand the negative consequences of
overregulation and enforcement from the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB), having served as a member. During his tenure on the NLRB, Mr.
Acosta drafted more than 125 opinions in which he demonstrated a
balanced approach to both employers and employees. It is only fitting
that someone with Mr. Acosta's background lead the Labor Department--
the agency responsible for ensuring the Nation's labor and safety laws
are properly balanced to benefit our Nation's most valuable asset, the
American workforce.
Most notably I am confident that Mr. Acosta's nomination will
garner bipartisan support. He has been previously confirmed by the U.S.
Senate three times with bipartisan support--for the NLRB, as Assistant
Attorney General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern district of
Florida. Mr. Acosta's nomination to serve as Secretary of Labor should
garner the same bipartisan support.
I respectfully ask you to support Mr. Acosta as the next Secretary
of Labor so that he can immediately begin helping the American economy
get to work.
Sincerely,
Jerry Trudeau,
Vice President and General Manager.
MMC Materials, Inc.,
Ridgeland, MS,
March 15, 2017.
Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Charles Schumer, Democratic Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer and
Senators Alexander and Murray: My name is Stanley Mangum and I work for
MMC Materials, Inc. based in Ridgeland, MS, with locations throughout
Mississippi. We manufacture and deliver the ready mixed concrete that
builds our Nation's heavy highway system and residential and commercial
construction, creating jobs and accelerating economic growth. I applaud
President Donald Trump's selection of R. Alexander Acosta to head the
U.S. Department of Labor.
I support the President's nomination for Labor Secretary because
Mr. Acosta knows and has seen first-hand the negative consequences of
overregulation and enforcement from the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB), having served as a member. During his tenure on the NLRB, Mr.
Acosta drafted more than 125 opinions in which he demonstrated a
balanced approach to both employers and employees. It is only fitting
that someone with Mr. Acosta's background lead the Labor Department--
the agency responsible for ensuring the Nation's labor and safety laws
are properly balanced to benefit our Nation's most valuable asset, the
American workforce.
Most notably I am confident that Mr. Acosta's nomination will gamer
bipartisan support. He has been previously confirmed by the U.S. Senate
three times with bipartisan support--for the NLRB, as Assistant
Attorney General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern district of
Florida. Mr. Acosta's nomination to serve as Secretary of Labor should
garner the same bipartisan support.
I respectfully ask you to support Mr. Acosta as the next Secretary
of Labor so that he can immediately begin helping the American economy
get to work.
Sincerely,
Stanley Mangum,
Vice President.
National Council of Chain Restaurants (NCCR),
Washington, DC 20005,
March 20, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of the
National Council of Chain Restaurants, I am writing in support of
President Donald Trump's nomination of Alexander Acosta to be Secretary
of Labor.
Mr. Acosta has served with distinction in important policy and
leadership roles over the course of his career, including his current
service as Dean of the Florida International University College of Law.
In addition to his strong professional and academic credentials, Mr.
Acosta has also consistently demonstrated a commitment to public
service as a member of the National Labor Relations Board, as an
Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice and as U.S.
attorney for the southern district of Florida.
As you know, the U.S. Department of Labor has an important mission
and broad policy portfolio which affects a wide array of stakeholders,
including chain restaurant businesses and their highly valued
employees. Mr. Acosta understands the challenges faced by small
businesses around the country in navigating an oftentimes complex web
of statutory and regulatory requirements imposed by the Federal
Government.
Once confirmed, Mr. Acosta will be an advocate for Federal policy
at the U.S. Labor Department which benefits all stakeholders--including
chain restaurants, small businesses, and most importantly, their
millions of team members in local communities around the United States.
We look forward to the March 22 HELP Committee hearing which will
review Mr. Acosta's qualifications and then to prompt Senate
consideration of this important nomination. Thank you for your
consideration of these views.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Green,
Executive Director.
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA),
Silver Spring, MD 20910,
March 15, 2017.
Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Charles Schumer, Democratic Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer and
Senators Alexander and Murray: The National Ready Mixed Concrete
Association (NRMCA) applauds President Donald Trump's selection of R.
Alexander Acosta, Dean of the Florida International University College
of Law, to serve as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor.
NRMCA represents an industry with more than 2,250 companies and
subsidiaries that employ more than 125,000 American workers who
manufacture and deliver ready mixed concrete. The Association
represents both national and multinational companies that operate in
every congressional district in the United States. The industry
includes approximately 70,000 ready mixed concrete trucks and 5,000
ready mixed concrete plants.
NRMCA supports the President's nomination for Labor Secretary
because Mr. Acosta knows and has seen first-hand the negative
consequences of overregulation and enforcement from the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB), having served as a member. During his tenure on
the NLRB, Mr. Acosta drafted more than 125 opinions in which he
demonstrated a balanced approach to both employers and employees. It is
only fitting that someone with Mr. Acosta's background lead the Labor
Department--the agency responsible for ensuring the Nation's labor and
safety laws are properly balanced to benefit our Nation's most valuable
asset, the American workforce.
Most notably we are confident that Mr. Acosta's nomination will
garner bipartisan support. He has been previously confirmed by the U.S.
Senate three times with bipartisan support--for the NLRB, as Assistant
Attorney General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern district of
Florida. Mr. Acosta's nomination to serve as Secretary of Labor should
garner the same bipartisan support.
NRMCA respectfully supports Mr. Acosta as the next Secretary of
Labor so that he can immediately begin helping the American economy get
to work.
Sincerely,
Kerri Leininger,
Executive Vice President of Government
and Political Affairs.
National Retail Federation (NRF),
Washington, DC 20005,
March 21, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of the
Nation's retail industry, I write to share the National Retail
Federation's strong support for the nomination of Alexander Acosta to
be the next Secretary of Labor.
NRF is the world's largest retail trade association, representing
discount and department stores, home goods and specialty stores, Main
Street merchants, grocers, wholesalers, chain restaurants and Internet
retailers from the United States and more than 45 countries. Retail is
the Nation's largest private sector employer, supporting one in four
U.S. jobs--42 million working Americans. Contributing $2.6 trillion to
annual GDP, retail is a daily barometer for the Nation's economy.
Over the past 8 years, the retail industry and employers across the
country have faced a crushing regulatory burden driven by ideological
whims rather than economic realities. The previous Department of
Labor's sweeping actions on Federal overtime rules, joint employer
relationships, and many other issues have created immense uncertainty
for employers and stifled economic growth. Both job creators and
employees will benefit from a more balanced approach to workforce
policies and a Secretary of Labor who puts the needs of American
businesses and workers before partisan politics.
Mr. Acosta's diverse experiences in both public service and the
private sector position him well to be an effective and pragmatic
leader at the Department of Labor. The new Labor Secretary will play a
critical role in implementing the President's regulatory reform
Executive orders, and NRF looks forward to working with Mr. Acosta once
confirmed on a pro-growth agenda that supports innovation, investments
in the workforce, and American competitiveness.
Given Mr. Acosta previously has been confirmed by the Senate on
three occasions with bipartisan support, NRF urges members of this
committee and the Senate to support the nominee and move toward
confirmation without delay.
Sincerely,
David French,
Senior Vice President,
Government Relations.
National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA),
Alexandria, VA,
March 21,, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
648 Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman and Ranking Member: As the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions prepares to vote on the nomination of
Alex Acosta to serve as Secretary of Labor, the National Stone, Sand
and Gravel Association (NSSGA) would like to express its strong support
for his nomination.
NSSGA represents stone, sand and gravel producers who are
responsible for the essential raw materials found in every building,
road, bridge and public works project. The emphasis on the regulatory
reform at the Department of Labor is one of our highest priorities.
Mr. Acosta's accomplishments are numerous and impressive. He served
as a Commissioner of the National Labor Relations Board, was the first
Hispanic to hold the rank of Assistant U.S. Attorney General, and was
named assistant U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida. Mr.
Acosta's record of pioneering leadership can be put to great use as
Secretary of Labor in looking out for American workers, so many of whom
have been forgotten and left behind.
Furthermore, Mr. Acosta's appreciation for appropriate government
action ensures that someone with the knowledge of the issues impacting
our industry including the negative impacts and untended consequences
of government regulations is at the helm of the department. This is
particularly important to us given the central role played by the Labor
Department's Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). It is
critical that MSHA significantly improve its approach to achieving its
mission so that the agency can regulate and enforce for genuine safety,
versus sometimes undercutting workplace safety.
NSSGA appreciates your consideration of these views. Please contact
me if you have any questions or would like any additional information.
I can be reached at (703) 526-1060/[email protected]
Sincerely,
Michael W. Johnson,
President & CEO.
North America's Building Trade Unions,
Washington, DC 20006,
February 27, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senators Alexander and Murray: North America's Building Trades
Unions believe that Alexander Acosta is a qualified candidate to serve
as the next U.S. Secretary of Labor.
He has served in three presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed
positions, and was a respected member of the National Labor Relations
Board. Combined with his experience as the Assistant Attorney General
for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, Mr.
Acosta holds the necessary knowledge and experience to further the
Department of Labor's stated mission,
``To foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage
earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States;
improve working conditions; advance opportunities for
profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and
rights.''
Our unions look forward to working with Mr. Acosta to preserve
strong and existing community wage and benefit standards,
apprenticeship programs, and rigorous safety standards in the
construction industry that have historically brought immediate, and
widespread, benefits to American workers and the American economy.
North America's Building Trades Unions believe Alexander Acosta is
someone who deserves serious consideration for the position of
Secretary of Labor.
Thank you for your consideration of our views on this matter,
Sincerely,
Sean McGarvey,
President.
North American Concrete Alliance,
March 15, 2017.
Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Charles Schumer, Democratic Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer and
Senators Alexander and Murray: The North American Concrete Alliance
(NACA) applauds President Donald Trump's selection of R. Alexander
Acosta, Dean of the Florida International University College of Law, to
serve as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor.
NACA is a coalition of concrete-related associations dedicated to
addressing industrywide priorities in the areas of research, education
and government affairs. NACA places an emphasis on advocating for
increased and efficient Federal investment in surface transportation
and infrastructure funding and the impact it has on job creation.
NACA supports the President's nomination for Labor Secretary
because Mr. Acosta knows and has seen first-hand the negative
consequences of overregulation and enforcement from the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB), having served as a member. During his tenure on
the NLRB, Mr. Acosta drafted more than 125 opinions in which he
demonstrated a balanced approach to both employers and employees. It is
only fitting that someone with Mr. Acosta's background lead the Labor
Department--the agency responsible for ensuring the Nation's labor and
safety laws are properly balanced to benefit our Nation's most valuable
asset, the American workforce.
Most notably we are confident that Mr. Acosta's nomination will
garner bipartisan support. He has been previously confirmed by the U.S.
Senate three times with bipartisan support--for the NLRB, as Assistant
Attorney General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern district of
Florida. Mr. Acosta's nomination to serve as Secretary of Labor should
garner the same bipartisan support.
NACA respectfully asks you to support President Trump's nomination
of R. Alexander Acosta to serve as Labor Secretary.
Sincerely,
American Concrete Pavement Association, American Concrete Pipe
Association, American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association, American
Concrete Pumping Association, Concrete Foundations Association,
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, National Concrete Masonry
Association, National Precast Concrete Association, National Ready
Mixed Concrete Association, Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute,
and Portland Cement Association.
Port Aggregates, Inc.,
Lake Charles, LA 70601,
March 15, 2017.
Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Charles Schumer, Democratic Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer and Senators
Alexander and Murray: My name is Andrew Guinn and I work for Port
Aggregates, Inc. located in Lake Charles, LA. We manufacture and
deliver the ready mixed concrete that builds our Nation's heavy highway
system and residential and commercial construction, creating jobs and
accelerating economic growth. I applaud President Donald Trump's
selection of R. Alexander Acosta to head the U.S. Department of Labor.
I support the President's nomination for Labor Secretary because
Mr. Acosta knows and has seen first-hand the negative consequences of
overregulation and enforcement from the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB), having served as a member. During his tenure on the NLRB, Mr.
Acosta drafted more than 125 opinions in which he demonstrated a
balanced approach to both employers and employees. It is only fitting
that someone with Mr. Acosta's background lead the Labor Department--
the agency responsible for ensuring the Nation's labor and safety laws
are properly balanced to benefit our Nation's most valuable asset, the
American workforce.
Most notably I am confident that Mr. Acosta's nomination will
garner bipartisan support. He has been previously confirmed by the U.S.
Senate three times with bipartisan support--for the NLRB, as Assistant
Attorney General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern district of
Florida. Mr. Acosta's nomination to serve as Secretary of Labor should
garner the same bipartisan support.
I respectfully, ask you to support Mr. Acosta as the next Secretary
of Labor so that he can immediately begin helping the American economy
get to work.
Sincerely,
Andrew Guinn,
Chairman, CEO.
San Jose Police Officers' Association,
San Jose, CA 95112,
February 16, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Murray: I am writing on behalf of the
San Jose Police Officers' Association in support of the nomination of
R. Alexander Acosta as Secretary of Labor. He is a committed public
servant who has served with distinction in several positions. He has
always served with ability and integrity, demonstrating care and
concern for people of all walks of life. He is a strong supporter of
law enforcement and of promoting positive relations between police and
the communities they serve. We are confident that he will bring the
same qualities and skills to the position of Secretary of Labor.
Alex's parents fled Communist Cuba for a better life in the United
States and pursued the American dream by working hard at menial jobs.
They did this in order to provide greater opportunities for their son.
This example of work ethic and determination inspired and enabled him
to earn both his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard.
Mr. Acosta has a history of distinguished public service. He was a
member of the National Labor Relations Board, where he participated in
or authored more than 125 opinions. Following the NLRB, he was
Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the U.S.
Department of Justice and was the first Hispanic to hold the rank of
Assistant Attorney General.
Mr. Acosta's government service was primarily spent serving as the
U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida. He was the longest
serving U.S. attorney in the district since the 1970s and this district
has one of the three heaviest criminal dockets of any U.S. attorneys'
office. It consists of five offices across south Florida and requires
considerable managerial skills. As U.S. attorney, Mr. Acosta dealt with
prosecutions of the Cali Drug Cartel, FARC rebels, and the Jose Padilla
for terrorism case. Under his leadership, his office also targeted
white collar crime, prosecuting several bank-related cases, including a
landmark case against Swiss bank UBS. This legally complex case
resulted in UBS paying $780 million in fines, and for the first time in
history, the Swiss banking giant provided the United States with the
names of individuals who were using secret Swiss bank accounts to avoid
U.S. taxes. Mr. Acosta also had excellent relations with State and
local law enforcement throughout his time as a U.S. attorney.
Again, I sincerely support the nomination of Alex Acosta as
Secretary of Labor and I firmly believe he will serve with the
integrity and skill the position requires. I respectfully urge your
consideration of our recommendation.
Sincerely,
Paul Kelly,
President.
Seafarers International Union (SIU)
of North America, AFL-CIO,
Camp Springs, MD 20746,
February 17, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of the
Seafarers International Union (AFL-CIO), I am writing to you today to
express the SIU's support for Alexander Acosta to serve as the Nation's
27th Secretary of Labor.
Having worked closely with eight Labor Secretaries over the last
five presidential administrations, I have come to respect the unique
challenges and responsibilities that come with being at the helm of the
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). It is a job that calls for experiences,
hard work, dedication, and the willingness to make tough decisions that
aren't always popular.
Throughout his distinguished career, Mr. Acosta has demonstrated
all these traits and more. He is, like many of his predecessors in this
position, an American success story, and his success demonstrates to
all Americans the value of hard work and the opportunities that
American provides its citizens--opportunities you can find nowhere else
in the world.
Like me, Mr. Acosta is a son of immigrants, and he has built a
distinguished career in government service. He served on the National
Labor Relations Board under President George W. Bush, a role that gave
him ample insight into the relationship between employers and labor
representatives that will serve him well at DOL. He also served as
Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division in the U.S.
Department of Justice, and as a U.S. attorney for the southern district
of Florida, where he prosecuted a variety of crimes from drug
trafficking and terrorism to public corruption. Given the critical role
DOL plays in the enforcement of labor laws, his experience at NLRB and
as a prosecutor make him uniquely qualified to lead the Labor
Department.
President Trump should be applauded for this nomination, as he has
found in Mr. Acosta a dedicated, qualified public servant who has
served with distinction in a variety of challenging roles. His record
is one of defending the rights of people from all walks of life. The
SIU is confident Mr. Acosta will serve with integrity and distinction
as Secretary of Labor, as he has whenever he's been called upon for
public service.
I look forward to working with him in the future, and I thank you
for your consideration of the views of the SIU on this matter. As
always, if I can be of service to you, please do not hesitate to call
upon me.
Sincerely,
Michael Sacco,
President.
Sergeants Benevolent Association (SBA),
New York, NY 10013,
February 16, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Murray: I am writing to inform you of
my union's support for the nomination of R. Alexander Acosta to be
Secretary of Labor. Mr. Acosta has distinguished himself in several
prior government positions and is an inspiring American success story.
His parents fled Communist Cuba for a better life in the United States.
His parents pursued the American dream by working hard at menial jobs
in order to provide greater opportunities for their son. Their hard
work paid off as Alex inherited their work ethic and determination,
which enabled him to earn both his undergraduate and law degrees from
Harvard.
Mr. Acosta has a history of distinguished public service. He was a
member of the National Labor Relations Board, where he participated in
or authored more than 125 opinions. Following the NLRB, he was
Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division at the U.S.
Department of Justice and was the first Hispanic to hold the rank of
Assistant Attorney General.
Most of Mr. Acosta's government service was spent serving as the
U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida. He was the longest
serving U.S. attorney in the District since the 1970s. This district
that has one of the three heaviest criminal dockets of any U.S.
attorneys' office. It consists of five offices across south Florida and
requires considerable managerial skills. As U.S. attorney, Mr. Acosta
dealt with prosecutions of the Cali Drug Cartel, PARC rebels, and the
Jose Padilla for terrorism case. Under his leadership, his office also
targeted white collar crime, prosecuting several bank-related cases,
including a landmark case against Swiss bank UBS. This legally complex
case resulted in UBS paying $780 million in fines, and for the first
time in history, the Swiss banking giant provided the United States
with the names of individuals who were using secret Swiss bank accounts
to avoid U.S. taxes. Mr. Acosta also had excellent relations with State
and local law enforcement throughout his time as a U.S. attorney. Since
leaving this position. he has remained a strong supporter of law
enforcement and promoting positive relations between police and the
communities they serve.
Alex Acosta is a committed public servant who has served with
distinction in several positions. He has always served with ability and
integrity and demonstrated care and concern for people of all walks of
life. We are confident that he will bring the same qualities and skills
to the position of Secretary of Labor.
Thank you for your consideration of our views on this matter.
Very Respectfully,
Ed Mullins,
President.
Sioux Corporation,
Beresford, SD 57004-1500,
March 15, 2017.
Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Charles Schumer, Democratic Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer and Senators
Alexander and Murray: My name is Jack Finger and I work for Sioux
Corporation, located in Beresford, SD. We manufacture and deliver
industrial equipment used to produce ready mixed concrete that builds
our Nation's heavy highway system and residential and commercial
construction, creating jobs and accelerating economic growth. I applaud
President Donald Trump's selection of R. Alexander Acosta to head the
U.S. Department of Labor.
I support the President's nomination for Labor Secretary because
Mr. Acosta knows and has seen first-hand the negative consequences of
overregulation and enforcement from the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB), having served as a member. During his tenure on the NLRB, Mr.
Acosta drafted more than 125 opinions in which he demonstrated a
balanced approach to both employers and employees. It is only fitting
that someone with Mr. Acosta's background lead the Labor Department--
the agency responsible for ensuring the Nation's labor and safety laws
are properly balanced to benefit our Nation's most valuable asset, the
American workforce.
Most notably I am confident that Mr. Acosta's nomination will
garner bipartisan support. He has been previously confirmed by the U.S.
Senate three times with bipartisan support--for the NLRB, as Assistant
Attorney General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern district of
Florida. Mr. Acosta's nomination to serve as Secretary of Labor should
garner the same bipartisan support.
I respectfully ask you to support Mr. Acosta as the next Secretary
of Labor so that he can immediately begin helping the American economy
get to work.
Sincerely,
John W. Finger (Jack),
President and CEO.
Spurlino,
Middletown, OH 45044,
March 17, 2017.
Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Charles Schumer, Democratic Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer and Senators
Alexander and Murray: My name is Jim Spurlino and I own Spurlino
Materials located in Middletown, OH with operations in Ohio, Kentucky,
and Indiana. We manufacture and deliver the ready mixed concrete that
builds our Nation's heavy highway system and residential and commercial
construction, creating jobs and accelerating economic growth. I applaud
President Donald Trump's selection of R. Alexander Acosta to head the
U.S. Department of Labor.
I support the President's nomination for Labor Secretary because
Mr. Acosta knows and has seen first-hand the negative consequences of
overregulation and enforcement from the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB), having served as a member. During his tenure on the NLRB, Mr.
Acosta drafted more than 125 opinions in which he demonstrated a
balanced approach to both employers and employees. It is only fitting
that someone with Mr. Acosta's background lead the Labor Department--
the agency responsible for ensuring the Nation's labor and safety laws
are properly balanced to benefit our Nation's most valuable asset, the
American workforce.
Most notably, I am confident that Mr. Acosta's nomination will
garner bipartisan support. He has been previously confirmed by the U.S.
Senate three times with bipartisan support--for the NLRB, as Assistant
Attorney General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern district of
Florida. Mr. Acosta's nomination to serve as Secretary of Labor should
garner the same bipartisan support.
I respectfully ask you to support Mr. Acosta as the next Secretary
of Labor so that he can immediately begin helping the American economy
get to work.
Sincerely,
Jim Spurlino,
President.
Workforce Fairness Institute,
March 9, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the U.S. Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: The Workforce
Fairness Institute (WFI), an organization devoted to educating workers,
their employers, employees and citizens about issues affecting the
workplace, writes today in strong support of the nomination of
Alexander Acosta as U.S. Secretary of Labor. We urge the committee to
give him swift consideration and coordination for this important role,
so that he can get to work rolling back years of Obama-era
overregulation and red tape.
Mr. Acosta is a man with an extremely accomplished legal record. A
former Assistant Attorney General in the George W. Bush administration,
a U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida, as well as a
former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, his reputation for
pragmatism and fairness precedes him. That, coupled with his previous
service as a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), make
him an excellent choice to take the helm of the Department of Labor and
unravel many of the misguided policies of the previous administration.
Mr. Acosta understands firsthand the balance between promoting
free-market, pro-growth policies that create jobs and grow our economy
while protecting workers' rights and enforcing strong labor laws and
protections. There's no question he has the background and expertise to
serve the American people well. WFI respectfully requests that the
committee weigh in and consider these facts, and vote to confirm Mr.
Acosta at the earliest possible opportunity.
Sincerely,
Heather Greenaway,
Workforce Fairness Institute.
March 20, 2017.
Dear Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray and members of the
committee: On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write to
express our strong support for R. Alexander Acosta, Dean of the Florida
International University College of Law, who is nominated to serve as
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).
Businesses continue to face a great deal of uncertainty due to
regulatory overreach by the previous administration. President Trump
has issued numerous, vitally important Executive orders aimed at
quickly addressing the regulatory challenges facing the business
community and to ensure employers can focus on creating jobs and
growing the economy.
Mr. Acosta is a dedicated public servant who has spent years
wrestling with complex legal issues, and he has proven management and
Federal agency experience. He is well-qualified to lead this important
agency as it protects American workers, implements the President's
Executive orders, and strives to meet the President's goals of
eliminating job-crushing regulations, keeping government agencies
accountable, and getting Americans back to work.
Given Mr. Acosta has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate three times
with bipartisan support--for the National Labor Relations Board, as an
Assistant Attorney General, and as U.S. attorney for the southern
district of Florida--we are confident there will be bipartisan support
for his nomination to be the Secretary of Labor.
For these reasons, America's job creators urge the committee to
support Mr. Acosta's nomination, and we urge swift consideration and
approval.
Sincerely,
Aeronautical Repair Station Association, Air Conditioning Contractors
of America, American Apparel & Footwear Association, American
Bakers Association, American Beverage Association, American
Concrete Pressure Pipe Association, American Fire Sprinkler
Association, American Foundry Society, American Fuel &
Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Home Furnishings Alliance,
American Hotel & Lodging Association, American Moving & Storage
Association American Staffing Association, American Supply
Association, Americans for Tax Reform, American Trucking
Associations, AmericanHort, Argentum, Asian American Hotel Owners
Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated
Equipment Distributors, Associated General Contractors, Auto Care
Association, Center for Worker Freedom, Coalition of Franchisee
Associations, Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry,
Franchise Business Services, Heating, Air-conditioning &
Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI), HR Policy
Association, Independent Electrical Contractors Insured Retirement
Institute, International Foodservice Distributors Association,
International Franchise Association, International Warehouse
Logistics Association, Leading Builders of America, Manufacturer &
Business Association, Metals Service Center Institute, Montana
Retail Association, MSPA Americas, National Association of Home
Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, National
Association of Professional Employer Organizations, National
Automobile Dealers Association, National Christmas Tree
Association, National Club Association, National Council of Chain
Restaurants, National Federation of Independent Business, National
Franchisee Association, National Grocers Association, National
Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association, National Precast
Concrete Association, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association,
National Restaurant Association National Retail Federation,
National Roofing Contractors Association, Plastics Industry
Association, Private Care Association, Retail Industry Leaders
Association, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, SNAC
International, Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association, The
Fertilizer Institute, The Vinyl Institute, Tile Roofing Institute,
Tree Care Industry Association, Truck Renting and Leasing
Association, United Motorcoach Association, U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, Water & Sewer Distributors of America, and Wine & Spirits
Wholesalers of America.
Letters of Opposition
AFR Americans for Financial Reform (AFR),
March 20, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chair,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chair Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of
Americans for Financial Reform and 50 faith, consumer advocate and
labor organizations, we write to reiterate our strong view that the
Department of Labor's fiduciary rule, which requires those who give
retirement savings advice to put their clients best interest first must
be allowed to go into effect as planned in April; and to urge you to
ask the nominee for U.S. Secretary of Labor, Alex Acosta, to affirm his
commitment to the rule being implemented on time.
For far too long, brokers have been able to put their own financial
interests ahead of their clients, steering retirement savers into
investments that serve the broker's bottom line rather than the
clients. This conflicted advice costs working families more than $17
billion in retirement savings annually.* The DOL fiduciary rule is a
responsible solution to this problem and will mean workers and families
get actual advice, not misleading sales pitches when investing their
hard-earned retirement savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/04/06/
fact-sheet-middle-class-economics-strengthening-retirement-security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you know, the DOL promulgated the final fiduciary rule after
conducting a thorough, thoughtful, and transparent multiyear process.
The final fiduciary rule is the product of more than 6 years of
research, consideration of more than 300,000 comments, 4 days of
hearings, and hundreds of meetings. Now, at the behest of Wall Street,
the Trump administration has suddenly proposed to delay the rule--a
move that would cost retirees tens of millions of dollars a day.
Due diligence requires this committee to ask the nominee what he
will do with regard to the fiduciary rule: will he follow the evidence
and protect the interests of investors by allowing it to go into effect
as planned, or will he support the delay and then the demise of this
fundamentally important investor protection?
Sincerely,
Americans for Financial Reform; American Association of University
Women (AAUW); Americans for Democratic Action (ADA); American
Federation of Teachers Colorado; ACTION reUnion 2017, TN; Allied
Progress; Aquinas Institute of Theology; Bread & Roses Missouri;
Catholic Charities of St. Louis, MO; Coalition on Human Needs;
Committee for the Fiduciary Standard; Communication Workers of
America; Consumers Union; Economic Policy Institute Policy Center;
Eliot Unitarian Chapel; Empower Missouri; Denver Area Labor
Federation, AFL-CIO; Gethsemane Lutheran Church, MO; Interfaith
Alliance of Colorado; Institute for Science and Human Values; John
C. Danforth Center on Religion and Politics, MO; LiUNA 110;
Metropolitan Congregations United, MO; Missouri Alliance for
Retired Americans, Education Fund; Missouri Jobs with Justice;
NAACP; National Consumers League; National Employment Lawyers
Association; National Employment Law Project; Presbytery of
Giddings, MO; St. Louis Episcopal Service Corps, MO; St. Louis
Metropolitan Clergy Coalition, MO; State Representative Tracy
McCreey, MO; UNICOM-ARC, MO; UNITE HERE LOCAL 74; United Church of
Christ, MO; Westminster Presbyterian Church, MO; Woodstock
Institute; and Workplace Fairness, MO.
Americans Federation of Teachers (AFT),\1\
March 16, 2017.
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the 1.6 million members of the American
Federation of Teachers, I write to urge the Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions (HELP) Committee to thoroughly question and examine the
record of Alexander Acosta as the nominee for secretary of labor.
President Trump may well have nominated Acosta because his history in
government appears to make him easily confirmable, but regardless of
Acosta's previous confirmations by the U.S. Senate, the American people
deserve a full airing of his record and his views on matters of
importance to working Americans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The American Federation of Teachers is a union of professionals
that champions fairness, democracy, economic opportunity, and high-
quality public education, healthcare and public services for our
students, their families and our communities. We are committed to
advancing these principles through community engagement, organizing,
collective bargaining and political activism, and especially through
the work our members do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mission of the Department of Labor is:
``to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage
earners of the United States, to improve their working
conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable
employment.''
The American people deserve to know how Alexander Acosta plans to
carry out this mission, and specifically, how he will ensure all
workers have jobs that are safe, secure and fair, and provide dignified
wages.
Working Americans deserve to know Acosta's views on employer-
provided health benefits, retirement security, the minimum wage, and
the gender and racial wage gaps.
AFT members, in particular, are interested in hearing Acosta's
views on ensuring workers' health and safety; protecting workers'
retirement savings; upholding the Obama administration's overtime rule;
paid family leave initiatives; trade; career and technical education
and programs to build prospective employees' skills; and collective
bargaining.
The AFT is committed to supporting the interests of the workers we
represent. We believe it is incumbent upon the HELP Committee to ask
tough questions and critically examine Acosta's record to determine
whether he can uphold the Nation's commitment to the rights of all
workers.
Thank you for considering the AFT's views on this matter.
Sincerely,
Randi Weingarten,
President.
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515-6100,
March 21, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chaimian,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
648 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: We write
regarding President Trump's nomination of R. Alexander Acosta to serve
as the Secretary of the Department of Labor (DOL). As you know, the
DOL's mission is ``to foster, promote and develop the welfare of the
wage earners[.]'' As Democratic Members of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce, we have a strong interest in ensuring that the next
Secretary of Labor will carry out this critical mission. During Mr.
Acosta's upcoming confirmation hearing, we urge you to question Mr.
Acosta about how he plans to accomplish the DOL's core functions. In
particular, we urge you to ask Mr. Acosta about his views on key issues
affecting workers and their families across the country, including
enforcement of wage and hour, safety and health, and workplace
nondiscrimination laws, the promotion of workforce training, and the
administration of benefit programs over which the DOL has jurisdiction.
Finally, we urge you to ask Mr. Acosta to explain the steps he will
take to ensure that politicized hiring of career employees does not
occur on his watch.
supporting robust enforcement
As Secretary of Labor, Mr. Acosta will oversee the agencies and
offices that protect workers' wages, help ensure workers and miners
return home safely each day from their jobs, safeguard hard-earned
retirement benefits, and ensure that injured longshore workers and coal
miners receive timely workers' compensation benefits. We urge you to
ask Mr. Acosta how he will accomplish the goals of achieving safe and
healthy working conditions, stopping wage theft, ending discrimination,
and ensuring employers meet their responsibilities in the
administration of employee benefits, including group health plans.
Furthermore, we urge you to ask Mr. Acosta what he will do to ensure
that companies doing business with the Federal Government are educated
about their obligations to their employees under our Nation's workplace
laws.
strengthening workforce training programs
We also urge you to thoroughly investigate Mr. Acosta's plan to
build and develop a highly skilled workforce. A recent study from the
Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce found that
by 2020 the United States will not have enough skilled workers to meet
the demands of our economy.\1\ The study estimates that 65 percent of
all jobs in the economy will require post-secondary education and
training beyond high school, and that there will be a shortage of 5
million workers to fill these jobs. In addition, last month, two dozen
chief executives from the manufacturing industry met with the
administration to express their concern about the lack of highly
skilled workers to fill manufacturing jobs. According to one of the
CEOs who attended that meeting, The jobs are there, but the skills are
not.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Recovery: Job Growth and Education Requirements through 2020.
Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. June 26,
2013. https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/
Recovery2020.ES_.Web_.pdf.
\2\ AP, Factory CEOs Tell Trump: Jobs Exist, Skilled Applicants
Don't. LA Times. Feb. 23, 2017, available at http://www.latimes.com/
business/la-fi-manufacturing-trump-20170223-story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipping workers with the skills and training necessary to compete
for good jobs is critical to achieving broadly shared economic
prosperity. In the 113th Congress, Members worked in a bipartisan
manner to pass the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).
This law, along with strategic investment in our Nation's opportunity
youth and registered apprenticeship programs, can help build a highly
skilled workforce and close the so-called skills gap. We urge you to
question Mr. Acosta about how he will promote national skills building
and successful, evidence-based training models at both the State and
national level.
raising wages
While worker productivity has increased by more than 70 percent
over the past 40 years, wages have not kept pace.\3\ In fact, wages for
the bottom 90 percent of income earners have only grown by 15
percent.\4\ Working people deserve a Secretary of Labor who is
committed to ensuring that hardworking people are paid fairly. We urge
you to question Mr. Acosta about his support for the Department of
Labor's overtime rule and raising the Federal minimum wage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Lawrence Mishel, Elise Gould, and Josh Bivens. Wage Stagnation
in Nine Charts. Economic Policy Institute. January 6, 2015. http://
www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/.
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
avoiding politicized hiring of career employees and inappropriate
political interference with core agency functions
Many have raised concerns about politicized hiring practices in the
hiring of career employees during Mr. Acosta's tenure at the Department
of Justice. A Department of Labor Office of the Inspector General (01G)
report from 2008 found that while Mr. Acosta led the Civil Rights
Division, personnel decisions in the agency were marked by stark
politicization.\5\ The OIG found that actions taken during Mr. Acosta's
tenure violated Department of Justice policy and Federal law.\6\ We
urge a thorough investigation of these issues, as well as an
exploration of Mr. Acosta's record of service at both the DOJ and NLRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring and Other
Improper Personnel Actions in the Civil Rights Division. U.S.
Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General and the U.S.
Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility. July 2,
2008. https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0901/final.pdf.
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, we urge you to question Mr. Acosta about the steps he
will take to prevent political interference with the career DOL staff
's ability to enforce our workplace protection laws, as well as supply
accurate, non-biased information about the state of jobs and the
economy. We note that under the new Administration, the DOL has issued
almost no press releases on its enforcement activity under our safety
and health or wage and hour laws. Failing to publicize enforcement
efforts greatly diminishes their potential to deter future violations.
In addition, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the jobs data
produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) under the Obama
administration ``may have been phony in the past, but it's very real
now.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Madeline Conway, Spicer Claims That Jobs Numbers ``May Have
Been Phony'' Before, But Now They're Very Real, Politico. Mar. 1, 2017.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-monthly-jobs-numbers-sean-
spicer-235936.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criticizing the integrity of BLS data without supplying any basis
for that criticism is cause for grave concern, given that key actors
rely on that data to make economic decisions. We urge you to question
Mr. Acosta about his positions on making enforcement actions public and
the integrity of BLS data.
Thank you for your commitment to ensuring our next Secretary of
Labor will fulfill the Department's critical mission of protecting,
supporting, and defending working people.
Sincerely,
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Ranking Member; Susan A. Davis, Member of
Congress; Raul M. Grijalva, Member of Congress; Joe Courtney,
Member of Congress; Marcia L. Fudge, Member of Congress; Jared
Polis, Member of Congress; Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Member
of Congress; Frederica S. Wilson, Member of Congress; Suzanne
Bonamici, Member of Congress; Mark Takano, Member of Congress; Alma
S. Adams, Member of Congress; Mark DeSaulnier, Member of Congress;
Donald Norcross, Member of Congress; Lisa Blunt Rochester, Member
of Congress; Raja Krushnamoorthi, Member of Congress; Carol Shea-
Porter, Member of Congress; and Adriano Espaillat, Member of
Congress.
Communications Workers of America,
Washington, DC 20001,
March 15, 2017.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the 700,000 members and officers of the
Communications Workers of America (CWA), I am writing to express deep
concern about the nomination of R. Alexander Acosta to serve as
Secretary of the Department of Labor. Given Mr. Acosta's troubling
history regarding civil rights and equal protection under the law, I
urge you to oppose his nomination.
CWA has long advocated for the protection of equal rights for all
Americans in the workplace, in the electoral process, and a wide range
of other areas. Unfortunately, Mr. Acosta's record of service at the
Department of Justice raises serious concerns about his ability to
protect the equal rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Federal law
to all Americans. The Department of Labor is one of the most important
entities in protecting all workers' fundamental rights, so it is deeply
troubling that a nominee for Secretary of Labor would have such a poor
record on these issues.
Two concerns in particular stand out regarding Mr. Acosta's
commitment to enforcing guarantees of equal protection. First, Mr.
Acosta wrote an unsolicited letter to an Ohio judge in 2004 justifying
the practice of voter caging, in which Ohio Republicans engaged in
dubious practices as part of an attempt to disenfranchise voters who
were predominately African American or Latino. The practice ``was
widely seen as a Republican strategy to disenfranchise minorities,''
according to news reports.
Second, Mr. Acosta's record overseeing the Department of Justice's
Civil Rights Division during a time of deep politicization and
dysfunction is very worrisome. Under his leadership, the Division
replaced myriad career staff with clearly unqualified replacements on
the basis of their political leanings, despite the fact that many of
these hires did not have a demonstrated interest in the mission of
DOJ's Civil Rights Division. A 2008 DOJ Inspector General report found
that Mr. Acosta ``had sufficient information . . . to have raised red
flags warranting closer supervision,'' but ``took no action to
investigate'' or bring problems to the attention of supervisors. This
pattern of problematic hires dramatically undermined the Civil Rights
Division's enforcement ability to the point that literally years of
hard work were required to reinvigorate the Division.
As millions of working men and women strive to make ends meet, it
is imperative that the Department of Labor be on their side, working to
protect their rights and help them live out their dreams. It does not
appear that Mr. Acosta would, if confirmed, fight for workers' rights
and help expand the middle class. Therefore, I ask you to oppose his
nomination.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Chris Shelton,
President.
Shane Larson,
Legislative Director.
Demos,
March 10, 2017.
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Murray, and Members of the
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: Demos
expresses concern about the appointment of R. Alexander Acosta as
Secretary of Labor and urges the members of the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to vote against his
confirmation. Mr. Acosta's record of undermining voting rights and
overseeing politicized hiring at the Department of Justice as well as
and his lack of experience and expertise on the Department of Labor's
core mission make the nominee a poor choice to lead the U.S. Department
of Labor.
Demos is a public policy organization working for an America where
we all have an equal say in our democracy and an equal chance in our
economy. Mr. Acosta raises concerns on both sides. The work of the
Department of Labor is critical to the ability of all Americans to
benefit from equitable economic opportunity, yet Mr. Acosta has little
history of defending the rights of working people. At the same time,
Mr. Acosta's efforts on voting rights have undermined Americans'
ability to exercise an equal voice in our democracy.
In his capacity as Assistant Attorney General for the Justice
Department's civil rights division, Mr. Acosta intervened to oppose a
lawsuit against an anti-democratic law allowing unwarranted challenges
to Americans' right to cast ballots in Ohio. Writing to the judge in
the case, Mr. Acosta promoted a weakened interpretation of the Voting
Rights Act, asserting that civil rights concerns did not apply despite
blatant efforts to disenfranchise African American voters with a
challenge list that:
``targeted predominantly minority, urban, and Democratic
districts. It was estimated that `in Ohio, all of the precincts
in about a dozen counties that contain 91 percent of the
State's black population--including urban areas like Cleveland,
Cincinnati, Dayton, Toledo, and Akron' were targeted by
Republican challengers.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Liz Kennedy, et al., ``Bullies At The Ballot Box: Protecting
The Freedom To Vote Against Wrongful Challenges and Intimidation,''
Demos, 2012. http://www.demos.org/publication/bullies-ballot-box-
protecting-freedom-vote-against-wrongful-challenges-and-intimidation.
This troubling voting rights record raises further questions about
Mr. Acosta's judgment when combined with the politicized hiring process
that occurred on Acosta's watch at the Department of Justice. As
detailed by the Office of Inspector General's 2008 report, the Civil
Rights Division headed by Mr. Acosta violated Justice Department policy
and Federal law, improperly using political affiliations to assess job
candidates and career attorneys.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring and
Other Improper Personnel Actions in the Civil Rights Division,'' Office
of the Inspector General & Office of Professional Responsibility, U.S.
Department of Justice, 2008. https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0901/
final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Mr. Acosta's lack of experience and expertise on the
Department of Labor's core mission is cause for concern. The Labor
Department's mission is
``to foster . . . the welfare of the wage earners of the United
States, to improve their working conditions, and to advance
their opportunities for profitable employment.''
One hundred and twenty million working Americans depend on the
Department of Labor to enforce the Nation's most basic laws on the
minimum wage, child labor, and workplace safety. Yet Mr. Acosta has
little or no experience in this area.
Today a quarter of the Nation's working households depend on the
pay of low-wage workers including Americans working in the retail, home
health care, and food service industries. On its current path, the
economy is set to generate still more low-paying jobs: analysis of U.S.
Department of Labor statistics reveals that 28 percent of the new jobs
being created over the next decade will be in occupations paying median
hourly wages below $12 an hour. Only proactive employment policies and
strong enforcement by the Department of Labor can change the trend
toward an economy based on low paying jobs.
The next Secretary of Labor will also be responsible for rules
critical to the well-being of working people which have been delayed by
the current administration including:
The expansion of access to overtime pay, which would raise
incomes for 12.5 million salaried workers across the country;
The fiduciary rule, which requires financial advisors and
brokers to act in the best interest of people saving for retirement.
Demos estimates that Americans savers would pay nearly $25 billion less
every year as a result of lower fees if the fiduciary rule goes into
effect as written.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Robert Hiltonsmith, ``Why the Fiduciary Rule Matters,'' Demos,
2015. http://www.demos
.org/publication/why-fiduciary-rule-matters.
Given these pending rules, and the reality that the Department of
Labor is likely to face substantial cuts to its enforcement budget in
the coming fiscal year, it is critical that the Secretary of Labor
stand up for the rights of working Americans. Nothing in Alexander
Acosta's record suggests that he will.
We urge you to vote against confirming Alexander Acosta as
Secretary of Labor.
Sincerely,
Tamara Draut,
Vice President, Policy and Research.
Make It Work ACTION!
March 10, 2017.
Senate HELP Committee,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senators: We write to express our concerns about the choice of
Alexander Acosta for Secretary of Labor. Our vision for a Labor
Secretary is one who will carry out the Department of Labor's (DOLs)
mission to,
``foster, promote and develop the welfare of wage earners, job
seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working
conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment and
assure work-related benefits and rights.''
The DoL has a particular opportunity to continue to be a leader in
advancing women in the workforce. We have not seen evidence in Mr.
Acosta's record that he will be such a leader.
The Make it Work Campaign works to advance economic security for
women, men and families across the country. Working families, and
especially women, are increasingly experiencing deep economic
instability between women and men being paid differently for their
work, the increasing costs of child and elder care, the lack of paid
family leave and low wages. America is ready for common sense workplace
policies and ambitious solutions that will help people across the
country ``make it work.''
We need a Labor Secretary who understands the daunting challenges
working families face and who supports raising the minimum wage (two-
thirds of minimum wage earners are women), guaranteeing paid family and
medical leave to all workers, the right to earn paid sick days, fair
scheduling practices and equal pay for equal work. These issues are at
the crux of working families' economic security, and especially women's
economic security. President Trump's Cabinet nominees have not
demonstrated this type of commitment to date. We need to know more
about whether Mr. Acosta will work to boost the financial stability of
women and working families and protect our rights. Please contact Make
it Work Action's policy director Julie Kashen at
[email protected] with any followup questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Vivien Labaton,
Co-Executive Director/Co-Founder.
Tracy Sturdivant,
Co-Executive Director/Co-Founder.
National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Pride
@Work,
March 10, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chair,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chair Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: We write today on
behalf of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Pride at Work and
all those we serve to express our concerns about the nomination of
Alexander Acosta as U.S. Secretary of Labor. NCLR is an organization
committed to advancing the civil and human rights of LGBTQ persons and
their families through litigation, legislation, policy, and public
education. Pride at Work is a nonprofit organization that represents
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) union members
and their allies.
Like many working people, we know many LGBTQ people are struggling
to make ends meet. In fact, LGBTQ people face a higher rate of poverty
than non-LGBTQ people,\1\ LGBTQ working people need a labor secretary
who not only supports strong nondiscrimination protections but also the
right to unionize, fair and equal pay, and worker safety. Workers
should not have to decide between taking care of their health or that
of a loved one and getting paid, and our Nation's Secretary of Labor
should fight day and night for that principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Beyond Stereotypes: Poverty in the LGBT Community'', The
Williams Institute-UCLA School of Law (2012), http://
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/headlines/beyond-stereotypes-poverty-in-
the-lgbt-community/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the recent attempts to roll back protections for LGBTQ
individuals, it is essential to have a labor secretary who will defend
the rights of LGBTQ working people. Unfortunately, we do not know Mr.
Acosta's views on LGBTQ issues. Therefore, it is critical that the
Senate HELP committee does its due diligence in vetting Mr. Acosta
thoroughly on LGBTQ employment discrimination and all other issues
affecting LGBTQ workers. Workers deserve a labor secretary who will
stand up for all of them and their families.
Sincerely,
National Center for Lesbian Rights,
and Pride at Work.
National Education Association (NEA),
Washington, DC 20036,
March 21, 2017.
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senator: On behalf of the 3 million members of the National
Education Association and the 50 million students they serve, we urge
you to ensure that Alexander Acosta, President Trump's nominee for
Secretary of Labor, is committed to the U.S. Department of Labor's
mission: to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage
earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve
working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment;
and assure work-related benefits and rights.
It is critical for the Secretary of Labor to be committed to
fairness and civil rights for all workers. Every day across the
country, men and women go to work hoping to do an honest day's work and
provide for their families. Their contributions have made the U.S.
economy one of the strongest in the world and, over time, created a
stable middle class.
A strong labor force is the foundation of a strong middle class.
Unfortunately, the worker voice in the workplace has eroded over the
past few decades and so has the stability of the middle class. Now more
than ever, America needs to invest in policies that shore up and help
rebuild the middle class.
The Department of Labor is charged with addressing a range of
issues related to those goals, including workplace safety, retirement
security, and civil rights. We urge the committee to vet Mr. Acosta
thoroughly in these areas, especially with regard to his tenure at the
U.S. Department of Justice as Assistant Attorney General for Civil
Rights and his commitment to the U.S. Department of Labor's mission.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Marc Egan,
Director of Government Relations,
National Education Association.
National Partnership For Women & Families,
Washington, DC 20009,
March 14, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chair,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chair Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of the
National Partnership for Women & Families and the activists and
supporters with whom we stand, I write today to encourage rigorous
questioning and a thorough review of the record of R. Alexander Acosta,
the nominee to be U.S. Secretary of Labor. The Secretary of Labor
should be a dedicated and powerful champion for workers and committed
to the enforcement and advancement of policies that promote the best
interests of working people. This includes fighting for fair wages,
safe workplaces, equal pay, paid sick days, paid family and medical
leave and equal employment opportunities. We will listen carefully to
Mr. Acosta's responses at his upcoming confirmation hearing to evaluate
whether he can be trusted to defend and protect the interests of
working people, and especially workers in low-wage occupations and in
dangerous industries, women workers and workers of color. We urge you
to do the same, and if you are not satisfied that he will stand up for
working people's best interests, to reject his nomination.
The National Partnership for Women & Families is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization dedicated to promoting fairness in the
workplace, reproductive health and rights, access to quality health
care, and policies that help women and men meet the dual demands of job
and family. For more than 45 years, we have worked to advance policies
that create opportunities for women in the workforce and greater
economic security for women and their families. The National
Partnership has worked tirelessly to secure updated wage and hour
protections for millions of America's workers, new equal employment
opportunity protections for Federal contract employees, and vigorous
enforcement of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Family and Medical
Leave Act--all of which are under the jurisdiction of U.S. Department
of Labor.
We have three primary areas of concern that we urge the committee
to probe during Mr. Acosta's hearing.
First, we are concerned about Mr. Acosta's failure to exercise
oversight over a subordinate who engaged in highly politicized and
ideological hiring of civil service employees during Mr. Acosta's
tenure as the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the
Department of Justice. An investigation and subsequent report by the
Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General found that Mr.
Acosta was aware of, and did too little to stop, his subordinate's
efforts only to consider or hire attorneys with conservative
credentials, and reject candidates and attorneys with liberal
credentials.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Office of
the Inspector General Office of Professional Responsibility. (2008,
July 2). An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring and
Other Improper Personnel Actions in the Civil Rights Division.
Retrieved 3 March 2017, from https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0901/
final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During Mr. Acosta's confirmation hearing, we urge you to question
Mr. Acosta vigorously about the safeguards and protocols he will
institute and maintain at the Department of Labor to ensure that the
department's policy, research, regulatory and enforcement work is not
compromised or undermined by partisan or ideological litmus tests for
civil servants.
Second, the committee must rigorously probe Mr. Acosta's views on
the role of the Department of Labor in investigating and enforcing laws
that disproportionately impact women, people of color and vulnerable
workers. We are concerned by reports that during Mr. Acosta's tenure at
the Department of Justice, the Civil Rights Division brought
significantly fewer employment discrimination cases than in prior
administrations.\2\ The division also reportedly moved away from filing
high-impact cases challenging discriminatory policies affecting large
numbers of people.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Women's Law Center. (2004, April). Slip-Sliding Away:
The Erosion of Hard-Won Gains for Women Under the Bush Administration
and an Agenda for Moving Forward. Retrieved 13 March 2017, from http://
www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/AdminRecordOnWomen
2004.pdf.
\3\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During Mr. Acosta's confirmation hearing, we urge you to identify
what Mr. Acosta's approach will be to investigating allegations of
violations of wage and hour laws, workplace safety laws and other
fundamental workplace protections, including those enforced by the
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). We ask you to
hold Mr. Acosta accountable for explaining what his strategic
enforcement priorities will be. And we urge you to ask Mr. Acosta to
pledge that he will advocate for current or increased funding levels
for the Department of Labor, including for wage and hour investigation
and enforcement activities, which since 2009 have successfully
recovered nearly $1.6 billion back wages for more than 1.7 million
workers across the country.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Perez, T. E. (2017, January). Department of Labor. Memorandum
to the American People. U.S. Department of Labor Publication. Retrieved
13 March 2017, from https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/dol-exit-
memo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, we urge you to probe Mr. Acosta's views on the need for new
or expanded protections and supports that recognize workers' dual
obligations to their jobs and to their families. In recent years, the
Department of Labor has provided funding and technical assistance to
States interested in exploring the creation of paid family and medical
leave programs. The department commissioned important research that
revealed the gaps in employer compliance and employees' barriers to
using the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The department updated
Fair Labor Standards Act regulations to guarantee more salaried workers
access to overtime pay. The department created new common-sense
protections requiring that Federal contractors' employees be paid a
higher minimum wage and have access to earned paid sick days; it also
adopted new nondiscrimination provisions for LGBT workers and
protections against retaliation for workers who discuss their
compensation with coworkers. Each of these policies helps to advance
the interests of workers and their families and promotes their economic
security.
In order to assess Mr. Acosta's commitment to these policies and to
improving the lives of millions of working people, the committee should
discern what types of investments Mr. Acosta will pledge to make as
labor secretary and obtain his commitment to defend against rollbacks.
For example, will he commit to vigorous enforcement of the FMLA? Will
he support FMLA expansions? Will he invest in strong, comprehensive and
sustainable solutions to America's paid family and medical leave
crisis, including support for a national law that guarantees women and
men access to paid family and medical leave for all FMLA reasons and
continued Department of Labor funding for State paid leave analyses?
Will he pledge to maintain and enforce department rules governing
overtime pay, paid sick days, LGBT nondiscrimination and fair pay? The
answers to these questions will help the committee--and the Nation--
assess whether Mr. Acosta's views reflect those of the vast majority of
voters who support these policies or whether his views are outside the
mainstream and out of step with the workers whose interests he must
serve.
We hope you agree that the next Secretary of Labor must strongly
support the mission of the department, which is,
``No foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage
earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States;
improve working conditions; advance opportunities for
profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and
rights.''
We urge you to ask probing questions and to demand clear answers to
determine whether Mr. Acosta will faithfully execute this mission. If
he will not, we ask you to reject his nomination.
Sincerely,
Debra L. Ness,
President.
National Urban League,
New York, NY 10005,
March 10, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: As President and
CEO of the National Urban League, and on behalf of its 88 affiliates in
36 States and the District of Columbia, I am writing to seek assurance
that Alexander Acosta, nominee for Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Labor (DOL), will make full and effective implementation of the
bipartisan Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), enacted
into law in 2014, a top priority for our Nation's workforce. Given the
lack of information on Mr. Acosta's views and record on workforce
development policy, we urge that you conduct a thorough assessment of
how he plans to assure that adults and youth having the greatest
barriers to employment in today's economy have access to the services
of WIOA.
The National Urban League is the Nation's largest historic civil
rights and urban advocacy organization dedicated to economic
empowerment in African American and other underserved communities.
Every day, we strive to meet our 2025 Goal of insuring that ``Every
American has access to jobs with a living wage and good benefits.''
With the Black unemployment rate remaining at about twice the white
rate across time at every level of education and the income gap
remaining unchanged--now at 60 percent, the work of the Department of
Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is of critical
importance to our urban communities. As you are fully aware, it took
more than a decade to reach a bipartisan reauthorization of our
Nation's only Federal workforce development system. This landmark law
increases focus on vulnerable workers, expands education and training
programs, helps disadvantaged adults and youth earn while they learn,
and aligns planning and accountability. However, after years of eroded
funding, the new law remains sorely underfunded to fulfill its promise
to meet the needs of both our labor force and the business community.
For example, since 2010, Congress has cut funding to employment and job
training programs by over $1 billion.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Skills Coalition. Accessed at http://
www.nationalskillscoalition.org/federal-policy/federal-funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During his nomination hearing, the National Urban League will be
looking forward to learning whether Mr. Acosta is fully committed to
effectively implementing the WIOA law. Specifically, we urge that the
committee probe his views on the following:
What are Mr. Acosta's views on WIOA and is he committed to
its full implementation?
As we move into the budget and appropriations process,
will he commit to aggressively seeking the funding that is needed to
effectively implement WIOA so that every unemployed and under-employed
adult and youth have access to the training, education and skills
necessary for employment in jobs with a living wage and good benefits?
Given that today's youth will become tomorrow's adults,
summer jobs programs give young people an introduction to the labor
market by exposing them to practical experiences and skills that are a
critical foundation for future jobs in this challenging and competitive
labor market. For many Black teenagers, it is an opportunity to gain
valuable experiences and tap into a network that they may have little
access to otherwise. In light of this important program for youth, will
Mr. Acosta commit to expanding the summer jobs program for youth beyond
WIOA so that every youth in need of a summer job will be able to obtain
one?
The National Urban League will be assessing how Mr. Acosta responds
to our concerns about his views and plans for fulfilling the promise of
WIOA and we urge the committee to fully commit to the same on behalf of
the millions of adults and youth that rely on this law to survive and
thrive in a 21st century labor market.
Sincerely,
Marc H. Morial,
President and Chief Executive Officer.
National Women's Law Center,
March 15, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
154 Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Senators Alexander and Murray: The National Women's Law Center
(the Center), an organization that has advocated on behalf of women and
girls for 45 years, writes to express its concern regarding the
nomination of R. Alexander Acosta as Secretary of Labor. The Secretary
of Labor is the Nation's most senior official tasked with ensuring the
well-being and rights of working people and advancing their employment
opportunities, and is therefore of great importance to women and their
families. The Secretary of Labor directs the Department of Labor's
interpretation and enforcement of a number of laws vital to women's
economic security and right to be free from workplace discrimination,
such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and
Health Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Affordable Care Act,
and Executive orders prohibiting employment discrimination by Federal
contractors and setting labor standards for Federal contractors'
employees, including protection of the right to earn paid sick days.
These policies are essential to closing the gender wage gap: they
remove barriers to women's employment opportunity, including sex
discrimination; raise women's wages; allow women to meet caregiving
responsibilities without sacrificing their employment; and ensure
women's health and safety so they can continue to support their
families.
Mr. Acosta's record, particularly during his tenure as Assistant
Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice from
2003-05, raises serious questions about his commitment to implementing
and enforcing labor, employment and civil rights protections of
critical importance to working people, and particularly to women, free
from improper political influence. We urge the committee to use the
opportunity presented by Mr. Acosta's confirmation hearing to conduct a
rigorous examination of Mr. Acosta's record and thoroughly vet this
nominee.
Mr. Acosta oversaw the Department of Justice's Civil Rights
Division at a time when it engaged in highly politicized and
ideological hiring and case assignments. An investigation and 2008
report by the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General
and Office of Professional Responsibility found that while Acosta
served as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, a senior
official directly under his supervision, Bradley Schlozman, violated
the Civil Service Reform Act by considering and, indeed, prioritizing
political and ideological affiliations in hiring and transferring
attorneys and assigning cases in the Civil Rights Division. Acosta had
delegated hiring authority to Schlozman, who sought to punish attorneys
with affiliations with progressive organizations or connections to the
Democratic party and elevate attorneys with conservative views or
Republican party credentials. The report concluded that Acosta and
others in the division ``had sufficient information about Schlozman's
conduct to have raised red flags warranting closer supervision of
him,'' and that they instead took no action and failed to sufficiently
supervise Schlozman.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Dep't of Justice, Office of the Inspector General and
Office of Professional Responsibility, An Investigation of Allegations
of Politicized Hiring and Other Improper Personnel Actions in the Civil
Rights Division 50, 52 (July 2, 2008), https://oig.justice.gov/special/
s0901/final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the agency responsible for enforcing many of the laws that
ensure safe and fair employment practices, the Department of Labor has
a heightened responsibility to ensure its own labor and employment
practices are unimpeachable. We urge the committee to question Mr.
Acosta about this issue at his hearing, and obtain his commitment to
ensuring that these politicized screenings, hirings, transfers, and
workplace practices are not repeated at the Department of Labor, and
that employees at the Department of Labor comply with all labor and
employment laws, including the Civil Service Reform Act. Furthermore,
Mr. Acosta should be asked to provide details about the specific
oversight processes he would implement to ensure that Labor Department
officials are complying with all relevant labor and employment laws.
Mr. Acosta's tenure at the Civil Rights Division was also marked by
a troubling stepping back of Federal civil rights enforcement efforts.
For example, significantly fewer employment discrimination cases, and
fewer employment discrimination pattern and practice cases, were
brought during the George W. Bush administration than in prior
Administrations.\2\ Given this record, the committee must call upon Mr.
Acosta to affirm that as Secretary of Labor, he will not scale back or
undermine Department of Labor enforcement efforts and that he will
ensure that decisionmaking about case selection and litigation strategy
to enforce labor and employment protections is free from improper
political influence. This is of particular importance to the Office of
Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) and the Wage and Hour
Division's efforts to protect vulnerable workers, including women,
immigrants, people of color, LGBT individuals, and workers in low-wage
jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, U.S. Department of Justice,
Information on Employment Litigation, Housing and Civil Enforcement,
Voting, and Special Litigation Sections' Enforcement Efforts from
fiscal years 2001 Through 2007 (Oct. 2009), http://www.gao.gov/
new.items/d1075.pdf: Nat'l Women's Law Ctr., Slip-Sliding Away: The
Erosion of Hard-Won Gains for Women Under the Bush Administration and
an Agenda for Moving Forward 13-14 (Apr. 2004), http://www.nwlc.org/
sites/default/files/pdfs/AdminRecordOnWomen2004.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFCCP implements and enforces an array of executive actions
governing Federal contractor workplaces, including protections for
employees of Federal contractors who discuss their pay, and the non-
discrimination requirements in Executive Order 11246 and its recently
updated sex discrimination regulations, which provide crucial
protections against pay discrimination, sexual harassment,
discrimination on the basis of gender identity, and pregnancy
discrimination. OFCCP also oversees the collection of pay data from
Federal contractors to root out pay discrimination. Mr. Acosta must
commit to ensuring OFCCP's robust implementation and enforcement of
such anti-discrimination protections and initiatives. The committee
should also obtain a pledge from Mr. Acosta to increase the number of
enforcement actions brought by the Department of Labor challenging
employment discrimination, especially systemic discrimination that
affects large numbers of workers, particularly women and people of
color.
The Wage and Hour Division enforces a variety of laws critical to
women's economic security and health, including wage and hour
protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act, and leave provisions in
the Family and Medical Leave Act and the current Department of Labor
rule ensuring that employees of Federal contractors can earn paid sick
days. The overrepresentation of women in low-wage jobs, including
minimum wage and sub-minimum wage positions, as well as the fact that
women--and in particular women of color--continue to bear the burden of
caregiving, are important drivers of the gender wage gap. Because
women, and in particular women of color and immigrant women, are
overrepresented in low-wage jobs, they have a particular stake in
raising the minimum wage and in robust overtime protections; are
especially vulnerable to wage theft and retaliation; and are less
likely to have access to important supports like paid family and
medical leave and paid sick leave. It is essential that the Wage and
Hour Division receives the resources it needs to protect low-wage
workers, and that it uses those resources to enforce workers' rights
affirmatively, rather than relying on complaint-driven enforcement as
in the George W. Bush administration, which left workers vulnerable to
exploitation.\3\ The committee must call upon Mr. Acosta to affirm that
he will commit the Division to this affirmative enforcement and defend
the Division against any attempts to undermine its ability to conduct
vigorous implementation and enforcement activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, Wage And Hour Division's
Complaint Intake and Investigative Processes Leave Low Wage Workers
Vulnerable to Wage Theft (Mar. 25, 2009), http://www.gao.gov/assets/
130/122107.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, we urge you to probe Mr. Acosta's understanding of
the importance of various labor and employment policies for reducing
barriers to women's workplace opportunity and promoting their economic
security. For instance, the committee should explore whether Mr. Acosta
appreciates the implications of increasing the Federal minimum wage,
ensuring tipped workers are entitled to the same cash minimum wage as
other workers, and expanding eligibility for overtime pay for closing
the gender wage gap. Likewise, the committee should determine whether
Mr. Acosta recognizes the critical role that access to paid family,
medical and sick leave programs play in helping women maintain
employment while ensuring their own health and fulfilling caregiving
responsibilities. We urge you to thoroughly explore Mr. Acosta's views
on these matters during his confirmation hearing.
In conclusion, the Center urges the committee to review thoroughly
these troubling aspects of Mr. Acosta's record during his hearing, to
identify how he will ensure that personnel and enforcement decisions at
the Department of Labor will be free from the political interference
that characterized his leadership at the Civil Rights Division, to seek
to ensure that he commits to vigorous enforcement of the labor and
employment protections that the Department of Labor oversees, with a
focus on the needs of the most vulnerable workers, and to establish his
understanding of labor and employment policies critical to the economic
security of women and families.
Sincerely,
Marcia D. Greenberger,
Co-President.
Public Citizen,
Washington, DC 20003,
March 10, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: Public Citizen
is a national, nonprofit public interest organization with more than
400,000 members and supporters nationwide that advocates for public
health and safety interests before legislative bodies, executive branch
agencies, and the courts. On behalf of Public Citizen, I am writing to
urge you to thoroughly examine R. Alexander Acosta as President Trump's
nominee for U.S. Secretary of Labor.
In November, American voters made it clear that they want the
government to uplift the working class, and in many ways this idea was
a central theme of the election. However, a 2008 U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) report calls into question Mr. Acosta's ability to be an
effective advocate for working people. The report revealed the
politicization of hiring practices within DOJ's Civil Rights Division
during Mr. Acosta's tenure.\1\ Public Citizen has serious concerns
about the findings of this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://oig.justice.gov/special/s0901/final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Acosta must address his record in DOJ leadership in addition to
his stance on critical issues affecting working families. Among other
issues, the committee should question the nominee on the following
matters:
Is Mr. Acosta committed to enforcing U.S. Department of
Labor (DOL) rules, such as the recently issued silica, beryllium, and
electronic recordkeeping rules?
Will Mr. Acosta advocate for appropriate funding and
staffing levels for the U.S. Occupational Health and Safety
Administration?
As head of the DOL, will Mr. Acosta actively pursue new
public protections to make worksites safer nationwide?
American workers deserve a U.S. Secretary of Labor who fights for
their rights in the workplace and believes in the American working
public. We ask the committee to press Mr. Acosta on his commitment to
advocating for workers across the country and vigorously enforcing DOL
regulations. Leading DOL is a serious responsibility that requires a
commitment to advocating for our Nation's workers. The committee must
use its role in the confirmation process to determine whether Mr.
Acosta is the correct candidate to take on this important task.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Lisa Gilbert,
Director, Public Citizen's Congress Watch.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights,
Washington, DC 20036,
March 10, 2017.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chair,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Dear Chair Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of The
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more
than 210 national organizations committed to promoting and protecting
the civil and human rights of all persons in the United States and the
68 undersigned organizations, we are writing to urge that you conduct a
thorough review of the prior record of Alex Acosta as you consider his
nomination for U.S. Secretary of Labor.
As organizations that are committed to advancing the civil and
human rights of all workers in America, we believe it is essential for
this committee to scrutinize Mr. Acosta's tenure as the Assistant
Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice. During
that period from 2003-05, there is no question that hiring was
politicized and that Department rules were broken. This is well-
documented in the 2008 report of the Office of the Inspector General
and the Office of Professional Responsibility of the Department of
Justice.\1\ Their report finds clear evidence of violations of Federal
civil service law and department policy prohibiting discrimination in
Federal employment based on political and ideological affiliations by a
top Civil Rights Division official, Bradley Schlozman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring and
Other Improper Personnel Actions in the Civil Rights Division.'' U.S.
Department of Justice. January 13, 2009. https//oig.justice
.gov/special/s0901/final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The report also includes the following with regard to the specific
actions and inactions by Mr. Acosta:
``We believe that AAGs Acosta (and others) had indications of
potential problems in Schlozman's actions and judgment, and
that each had sufficient information about Schlozman's conduct
to have raised red flags warranting closer supervision of
him.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ibid. Pg. 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, the report notes that,
``Acosta and Kim did not sufficiently supervise Schlozman. In
light of indications they had about Schlozman's conduct and
judgment, they failed to ensure that Schlozman's hiring and
personnel decisions were based on proper considerations.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid. Pg. 52.
Concerns about the politicization of the work of the Civil Rights
Division is further exemplified by Spencer v. Blackwell, a case
relating to voter suppression of African American voters in Ohio just
before the 2004 election.\4\ Although the Justice Department was not a
party in the case, and despite the fact that there was substantial
evidence that the proposed ``voter caging'' scheme to challenge voters
disproportionately affected African American voters, Acosta took the
unusual step of writing a letter to the court taking the position that
the practice was not prohibited by the Voting Rights Act.\5\
Fortunately, the Justice Department position was rejected, but Mr.
Acosta should be asked to explain his rationale for taking this unusual
step in a controversial case just before an election--contrary to
general Department policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Spencer v. Blackwell, Case No. 04CV738. Filed October 27, 2004.
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/spencer.php.
\5\ Acosta, R. Alexander. ``RE: Spencer v. Blackwell, Case No.
04CV738.'' U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. October
29, 2004. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/
10-29-04%200hic%20Challenge%20Letter%20-%20Acosta.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Acosta, if confirmed, will preside over a very large department
with 17,000 employees.\6\ The American public, and Department of Labor
workers, must be reassured that the civil service will not be
politicized under Mr. Acosta's watch and that the laws the Department
is mandated to implement and enforce will be carried out effectively.
Due diligence requires that this committee probe the nominee about what
steps he will commit to take to ensure that this type of politicization
of the hiring process does not happen at the Department of Labor. For
example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``United States Department of Labor [DOL].'' Leadership
Directories. https://lo.bvdep.com/OrgDocument.asp?OrgId=-
l&LDIBookId=19&&LDIOrgId=153606&LDISecld=180&FromRecent
=0&Save=1&Position=1#O153606.
How will he ensure that there is no political interference
with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) career staff in
their work to vigorously enforce Executive Order 11246 and its non-
discrimination requirements for Federal contractors and subcontractors?
How will he ensure that there is no political interference
with the Wage and Hour Division career staff in their work to
vigorously enforce the law against wage theft and other violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act?
How will he ensure that the Bureau of Labor Statistics and
its professional staff continue to report the employment and related
numbers free of any political interference?
At a minimum, we expect the nominee for Secretary of Labor to
answer these questions. It is also important to probe his views on
labor issues of great importance to American workers, particularly to
low-wage African American, Asian, and Hispanic workers, women, and
workers with disabilities who are struggling to make ends meet and to
sustain their families.
Fundamental to the Labor Department's mission is protecting the
welfare, health, and safety of workers and insuring compliance with
labor standards and ensuring that those most vulnerable, particularly
migrant workers, are treated fairly. We urge that you seek Mr. Acosta's
views on the record on these and the other critical economic issues
listed below:
Raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour;
Litigation position on the overtime rules that were
supposed to take effect on December 1, 2016, but were enjoined by a
Federal court in Texas in November and which the Department of Labor
appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals but recently received an
extension of time to reconsider its position;
Implementing and enforcing the requirement of earned paid
sick days for employees of Federal contractors;
Continuing to support State and national efforts to
develop paid family leave programs and promote pay equity; and
Implementing the fiduciary rule, which requires those who
give retirement savings advice to avoid conflicts of interest,
utilizing the standard of the best financial interests of the client.
In sum, we urge the HELP Committee to explore these issues
vigorously in its confirmation hearing on the nomination of Alex Acosta
to be Secretary of Labor and to secure specific commitments on the
record about how, if confirmed, he will ensure that neither the hiring
practices nor the policy and enforcement work of the Department of
Labor will be politicized. The Leadership Conference and the
undersigned organizations will be monitoring his actions and, if
confirmed, hold him accountable for these commitments. We urge the
committee to do the same. If you have any questions, please contact
June Zeitlin, Director of Human Rights Policy at The Leadership
Conference, at [email protected] or at 202-263-2852.
Sincerely,
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; 9to5, National
Association of Working Women; AFL-CIO; American Association for
Access, Equity and Diversity; American Association of University
Women (AAUW); American Civil Liberties Union; American Federation
of Government Employees; The American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); American Federation of Teachers;
Americans for Democratic Action (ADA); Asian Pacific American Labor
Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA); Bend the Arc Jewish Action; Center for
Law and Social Policy (CLASP); Communications Workers of America;
CREDO; Daily Kos; Demos; Domestic Worker Legacy Fund; Economic
Policy Institute Policy Center; Equal Justice Center (Texas); Equal
Justice Society; Equal Pay Today!; Equal Rights Advocates; Family
Equality Council; Family Values @ Work; Farmworker Justice; Fight
for $15; Food & Water Watch; GLSEN; Interfaith Worker Justice; Jobs
With Justice; Labor Project for Working Families in partnership
with Family Values @ Work; Lambda Legal; Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights Under Law; Legal Aid at Work; Main Street Alliance;
MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund);
Massachusetts Law Reform Institute; NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc.; National Asian Pacific American Women's
Forum; National Association of Human Rights Workers; National Bar
Association; National Black Justice Coalition; National Center for
Transgender Equality; National Council of Churches; National
Council of Jewish Women; National Domestic Workers Alliance;
National Education Association; National Employment Law Project;
National Employment Lawyers Association; National Hispanic Media
Coalition; National LGBTQ Task Force Action Fund; National
Partnership for Women & Families; National Women's Law Center;
Oxfam America; Policy Matters Ohio; PolicyLink; Pride at Work;
Public Citizen; Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition; Sargent
Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; SEIU; UltraViolet; United
Steelworkers; The Voter Participation Center; Women's Voices Women
Vote Action Fund; Workplace Fairness; and YWCA USA.
Workplace Fairness,
Silver Spring, MD 20910.
______
Response by Alexander Acosta to Questions of Senator Alexander, Senator
Roberts, Senator Collins, Senator Murkowski, Senator Young, Senator
Cassidy, and Senator Paul
senator alexander
Question 1. The Davis-Bacon Act requires Federal contractors and
subcontractors to pay employees a prevailing wage determined by the
Department of Labor from a voluntary local area wage survey. The law
has already been extended to more than 60 Federal statutes that provide
construction funding, despite numerous government watchdog reports that
uncovered errors, fraud and bias in Davis-Bacon wage survey data and
questioned the statistical integrity and methodology of the wage
determination process. There is a growing body of evidence and an
increasing public awareness that Davis-Bacon artificially inflates the
costs of Federal and federally assisted construction projects, and
creates barriers to participation for small and minority-owned
businesses. These costs result in American taxpayers receiving far less
than they would in a true, market-based system. This waste of Federal
dollars means fewer projects, and in turn, fewer workers employed than
would have been otherwise.
Will you commit to review the accuracy of Davis-Bacon wage rate
calculations and, if you find it lacking, to taking steps to improve
their accuracy?
Answer 1. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on the
Davis-Bacon Act and these concerns as we develop the Department's
policies and priorities. I also understand the Office of Inspector
General testified they are looking into the Davis-Bacon wage survey
program and want to ensure the program operates efficiently and
effectively, so that taxpayers get the best value and workers are paid
the proper wages.
Question 2. Disability insurance provides Americans with crucial
income protection from unexpected disability due to illness or injury.
Access to disability insurance depends on affordability, which is
directly affected by regulatory, administrative, and litigation costs.
In December, the Department of Labor issued a final regulation
regarding disability insurance claims administration. I have heard
concerns that this regulation will significantly increase the cost of
disability insurance by encouraging litigation and will inappropriately
apply Affordable Care Act claims procedures to disability plans.
Will you commit to reviewing this regulation and working with the
disability insurance community to ensure that Americans will continue
to have access to affordable, high quality disability insurance?
Answer 2. I certainly support making high-quality disability
insurance as affordable as possible while also ensuring that claims are
processed timely and fairly. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on
this regulation and I look forward to working with Congress as we
develop the Department's regulatory policies and priorities. As I noted
in my hearing, the President has directed each Cabinet officer to
review all rules and to make determinations if any rules should be
revised.
senator roberts
Question 1. Mr. Acosta, as you are aware, contract negotiations
which lapse can result in a slow down at our ports, which in turn
effects our agriculture community. The importance of resolving these
conflicts expeditiously is not only important for the direct parties
involved, but for our agriculture industry and so many others who rely
on exporting and importing goods. A shutdown or even a slowdown to our
port system can cost the economy billions of dollars by halting or
delaying the export of agriculture products to other countries or the
import of goods to stores across our country.
Should a situation arise, putting our economy at risk, will you--if
asked--lend your assistance to finding a quick and effective solution?
Answer 1. Yes. If confirmed, I would lend my assistance to help
resolve a port slow down or strike. The stakes for our economy are too
high not to resolve any conflicts expeditiously.
Question 2. Mr. Acosta, there is significant bipartisan support on
the committee for encouraging employee ownership of businesses through
Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs). The data shows that ESOPs
create jobs, generate economic activity, and promote retirement
savings. However, the important benefits of ESOPs are being undermined
by the Department of Labor, which, under the prior administration,
unfairly targeted the ESOP community with overly aggressive enforcement
tactics. In particular, the Department has engaged in abusive subpoena
practices for document production and testimony, often without
previously contacting any representative of the sponsoring company of
the subject ESOP, and almost always seeking duplicative information
from the professionals who provide services to ESOPs. These abusive
subpoena tactics have caused needless and very significant expense to
produce multiple copies of the same documents, and it is not clear that
there is any cause for the subpoenas being issued.
Can you commit to reviewing the Department's ESOP enforcement
practices and working with the ESOP community to encourage employee
ownership?
Answer 2. I strongly support empowering Americans in all aspects of
their working endeavors. A well-run ESOP, like other employment-based
retirement plans, can provide valuable benefits to participating
workers, and I believe that Congress and the Department have a shared
responsibility to take steps to make sure that ESOPs fulfill their
important mission of providing benefits and enhancing employee
ownership. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on ESOPs and I look
forward to working with Congress as we develop the Department's
regulatory policies and priorities to expand opportunity.
Question 3. Mr. Acosta, the Bureau of International Labor Affairs
(ILAB) leads the Department of Labor's efforts to ensure workers across
the globe are treated fairly. Their mission is to improve global
working conditions, raise living standards, protect workers' rights,
address workplace exploitation and ensure a fair playing field for
American workers.
Should you be confirmed, how do you see ILAB playing into your
overall agenda at DOL?
Answer 3. If confirmed, I will consult with the Bureau staff and
seek input from Congress and other agencies on these important issues
to ensure that ILAB continues its mission. A fair playing field for
American workers is certainly a priority for me, and I strongly support
promoting human rights and free markets for the benefit of workers
generally.
senator collins
temporary employment visas
Question 1. H-2B visas, which certify foreign nationals to work
temporarily in the United States, are heavily relied upon by Maine's
tourism and hospitality businesses that are in need of seasonal,
temporary workers--beyond the number that they can hire in our State
and region.
The H-2B program is especially important to Maine's tourism sector,
which is Maine's second biggest industry. For a State with just 1.3
million people, hosting 25 times that number over the course of a year
is a challenge. Most of these visitors come in the summer, which makes
it all the more important for restaurants and hotels in Maine to have
their H-2B visa applications processed in a timely fashion.
Unfortunately, for too many businesses in Maine, DOL's processing
of these visas is taking too long, even for workers who receive a visa
every year. Combined with the low unemployment rate in our State, the
effect of DOL's processing delays could be catastrophic for Maine's
businesses--many of which have contacted me to express concern that the
66,000 numerical cap for H-2B visas for this year was reached last
week.
If confirmed, how would you try to reduce the processing times for
these visas?
Answer 1. I recognize the difficulty that many employers face in
this area and the potential repercussions for vital industries across
the country. As I noted in the hearing, I understand how important this
is for Maine and other States and look forward to working together to
fix this issue if confirmed.
job training and apprenticeships
Question 2. As we've discussed, I'm a big supporter of job training
and apprenticeship programs that match workers' training with the
skillsets in demand. I have met with numerous business owners in Maine
who have jobs available but cannot find qualified and trained workers
to fill them.
Apprenticeships allow companies to retain expertise while
developing the skills of younger workers, and make possible the
seamless transfer of skills from one generation to the next, which is
essential to Maine's trade-related industries.
In 2015, I introduced a bill with Sen. Cantwell that would have
given employers a $5,000 tax credit to provide apprenticeship programs
to train workers in high-demand mechanical, technical, health care, or
technology fields. We are planning to reintroduce this bill very soon.
If confirmed, how would you help American workers acquire the
skills that employers need?
Answer 2. I share your belief that quality apprenticeship programs
are a valuable and effective job training tool and expanding access to
effective apprenticeship programs is a major facet of positioning our
workforce to meet the needs of a changing economy. Apprenticeship and
other work-based learning models that share strong public-private
partnerships, active employer engagement training, and offer workers
the opportunity to earn while you learn are critical to ensure
employers get technically capable workers. Furthermore, the concept of
providing employers with incentives to invest in such programs is a
concept of great interest to me, and one in which I would like to work
with you and other members of the committee. There are numerous
examples throughout the Nation of industry, local academic and training
institutions and government partnering effectively to train and place
workers in growth sectors. If confirmed, I believe my role will be to
make sure this model can be accessed in more communities and by
displaced workers who will need to transition to new and growing
industries.
senator murkowski
Question 1. In Alaska, we are seeing increasing coordination and
leverage of private sector workforce development funds. For example,
Alaska Native Corporations, labor unions, health care employers, and
other diverse private sector entities are working together to expand
training funding that augments public sector investments.
What would you do as Secretary to maximize and encourage private
sector funding?
Answer 1. The private sector and local non-profit leaders and labor
unions are often much more in touch with the markets in their
communities and can be much more agile in allocating resources than we
can in Washington, DC. I believe that public-private partnerships like
the ones that you describe can be a major part of the future of
workforce development. There are numerous examples throughout the
Nation of industry, local academic and training institutions and
government partnering effectively to train and place workers in growth
sectors. If confirmed, I believe my role will be to make sure this
model can be accessed in more communities and by displaced workers who
will need to transition to new and growing industries.
Question 2. The President's ``skinny budget'' request proposes to
close Job Corps centers that do a ``poor job'' of educating and
preparing students for jobs. The request does not detail how centers
would be evaluated to determine if they do a ``poor job'' or not. When
we spoke one-on-one, you suggested evaluating Job Corps centers not by
their percentage of graduates but by the percentage of students who get
jobs for which they are trained.
Given the President's proposal, do you have an estimate of how many
Job Corps centers might be closed under this rubric?
Answer 2. As a nominee, I did not participate in the budget process
so I am unfamiliar with any specific proposals that are assumed in that
proposal. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on the Job Corps program
and the performance of each of the more than 100 Job Corps centers. I
look forward to learning more about the center in your State that you
had mentioned as well as others, and our focus will be on helping Job
Corps centers best provide to students the vital services and training
central to their core mission. Finally, to be clear, performance must
also include an assessment of the challenges faced in a particular
region.
Question 3. The President's ``skinny'' budget request also proposes
to decrease Federal support for job training and employment service
formula grants and shift the responsibility to States, localities, and
employers. In addition, it proposes to reduce funding for unspecified
``ineffective, duplicative, and peripheral job training grants''.
What are your thoughts about how these proposals would impact the
Administration's plan to increase American job training in States like
Alaska that have serious budget deficits, and States where Job Corps
centers are closed due to poor performance?
Answer 3. As a nominee, I was not able to participate in the budget
process so I am unfamiliar with any specific proposals that are assumed
in that proposal. The President proposes the budget and it is
ultimately Congress that determines funding. If confirmed, I look
forward to participating in that process, so that I can understand the
goals, performance and resource needs of programs such as these in
order to help the President develop budget proposals that will
accomplish the Department's mission and goals and deliver the greatest
value to the American people. If confirmed, I also expect to be briefed
on the Job Corps program and the performance of each of the more than
100 Job Corps centers. I look forward to learning more about the center
in your State as well as others, and our focus will be on helping Job
Corps centers to best provide to students the vital services and
training central to their core mission.
Question 4. You may have read about international trends in which
companies in the United States and abroad are turning to apprenticeship
for training their employees in health care, advanced manufacturing,
IT, aviation, maritime, and other occupations. On a bipartisan basis,
both Congress and the USDOL have supported expansion of apprenticeship,
and Alaska has worked very closely with USDOL in this regard. Major
employers expanding apprenticeship in our State include nearly all of
our largest hospitals, our largest provider of health care to Alaska
Natives, the Alaska Air Carriers Association, multiple maritime
shipping companies, many construction employers, and others.
Can you commit to continuing the Department of Labor's critical
support for Registered Apprenticeship?
Answer 4. As I stated at the confirmation hearing, I feel strongly
that apprenticeship programs can deliver great value, both for workers
and industry. There are numerous examples throughout the Nation of
industry, local academic and training institutions and government
partnering effectively to train and place workers in growth sectors. If
confirmed, I believe my role will be to make sure this model can be
accessed in more communities and by displaced workers who will need to
transition to new and growing industries.
Question 5. Alaska has the lowest income inequality in America and
some of the country's highest median wages. That is partly a result of
strong labor laws, including the Federal Davis-Bacon Act and the
State's Little Davis-Bacon Act.
Will you fully support enforcing Federal prevailing wage laws,
since they are essential to sustaining our middle class?
Answer 5. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the
Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly, including the
Federal Davis-Bacon Act.
Question 6. As we discussed in our previous meeting, Job Centers
are important not only for employers seeking American workers, but also
as a source of industry-required job training for job seekers through
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funds. In Alaska, we
supplement Federal training dollars with State training funds through
the State Training and Employment Program (STEP). These training funds
are particularly important for an increasingly dynamic economy in which
workers can expect to change jobs and even industries multiple times in
the course of a career.
Will you work to sustain the Wagner-Peyser and Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act funding that is essential for these job training
efforts?
Answer 6. As I noted at the confirmation hearing, I feel strongly
that well-managed and targeted job training programs, and particularly
quality apprenticeship programs, can deliver great value, both for
workers and industry. It is also important to ensure States and local
business have input into those programs because needs are different
across the country. There are numerous examples throughout the Nation
of industry, local academic and training institutions and government
partnering effectively to train and place workers in growth sectors. If
confirmed, I believe my role will be to make sure this model can be
accessed in more communities and by displaced workers who will need to
transition to new and growing industries, and I will work to sustain
funding for these types of efforts.
Question 7. Concerns have been raised about your oversight of the
Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, specifically
regarding your oversight of personnel practices impacting career
attorneys. The joint report of the Office of Inspector General and
Office of Professional Responsibility stated that you, ``[and other
senior officials] had indications of potential problems in Schlozman's
actions and judgment'' and ``had sufficient information about
Schlozman's conduct to have raised red flags warranting closer
supervision of him.'' The report also noted that you, ``did not take
sufficient action in response to the information'' that DAAG Scholzman
had forwarded an ``inappropriate, racially insensitive e-mail to other
Department officials''.
How can I be confident that the actions leading to criticisms about
your oversight and management of the Division will not be repeated at
the Department of Labor if you are confirmed as Secretary?
Answer 7. As I indicated at my hearing before the committee, the
conduct described in the Inspector General's report was wrong and
should not have taken place. The IG concluded that I was not aware of
the misconduct. Nonetheless, it occurred on my watch as Assistant
Attorney General. I am now well aware of what happened, and committed
to ensure it is not repeated. Indeed, if confirmed, I will make it
abundantly clear that such conduct will not be tolerated. Since that
time, I am a more hands-on manager. I have also learned to better
oversee and monitor subordinates while not micromanaging their
performance. As U.S. Attorney, for example, I regularly walked around
the office to learn what the Assistant U.S. Attorneys were doing. This
day-to-day contact was important, and helped me better understand and
monitor day-to-day activity.
Question 8. Nationwide, Job Corps centers are operating at 80
percent of their contracted capacity in part because of an inefficient
procurement system and costly and unnecessary regulations and policies.
Will you commit to expediting the reduction of unnecessary
regulations and improving procurement and other policies to increase
Job Corps' efficiency and effectiveness?
Answer 8. Thank you for bringing this important issue to my
attention. As presented, the answer to this question is yes. The
efficiency and effectiveness of Job Corps centers is crucial. I expect
to be briefed on Job Corps centers' operating capacity and evaluation
metrics in order to better understand how they are currently
performing, and how we can create the conditions for them to be more
effective and efficient.
Question 9. Does the Department of Labor have a role in addressing
wage stagnation, especially among entry-level and low-wage employment?
If so, what is that role?
Answer 9. A growing economy combined with improved job training for
in demand skills that drive productivity enhancements is the best way
to improve real wages for entry and low wage workers generally.
Advancing technologies will change the types of jobs that are available
in our economy. As I discussed at the hearing, we need to make better
efforts to align job training with the skills the market demands today
and in the future. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you
further on this issue.
Question 10. Linking to Employment Activities Pre-Release (LEAP) is
an example of a positive U.S. DOL prison-to-workforce program to help
returning citizens gain employment after incarceration.
What are your plans to strengthen prison-to-workforce programs
given that having a job is the most important factor in determining
whether a returning citizen will commit more crimes?
Answer 10. Programs that help reintegrate citizens into the economy
post-incarceration are very important and of interest to me. I am
informed that the Department has several programs that focus in this
area, and I look forward to being briefed on all of them. Thank you for
making me aware of your appreciation of this program and this issue. I
look forward to working with you and other members of the committee on
continuing and possibly improving efforts to help citizens reintegrate
into the workforce post-incarceration.
senator young
Question 1. Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP) have
traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support in both Democratic and
Republican administrations. More than 50 ESOPs are headquartered in my
home State of Indiana, with many more employing residents. ESOPs allow
members of both rural and urban communities to build retirement wealth
as employee owners. These members would not be afforded the same
opportunities without the presence of ESOPs.
If you are confirmed as the Secretary of Labor, will you continue
the tradition of support of ESOPs and work with me on issues
surrounding ESOPs?
Answer 1. I strongly support empowering Americans in all aspects of
their working endeavors. A well-run ESOP, like other employment-based
retirement plans, can provide valuable benefits to participating
workers, and I believe that Congress and the Department have a shared
responsibility to take steps to make sure that ESOPs fulfill their
important mission of providing benefits and enhancing employee
ownership. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on ESOPs and I look
forward to working with Congress as we develop the Department's
regulatory policies and priorities to expand opportunity.
Question 2. In most recent years under the previous Administration,
ESOPs have been plagued with lawsuits. In fact, the number of lawsuits
against ESOPs quadrupled. This is due to many inaccurate valuations of
privately held companies that did not take into account the unique
ownership of ESOPs. Furthermore, I have heard from ESOPs in my State
that many field audits conducted by the Employee Benefit Security
Administration were inefficient, time consuming and hostile. I
certainly believe that appropriate enforcement action is necessary to
ensure compliance with the law, but I do not believe that ESOPs should
be unfairly scrutinized.
If you are confirmed as the Secretary of Labor, will you work with
me to examine the enforcement process and explore ways to increase
efficiency and predictability?
Answer 2. I strongly support empowering Americans in all aspects of
their working endeavors. A well-run ESOP, like other employment-based
retirement plans, can provide valuable benefits to participating
workers, and I believe that Congress and the Department have a shared
responsibility to take steps to make sure that ESOPs fulfill their
important mission of providing benefits and enhancing employee
ownership. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on ESOPs and I look
forward to working with Congress as we develop the Department's
regulatory policies and priorities to expand opportunity and address
your concerns.
senator cassidy
Question 1. In Louisiana, our unemployment rate is stagnant at
around 6.0 percent. Well above the national average of 4.8 percent.
There is much talk about creating jobs and growing the economy. As you
may know, there are approximately 47 Federal employment and training
programs administered by the Department of Labor, and other departments
and Federal agencies. Federal taxpayers spend billions of dollars on
these programs (some of which are mandatory spending), yet unemployment
remains high and there is a constant struggle to find qualified
workers.
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) consolidated
many of the Federal programs administered by the Department of Labor
and set performance accountability measures to access their
effectiveness at the State and local level. However, we won't have the
first set of data until this summer. As Secretary, will you commit to
analyzing such data quickly to ensure these programs are effective and
held accountable for preparing people for jobs? What immediate steps
will you take if inefficiencies are found?
Answer 1. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on the data and
performance metrics you mention in order to understand how effective
these programs are at all levels. I commit to analyzing the data as
quickly as possible. If there are instances where programs are failing
to meet performance accountability measures, I expect to work both
internally at the Department and with you and other members of the
committee to hold those in charge accountable and to pursue policies
and reforms that will increase performance and deliver more value to
workers and the economy.
Question 2. As Secretary, will you commit to working with this
committee and the other departments and agencies to review how best to
coordinate all education, employment and job training programs?
Particularly, will you review how we can best bring career and
technical education (CTE) and the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) employment services in line with the department's job
training programs? Please explain your thoughts and recommendations for
coordinating these programs?
Answer 2. Yes. As I mentioned at the hearing, I expect to work
closely and coordinate with the Department of Education whenever
possible. The missions of the two Departments are so closely aligned,
and I believe closer and more effective coordination will allow us to
provide better services and outcomes for those served by both
Departments. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on how Department of
Labor programs interact with Department of Education programs, as well
as other Departments like Health and Human Services in order to ensure
that optimal coordination is taking place.
Question 3. Do you agree that all programs (across all agencies and
departments) should share similar performance accountability measures?
To allow us to compare apples to apples on what is working? What are
your recommendations on how best to make this happen?
Answer 3. I certainly support evaluating programs for their results
in an objective manner, but it may be difficult to have the same
performance measures across all agencies. Each enforcement agency, for
example, at DOL may have different metrics because of the nature of
their responsibilities and legal authorities. Increased compliance with
the law arguably is a great metric to consider but can be hard to
measure, particularly in the case of discrimination prevention.
Similarly, consumer-
driven job training may be more difficult to measure as opposed to job
placement of Job Corps graduates. If confirmed, I will consult with
staff and review the performance metrics DOL agencies have been using
to see if there might need to be changes and also coordinate with other
departments to develop better measures where possible.
Question 4. While the department does make data on these programs
publicly available on their website, the most current information is
not always available in a timely manner. Also, people in need of job
training services are not looking at the data on the outcomes, only
that the services are available. Will you commit to reviewing the
department's data systems to ensure they are working effectively with
information available in a timely manner? Also, will you commit to
having this information publicly available through an online searchable
database for all programs that is accessible to Congress, stakeholders,
and taxpayers?
Answer 4. If confirmed, I will look into these matters and discuss
with DOL staff how to make such information more readily available.
Question 5. We really must do a better job of coordinating all
Federal programs across the board to ensure they are effective and a
good use of taxpayer dollars. Many of these programs have been around
for decades and we must ensure they are working to meet today's
workforce needs.
Answer 5. I strongly agree.
senator paul
Question 1. Under the Obama administration, DOL exempted or
significantly decreased labor union reporting requirements regarding
conflicts of interest and financial disclosures. The forms eliminated
or decreased are T-1 (Trust Annual Reporting), LM-2 (labor organization
annual report), and LM-30 (conflict of interest disclosure reports).
Would you work to ensure that there is appropriate transparency and
disclosure conducted on the part of labor organizations as required by
law?
Answer 1. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing these issues
with the staff of the Department's Office of Labor-Management Standards
to determine whether the level of disclosure that currently exists is
fulfilling the mandate Congress set in the Labor-Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act.
Question 2. If confirmed, would you consider revoking the June 20,
1995, letter of the Wage & Hour Administrator which declined to use the
Agency's resources to enforce Davis-Bacon Act violations for union job
targeting programs?
Answer 2. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on the
Davis-Bacon Act and the use of job targeting programs under it as we
develop the Department's regulatory policies and priorities, and I will
enforce the laws under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and
fairly.
Question 3. Do you agree with the Department of Labor's Wage
Appeals Board rulings in 1991 that the practice of deducting union dues
from employee wages and returning them to an employer through union job
targeting programs on Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage jobs, is unlawful
conduct under the anti-kickback provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act?
Do you intend to enforce the Davis-Bacon Act provisions that bar
the ``kickback'' of any portion of a worker's Davis-Bacon wages to an
employer from a union-sponsored job target fund?
Do you agree that union job target funds undermine competition as
the Department of Labor's Wage Appeals Board indicated?
Answer 3. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on the
Davis-Bacon Act and the use of job targeting programs under it as we
develop the Department's regulatory policies and priorities and will
work to enforce the laws under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction
fully and fairly.
Question 4. President Obama's Executive Order 13502 encourages
Federal agencies to require project labor agreements (PLAs) on Federal
construction projects exceeding $25 million in total cost. PLAs have
been shown to increase cost of Federal construction projects by 12-18
percent (Beacon Hill, 2009), and give unionized contractors an unfair
advantage.
If confirmed, will you work with the President to ensure the best
qualified applicants have a fair opportunity to win these contracts?
Answer 4. The decision as to whether to maintain, amend, or rescind
Executive orders belongs to the President, but I will certainly provide
advice if asked by the President. I support the right of construction
contractors to use PLAs where appropriate.
Question 5. In 2012, paid Official Time (OT) taken by Federal
employees to represent unions cost the American taxpayer $157.2 million
in salary and 3.4 million hours.
Would you commit to taking a serious look at the use of OT and its
impact on the Federal workforce and stewardship of taxpayer dollars? If
appropriate, would you support elimination of ``official time'' off for
Federal union and member activity paid at government expense?
Answer 5. I believe Congress with the President would need to act
to make substantial changes to the availability of official time, but I
certainly understand your concerns and will look into them at the
Department of Labor if confirmed.
Question 6. Do you believe that Regulations under the Davis-Bacon
Act (DBA) and the Service Contract Act (SCA) could be streamlined so
employer prevailing wage responsibilities are the same under both
statutes? For example, DOL regulation state that fringe benefits cannot
be included in wages paid under the SCA unless the employer expressly
states a single amount includes fringes. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 4.170(a),
4.177(a), while DBA regulations state the opposite. 29 C.F.R. 5.2(p).
Answer 6. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on the
Davis-Bacon Act and Service Contract Act as we develop the Department's
regulatory policies and priorities.
Question 7. A September 2016 Enterprise-wide Enforcement memorandum
from the Solicitor of Labor for contractor covered workplaces expands
OFCCP coverage to all business owned by a corporation doing business
with the Federal Government.
Do you believe this memorandum to be appropriate?
Answer 7. I have not reviewed that particular memorandum, but, if
confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on the matter and
investigating the legal basis. I am aware that there were concerns with
attempts in the prior administration to enforce responsibilities under
a number of statutes that went beyond the scope of the historical
norms.
Response by Alexander Acosta to Questions of Senator Murray, Senator
Sanders, Senator Casey, Senator Franken, Senator Bennet, Senator
Whitehouse, Senator Baldwin, Senator Murphy, Senator Warren, Senator
Kaine and Senator Hassan
senator murray
Question 1. Will you continue the work the Department of Labor has
instituted to expand registered apprenticeship and other successful
training programs for American workers looking to succeed in the 21st
century economy? How exactly will you do that? And can you commit to
sustaining or expanding funding for these programs?
Answer 1. Apprenticeship programs are a valuable and effective job
training tool and expanding access to effective apprenticeship programs
is a major facet of positioning our workforce to meet the needs of a
changing economy. There are numerous examples throughout the Nation of
industry, local academic and training institutions and government
partnering effectively to train and place workers in growth sectors. If
confirmed, I believe my role will be to make sure apprenticeships can
be accessed in more communities and by displaced workers who will need
to transition to new and growing industries, and I commit to working to
sustain these types of programs.
Question 2. What policies would you pursue around worker
automation? Around health and safety? Predictable and regular
schedules? Providing workers a path to the middle class?
Answer 2. A growing economy combined with improved job training for
in demand skills is among the best ways to grow the middle class.
Advancing technologies, including automation, will change the types of
jobs that are available in our economy. As I discussed at the hearing,
we need to make better efforts to align job training with the skills
the market demands today and in the future. In this way, workers can
acquire skills that empower them to hold high quality jobs that are not
automated. Encouraging economic growth and adoption of new technologies
along with flexibility and creativity in the workplace will help
improve health and safety and scheduling for workers. If confirmed, I
look forward to reviewing policies under the Department of Labor's
jurisdiction that can affect these areas and hope to benefit from an
ongoing dialog with Congress as to how we can make improvements.
Question 3. The World Economic Forum forecasted a net loss of 5.1
million jobs by 2020 in the 15 leading economies, much of which will be
due to automation and robotics. Do you think the government should help
workers who have lost jobs to automation? What should that role be?
Answer 3. I believe the Department plays a key role in providing
training and career pathways to workers who are likely to be displaced
by automation and robotics in the years to come. This may be the most
profound challenge before the Department in the next decade. We need to
better align job training with the skills the market demands of its
workers, especially as advancing technology changes the types of jobs
available in our economy. The Department of Labor, along with State and
local governments, industry, and educational institutions, can partner
to have substantial positive impact on American workers. If confirmed
as Secretary of Labor, I look forward to working with you and Members
of the committee to maximize the impact of every taxpayer dollar
Congress directs toward job training programs.
Question 4. According to the National Safety Council, agriculture
is the second most dangerous occupation in the United States. Yet under
lax labor laws, hundreds of thousands of children work long hours in
U.S. agriculture, risking pesticide poisoning, heat illness, injuries
from knives and heavy equipment, and life-long disabilities. Children
working in tobacco farming also risk acute nicotine poisoning. The
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine have reported that
children working in agriculture in the United States make up only 8
percent of the population of working minors overall, yet account for 40
percent of work-related fatalities among minors. Exemptions for
agriculture under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) allow child
farmworkers to work at younger ages, for longer hours, and under more
hazardous conditions than other working youths. Teens have to be at
least 14 to work in an office or fast-food restaurant, and can only
work for 3 hours on a school day. But in agriculture, children can work
at age 12 with no limit on the number of hours that they work, as long
as they do not work during school hours. While other employment sectors
prohibit hazardous work before age 18, child farmworkers can perform
hazardous duties at age 16. In 2014, the Unites States' largest tobacco
companies recognized the dangers of nicotine exposure and other hazards
in tobacco farming by adopting policies prohibiting children under age
16 from working on farms in their supply chains. Yet Federal law and
regulations provide no special protections for children working in
tobacco farming. Agriculture is the second most dangerous occupation in
the United States. What action will you take to address the double
standards in the Fair Labor Standards Act that allow children working
in agriculture to work at younger ages, for longer hours, and under
more hazardous conditions than other working youth?
Answer 4. I appreciate and share your concerns regarding the safety
and health of children and young workers. If confirmed, I will fully
and fairly enforce child labors laws designed to ensure children are
protected from illegal employment in hazardous occupations and that
those children who are eligible to work have safe and appropriate work
experiences. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on matters pertaining
to children in the workplace, including agricultural work and tobacco
farming, and hope to benefit from an ongoing dialog with Congress as to
how we can advance the goal of child safety in the workplace.
Question 5. Do you believe that children should be protected from
nicotine exposure? If so, what action will you take to address the fact
that under existing law and regulations, 12-year-olds can work legally
on tobacco farms for 40 or 50 hours per week?
Answer 5. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on matters
pertaining to children in agricultural work, including tobacco farming.
I would need to consult with the Department of Labor staff to get more
information to address your question specifically.
Question 6. Women of color are far more likely than white women to
be a victim of intimate partner violence, stalking, or sexual assault,
and to need to take time off from work to seek assistance. Do you
support Federal legislative proposals to create job-protected safe
leave for survivors of gender-based violence? Do you think the
Department of Labor has a role to play in providing protection and
support to assist women with remaining in the workforce when they
experience gender-based violence? What will you do to ensure that
survivors of domestic or sexual violence have access to job-protected
safe leave to seek services related to gender-based violence?
Answer 6. Violence of all forms, including gender-based violence,
is wrong. Further, gender-based violence can cause psychological issues
that impact employment. I believe expanding job-protected leave would
require congressional action and, if confirmed, I look forward to
working with the President and Congress as discussions regarding leave
occur.
Question 7. In 2004 you wrote a letter 4 days before the election
telling a Federal judge that it would ``undermine'' election law
enforcement to not let citizens contest the credentials of other
voters, and denied that this had racial motivations despite being a
part of a larger plan to place poll monitors in predominantly African
American neighborhoods. Additionally, in 2008 you came under scrutiny
for allegedly improperly factoring ideological positions in hiring
practices. Are you committed to enforcing anti-discrimination laws?
Building off of this, do you believe it's time for the Nation to pass
an anti-discrimination law to protect individuals from workplace
discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity?
Answer 7. I am committed to enforcing the anti-discrimination laws
that Congress has passed, and any that you and your colleagues in
Congress pass in the future. I believe discrimination in the workplace
based on sexual orientation or gender identity is wrong, although I
support religious entities' freedom to hire consistent with their
faith.
Question 8. Do you believe that workers should have the right and
opportunity to bargain collectively for higher wages and better working
conditions through organizing with their coworkers?
Answer 8. The right to collectively bargain is clearly established
in law, as is the right of workers to decide whether to join a union or
to refrain from joining a union. The decision of whether to join a
union should be left to the individual. If they believe that joining
together to bargain collectively will benefit their situation then they
should do so.
Question 9. Will you, as Secretary of Labor, advocate for, support,
and defend workers' right to advocate for workplace improvements and
bargain collectively?
Answer 9. The right to collectively bargain is clearly established
in law, as is the right of workers to decide whether to join a union or
to refrain from joining a union. The decision of whether to join a
union should be left to the individual. If they believe that joining
together to bargain collectively will benefit their situation then they
should do so, and I would support that choice.
Question 10. Do you think collective bargaining is an appropriate
means of increasing the share of the Nation's wealth that goes to
middle-class Americans?
Answer 10. The right to collectively bargain is clearly established
in law, as is the right of workers to decide whether to join a union or
to refrain from joining a union. The decision of whether to join a
union should be left to the individual. If they believe that joining
together to bargain collectively will benefit their situation then they
should do so. If they believe collective bargaining would improve their
share of the Nation's wealth, they should pursue their right to do so.
Question 11. Do you think the Federal Government should take action
to foster collective bargaining?
Answer 11. The right to collectively bargain is clearly established
in law, as is the right of workers to decide whether to join a union or
to refrain from joining a union. The decision of whether to join a
union should be left to the individual. If they believe that joining
together to bargain collectively will benefit their situation then they
should do so.
Question 12. If members are not required to pay dues, do you think
the Federal Government should pay the cost of union representation?
Answer 12. The Federal Government should not pay for the cost of
union representation.
Question 13. Do you agree that labor unions are important to
achieving and maintaining fairness and balance in our economy?
Answer 13. The right to collectively bargain is clearly established
in law, as is the right of workers to decide whether to join a union or
to refrain from joining a union. This reflects a congressional judgment
that providing this right can help maintain balance in our economy.
Question 14. Given the overwhelming business opposition to the Fair
Pay and Safe Workplaces EO, and your public stance on regulations, how
will you address the issue of making sure that only responsible
entities that comply with labor laws get government contracts?
Answer 14. I understand that government agencies have suspension
and debarment authorities and that the Department of Labor possesses a
similar authority in the context of some of its statutes, including the
Service Contract Act. If confirmed, in cases of willful and repeat
violators, I would not hesitate to exercise that authority as
Secretary.
Question 15. Do you think that contractors receiving Federal tax
dollars should be required to pay middle-class wages?
Answer 15. I am informed that the Department sets certain wage
rates on Federal contracts based on congressional mandate and
statistical formulas by sector that flow from those mandates. Congress
has the authority to make a decision to increase those rates across the
board, and I will enforce the statutes Congress passes.
Question 16. The Department you have been selected to lead is
responsible for setting health, safety, and fairness standards for many
construction projects and construction apprenticeships. It is well-
documented that women working in construction face extreme rates of
sexual harassment and denigration. Indeed, a study by the Department of
Labor itself reported that 88 percent of women construction workers
experience sexual harassment at work. Construction has often been
referred to as ``the industry that time forgot'' due to the overt
discrimination faced by women who try to get hired into this field and
the overwhelming hostility and harassment they face on the job if they
are hired. As a result, the percentage of constructions jobs held by
women has been stuck at less than 3 percent for more than a generation.
Many Federal contracts are for construction work and the Labor
Department has played an important role in addressing harassment and
discrimination by Federal construction contractors and opening
opportunities for women and people of color. Given President Trump's
expressed commitment to infrastructure, Federal construction contracts
could increase--which means the Labor Department's role in enforcing
these protections against harassment and discrimination will be more
important than ever. Can we expect you to implement and enforce
critical anti-harassment protections for construction projects and
apprenticeship programs, and continue the efforts begun in the present
administration to ensure that mega construction projects funded by
Federal dollars provide real opportunities to women?
Answer 16. Sexual harassment and overt discrimination are illegal.
As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the laws
Congress has written fully and fairly, including for apprenticeship and
contracting programs, and for large scale construction projects.
Question 17. OFCCP updated its sex discrimination rules last year
to implement Executive Order 11246 for the first time in more than a
generation. The rules now explicitly address sexual harassment and
pregnancy discrimination for the first time. If you are confirmed, will
you commit that the Department will uphold these regulations? Will you
commit that OFCCP will implement and enforce these protections for
employees of Federal contractors?
Answer 17. I strongly support equal employment opportunity and
preventing sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination. As I noted
in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the law fully and fairly,
including the aspects of Executive orders and their implementing rules.
Question 18. After President Obama's Executive order allowing
employees of Federal contractors to accrue up to seven paid sick days
per year, the Department of Labor issued a final rule implementing
these policies. If confirmed, will you urge President Trump to maintain
this Executive order and commit to enforce and implement these
protections to ensure employees of Federal contractors can access these
benefits?
Answer 18. The decision as to whether to maintain, amend or rescind
Executive orders belongs to the President. As I noted in my hearing, if
confirmed, I would enforce the law fully and fairly, including
Executive orders that apply to the Labor Department or give the
Department additional enforcement responsibilities.
Question 19. According to the Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, working sick costs the national economy $160
billion annually in lost productivity. Currently there is an Executive
order granting paid sick days to Federal contract workers to help avoid
the spread of disease. Under your DOL, will you pursue efforts to
expand this pro-business, pro-public health and pro-worker standard to
all workers?
Answer 19. I believe any attempt to expand paid sick leave would
require congressional action, and if confirmed I look forward to
participating in any discussion that occurs on paid sick leave.
Question 20. Unemployment rates are higher for people with
disabilities than other groups. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, in 2015 the unemployment rate for people with disabilities
was approximately 11 percent, which is nearly double the unemployment
rate for people without disabilities. Overseeing policies and
priorities that impact our Nation's workforce development system is
among the many responsibilities of the Secretary of Labor. One of the
target areas of Public Law 113-128 (the bipartisan Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act or WIOA) was to expand opportunities for people
with disabilities to enter the workforce by creating a more accessible
workforce system and expanding opportunities for training or
apprenticeships. How will you as Secretary build on the opportunities
created by WIOA to empower more people with disabilities to enter the
workforce?
Answer 20. I certainly support increasing the labor force
participation rate of disabled individuals and helping them lead
successful and self-sustaining lives. Such efforts contribute to our
economy, and as important, to individual self-esteem. If confirmed, I
expect to be briefed on programs at the Department that serve the
disabled in order to understand how they are succeeding in
accomplishing their mission.
Question 21. The Office of Disability Employment Policy sponsors
and disseminates valuable research and studies into effective practices
for employment of people with disabilities as well as serves as an
important coordinating office for cross-Federal agency collaborations
on disability employment. Will you commit to preserving and
strengthening this vital tool for economic self-sufficiency for
Americans with disabilities? Will you work with Congress to ensure that
the Office of Disability Employment Policy, the Office of Federal
Contract Compliance Programs, and the Civil Rights Center has the
funding and resources necessary to meet their objectives? What, if any,
reforms would you make to these offices?
Answer 21. I certainly support increasing the labor force
participation rate of disabled individuals and helping them lead
successful and self-sustaining lives. The Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs and the Civil Rights Center also have important
roles in promoting and protecting equal opportunity. As a nominee, I
have not participated in the current budget discussions. If confirmed,
I commit to working with Congress to ensure those offices can meet
their objectives.
Question 22. Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits
employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the
Federal sector. President Trump has stated that it is important that
the final regulations under section 501 are enforced, and that the
Administration ``will work with Congress to set an example of the
importance and value of hiring people with disabilities.'' What will
you do to support the President on this issue and ensure that people
with disabilities have increased opportunities for employment in the
Federal Government? What would you propose to President Trump to
fulfill this campaign promise?
Answer 22. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I will work to
enforce the laws under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and
fairly. I certainly support increasing the labor force participation
rate of disabled individuals and helping these individuals lead
successful and self-sustaining lives. Such efforts contribute to our
economy, and as important, to individual self-esteem.
Question 23. The Department of Labor plays a crucial role in the
implementation, enforcement, and public education of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). As stated in the text of the Act, the purpose
of the ADA is to
``provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the
elimination of discrimination against individuals with
disabilities in addition to defining a central role for the
Federal Government in enforcing the standards of the ADA on
behalf of individuals with disabilities.''
In an effort to undercut the 26-year old law, some in Congress have
proposed legislation to impose a 180-day waiting period before a person
with a disability can take action to enforce their rights to gain
access to a business, public building, educational institution, or
other covered entity. Do you support the intent of this legislation to
remove incentives for businesses and other places of public
accommodation to comply with the ADA's accessibility requirements?
Answer 23. I strongly support the ADA. I have not reviewed that
particular piece of legislation, but I look forward to working with you
and the rest of the Congress on protecting opportunities for the
disabled.
Question 24. Section 14(c) provision of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, enacted in 1937, authorizes employers to pay sub-minimum wages to
workers who have disabilities. In his campaign's response to a
questionnaire from the American Association of People with
Disabilities, the National Council on Independent Living and the REV UP
Campaign, President-elect Trump stated,
``People with disabilities have the right to be paid on
parity with all others in the workforce so they may earn a fair
days wage for a fair day's work. My administration will work
with Congress to ensure that labor laws treat people with
disabilities fairly.''
Do you plan to phaseout the nearly 80 year-old Section 14(c) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act? If not, what are your plans for subminimum
wage employment for people with disabilities? What will you do to
address the underemployment and wage gaps experienced by people with
disabilities, especially people with the most significant disabilities?
Will you commit to increasing the number of people with disabilities in
competitive integrated employment?
Answer 24. I understand the Fair Labor Standards Act 14(c)
exemption is statutory and is an area of concern and interest for many
Members of Congress. If confirmed, I want to ensure that individuals
with disabilities, who might not otherwise have a job, have access to a
good job and are trained for these jobs. While I would need to
thoroughly review any particular program or statutory exemption before
I committed to supporting or opposing it, I certainly support
increasing the labor force participation rate of disabled individuals
and helping these individuals lead successful and self-sustaining
lives. Such efforts contribute to our economy, and as important, to
individual self-esteem.
Question 25. Accurate data is crucial to measuring the health of
the economy, including unemployment rates, as well as shedding light on
pay practices and discrimination, yet President Trump has criticized
the Bureau of Labor Statistics. What would you do to ensure that the
government continues to collect and distribute accurate, timely,
actionable data from businesses?
Answer 25. Accurate data are crucial. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics has a long history of transparent methodology, and the
process for modifying that methodology occurs openly and with ample
opportunity for robust public input, including from Congress. I am
committed to such transparency, and to the integrity of BLS's mission.
Question 26. What steps will you take and what concrete mechanisms
will you put in place to hold your own appointees and senior staff
accountable for ensuring that there is no political interference in the
work of the Department?
Answer 26. I believe all incoming political and senior career
appointees receive mandatory ethics training and annual ethics training
thereafter. As I noted at the hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce
the law fully and fairly without regard to political pressure. I will
expect that same commitment from all my subordinates.
Question 27. Do you agree that the process for screening and hiring
employees at the Department of Labor should be free from improper
political influence?
Answer 27. As I noted at the hearing, the use of political views in
the hiring of career attorneys or staff should not be used. The Federal
Government has merit selection processes that should be followed in
civil service hiring.
Question 28. For almost a century, the Women's Bureau of the
Department of Labor has sought to advance the interests of women in the
workplace, through research, public education, policy development, and
advocacy. For example, today the Women's Bureau provides informational
resources to aid women seeking to enter high-paying, traditionally
male-dominated jobs in construction, transportation, and protective
services; offers one stop know-your-rights guides on issues ranging
from equal pay to pregnancy discrimination; and funds research on best
practices for establishing State and local paid family and medical
leave insurance programs, among many other initiatives. Despite the
important work the Women's Bureau does to ensure equal opportunity for
women on the job, the Bush administration sought to dismantle it. The
outcry from the public saved the Women's Bureau, which has continued to
provide valuable tools for women seeking to enforce their workplace
rights and expand their workplace opportunities. Do you commit that
under your leadership the Women's Bureau will receive the resources it
needs to fulfill its mandate of safeguarding and advocating for the
interests of working women, and that you will defend against any
attempts to reduce its budgets, or staffing, or otherwise undermine its
ability to do its work? In addition, since 2014, the U.S. Department of
Labor's Women's Bureau has made $3.15 million in grants available for
the development and implementation of State and local paid family and
medical leave programs. Under your leadership, would the Department of
Labor continue to fund such grants, such as supporting progress on paid
leave in the United States, a policy area President Trump has expressed
support for?
Answer 28. The mission of the Women's Bureau is important. If
confirmed, I commit to work with Congress on this matter.
Question 29. Will you keep in place the Wage and Hour Division's
Administrator's Interpretation No. 2016-1 (``Joint employment under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act''), which clarified the standards for finding joint
employment status between multiple employers under the FLSA and MSPA?
If not, why?
Answer 29. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on Wage
and Hour Division matters as we develop the Department's policies and
priorities.
Question 30. How do you plan to enforce existing employment laws,
such as FLSA minimum wage and overtime protections, in today's
workforce given the large numbers of workers who are hired through a
staffing agency but report to work at another company's premises every
day?
Answer 30. As I noted at the hearing, if confirmed, I will work to
enforce the laws under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and
fairly. I look forward to being briefed on this issue, as this is a
growing trend in our economy.
Question 31. The President has said that the current minimum wage
is too low, suggesting that it should be raised to $10 an hour. Do you
agree with your future boss that the current minimum wage is too low?
Answer 31. The minimum wage is set federally by Congress but also
in States and localities by their respective governments. I recognize
that cost-of-living and other economic factors vary greatly across the
United States and that many States and localities have increased the
minimum wage above the Federal floor. I would evaluate a proposed
Federal minimum wage increase carefully to see whether the economic
benefits outweighed the costs. Ultimately it is Congress' decision
whether to raise the Federal rate; the Department of Labor has no
authority to act unilaterally. I will faithfully enforce whatever rate
Congress enacts.
Question 32. A majority of all employees being paid minimum wage
are women. Kellyanne Conway's polling company found in a 2014 poll that
Americans believe that companies should raise wages and improve working
conditions for workers by nearly a 10-1 margin. Do you think that we
should raise the Federal minimum wage? If so, to what? If not, what is
your reasoning for not advocating for a widely popular policy? How do
you respond to working families who are long overdue for a pay raise?
Should it be tacked to cost-of-living increases in the future? Should
there continue to be a separate tipped minimum wage? Should it be
increased as well?
Answer 32. The minimum wage is set federally by Congress but also
in States and localities by their respective governments. I recognize
that cost-of-living and other economic factors vary greatly across the
United States and that many States and localities have increased the
minimum wage above the Federal floor. I would evaluate a proposed
Federal minimum wage increase carefully to see whether the economic
benefits outweighed the costs. Ultimately it is Congress' decision
whether to raise the Federal rate; the Department of Labor has no
authority to act unilaterally. I will faithfully enforce whatever rate
Congress enacts.
Question 33. Do you believe that employers should pay a wage
sufficient for its workers to live on without needing to rely on
government benefits? Is it fair for employers to pay wages so low that
their workers are eligible for government benefits like food stamps?
Answer 33. As I said at the hearing, I know every member of the
HELP Committee wants Americans to find jobs, good jobs, safe jobs, even
if there is a difference of opinion as to how to achieve that goal. If
confirmed, I hope to benefit from an ongoing dialog with the committee
as to how we can advance that goal.
Question 34. Some States like California and New York have already
enacted a minimum wage of $15 per hour. Under Federal law, workers in
these States are generally entitled to 1\1/2\ times the $15 minimum
wage for overtime. Will you carry out strong enforcement of workers'
overtime rights in those States?
Answer 34. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the
Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly.
Question 35. The Federal minimum wage for tipped workers is only
$2.13 per hour and it's been frozen at that level since 1991. Tipped
workers are twice as likely to live in poverty and three times as
likely to need food stamps when they make the Federal minimum wage of
only $2.13, yet in States where tipped workers get higher base wages,
tipped workers are not nearly so disadvantaged. Do you support phasing
out the subminimum wage for tipped workers?
Answer 35. The minimum wage is set federally by Congress but also
in States and localities by their respective governments. I recognize
that cost-of-living and other economic factors vary greatly across the
United States and that many States and localities have increased the
minimum wage, including the minimum wage for tipped employees and the
allowance for a tip credit, above the Federal floor. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with the President and Congress as discussions
regarding the Federal minimum wage and tipped minimum wage occur.
Question 36. There are a number of States that have recently raised
their minimum wages through ballot initiative. All won by overwhelming
margins in the popular vote. Governor Paul LePage is vowing to fight
the raise in Maine, and has stated that the Maine Department of Labor
will not enforce parts of it. This could become precedent for other
Republican Governors to try to nullify the will of the voters when it
comes to the minimum wage. Please describe your understanding of the
concept of the rule of law, and your respect and deference to the clear
will of the voters on this issue.
Answer 36. I am not familiar with the specific circumstances of the
enactment of Maine's minimum wage law or of Governor LePage's position
on it. I certainly believe in the rule of law. More specifically, no
individual or constituency is above the law, and if confirmed as
Secretary of Labor I will enforce Federal laws including the Federal
minimum wage.
Question 37. There has been a lot of discussion about worker
classification as ``independent contractors'' in the so-called ``gig''
or ``on-demand'' economy, with some arguing that these workers are
independent businesspeople, even though their work is (1) in large part
dictated by the companies, (2) wages are often set by the companies,
and (3) they can be disciplined for poor performance or for refusing
jobs. How do you view these workers and these jobs, in the context of
the broad definitions of ``employee'' found in the laws you will be
expected to enforce, especially the Fair Labor Standards Act?
Answer 37. An important role of the Department of Labor is to
ensure that employers who want to do the right thing have clear
compliance guidance from the Department. The use of independent
contractors is a legal and valuable business practice. However, in some
circumstances, when an employer incorrectly labels a worker as an
independent contractor instead of an employee, the employer may not be
abiding by their responsibilities to compensate the worker according to
the requirements of the law. Employees incorrectly classified as
independent contractors may be denied access to critical benefits and
protections they are entitled to by law. This incorrect classification
may also generate losses to the Federal Government and State
governments in the form of lower tax revenues, as well as to State
unemployment insurance and workers' compensation funds. Employers who
deliberately misclassify workers undercut law-abiding employers who are
making contributions to these systems and paying their workers
properly. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on matters
pertaining to the classification of employees and will work to enforce
the laws under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction, including these
employment laws, fully and fairly to ensure the protection of workers.
If businesses are found to be incorrectly classifying workers, I will
fully and fairly enforce the relevant laws.
Question 38. A 2012 GAO report found that on average it takes OSHA
nearly 8 years to develop and finalize needed safety and health
standards. The most recent standards issued took much longer. The final
standard to protect workers against deadly silica dust took nearly 19
years from start to finish, and the rulemaking to protect workers in
general industry from fall and slip hazards--leading causes of injury
and death--took nearly 40 years. Do you agree that taking 10-20 or even
40 years to develop and issue safety and health rules on major hazards
is way too long? As Secretary of Labor, will you commit to seeing that
the standards setting process can be made more timely and effective to
protect workers against deadly workplace hazards?
Answer 38. I agree that taking 10, 20, or 40 years to develop
standards is too long. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing this
and many other issues with the Department's OSHA staff, to help ensure
the safety of all workers. I understand that OSHA regulations are
difficult to promulgate and that many take a number of years as you
noted. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that necessary regulations
in this area are promulgated as quickly as possible while also
complying with the requirements in law for such regulations.
Question 39. Do you think it should be illegal for an employer to
retaliate against a worker for exercising her rights under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, or
other labor and employment laws? Will you commit to maintaining a
vigorous enforcement program to protect workers against illegal
retaliation?
Answer 39. Illegal retaliation should not be tolerated. If
confirmed, I will work with the Department's staff to ensure that
employers follow the law in this area and will work to maintain a
vigorous enforcement program to protect workers from adverse employment
actions based upon exercising a right they possess under these laws.
Question 40. OSHA's existing safety standard for the containerized
storage of flammable and combustible liquids--29 C.F.R.
Sec. 1910.106(d)--incorporates the 1969 version of a fire code (NFPA
30--Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code) that has been updated 15
times since then based on advancements in research and technology, such
as improvements in containers and sprinkler systems used in warehouses.
Last year, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the National
Volunteer Fire Council, and the bipartisan leadership of the
congressional Fire Services Caucus wrote to Labor Secretary Tom Perez
urging OSHA to update this existing safety standard in order to better
protect the lives of firefighters and workers. Last fall, the
Industrial Packaging Safety Alliance (``PackSafe'') filed a Petition
for Rulemaking requesting that OSHA's existing safety standard for the
containerized storage of flammable and combustible liquids--29 C.F.R.
Sec. 1910.106(d)--be updated to include the most recent version of NFPA
30. If you are confirmed, will OSHA give full consideration to the
Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Industrial Packaging Safety
Alliance (``PackSafe'') on October 31, 2016 through an open and
transparent rulemaking process that allows all stakeholders to weigh-
in?
Answer 40. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the safety
standards to help ensure the safety of all workers. The Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires OSHA to ensure safe and
healthful working conditions and I am committed to carrying out this
mission. Where necessary, OSHA will promulgate appropriate and feasible
rules to address workplace hazards. OSHA has many other tools at its
disposal to carry out the obligations of the Act and to address new
workplace hazards as they emerge, including conducting training and
education, and providing compliance assistance to employers and
employees. If confirmed, I will direct the Department staff to give
full consideration to any petitions for rulemaking that are received
and will work to ensure that all rulemaking processes are transparent
and allow full stakeholder input.
Question 41. Would you recommend that the President sign Joint Res.
83, which is a ``congressional Review Act'' resolution to block OSHA's
Volks Rule, a regulation that enables OSHA to hold employers
accountable for failing to keep accurate records of workplace injuries
and illnesses that harm workers? If OSHA cannot hold employers
accountable for failing to keep accurate records, how can OSHA help
protect workers from the risk of serious injury or death on the job?
Answer 41. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing this issue
with the Department's OSHA staff as we look for ways to ensure that
employers are fully complying with their responsibilities to record
injuries and illnesses that occur in the workplace.
Question 42. Workers often do not report injuries to their bosses
due to fear of retaliation. OSHA's final electronic recordkeeping rule
includes a provision prohibiting employers from establishing programs
that discourage workers from reporting their injuries. Do you support
laws protecting whistleblowers from retaliation in the workplace?
Answer 42. No employee should be subjected to illegal retaliation
in the workplace for exercising a legal right they possess. The rights
of whistleblowers must be protected.
Question 43. In March 2016, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) released a final rule to reduce workers' exposure
to respirable crystalline silica. The rule is expected to save over 600
lives, prevent more than 900 new cases of silicosis each year, and
generate net benefits of $7.7 billion each year. As Secretary of Labor,
will you be committed to implementing this life-saving rule?
Answer 43. The President, through an executive action, has directed
all Cabinet secretaries to review all rules within each Cabinet agency.
If confirmed, this responsibility will fall to me. As part of that
responsibility I look forward to discussing this and many other issues
with the staff of the Department's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration.
Question 44. Both the Bush administration and the Obama
administration developed special inspection programs to further direct
scarce agency inspection resources to target the worst violators--those
employers who demonstrate indifference to the OSH Act by committing
willful, repeated, or failure to abate violations. These programs for
severe violators include inspection activities such as mandatory
followup inspections and increased company awareness of OSHA
enforcement. Do you support special enforcement initiatives for the
worst violators with followup inspections and company-wide enforcement
for similar hazards?
Answer 44. If confirmed, I will work with the staff of the
Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration to ensure
that all workers are protected. I agree that the worst offenders of
health and safety standards should be targeted for increased scrutiny.
Question 45. The Fair Labor Standards Act has been the law since
1938. It is needed to prevent child labor abuse and to guarantee basic
wage and hour standards like minimum wage and overtime pay for American
workers. Do you believe that any existing FLSA rules should be
repealed? If so, what are they?
Answer 45. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) has been the law of
the land for nearly 80 years and provides important overtime and
minimum wage protections to workers, protections for children who are
in the workforce, and recordkeeping requirements. As I noted in the
hearing, the FLSA does require updating from time-to-time, especially
when it involves dollar values. If confirmed, I look forward to being
briefed by Department staff on the FLSA and the history of the
Department's updates to the FLSA as we develop the Department's
regulatory policies and priorities.
Question 46. Would you use your statutory authority to interpret
section 213 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, exempting various
employees from the provisions of section 206 (minimum wage, and
overtime) broadly, exempting more employees from protection of the
minimum wage and overtime provisions, or narrowly, requiring employers
to pay the minimum wage and overtime to more employees?
Answer 46. There are many exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards
Act's overtime and minimum wage requirements. If confirmed, I will work
to enforce the laws under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully
and fairly, including the Fair Labor Standards Act and any exemptions
thereunder. I look forward to being briefed by Department staff on the
Fair Labor Standards Act, its exemptions, and the Department's
precedent of interpreting and enforcing the statute as we develop the
Department's regulatory policies and priorities.
Question 47. At your confirmation hearing, you stated that it was
unclear whether the Secretary of Labor has the authority under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to set a salary threshold in defining and
delimiting the so-called ``white collar'' exemption from the FLSA's
overtime pay requirements. A salary threshold has been used as part of
the test for exemption by every Secretary of Labor since the FLSA was
first enacted in 1938. Every Secretary of Labor to date has been quite
clear on the fact that the Secretary of Labor does, indeed, have the
authority to set and enforce a salary threshold.
Do you believe that the Secretary of Labor has the authority under
the FLSA to set a salary threshold in defining and delimiting the
``white collar'' exemption?
If confirmed, will you defend the authority of the Secretary of
Labor to set a salary threshold in court, if that authority is
questioned or challenged?
If you answered ``No'' to either of these questions, please explain
in detail (i) the legal basis for your conclusion and (ii) what you
would base the ``white collar'' exemption on if you believe you would
be unable to set a salary threshold as Secretary of Labor.
Answer 47. The district court decision enjoining the rule
specifically stated that,
``[t]he Department exceeds its delegated authority and
ignores Congress' intent by raising the minimum salary level
such that it supplants the duties test.''
Texas v. DOL, 4:16-cv-00731 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2016), at p. 13.
Thus, there is a question as to whether a salary threshold change
without a coextensive duties test is viable, and if it is, at what
point does it ``supplants'' the duties test. I think the authority of
the secretary to address this is a separate issue from what the correct
amount is. The litigation needs to be considered carefully, both with
respect to what would be the appropriate amount if the rule were to be
changed or revised, but also what is within the authority of the
secretary to do.
Question 48. You stated at your confirmation hearing,
``I think it's unfortunate that rules that involve dollar
values can sometimes go more than a decade--sometimes 15
years--without updating, because life does become more
expensive over time.''
The final overtime rule addressed this issue through an automatic
updating mechanism, increasing the salary threshold every 3 years to
keep pace with inflation. Will you commit to requiring regular,
automatic updates to the overtime salary threshold every 3 years, as is
required by the updated overtime rule?
Answer 48. The Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime salary threshold
has not been updated since 2004. When a rule involves dollar values, I
believe waiting more than a decade to update that rule is unfortunate.
I do not know if every 3 years, specifically, is the best solution, but
I look forward to being briefed by Department staff on the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the history of the Department's updates to the law as
we develop the Department's regulatory policies and priorities.
Question 49. DOL's own research and that of other academics shows
that somewhere between 15 and 30 percent of employers' policies violate
the FMLA, will you commit to addressing these violations?
Answer 49. If confirmed, I commit that I will work to enforce the
laws under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly,
including the Family and Medical Leave Act.
Question 50. Paid leave policies that only apply to birth mothers
are inadequate for today's workforce, where more women are working,
fathers are providing more care for children and the population is
aging rapidly. Creating a policy solution that applies only to women
who give birth would create barriers to women's employment, promote
stereotypes and undermine the progress that the United States has made
in terms of gender fairness. Would you oppose a maternity-leave only
policy and instead encourage the President to consider addressing paid
leave for both women and men? For both parental as well as family and
personal medical needs?
Answer 50. I recognize that many States, localities, and private
sector employers on a voluntary basis, have implemented paid leave laws
and policies. I believe attempts to expand paid leave federally would
require congressional action. As I mentioned in the hearing in the
context of the gig economy, promoting workplace flexibility is
something I support, particularly for working parents with young
children. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the President
and Congress to work through the issues raised in your question.
Question 51. Will you support an update to the FMLA law to allow
parents to attend meetings at their children's schools?
Answer 51. As I mentioned in the hearing in the context of the gig
economy, promoting workplace flexibility is something I support,
particularly for working parents with young children. Amending the
Family and Medical Leave Act would require congressional action. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with the President and Congress as
these discussions occur.
Question 52. There are well-documented health disparities in the
LGBTQ community, due to a range of factors, including a higher
likelihood of being uninsured, discrimination and lack of cultural
competency among health care providers, and the negative health impact
of social stigma and discrimination. Due to such disparities, LGBTQ
people likely have a higher need for inclusive paid leave policies.
Fortunately, States are passing paid leave laws to meet this need.
California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have paid family and medical
leave programs in place, while New York and Washington, DC approved
such programs in 2016. The State of California has had a statewide paid
family leave program in place for more than a decade. Research has
found that the program has substantial economic and health benefits for
working families without burdening businesses. Even the California
Society for Human Resource Management found the law ``does not pose as
many burdens as employers feared it would'' and ``is less onerous than
expected.'' During this period, California's economic growth has
outpaced the national average and its economy is now the sixth largest
in the world. In recent years, the Department of Labor has provided
small grants to States and localities that have allowed them to analyze
and conduct feasibility studies on paid family and medical leave
policies. As Secretary, will you direct the agency to continue to
invest in State-paid family and medical leave analysis grants? Will you
ensure that reports resulting from these grants are released to the
public? Will you pledge to support States considering and adopting paid
family leave measures?
Answer 52. I would need to review any particular grant program
before I committed to supporting it. If confirmed, I look forward to
learning more about the program. I do believe research is important and
that results of such research should be made public. Further, I support
an individual State's right to adopt leave measures.
Question 53. In addition to these paid family and medical leave
laws, paid sick days laws are now in effect--or soon will be--in 7
States and 32 localities. Research from the longest standing laws shows
that they are working well and are not burdensome for employers. For
example, both Seattle and San Francisco saw positive job growth after
their paid sick days laws took effect. In San Francisco, the first city
with a paid sick days standard, the local Chamber of Commerce's vice
president stated that its impact on businesses was ``minimal'' and that
``[b]y and large, [paid sick days] has not been an employer issue.''
Evidence from other localities has similarly found low costs to
businesses and positive benefits for workers. As Secretary of Labor, in
light of the research on the economic and health benefits of paid sick
days, will you encourage or discourage other States and localities from
adopting paid sick days laws? Would you support or oppose a national
standard like the Healthy Families Act? Federal laws do not mandate
paid annual leave, paid time off for illness or family care, or paid
parental leave. The absence of such policies makes it difficult for
employees to balance work and family, which can negatively impact
productivity, inhibit the healthy development of children, and make
recovery from major illnesses or injuries difficult. Would you propose
any policies guaranteeing earned sick days or paid parental leave? What
alternatives would you propose to support workers who need time off to
care for themselves or their loved ones? What specifics would you like
to see enshrined in law to help protect all workers, regardless of
income? How do we guarantee that these policies will help all workers,
not just wealthier ones who can take advantage of tax breaks? How do we
incentivize all companies to provide these benefits, not just provide
tax breaks for companies that are already doing the right thing?
Answer 53. I would need to review any legislation or policies
before I committed to supporting them. As I mentioned in the hearing,
promoting workplace flexibility is something I support, particularly
for working parents with young children. I recognize that many States
and localities have implemented paid leave laws. I believe attempts to
expand paid leave would require congressional action. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with the President and Congress as discussions
regarding paid leave occur.
Question 54. Community-based organizations, advocacy groups for the
working poor, and individual working people rely on the Department of
Labor's Wage and Hour Division and their regional outreach specialists
(CORPS specialists) as vital points of contact for reporting and
recovering stolen wages. Will you commit to expanding the number of
regional outreach specialists to ensure working people legal recourse
to be paid for each and every hour they work?
Answer 54. I would need to review any particular program before I
committed to expanding it. If confirmed, I look forward to learning
more about the program. That said, I certainly support using taxpayer
resources effectively in pursuit of Wage and Hour's mission.
Question 55. Fewer than 3 in 10 unemployed workers now receive
unemployment benefits, which is a record low (in 13 States, including
Florida, North Carolina, and Georgia, where lawmakers slashed the
maximum duration of benefits by as much as half, fewer than one in five
unemployed workers receives unemployment benefits). This has
devastating consequences for the millions of workers currently locked
out of the program and for those who will face major layoffs when the
next recessions hits. Do you believe that a social insurance program
designed to help the unemployed, and their families, maintain basic
living standards while they search for another suitable job and to
mitigate the immediate and long-term impacts of global financial crises
on State and local economies is meeting its objectives if fewer than 15
percent--or even 10 percent--of the unemployed in several States are
receiving benefits?
Answer 55. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on the Department's
programs and benefits for the unemployed so that I can understand which
services and benefits are the most effective, and best assist workers
in finding new careers and mitigating the challenges that come with job
loss.
Question 56. It has now been 7 years since the last recession
officially ended, but as of early this year, only 18 States had enough
reserves in their Unemployment Insurance trust funds to pay adequate
benefits when the next recession hits. Given the critical role that the
UI program plays in alleviating economic hardship, and boosting the
economy, do you support Federal efforts to restore the solvency of the
Federal and State UI trust funds, which are regulated by Federal law.
Answer 56. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on the UI trust
funds, their solvency and how the Department and its resources can best
position them to help the most Americans and best accomplish the
Department's mission.
Question 57. In 2012, Congress enacted the Layoff Prevention Act
(sponsored by Senator Jack Reed), which provided financial incentives
to States with work-sharing programs. To date, 28 States have enacted
federally conforming work-sharing laws. The U.S. Department of Labor
estimates that work-sharing saved over 160,000 jobs in 2009 alone and
over half a million jobs since 2008. Do you believe that programs like
work-sharing will be important to helping employers, especially
manufacturers, withstand business downturns and any future recessions?
Do you believe that work-sharing should be an option for employers in
all 50 States?
Answer 57. If confirmed as Secretary of Labor, I will look forward
to reviewing the work-sharing program--which I understand is called the
``short-time compensation (STC) program''--with the States currently
operating the STC program, with employers, and also, with Department
staff. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on issues such as work
sharing and other innovations in the workplace to understand how they
impact employment and economic growth. I support allowing as much
flexibility to States, employers and employees as possible under the
law.
Question 58. In recent years, ideologically diverse legislative and
executive branches of both Federal and State governments have placed an
increased emphasis on bipartisan criminal justice reform. The Labor
Department's key initiative that supports criminal justice reform
efforts is the Reentry Employment Opportunities (REO) program, which
helps connect returning citizens to job training and employment. What
is your position on REO? Would you work with Congress to ensure this
important program receives the necessary funding and remains a priority
for the Trump administration?
Answer 58. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about REO.
Programs that help reintegrate citizens into the economy post-
incarceration are very important and of interest to me. I understand
that the Department has several programs that focus in this area, and I
look forward to being briefed on all of them. Thank you for making me
aware of your appreciation of this program and this issue. I look
forward to working with you and other members of the committee on
efforts to help citizens reintegrate into the workforce post-
incarceration.
Question 59. Over 30 million adult Americans lack even a high
school degree or a GED--double the population of New York City,
Chicago, and Los Angeles combined. These Americans include veterans and
others with significant barriers to better employment. The challenge is
multi-generational: half of their children will also fail to complete
high school. As a result, our economy is hurt, our Nation is not as
competitive as it should be, and people cannot advance in careers and
life. As Secretary, how would you address this critical issue?
Answer 59. Our workforce training system must be positioned to
provide training and skills to the millions of workers who lack a post-
secondary education if they are to prosper in our modern and constantly
changing economy. The worker training and apprenticeship programs under
the Department's purview must position these workers with skills that
meet the needs of growth industries and sectors.
Question 60. The U.S. Department of Labor is required under the
Trade and Development Act of 2000 (TDA) to submit an annual report to
Congress on the efforts by countries that receive trade preference
under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) to combat the worst
forms of child labor. The Department currently assesses countries on
their progress, identifies positive efforts and remaining challenges,
and issues recommendations to address the identified challenges. This
is a critical tool the Department uses to raise awareness about the
problem of child labor and engage with other governments to address the
issue. What will you do to ensure that the report is a useful tool for
countries to combat the problem of child labor?
Answer 60. Child labor is a truly troubling problem. I believe that
the Department's Bureau of International Labor Affairs is assigned the
duty described in your question, and if confirmed, I will work with
that office to make certain that any reports in this area contain the
information needed to help countries eliminate this problem.
Question 61. The U.S. Department of Labor, in coordination with the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, is responsible for the
monitoring and enforcement of labor provisions of free trade
agreements. A recent Government Accountability Office report concluded
that there is an overall lack of effective monitoring and enforcement
of the labor provisions in our trade agreements. How will you
strengthen the efforts of the Department's Bureau of International
Labor Affairs (ILAB) to effectively monitor and enforce labor
provisions of free trade agreements--especially given the drastic cuts
to ILAB proposed in the President's skinny budget?
Answer 61. If confirmed, I look forward to working with ILAB, the
Trade Representative and Congress on this important issue. While I have
not been involved in the budget process as a nominee, it is worth
noting that the President's budget ``[fo]cuses the Bureau of
International Labor Affairs on ensuring that U.S. trade agreements are
fair for American workers.''
Question 62. Do you believe that enforcing the Fair Labor Standards
Act and preventing wage theft improves the U.S. economy? Why or why
not?
Answer 62. If confirmed, I would be responsible for enforcing the
Fair Labor Standards Act and will work to enforce this and other laws
under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly. The
protections provided by wage and hour laws provide a level of economic
security to our Nation's workforce and help Americans to purchase goods
and service to support their families, thereby also supporting
America's businesses and improving the economy.
Question 63. Do you believe government should regulate issues
regarding wages?
Answer 63. Yes, the government does in fact regulate wages and has
for over 70 years.
Question 64. For many decades, the Wage and Hour Division has
focused its limited enforcement resources on the industries where wage
theft and child labor are rampant. Do you support this type of
strategic enforcement, in addition to responding to individual worker
complaints?
Answer 64. I support strategic enforcement alongside individual
complaints. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the
Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly.
Question 65. Because women are overrepresented in low-wage jobs,
they are especially vulnerable to wage theft and exploitation, and are
often reluctant to report violations for fear of retaliation. Do you
commit that under your leadership the Wage and Hour Division will not
scale back or limit its implementation and enforcement efforts, and
that you will defend against any attempts to undermine the Division's
ability to conduct robust investigation and enforcement activities,
including defending against any budget cuts to the Division?
Answer 65. As I noted at the hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce
the law fully and fairly, including Wage and Hour Division
responsibilities. Enforcement of these laws will be priority
irrespective of the budget Congress ultimately enacts.
Question 66. In addition to responding to individual complaints,
recent enforcement strategy at the Wage and Hour Division has
emphasized targeted investigations of industries with high numbers of
wage and hour violations--including the fast food, restaurant, hotel,
and garment manufacturing industries--which also employ significant
numbers of low-wage workers and women. Under your leadership, will the
Department of Labor continue to pursue proactive, targeted enforcement
strategies to protect the workplace rights of large numbers of
vulnerable workers in high-violation industries, and not rely primarily
or solely on a complaint-driven enforcement strategy?
Answer 66. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the
Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly. Strategic
enforcement in high violation areas, alongside individual complaints,
is a balanced enforcement strategy I support.
Question 67. The Bush DOL had an enforcement philosophy that
directed more significant resources than usual toward helping employers
comply with the laws that DOL administers. While compliance assistance
must be part of any DOL enforcement agenda, a 2009 GAO investigation
and report revealed the flaws in a strategy that put so much emphasis
on compliance assistance, to the utter detriment of enforcement. The
GAO report documents how phone complaints were routinely ignored and
how investigations were often pro forma at best. Without targeted
enforcement in high violation industries, where workers are justifiably
afraid to complain for fear of retaliation, there is very little chance
that these employers will get caught. What is your plan for ensuring
that the enforcement agencies at DOL vigorously enforce the laws they
are charged with overseeing?
Answer 67. As I noted at the hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce
the law fully and fairly. Certainly, compliance assistance for small
business particularly is a good way to help explain the laws to good
employers who may not understand their responsibilities. Compliance
assistance should not, however, be conducted at the expense of overall
enforcement.
Question 68. Congress and the Administration have taken several
steps in the last 8 years to expand access to, and improve the quality
of, training and employment programs that prepare workers for high-
skill, high-wage employment in jobs and occupations that exist right
now. That progress includes bipartisan passage of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), which authorizes the Nation's
public workforce system, and new investments in job-driven training
programs, including training programs designed to aid workers affected
by global trade. These investments help workers build their skills and
raise their wages, and help employers--particularly small- and mid-
sized employers that lack large H.R. and training budgets--find skilled
workers. As Labor Secretary, will you continue to invest in worker
training, and maintain or expand upon the current level of service and
investment that the public workforce system provides to States and
local workforce development areas? In your view, what is government's
role in worker training?
Answer 68. The Department of Labor, along with State and local
governments, industry, and educational institutions, can partner to
have substantial positive impact on America's workers. I believe it is
important to view job training programs in terms of return on
investment, to borrow a metric form the business world. For a modest
investment in training, we can prepare a worker to land a good, safe
job, to keep that job, to pay taxes--resulting in an overall net return
on investment. If confirmed as Secretary of Labor, I will work to shift
more responsibility for funding job training and employment services to
those States, localities and employers that can demonstrate their
effectiveness in addressing the needs of both employers and workers. I
strongly believe it is important to invest in worker training. I look
forward to working with you and Members of the committee to realize
these stated goals.
Question 69. In 2009, Senator Jeff Sessions, now the Attorney
General, opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which Congress
passed to help women bring claims of pay disparity based on gender
discrimination. He opposed the Paycheck Fairness Act, which has not
passed yet, but would punish employers for retaliating against
employees who share wage information and allow employees to sue for
damages resulting from wage discrimination. Are you concerned that the
Department of Justice may provide less assistance in combating
violations of equal pay laws given Senator Sessions' record of opposing
such laws? Will you continue to make enforcement of equal pay laws a
priority, to the same extent as the previous administration?
Answer 69. At his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Sessions
pledged himself to equal justice under the law and I have no reason to
question the Attorney General's commitments. If confirmed as Secretary
of Labor, I am committed to enforcing all laws committed to the
Department of Labor's care, including those relating to equal pay.
Question 70. In order to crack down on violations of equal pay
laws, the National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force made several
recommendations, including that the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (``EEOC''), the Department of Justice (``DOJ''), the
Department of Labor (``DOL''), and the Office of Personnel Management
(``OPM'') coordinate the responsibilities of enforcing the laws
prohibiting pay discrimination. Do you think interagency coordination
and enforcement efforts including communication among the agencies,
coordinating investigations and litigation, identifying areas in which
they can issue joint guidance to employers and employees, and
conducting joint training as appropriate have made a positive impact on
enforcement of equal pay laws? Do you believe these efforts deserve
more or less support through funding and staffing? Please include
specific examples of where there should be more or less coordination
between these agencies.
Answer 70. I would need to look into the task force's
accomplishments to make a determination on its effectiveness. As I
noted at my hearing in the context of job training, it is generally
important for government agencies to work together to increase
efficiency and effectiveness.
Question 71. An estimated 5.25 million young people ages 16 to 24
are unattached to school or work. Known as disconnected youth, they
make up nearly one-third of unemployed people. Youth disconnection is
not a challenge confined to urban, suburban, or rural America. In fact,
rates of disconnection are particularly high across the south. Given
the opportunity to reconnect with the labor market, these young people
offer a return of hundreds of billions of dollars in economic
productivity and savings to taxpayers. For these reasons, dozens of
employers including Walmart, Starbucks, JP Morgan, CVS, Fed Ex, Hilton
and others have committed to creating 100,000 opportunities to
reconnect these young people with productive and self-sustaining work.
Would you support setting a broader goal of reconnecting 1 million
opportunity youth? What role do you see for the Department of Labor in
re-engaging youth who have left high school without earning a high
school diploma? In connecting Opportunity Youth to jobs, workforce and
training programs?
Answer 71. I appreciate you raising this issue, and I agree it is
vitally important. I share your belief that getting more young people
involved in workforce training and apprenticeship programs is an
important goal. There are numerous examples throughout the Nation of
industry, local academic and training institutions and government
partnering effectively to train and place workers in growth sectors. I
believe that the Department of Labor, along with State and local
governments, industry, and educational institutions, can partner to
have a critical positive impact on American workers, especially young
people who struggle with education and employment. I would be pleased
to work with you and other Members of the committee to identify new
ways to re-engage these youth and help them succeed in the labor force.
Question 72. In August 2016, Time Magazine reported that President
Trump contracted with a company that employed undocumented immigrants
from Poland to work on the site of his flagship Trump Tower in New York
City and had them work 12-hour shifts without paying them overtime.
According to Time Magazine, when the people building the Trump Tower
complained that he was stealing the wages they had earned, President
Trump had his lawyer threaten to call immigration officials and get the
people working on the site deported. While President Trump has denied
some of these facts, it is indisputable that some corporations exploit
undocumented immigrants who work for them and then threaten to call
immigration authorities to silence whistleblowers. Not only does this
put undocumented immigrants in an extremely vulnerable position, it
ends any chance to ferret out unscrupulous corporations who disregard
the law, do not pay overtime, put the people who work for them in
dangerous working conditions, and even sexually abuse or traffic their
employees. If whistleblowers are deported, after all, the government
cannot investigate charges of exploitation or abuse. Will you ensure
that DOL investigators protect whistleblowers from their boss making a
retaliatory call to immigration authorities? Will you commit to working
with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that DHS does not
initiate deportation proceedings against immigrants during on-going
investigations over workplace labor law violations or for exercising
their rights as workers in the United States? Will you train Department
of Labor investigators to be aware that investigations into labor law
violations should take precedence over immigration proceedings absent
extraordinary circumstances, such as national security? Will you
instruct Department of Labor investigators to de-conflict Department of
Labor investigations with Department of Homeland Security enforcement
activity to prevent a raid against a worksite at which a labor
investigation or action is occurring? Will you work with Department of
Homeland Security to ensure Department of Homeland Security officials
know whom to call to determine if there is an open Department of Labor
investigation before initiating a workplace immigration investigation?
Answer 72. I believe that the Department has a longstanding
commitment to ensuring that all workplace protections are enforced
regardless of workers' immigration status. I have not reviewed it but I
believe there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the two cabinet
departments that is designed to avoid interfering in each other's
enforcement responsibilities. If confirmed, I will discuss this issue
with Department of Labor staff and ask them to work with Department of
Homeland Security staff to help ensure that both agencies can continue
to fulfill their responsibilities.
Question 73. There are numerous press reports already about
immigrant workers being afraid to go to DOL to pick up settlement
checks for unpaid wages because they fear deportation. Similarly, the
press is reporting that immigrant workers, even some that have
documentation, now fear complaining about unsafe conditions or wage
theft. Advocates report that this is the case as well. As you know
well, we must vigorously enforce the employment rights of those workers
most vulnerable to exploitation not only to protect their basic human
rights, but also, so we don't allow unscrupulous employers to undercut
the documented and citizen workforce by hiring and abusing undocumented
workers. Indeed, the single best thing we can do to protect all
American workers, is to protect all who work in America. These well-
founded fears threaten to sideline the DOL in these important matters,
undercutting the rights of the entire low-wage workforce. If you are
Secretary, what will you do to ensure that the DOL remains open to
undocumented workers who are being exploited? Will you engage in
targeted investigations in industries that tend to hire them and if so,
what will you do to protect them from workplace raids? Will you
vigorously enforce the current Memorandum of Understanding between DOL
and DHS detailing how DHS must defer to DOL's investigations and
enforcement actions? Will you fight to maintain this MOU if others want
to abandon it?
Answer 73. I believe that the Department has a longstanding
commitment to ensuring that all workplace protections are enforced
regardless of workers' immigration status. I support that longstanding
practice. I have not studied the MOU you reference, but I believe it is
important that both agencies avoid interfering in each other's
responsibilities.
Question 74. Your statements on immigration and immigrant workers
are at odds with statements that President Trump has made. What
policies would you like to see? How will you work with President Trump
if you are in opposition to one another? What policies do you propose
to welcome immigrants to the United States?
Answer 74. As I noted at the hearing, I think there is a need to
have immigration laws that are transparent and clear, and I do think
that we have an issue of abuse with immigrant workers. I think when
workers are not part of the system, the system can abuse them. I also
think it's important that we enforce immigration laws. I don't see
enforcement of immigration laws as separate from immigration reform. As
the child of immigrants, I certainly support and appreciate the
benefits of legal immigration and the opportunities my family has had.
The best way to welcome legal immigrants is to have a growing economy
that gives them the opportunity to contribute.
Question 75. As reported by The Washington Post, President Trump is
the president of a Charlottesville vineyard that has applied for H-2A
workers for multiple years, including for 2017. The DOL plays a key
role in implementing and enforcing the H-2A program, both as the
regulatory agency that oversees the employer's application process and
as the agency tasked with enforcing worker protections under the
program. As President, Trump will be overseeing the very agency that
will determine whether or not his business's request for foreign
workers will be granted. Ethics experts cited in The Washington Post
article described President Trump's interest in the H-2A program as a
business owner and as the executive authority in charge of the H-2A
program as ``a classic conflict of interest'' which would extend to his
appointees. Given this clear conflict of interest, how will you be able
to carry out the DOL's responsibilities under the H-2A program?
Answer 75. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce
the laws Congress has written fully and fairly and I have done that
throughout my career regardless of the individuals involved.
Question 76. Do you believe that all working people, regardless of
their immigration status, should be afforded the same health and safety
protections and options for recourse if they are injured on the job?
Answer 76. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce
the laws Congress has written fully and fairly, including health and
safety protections, which apply regardless of immigration status.
Question 77. Immigration enforcement is often used by exploitative
employers as a tool to intimidate and retaliate against guest workers
and other immigrant workers. This depresses wages and working
conditions for all workers, and sometimes leads to forced labor and
human trafficking on American soil. There have been numerous instances
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents impersonating OSHA
officials in order to target immigrant workers, and the recent
immigration enforcement surge has included worksite raids and the legal
but problematic identification of ICE agents as police officers. The
best way to prevent this misuse of ICE resources is to de-conflict and
maintain a separation between immigration enforcement and labor
enforcement.
Do you agree with the principle that immigration and labor
enforcement activities should be kept separate?
If so, will you maintain or expand the interagency policy
established with DHS to de-conflict worksite enforcement activities?
Answer 77. If confirmed, I will fully and fairly enforce the law in
this area. I believe it is important that ICE and all DOL agencies
avoid interfering in each other's responsibilities.
Question 78. The Labor Department during the Obama administration
issued a number of rules to strengthen protections for working people--
their pay, their safety and health, their pensions, and many more.
These protections were issued after public notice and a full
opportunity for the public to submit comments. After reviewing all
these comments, the Labor Department made a decision to issue the
rules. Will you commit to following the law and providing a full
opportunity for public notice and comment before modifying any of the
Obama administration's regulations that have already been finalized and
published?
Answer 78. I will follow the requirements of the law in making
changes to any regulations.
Question 79. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicate that
it takes older workers almost a year (about 40 weeks) to return to the
workforce after losing their job. This is twice as long as it takes
younger workers. Congress created and recently renewed their commitment
to the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) at the
Department of Labor. This program has provided job training to millions
of older Americans and has successfully moved them into permanent
employment. While President Trump has claimed to be the champion of the
American worker, his proposed budget calls to eliminate this employment
program for low-income older workers. Should older workers who are
unemployed but have the need, desire, and ability to work have access
to temporary earn-and-learn training opportunities in their
communities? How do you plan to assist the 67,000 unemployed older
workers who will lose SCSEP service under the President's plan--
including the estimated 8 older workers from my State of Washington?
Will you commit to work with Congress to ensure older workers who are
unemployed have access to on-the-job training opportunities through
SCSEP?
Answer 79. I would need to review any particular program before I
committed to supporting it. If confirmed, I look forward to learning
more about SCSEP. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. I note that the President proposes a budget but it
is ultimately Congress that will determine the funding levels. That
said, I fully believe in assisting any worker, young or old, who seeks
to rejoin the labor market but needs help developing in demand skills.
Question 80. As you may know, since the enactment of the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) and
subsequent creation of the compensation Program, the Department of
Labor and the Department of Energy have worked to process the claims of
former employees and contractors who were exposed to radiation and
toxins during their service at nuclear weapons facilities across the
country. As a Senator from the State of Washington, this is a really
important issue to me because we have thousands of workers and their
families at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation located in the Tri-Cities
who helped America win WWII and the cold war and continue to support a
critical cleanup mission at Hanford. For years, I have been battling
the slow and complex process that these heroes deal with in trying to
secure the compensation and care promised them in a fair and timely
manner. In addition, in 2005, I along with my colleagues worked to move
this compensation program to the Department of Labor under the premise
that it would do much better in processing claims. Yet, I still hear
from workers that face a slow claims process, continuous program
inefficiencies, endless obstacles to complete their process, and
difficulties in receiving the health care and benefits they earned
through their dedicated service to the United States. What steps will
you take to improve this critical program? Would you commit to a
comprehensive review of the operations of the Division of Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC) and the Office of
Workers' Compensation Program? And report to this committee its
findings within 90 days?
Answer 80. If confirmed, I will look into your concerns. I will
need to consult with DOL staff in order to determine the proper scope
of any review and the timelines.
Question 81. As Secretary of Labor, you will serve as the Chairman
of the Board of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). The
PBGC's multiemployer program reported in its fiscal year 2015 Annual
Report that its deficit widened to $52.3 billion and it is likely to
become insolvent in 2025.
What do you think should be done to address the continuing solvency
of the PBGC's multiemployer program?
What do you think should be done to address the solvency issues for
plans like Central States among other plans that applied to Treasury to
cut benefits under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA)
and were rejected?
Answer 81. If confirmed, I will be Chair of the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation's Board of Directors and expect to be briefed on
the matter of underfunded multiemployer pension plans. As I noted in
the hearing, I have not proposed a plan to address the issue of
underfunded multiemployer plans and I wish there were an easy solution.
These workers have worked hard for pensions they reasonably expect upon
retirement, and I understand that. I look forward to working with
Congress and the President as solutions are proposed.
Question 82. During your confirmation hearing when questioned about
the looming insolvency of Central States and the PBGC, you would not
commit to maintaining pension benefits rather than taking the drastic
measure of cutting them because ``if you expand it further to include
city and State pension funds, you're talking about approximately a $2
trillion price tag.''
Could you please discuss what you believe your role as Secretary of
Labor is in overseeing city and State pension funds and the authority
for such role?
Answer 82. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on the matter of
underfunded multiemployer pension plans and the PBGC's financial
condition. I am aware that there are also concerns that many State and
local government pension funds are substantially underfunded. Promoting
retirement security is part of the Department's mission and good public
policy. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress and the
President as solutions are proposed to resolve pension funding concerns
particularly as they relate to the PBGC.
Question 83. Do you think that the PBGC should set its own premiums
for its multiemployer and single-employer programs? Please explain why
or why not.
Answer 83. If confirmed, I look forward to a briefing regarding the
PBGC's authority over premiums. I also look forward to working with
Congress and the President as solutions are proposed, including
proposals regarding PBGC premiums.
Question 84. Do you think the current premiums for PBGC's single-
employer and multiemployer programs are sufficient? Please explain why
or why not. Moreover, if you do not believe they are sufficient, please
discuss what you believe a sufficient premium range would be.
Answer 84. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress
and the President as solutions are proposed, including proposals
regarding PBGC premiums. The premiums charged need to take into account
both the need for funding the PBGC's guaranty programs while also
keeping pension costs low so that employers continue to sponsor
retirement plans.
Question 85. Do you believe that the current structure of the PBGC
Board (the Secretaries of Commerce, Labor and Treasury) is the most
effective management structure for the PBGC?
Answer 85. It is certainly important that the interests of plan
participants and beneficiaries be represented on the Board. If
confirmed, I look forward to briefings on these issues, including the
role of the Board of Directors in the management of PBGC and discussing
any proposed reforms to the structure with Congress.
Question 86. Do you believe that the PBGC should be given greater
authority to work with distressed multiemployer and single-employer
plans? If so, what authority do you think is needed?
Answer 86. Supporting the ability of retirement plans to honor
commitments made to working men and women is important. If confirmed, I
expect to be briefed regarding the PBGC and ways to improve the
prospects of distressed multiemployer and single employer plans, and I
look forward to working with Congress and the President as solutions
are proposed.
Question 87. Do you believe every American who seeks professional
investment advice regarding his or her retirement accounts deserves to
receive advice that is solely in his or her best interest?
Answer 87. It is important that the retirement savings of working
Americans be protected. Working Americans deserve to have access to
sound financial advice at fair and transparent prices, and the law
requires those who are fiduciary advisers give advice that is solely in
the interest of plans, their participants, and beneficiaries.
Question 88. You stated in your confirmation hearing that the
conflict of interest rule ``goes far beyond simply addressing the
standard of conduct'' of investment advisers. If after your
presidentially mandated review, you decide to rescind or significantly
scale back the rule, what kinds of protections do you think need to be
put in place to ensure that hardworking individuals and retirees
receive advice that is solely in their best interest?
Answer 88. Hardworking individuals and retirees should receive
advice that is in their best interest. If confirmed, I expect to
carefully examine the rule, pursuant to the executive memorandum. If
repealed or scaled back, the basic protection articulated above would
be important to address.
Question 89. As part of the rulemaking process the Department of
Labor undertook in completing the final conflict of interest rule, the
Department prepared a 382-page regulatory impact analysis examining in
great detail the expected economic impacts of the rule. This was the
culmination of a roughly 6-year process that incorporated the feedback
of thousands of public comments submitted to the Department in multiple
comment periods. Included in the analysis were discussion of the exact
issues the Administration seeks to study according to the new
presidential memorandum directing the Department to study the rule.
While you made it abundantly clear during your confirmation hearing
that President Trump would be your boss and you would follow his
direction until you couldn't, do you think it a good use of taxpayer
dollars to conduct a study that has already been completed? What do you
intend to do with the rule if and when the results of this new study
are consistent with the previous study?
Answer 89. The presidential memorandum addresses with specificity
the fiduciary rule and details the Department of Labor's obligations to
review the rule. If confirmed, I will conduct a review in accordance
with the presidential memorandum. As Chairman Alexander noted, as a
nominee it would be presumptuous to make any regulatory determinations
at this time. Indeed, given that the comment period is still open on
the questions raised as part of the evaluation, it would be improper
for me to prejudge the rulemaking.
Question 90. The Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security
Administration devotes substantial resources to protecting the
contributions made by employees and the matching contributions promised
by their employers to employer-sponsored benefit plans, including
401(k)'s and health plans. Workers have had their contributions to
their pension or health plans withheld from their paychecks without
their employers depositing the money in the plans in a timely manner--
or even at all in some cases. Instead, these employers kept the
workers' contributions and used them for their own purposes or for
other unrelated purposes. What should the Department do to more
effectively protect working people against employers' misuse of their
retirement and health money?
Answer 90. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on matters related
to the Employee Benefits Security Administration and will work to
enforce the laws under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and
fairly, including taking vigorous enforcement action if employers are
unlawfully withholding funding for employee pension and health
benefits.
Question 91. During your confirmation hearing, you stated that
considering ``indirect control or even unexercised potential to control
working conditions'' when analyzing joint employer status was an ``un-
traditional approach.'' The Restatement (Second) of Agency refers to a
master as someone who ``controls or has the right to control'' another
and refers to a servant as one who is ``controlled or is subject to the
right to control.'' (emphasis added) Indeed, the Supreme Court's
considerations are consistent with these principles, as the Court has
pointed to whether one ``possessed sufficient control over the work of
the employees to qualify as a joint employer.'' Boire v. Greyhound
Corp., 376 U.S. 473 (1964) (emphasis added).
The common law has long acknowledged that control may be indirect,
and the Restatement of Employment Law, Section 1.04(b) (March 2017)
states,
``An individual is an employee of two or more joint employers
if (i) the individual renders services to at least one of the
employers and (ii) that employer and the other joint employers
each control or supervise such rendering of services.''
Do you believe that these common law principles are ``un-
traditional'' and should be ignored when considering joint employer
status under labor and employment laws?
Answer 91. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on these
matters as we develop the Department's regulatory policies and
priorities.
Question 92. While you were Assistant Attorney General of the
Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, you chose to write a
letter to an Ohio judge in defense of an Ohio voter challenger law just
days before the 2004 general election. It is a departure from standard
practice of the Justice Department to weigh in on cases involving
issues of voters rights and access so close to an election.
Furthermore, the Department of Justice had no role in the case.
Why did you choose to write the letter?
How do you explain your decision, given that the Department of
Justice had no role in the case? What was the value in the Department
weighing in?
Did you weigh in on cases involving voter challenger laws or other
laws relating to voter rights and access at the time? Were there
controversies in other States in which the Department chose to involve
itself?
Answer 92. The Department of Justice has a long history of
submitting its views of statutes committed to its enforcement. The
Department of Justice is charged with enforcing both the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (``HAVA'') and the Voting Rights Act (``VRA''). At the
time, HAVA was a relatively new statute. Because of this, there was
value in bringing to Judge Dlott's attention key aspects of HAVA, i.e.,
that State and local election officials must permit any individual
whose name does not appear on the official registration list or whose
eligibility to vote is called into question to cast a provisional
ballot even if they are unable to answer specific questions posed by
election judges; that provisional ballots are part of a congressionally
established balance between ballot access and ballot integrity; and
that as a result, non-discriminatory challenge statutes are not
prohibited on their face (although they can be prohibited as applied).
Provisional ballots would mitigate the impact of the Ohio ``challenge
statute'' at issue in that case, which otherwise may have resulted in
the disqualification of some voters without any recourse to confirm
their eligibility and to restore their vote. The letter alerting Judge
Dlott to HAVA's requirements was consistent with the Civil Rights
Division's many other efforts to raise awareness of and to enforce HAVA
in several States during 2004. Importantly, the Department did not
speak to the specific allegations raised by the plaintiffs in that
suit, but limited its comments only to the statutes on their face.
Question 93. In 2003, the Civil Rights Division's Voting Rights
Section was tasked with reviewing a plan proposed by the Texas
legislature to redraw the State's congressional districts. Under the
Voting Rights Act, States with a history of discriminatory election
practices had to receive approval from the Justice Department to make
changes to their voting systems. This rule was designed to prohibit
changes that would have harmed minority voters. The career attorneys in
the Voting Rights Section found that the Texas redistricting plan would
have had a discriminatory effect. Yet, senior political officials in
the Department overruled the career attorneys and the Texas plan went
into effect. The Supreme Court later found that the Texas redistricting
plan had ``failed to protect minority voting rights.'' You chose to
recuse yourself from this case and have refused to provide an
explanation for your decision. In a congressional hearing in 2004, you
stated,
``I do believe that my recusal was appropriate, that it was
the right thing for me to do. I have very able deputies, good
deputies, and I have full confidence in their decisionmaking
process.''
Why did you choose to recuse yourself from this case? And based on
the mistake made by political officials to override the correct
decision by the section's career attorneys, do you regret your
decision?
Answer 93. Recusal is appropriate where an official has an actual
conflict of interest, or where under the circumstances the official may
reasonably appear to have a conflict of interest. As I mentioned at my
hearing, I have a longstanding friendship with the then Solicitor
General of Texas, Mr. Cruz, who was litigating this matter personally.
I recused myself out of concern that this contact may be portrayed as a
conflict of interest. I take recusal obligations very seriously. It is
as important to recuse in cases where recusal is required as it is not
to recuse in cases where recusal is not required. In this case I
believe my decision to recuse from any involvement in the Department's
deliberations and decisionmaking was appropriate.
senator sanders
minimum wage
Question 1. On July 27, 2016, Donald Trump said at a press
conference ``The minimum wage has to go up. At least $10. It has to go
up.'' I believe we need to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Do
you believe that the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a
starvation wage? Do you believe someone can support a family on $7.25
an hour? In your opinion, do you believe that Donald Trump was correct
when he said that the minimum wage has to go up to at least $10 an
hour?
Answer 1. The minimum wage is set federally by Congress but also in
States and localities by their respective governments. I recognize that
cost-of-living and other economic factors vary greatly across the
United States and that many States and localities have increased the
minimum wage above the Federal floor.
pensions
Question 2. A few years ago, the Republican Congress passed a law
that allows companies to cut the earned pension benefits of millions of
workers in multi-employer pension plans by as much as 60 percent. I am
about to re-introduce legislation that would repeal this law and
prohibit employers from cutting earned pension benefits. This
legislation would be paid for by closing loopholes that allow
millionaires to pay lower tax rates than their secretaries. Will you
work with me on this legislation? What will you do to prevent the
earned pension benefits of millions of Americans in multi-employer
pension plans from being cut?
Answer 2. If confirmed, I will be Chair of the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation's Board of Directors and expect to be briefed on
the matter of underfunded multiemployer pension plans. As I noted in
the hearing, I have not proposed a plan to address the issue of
underfunded multiemployer plans and I wish there were an easy solution.
These Americans have worked hard for pensions they reasonably expect
upon retirement, and I understand that. I look forward to working with
Congress and the President as solutions are proposed to address this
important issue.
employee ownership (esops)
Question 3. Employee stock ownership using the ESOP model has
broad-based bi-partisan support in Congress. The data shows that
employee-owned companies provide jobs that are more productive,
competitive, and sustainable, especially in a time of economic
downturns. Do you believe broad-based ownership by employees in the
companies where they work is good policy for our Nation--for the
employees, their companies, their communities? Will DOL work to
encourage broad-based employee ownership? I have long believed that
worker ownership is an economic model that we should be using to reduce
income and wealth inequality. Studies have consistently shown that
worker ownership increases wages, productivity, and benefits, and
sharply reduces turnover and absenteeism.
Answer 3. I strongly support empowering Americans in all aspects of
their working endeavors. A well-run ESOP, like other employment-based
retirement plans, can provide valuable benefits to participating
workers, and I believe that Congress and the Department have a shared
responsibility to take steps to make sure that ESOPs fulfill their
important mission of providing benefits and enhancing employee
ownership. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on ESOPs and I look
forward to working with Congress as we develop the Department's
regulatory policies and priorities to expand opportunity.
Question 4. I will be re-introducing legislation to allow the
Department of Labor to provide grants to States and local government to
educate workers and retiring business owners about the benefits of
employee ownership. I will also be introducing legislation to create a
U.S. Employee Ownership Bank to provide low-interest loans and
financial assistance to workers who want to create worker-owned
businesses. Will you work with me on those bills?
Answer 4. As I expressed at my confirmation hearing, I look forward
to working with you and all of the members of the committee on issues
like the one you raise here. I share your interest in the benefits of
employee ownership programs and look forward to learning more about the
value they can provide to workers and businesses, if confirmed.
immigration/visa's
Question 5. What specific actions will you take to prohibit U.S.
workers from being replaced by guest workers through the H-1B program?
Answer 5. As I noted in my testimony, I think that this is an
important issue to review, particularly where Americans are being asked
to train their foreign replacements. That is not the intent of the H-1B
program. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Department
staff to look for ways to eliminate this problem. If legislation is
needed, I look forward to working with you and the committee to help
enact any needed changes.
Question 6. Do you believe that businesses should be allowed to
force U.S. workers to train their replacements who are here under the
H-1B program in order to receive a severance package?
Answer 6. I believe this is offensive to American workers. As I
noted in my testimony, I think that this is an important issue to
review. That is not the intent of the H-1B program. If confirmed, I
look forward to working with the Department staff and Congress to look
for ways to eliminate this problem. The only thing that I can think of
that is worse than losing your job is being forced to train your
replacement.
Question 7. Currently, the H-2B program requires that the employer
offer a wage that equals or exceeds the prevailing wage, or adheres to
the local minimum wage. The program also requires recruitment
displacement standards to protect similarly skilled U.S. workers. How
do you intend to enforce these requirements?
Answer 7. Protecting U.S. workers is my priority. If confirmed, I
will enforce the laws in this area that are within the jurisdiction of
the Department of Labor and direct my staff to work with other
Departments involved to address any issues. If legislative changes are
needed, I look forward to working with you and the committee to come up
with a solution.
Question 8. How will you make sure that H-2B guest workers are not
exploited by unscrupulous employers?
Answer 8. Certainly, guest workers on any program should be treated
fairly in order to protect them and maintain U.S. working conditions.
If confirmed, I will enforce the laws in this area that are within the
jurisdiction of the Department and direct my staff to work with other
Departments involved to address any issues. If legislative changes are
needed, I look forward to working with you and the committee to come up
with a solution in this area.
Question 9. In your opinion, should companies be able to pay guest
workers on a J-1 visa less than the minimum wage?
Answer 9. Certainly, guest workers on any program should be treated
fairly in order to protect them and maintain U.S. working conditions.
If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed regarding the J-1 visa
program, but I believe that program is enforced by the State
Department, not the Department of Labor as it is considered a cultural
or educational visa. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws
under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly,
including the Fair Labor Standards Act, and ask staff to assist the
State Department in safeguarding these workers.
Question 10. How would you interpret and enforce the Fair Labor
Standards Act with respect to the J-1 visa au pair program?
Answer 10. Certainly, guest workers in any program should be
treated fairly in order to protect them and maintain U.S. working
conditions. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed regarding the
J-1 visa program, but I believe that program is enforced by the State
Department, not the Department of Labor, as it is considered a cultural
or educational visa. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws
under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly,
including the Fair Labor Standards Act, and ask staff to assist the
State Department in safeguarding these workers.
Question 11. Are au pairs entitled to a State's minimum wage if
that exceeds the Federal minimum wage? Are au pairs entitled to
overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act?
Answer 11. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed regarding
the J-1 visa program, but I believe that program is enforced by the
State Department, not the Department of Labor, as it is considered a
cultural or educational visa. Certainly, guest workers in any program
should be treated fairly in order to protect them and U.S. working
conditions. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the
Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly, including the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and ask staff to assist the State Department in
safeguarding these workers.
Question 12. In guest worker programs where employers are required
to provide housing by statute, will you allow employers to deduct the
cost of housing even if it would mean that the paycheck of the guest
worker would be lower than the minimum wage?
Answer 12. If confirmed, I will fully and fairly enforce all the
laws that protect guest workers. Whether employers can deduct the cost
of housing from employee wages depends on the guest worker statute. It
would not be appropriate for an employer to deduct the cost of housing
from the required wage where the guest worker statute requires the
employer to pay for housing.
Question 13. Should the Department of Labor protect guest workers
from retaliation if they report problems with their working conditions?
Answer 13. Anti-retaliation provisions are designed to ensure that
workers can assert their rights and should be supported and enforced
for that reason. To the extent Congress has given authority to the
Department under guest worker statutes, if confirmed, I will fully and
fairly enforce all the laws that prohibit illegal retaliation.
conflict of interest rule
Question 14. The DOL estimated that Americans lose at least $17
billion a year due to conflicted advice from their advisers. Do you
think protecting investors from receiving bad, or conflicted advice, is
good public policy that will help more Americans retire with financial
security?
Answer 14. It is important that the retirement savings of working
Americans be protected. Working Americans deserve to have access to
sound financial advice at fair and transparent prices, and the law
requires those who are fiduciary advisers give advice that is solely in
the interest of plans, their participants, and beneficiaries.
Question 15. It is difficult for the average person to know who's
who in giving them investment advice. Without the enactment of the
conflict of interest rule, someone who is a ``registered investment
advisor'' must provide advice in the best interest of their clients,
while someone who calls themselves a ``financial advisor,'' or
``retirement advisor'' has no such obligation. Do you believe the
investment industry has a responsibility to make this clearer and
easier to understand for average Americans, or does the burden in your
view rest on the person investing?
Answer 15. I believe that transparency with respect to obligations
is important generally and in this context. Working Americans deserve
to have access to sound financial advice at fair and transparent
prices, and the law requires those who are fiduciary advisors give
advice that is solely in the interest of plans, their participants, and
beneficiaries.
Question 16. When it developed the fiduciary rule, the DOL prepared
an exhaustive economic analysis conservatively estimating that
conflicted advice from advisers costs American savers at least $17
billion a year. Yet the agency has just submitted a proposal to OMB to
delay the rule pending another economic analysis. Every day that this
rule is needlessly pushed back, countless hardworking Americans could
lose critical parts of their retirement savings. What would you say to
those investors?
Answer 16. It is important that the retirement savings of working
Americans be protected. I support empowering Americans to make their
own financial decisions, to facilitate their ability to save for
retirement and build the individual wealth necessary to afford typical
lifetime expenses, such as buying a home and paying for college, and to
withstand unexpected financial emergencies. There are concerns,
however, that the fiduciary rule may adversely affect the ability of
Americans, particularly those with smaller accounts, to gain access to
retirement information and financial advice. As I noted at the hearing,
a presidential memorandum addresses with specificity the fiduciary rule
and details the Department of Labor's obligations to review the rule.
If confirmed, I will conduct the review in accordance with the
presidential memorandum, but with the underlying goal of ensuring the
policy meets the President's and Congress mutual goal of safeguarding
retirement security.
federal employees
Question 17. The Federal Government continues to be American's
largest low-wage job creator. On February 12, 2014, President Obama
signed an Executive order establishing a $10.10 minimum wage for
Federal contract workers. Do you support or oppose that Executive
order? On September 7, 2015, President Obama signed an Executive order
``establishing paid sick leave for Federal contractors.'' Do you
support or oppose that Executive order?
Answer 17. I believe that the vast majority of Federal contractors
pay $10.10 minimum irrespective of the Executive order and many also
provide paid sick leave. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I
would enforce the law fully and fairly, including Executive orders that
apply to the Labor Department or give the Department additional
enforcement responsibilities.
Question 18. On July 21, 2014, President Obama signed an Executive
order ``prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and
gender identity.'' Do you support or oppose that Executive order?
Answer 18. I believe the White House has indicated its intent not
to rescind this Executive order, and I support that decision. I am
committed to enforcing anti-discrimination laws. I believe anti-
discrimination laws should prohibit workplace discrimination based on
sexual orientation or gender identity, although I support religious
entities' freedom to hire consistent with their faith.
civil rights
Question 19. Mr. Acosta, according to the Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights Under Law:
``[You] led the Civil Rights Division at a time that was
marked by stark politicization and other improper hiring and
personnel decisions that were fully laid to bare in a 2008
report issued by the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The OIG
found that actions taken during Mr. Acosta's tenure violated
Justice Department policy and Federal law. Political and
ideological affiliations were used as a litmus test to evaluate
job candidates and career attorneys, wreaking havoc on the work
of the Division. This egregious conduct played out under Mr.
Acosta's watch and undermined the integrity of the Civil Rights
Division. It is hard to believe that Mr. Acosta would now be
nominated to lead a Federal agency tasked with promoting lawful
hiring practices and safe workplaces.''
Given your record at the Department of Justice, how can we trust
you to fairly enforce our Nation's labor laws?
Answer 19. As I indicated at my hearing before the committee, the
conduct described in the OIG's report was wrong and should not have
taken place. The OIG concluded that I was not aware of the misconduct.
Nonetheless, it occurred on my watch as Assistant Attorney General. I
am well aware of what happened, and committed to ensure it is not
repeated. I am committed to enforcing the Nation's labor laws, fairly
and fully.
voter suppression
Question 20. All over this country there has been a massive effort
by Republican legislatures and Governors to suppress the vote of
African Americans, Latinos, and the poor. In 2004, the Ohio Republican
Party announced its plan to deploy thousands of people across Ohio to
challenge votes in mostly African American precincts. Many in the civil
rights community called this plan nothing more than ``a vestige of Jim
Crow laws'' which ``created the possibility of disenfranchising a voter
without due process of law.'' Yet, you wrote a letter in defending this
practice when you were at the Department of Justice. According to a
2007 article by McClatchy,
``Former Justice Department civil rights officials and
election watchdog groups charge that [your letter] letter sided
with Republicans engaging in an illegal, racially motivated
tactic known as `vote-caging' in a State that would be pivotal
in delivering President Bush a second term in the White
House.''
If you fought to suppress the vote of African Americans in Ohio,
how can we trust you to enforce our Nation's anti-discrimination laws
in the workplace?
Answer 20. If confirmed as Secretary of Labor I will be committed
to fairly and fully enforcing all laws entrusted to the Department of
labor including workplace anti-discrimination laws.
general
Question 21. Trump has been involved in at least 60 lawsuits
involving employees and contractors alleging he did not pay them.
According to DOL data, he has been cited for 24 violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum
wage. Despite his campaign promises, his actions paint a portrait of a
systemic culture to devalue workers. How do you plan on addressing this
conflict of interest? Will you create policies that will have a direct
impact on the President's pending labor investigations and lawsuits?
Answer 21. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce
the laws Congress has written fully and fairly and I have done that
throughout my career regardless of the individuals involved.
budget
Question 22. President Trump's proposed budget cuts the Labor
Department by 21 percent, or $2.5 billion. Meanwhile, full-time workers
are struggling to provide for their families and find good jobs. Do you
know how many U.S. workers the Labor Department will have to turn away
for job training and career services if the President's budget request
to cut $2.5 billion from the Labor Department is enacted?
Answer 22. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. If confirmed, one of my goals and responsibilities
will be to use taxpayer resources wisely to provide the best job
training and career services to all Americans in need of those
resources.
youth employment
Question 23. In a study of 98 of America's 100 most populous metro
areas, which includes 66 percent of the U.S. population, Measure of
America found that youth disconnection is not a spontaneously occurring
phenomenon; it is an outcome years in the making. Disconnected young
people tend to come from communities that are themselves disconnected
from the mainstream by segregation and concentrated disadvantage, and
young people's struggles with education and employment mirror those of
their parents and neighbors. Under your leadership, would you direct
discretionary funding to high-poverty urban, rural, and tribal areas/
communities?
Answer 23. If confirmed, I look forward to working on this issue in
order to find ways to better serve youth who confront the challenges
you describe. I share your concerns about communities and individuals
that feel disconnected from society, and expect to be briefed on what
the Department is doing in this area, and how we can improve those
efforts, if confirmed. The Department of Labor, along with local
governments, industry, and educational institutions, can partner to
have substantial positive impact on American workers, including young
people who struggle with education and employment. If confirmed, I will
work to maximize the impact of every taxpayer dollar directed to job
training programs and ensure funds go to programs that work. I would
add that efforts in these communities need to be coordinated with other
Departments, including Housing and Urban Development and Education.
Question 24. The taxpayer and social burden of a disconnected 16-
year-old young person during his or her lifetime is over $1,014,140. Do
you believe there is a Federal role in supporting States and local
areas to connect unemployed youth to the labor market? If so, what is
that role?
Answer 24. I believe that programs at the Department of Labor, most
prominently those in the Employment and Training Administration, do
play a role in helping to serve the communities you describe. As I
mentioned previously, I share your concerns about communities and
individuals that feel disconnected from society, and do believe that
this Federal role is important in partnership with local government and
private industry.
Question 25. Youth and young adults in the United States face an
unprecedented employment crisis. Seven years after the ``official'' end
of the Great Recession, teen unemployment remains high at nearly 17
percent. Will you make youth employment a top priority for your tenure
as Secretary?
Answer 25. Thank you for highlighting this important issue. Youth
and young adult employment will be a priority that I plan to focus on,
if confirmed.
Question 26. For the middle class especially, the American dream of
each generation doing better than the last is slipping out of reach.
Today's young people are working just as hard as their parents did, and
yet--due to stagnant wages and higher education costs--are less likely
to out-earn their parents in their lifetimes. How will you restore and
protect this generation's right to the American Dream?
Answer 26. I share your concern about this generation struggling to
experience greater successes than their parents. A strong belief in the
American dream and a sense that it is achievable is important to our
American identity and society. My family experienced the American dream
first-hand, and I hope that if confirmed, I can bring those experiences
to bear in order to support policies, initiatives and reforms that will
provide the opportunity for this generation to realize greater success
than did their parents.
wioa
Question 27. The Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 established a State-
administered, federally funded national system of public labor exchange
offices known as the U.S. Employment Service (ES). The Act most
recently was amended in 2014 by the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA). The Employment Service has for decades been
providing job search assistance, job interview referrals, re-employment
services to unemployment insurance claimants, and recruitment services
for employers seeking to fill vacancies. It also specially meets the
specific needs of youth, minorities, older workers, individuals with
disabilities, and veterans. WIOA has expanded the Employment Service's
mandate to provide more intensive, staff-assisted career counseling to
job seekers, thus affirming ES's key role within American Job Centers.
Will you fully support the work of the Employment Service through
appropriations requests for adequate funding and other means?
Answer 27. The Department of Labor, along with State and local
governments, industry, and educational institutions, can partner to
have substantial positive impact on America's workers. If confirmed as
Secretary of Labor, I will work to maximize the impact of Federal
taxpayer dollars directed to employment and job training programs and
shift more responsibility for funding job training and employment
services to States, localities and employers that can effectively
address the needs of both employers and workers. I strongly believe it
is important to invest in worker training. I look forward to working
with you and Members of the committee to realize these stated goals.
Question 28. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014
(WIOA) passed with virtually unanimous bipartisan support in Congress--
marking the first update to the Nation's core workforce training
programs in 16 years. Since WIOA was enacted, the State and local
workforce development system has worked to implement the law's changes
to the Nation's employment, training, adult education, and vocational
rehabilitation programs, including its emphasis on improving services
to low-income adults and youth who have limited skills, lack work
experience, and face other barriers to securing an education and
getting a good job. In 2016, the Departments of Labor and Education
published final rules implementing WIOA; relying on this regulatory
framework, States have completed extensive stakeholder consultation
processes and finalized their State workforce development plans. Will
you commit to keeping these rules in place so that States and local
areas can continue to implement their 4-year WIOA plans?
Answer 28. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on WIOA and all
related programs and implementing regulations in order to understand
stakeholder, State workforce agency and worker interests and concerns.
So long as these rules are working well, I see no reason to disturb
them; if improvement would be helpful, however, I believe changes
should be considered.
whd enforcement
Question 29. Do you believe that government should play an active
role in protecting workers and policing misconduct on the part of
employers? Examples of misconduct include practices that deny workers a
fair wage, practices that reinforce discrimination against protected
groups of workers, practices that make it difficult for employees to
complain about such unfair and illegal conduct and that stack the deck
against the employee and in favor of the employer when a complaint is
made, and many others. If so, do you believe that this role cannot be
effectively accomplished by any other entity?
Answer 29. Government has an active role and responsibility to
enforce laws that protect workers. If confirmed, I will work to enforce
the laws under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly.
Question 30. Do you support similar modern-day developments to
ensure that working conditions are better and pay is better for average
working people, including low-wage workers?
Answer 30. I support improvements in working conditions and raising
wages, and, if confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the
Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly, including laws
pertaining to worker protections.
Question 31. As the head of DOL, will you actively pursue new
public protections to create a safer workplace environment?
Answer 31. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the safety
standards to help ensure the safety of all workers. The Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires OSHA to ensure safe and
healthful working conditions and I am committed to carrying out this
mission. Where necessary, OSHA will promulgate appropriate and feasible
rules to address workplace hazards. OSHA has many other tools at its
disposal to carry out the obligations of the Act and to address new
workplace hazards as they emerge, including conducting training and
education, and providing compliance assistance to employers and
employees.
Question 32. As the Nation's chief worker advocate, will you pursue
increased wages for the middle class?
Answer 32. Yes, I support increased wages for the middle class. A
growing economy combined with improved job training for in demand
skills is among the best ways to grow the middle class.
Question 33. The Fair Labor Standards Act at 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201
states, as ``congressional finding and declaration of policy'' as
follows:
``The Congress finds that the existence, in industries
engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce,
of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the
minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency,
and general well-being of workers (1) causes commerce and the
channels and instrumentalities of commerce to be used to spread
and perpetuate such labor conditions among the workers of the
several States; (2) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods
in commerce; (3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in
commerce; (4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and (5)
interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in
commerce. That Congress further finds that the employment of
persons in domestic service in households affects commerce. It
is declared to be the policy of this chapter, through the
exercise by Congress of its power to regulate commerce among
the several States and with foreign nations, to correct and as
rapidly as practicable to eliminate the conditions above
referred to in such industries without substantially curtailing
employment or earning power.''
The current WHD engages in targeted enforcement--looking
specifically to industries which have high rates of violations and
rather than waiting for complaints to come in, doing audits of
businesses in those industries to drive higher rates of compliance with
the FLSA across the board. Would you continue engaging in targeted
enforcement in the industries we know have high rates of violations?
Answer 33. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the
Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly. Strategic
enforcement in high violation areas, alongside individual complaints,
is a balanced enforcement strategy I support.
Question 34. Do you believe your company's violation of WHD and
OSHA regulations impairs your ability to oversee those programs as
Labor Secretary?
Answer 34. I am unaware of what company you reference. In my roles
at the bank and Florida International University Law School, I have
promoted full compliance with the law, including the Occupational
Safety and Health Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
trade/outsourcing/international labor
Question 35. The President has talked a lot about unfair trade
agreements that have taken away American jobs. While I realize you are
nominated for Secretary of Labor, not as our trade representative, what
will you do as Secretary to help these dislocated workers impacted by
trade to find new jobs at commensurate or better wages than they
received before their job moved abroad? What changes need to be made in
our trade agreements to better protect our workforce?
Answer 35. The Department's Bureau of International Labor Affairs
is assigned the duty to ensure the labor provisions in trade agreements
are enforced fairly. If confirmed, I look forward to working with that
office, the Trade Representative and Congress on this important issue.
The overall best solution for preventing dislocations is to create an
environment where there are few incentives to move jobs overseas. When
there are displacements of workers because of trade, however, as I
discussed at the hearing, we need to make better efforts to align job
training with the skills the market demands today and in the future for
those displaced workers.
minimum wage
Question 36. This year, the Republican platform called for the
Minimum wage to be handled at the State AND local level. Yet many red
States are passing laws that prohibit localities (cities and counties
from raising the minimum wage in their jurisdictions. Ohio is the
latest State to do so. This is in direct contravention of the
Republican party platform and you yourself have spoken about this being
an issue that should be handled at the State and local level. What will
you do as the SOL to discourage States from pre-empting their
localities who wish to enact labor standards that comport with the
needs of those who live and work in their jurisdictions?
Answer 36. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. If
confirmed, I will examine this matter more closely.
senator casey
Question 1. During the Bush administration the Mine Safety and
Health Administration failed to fulfill its statutory mandate under the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Act to inspect every underground mine 4
times per year, and every surface mine 2 times per year. This is known
as the ``4s and 2s.'' In fact, MSHA's budget was cut so deep during the
Bush administration that MSHA did not even have enough qualified
inspectors to carry out these inspections. Will you commit to that MSHA
will implement this mandate to carry out the 4s and 2s every year
Please provide a yes or no response.
Answer 1. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce
the laws Congress has written fully and fairly, including inspection
obligations at the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
Question 2. The Obama administration took a number of steps through
rulemaking and enforcement that protected the health and safety of coal
miners, including those in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Previously, MSHA failed to implement the ``Pattern of Violations
requirement'' included in the Federal Mine safety and Health Act to
ensure that serial violators will face elevated sanctions if they
repeatedly place miners in harm's way by violating mandatory safety
standards. That was fixed by MSHA after the Upper Big Branch Mine
Disaster which killed 29 miners in the worst coal mine disaster in the
United States in 40 years. Will you commit to maintain, implement and
enforce this rule and its implementing guidance? Please provide a yes
or no response.
Answer 2. I have no present reason to disturb this rule, and I
certainly support strong and fair use of all of MSHA's enforcement
tools, including elevated sanctions where appropriate. As I noted in my
hearing, the President has directed each Cabinet officer to review all
rules and to make determinations if any rules should be revised. If
confirmed, I will have an obligation to comply with that directive.
That said, Upper Big Branch was a terrible tragedy and I support all
actions that effectively ensure the tragedy is not repeated.
Question 3. The respirable dust rule implemented by MSHA and the
industry will reduce the exposure of miners to coal dust that causes
disabling lung diseases, like black lung. Will you commit to maintain
this rule and fully enforce it? Please provide a yes or no response.
Answer 3. I have no present reason to disturb this rule, and I
support efforts to reduce black lung disease. As I noted in my hearing,
the President has directed each Cabinet officer to review all rules and
to make determinations if any rules should be revised. If confirmed, I
will have an obligation to comply with that directive.
Question 4. MSHA issued a rule to keep miners from being crushed by
continuous mining machine. It is known as the Proximity Detection Rule,
which requires operators to install equipment to automatically shut
down the movement of the machine if a worker is caught in a zone where
they can be crushed. Will you commit to maintain this rule and fully
enforce it? Please provide a yes or no response.
Answer 4. I have no present reason to disturb this rule, and I
support using technology to improve miner safety. As I noted in my
hearing, the President has directed each Cabinet officer to review all
rules and to make determinations if any rules should be revised. If
confirmed, I will have an obligation to comply with that directive.
Question 5. The DOL issued a new Black Lung Benefits Act rule which
improves the claims process to give black lung claimants better access
to information and helps level the playing field. Will you commit to
maintain and implement this rule? Please provide a yes or no response.
Answer 5. I have no present reason to disturb this rule, and I
support improving claims processes for injured workers generally and
particularly those suffering from black lung disease. As I noted in my
hearing, the President has directed each Cabinet officer to review all
rules and to make determinations if any rules should be revised. If
confirmed, I will have an obligation to comply with that directive.
Question 6. President Trump has made deregulation a priority. He
also proposed a 21 percent cut to the Department of Labor's budget.
Will you pledge to continue tough enforcement of these laws and
regulations to protect coal miners and commit to not gutting or undoing
these regulations? How do you propose to have robust enforcement given
these proposed budget cuts? Please provide a yes or no response.
Answer 6. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. I note that the President proposes a budget but it
is ultimately Congress that will determine the funding for MSHA. MSHA
has an important responsibility to foster mine safety and an obligation
to inspect facilities proactively. Regardless of Congress' decision,
MSHA must use its personnel to the best of its ability to accomplish
its mission and enforce important safety and health standards.
Question 7. Will you advocate on behalf of coal miners and their
health and pension benefits by pushing the Republican leadership in
Congress and President Trump to pass and sign the Miners Protection
Act?
Answer 7. I have not reviewed that particular piece of legislation,
but I look forward to working with you and the rest of the Congress on
potential legislative changes.
Question 8. Do you agree that when trading partners fail to enforce
labor laws and do not uphold high-standard protections for workers, it
can create a competitive disadvantage for U.S. workers, farmers,
ranchers, and businesses?
Answer 8. Yes, I agree. The Department's Bureau of International
Labor Affairs is assigned the duty to ensure the labor provisions in
trade agreements are enforced to protect America's interests, including
workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses. If confirmed, I look forward
to working with that office, the Trade Representative and Congress to
safeguard American jobs.
Question 9. If confirmed, will you vigorously investigate and
enforce the labor obligations of our trading partners?
Answer 9. The Department's Bureau of International Labor Affairs is
assigned the duty to ensure the labor provisions in trade agreements
are enforced. If confirmed, I look forward to working with that office,
the Trade Representative and Congress to vigorously safeguard American
jobs.
Question 10. Do you agree that adopting or maintaining lax labor or
human rights standards is not a legitimate way for governments to
manufacture a competitive advantage for their exporters?
Answer 10. Yes, I agree. If confirmed, I will consult with the
Bureau staff on ways to help countries improve compliance with their
commitments to uphold the standards applicable to them.
Question 11. The Department of Labor is responsible for helping to
enforce labor and human rights provisions of our trade agreements. In
the past, DOL has provided direct technical assistance, particularly
for significant problematic areas, such as anti-union discrimination,
forced overtime, and sexual harassment of female workers. If confirmed,
will you continue to provide robust technical assistance to countries
that fall short of international standards, and hold our trading
partners accountable when they violate obligations to protect worker
rights?
Answer 11. The Department's Bureau of International Labor Affairs
is assigned the duty to ensure the labor provisions in trade agreements
are enforced and to monitor compliance with minimum international labor
standards. If confirmed, I look forward to working with that office,
the Trade Representative and Congress to vigorously safeguard American
jobs and promote our values.
Question 12. Do you think women should be able to take time off
work to take care of a sick child or parent?
Answer 12. Most women have had to take time off work to take care
of a sick child or spouse. Dependent on the specific facts, the Family
and Medical Leave Act and/or a State equivalent may be applicable and
would allow for leave to take care of a sick child or parent. As I
mentioned in the hearing, promoting workplace flexibility is something
I support.
Question 13. Do you think men should be able to take time off work
to take care of a sick spouse or child?
Answer 13. Most men have had to take time off work to take care of
a sick child or spouse. Dependent on the specific facts, the Family and
Medical Leave Act and/or a State equivalent may be applicable and would
allow for leave to take care of a sick child or parent. As I mentioned
in the hearing, promoting workplace flexibility is something I support.
Question 14. Do you think the right to take time off work to take
care of a sick spouse or child should be different for same sex
couples?
Answer 14. The sexual orientation of a parent would be irrelevant
to the coverage. Dependent on the specific facts, the Family and
Medical Leave Act may be applicable and would allow for leave to take
care of a sick spouse or child.
Question 15. The Department of Labor has played an important role
in enhancing protections for LGBT Americans. This includes the Wage and
Hour Division's steps to interpret the Family and Medical Leave Act in
a way that recognizes LGBT relationships. Can you assure us that, if
confirmed, you will continue to enforce these orders and protect LGBT
Americans?
Answer 15. I am committed to enforcing anti-discrimination laws and
the Family and Medical Leave Act. I believe anti-discrimination laws
should prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or
gender identity, although I support religious entities' freedom to hire
consistent with their faith.
Question 16. Do you believe companies have the right to make hiring
decisions based on pregnancy status or family plans?
Answer 16. A person's decisions regarding starting a family should
be a private matter. Dependent on the specific facts, the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act would likely make such decisions illegal. The
Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended title VII, prohibits an
employer from discriminating against an applicant or employee because
of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical
conditions.
Question 17. Do you believe companies have the right to ask these
questions related to pregnancy status or family plans during the hiring
process?
Answer 17. A person's decisions regarding starting a family should
be a private matter. Dependent on the specific facts, the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act would likely make such decisions illegal. The
Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended title VII, prohibits an
employer from discriminating against an applicant or employee because
of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical
conditions.
Question 18. If you are confirmed as the Secretary of Labor you
will be expected
``to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage
earners of the United States, to improve their working
conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable
employment''.
Currently, 40 percent of workers experience sexual violence in the
workplace at fast food restaurants, the national average for other
occupations is also unconscionably high. If confirmed as the Secretary
of Labor, will you commit to hosting a public forum with public and
private stakeholders across the country to implement a national
framework around gender-based violence in the workplace? Please provide
a clear Yes or No response.
Answer 18. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you to
address this important issue and would need to consult with the
Department to see what sort of resources and options would be
available. This seems to be an area where other government agencies
like the Department of Justice and EEOC as well as State governments
would have an interest as well so I would want to solicit their input.
As a general matter, I believe such forums are helpful as a mechanism
to call attention to important issues.
Question 19. One of the most important elements of economic
security for the middle class is retirement security. Millions of
Americans ask, ``Will I have enough money saved to retire and retire
comfortably?'' As we have learned, the answer to that question for too
many Americans is no. Yet, in one its first actions, the Trump
administration has taken steps to roll back protections for retirement
savers. So far this administration has demonstrated that it is working
to help Trump's fellow corporate titans at a direct cost to working
families and their financial and retirement security. Do you think it
is fair that while Wall Street has recovered, many of the pensions that
bore the brunt of the financial crash are struggling?
Answer 19. It is important that the retirement savings of working
Americans be protected. Struggling pension funds are a serious problem
and, if confirmed I look forward to working with Congress as we develop
the Department's regulatory policies and priorities to improve pension
funding and security overall.
Question 20. If confirmed as Labor Secretary, you will not only
serve as Chair of the Board of the PBGC, which serves as the backstop
for pension plans, but you will also be consulted on any applications
to Treasury to cut benefits. Will you commit to a vigorous review of
any application to cut pension benefits and be thoroughly engaged in
the process in order to provide opinions and suggestions when called
upon for consultation as required by law?
Answer 20. As you note if confirmed I will be Chair of the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation's Board of Directors and expect to be
briefed on the matter of underfunded multiemployer pension plans and
the Secretary of Labor's role in the process you reference. I will
commit to a thorough review of any such applications.
Question 21. Do you support the use of apprenticeships to help give
workers the skills they need and to give employers the skilled workers
that they need? What specifically will you do to increase utilization
of apprenticeships?
Answer 21. I share your belief that quality apprenticeships play a
vitally important role in closing the skills gap and providing workers
with the skills they need to prosper in our economy. There are numerous
examples throughout the Nation of industry, local academic and training
institutions and government partnering effectively to train and place
workers in growth sectors. If confirmed, I believe my role will be to
make sure this model can be accessed in more communities and by
displaced workers who will need to transition to new and growing
industries.
Question 22. What specifically will you do at the Department of
Labor to help workers who have lost their jobs to technology or trade?
Answer 22. The Trade Adjustment Assistance program and other
efforts at the Department that focus on workers who have been displaced
from employment are very important. If confirmed, I will examine which
programs are effective, which need reform and whether or not resources
are being deployed optimally. If confirmed as Secretary of Labor, I
will work with States and localities to work with industry and trade
associations to identify effective programs, including public/private
partnerships, that support displaced and unemployed workers' re-entry
into the workforce, including those who have lost their jobs to
technology or trade. I will work with Congress and stakeholders to
continue to advance the Department's goals to support economic growth
by aligning job training for displaced workers with the skills demands
of employers. The Department's goal should be to accelerate and improve
employment outcomes for workers who need new skills and credentials to
find their next jobs and stay employed.
Question 23. Is collective bargaining an effective tool to increase
income for workers and to grow the middle class?
Answer 23. The right to collectively bargain is clearly established
in law, as is the right of workers to decide whether to join a union or
to refrain from joining a union. The decision of whether to join a
union should be left to the individual. If they believe that joining
together to bargain collectively will benefit their situation then they
should do so.
Question 24. How specifically will you ensure thorough
investigation and enforcement of violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act?
Answer 24. I support strategic enforcement alongside individual
complaints. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the
Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly.
Question 25. Given President Trump's proposed 21 percent budget
cuts for the Department of Labor, how specifically do you propose to
ensure vigorous enforcement of FLSA violations?
Answer 25. If confirmed, one of my goals and responsibilities will
be to use taxpayer resources wisely and I will work to enforce the laws
under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly. I
support strategic enforcement alongside individual complaints.
Question 26. Following the criticism of your leadership of the
Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, how has your leadership
style changed?
Answer 26. Senior leadership in government has to balance external
and internal demands. I believe I am more hands-on, and more focused on
internal matters. I have also learned to better oversee and monitor
subordinates while not micromanaging their performance. As U.S.
attorney, I walked around the office often in order to learn what AUSAs
were doing. This day-to-day contact was important, and helped me better
understand and monitor day-to-day AUSA activity.
Question 27. How can the Department of Labor help economically
disadvantaged areas attract new business investment and new jobs?
Answer 27. Small businesses produce, depending on whose numbers you
look at, between 7 and 8 out of 10 new jobs. A growing economy
generally and encouragement for small business particularly will foster
job creation. Regulatory burdens are acute problems sometimes for small
businesses, however. As I noted at the hearing, the President has made
clear that every Cabinet agency should review regulations for unneeded
regulatory burden, and I think that would be a good first step.
Question 28. Do you support increased OSHA penalties in order to
provide a more effective deterrent to violations that jeopardize the
health and well-being of workers?
Answer 28. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing this and many
other issues with the Department's OSHA staff, to help ensure the
safety of all workers. If increased penalties are warranted, I look
forward to working with you and the committee to help enact these
changes.
Question 29. Many law-abiding employers are at a disadvantage
because they are being undercut by other companies that misclassify
their workers as independent contractors. Do you agree this is a
problem? What will you do to crack down on the misclassification of
workers as independent contractors?
Answer 29. An important role of the Department of Labor is to
ensure that employers who want to do the right thing have clear
compliance guidance from the Department. The use of independent
contractors is a legal and valuable business practice. However, in some
circumstances, when an employer incorrectly labels a worker as an
independent contractor instead of an employee, the employer may not be
abiding by their responsibilities to compensate the worker according to
the requirements of the law. Employees incorrectly classified as
independent contractors may be denied access to critical benefits and
protections they are entitled to by law. This incorrect classification
may also generate losses to the Federal Government and State
governments in the form of lower tax revenues, as well as to State
unemployment insurance and workers' compensation funds. Employers who
deliberately misclassify workers undercut law-abiding employers who are
making contributions to these systems and paying their workers
properly. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on matters
pertaining to the classification of employees and will work to enforce
the laws under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction, including these
employment laws, fully and fairly to ensure the protection of workers.
If businesses are found to be incorrectly classifying workers in a way
that violates the law, I will fully and fairly enforce the relevant
laws.
Question 30. The Department of Labor has provided support to many
States, including Pennsylvania, to provide assistance in studying
systems to provide paid family leave. Will you and the Department of
Labor continue to provide financial and technical assistance to States
seeking to implement paid family leave?
Answer 30. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing this issue
with DOL staff, stakeholders and the committee. I certainly support the
concept of providing technical assistance to States.
Question 31. Will you pursue new rulemaking? If so, in what areas
will you focus?
Answer 31. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing the issue of
any regulations that may need to be issued with DOL staff, stakeholders
and the committee. If new public protections are needed, cost effective
and legally allowed, they will be pursued.
Question 32. Will you implement Trump administration policy even if
it will harm American workers?
Answer 32. I believe the Administration will work to benefit all
Americans, including American workers.
Question 33. How will you represent the interests of American
workers if it conflicts with Trump administration policy?
Answer 33. I believe the Administration will work to benefit all
Americans, including American workers.
Question 34. Do you support President Trump's proposed 21 percent
cut to the Department of Labor funding?
Answer 34. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. I note that the President proposes a budget but it
is ultimately Congress that will determine the funding levels.
Question 35. Do you support the proposal in President Trump's
budget that: ``Decreases Federal support for job training?''
Answer 35. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. I note that the President proposes a budget but it
is ultimately Congress that will determine the funding levels.
Question 36. Do you think that cutting Federal funding for job
training will make workers better or worse prepared to find jobs to
support their families?
Answer 36. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. I believe job training is very important and may
offer a substantial return on investment. I recognize as well that
resources are limited. That said, if confirmed, I look forward to being
briefed on the Department's budget in order to understand how to
efficiently and effectively utilize taxpayer dollars in order to best
accomplish the Department's mission.
Question 37. Do you think that cutting Federal funding for job
training will make it harder for employers to find workers with the
skills they need?
Answer 37. There is room for efficiencies in these programs, which
may reduce the impact of budget cuts. Reducing this skills gap requires
better alignment of job training with the skills that the market and
employers demand. This requires a concerted effort working with
industry, local governments, educational institutions and public-
private partnerships to have a substantial positive impact on the
American workforce.
Question 38. How do you propose to close the skills gap and help
workers compete at home and abroad?
Answer 38. We can and must work to reduce the skills gap. We need
to make better efforts to align job training with the skills the market
demands of its workers, especially as advancing technology changes the
types of jobs available in our economy. The Department of Labor, along
with local governments, industry, and educational institutions, can
partner to have substantial positive impact on American workers. I
believe that this is the vision of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA), of apprenticeship programs, of Job Corps and of
many other programs at DOL. Closing the skills gap is a vitally
important aspect of accomplishing the Department of Labor's mission. If
confirmed, understanding the performance and needs of all Departmental
programs can play a role in closing the skills will be one of my top
priorities.
Question 39. What role do schools play in career and technical
education and preparing workers to enter the workforce?
Answer 39. I believe that schools play a vitally important role in
preparing workers to enter the workforce, from primary to post-
secondary education. I am particularly interested in how community
colleges and technical and vocational education programs can best be
positioned, supported and leveraged in order to best serve workers and
industry.
Question 40. Do you support the proposal in President Trump's
budget that would eliminate the Senior Community Service Employment
Program, a program designed to help older workers find employment?
Answer 40. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. If confirmed, I look forward to participating in
that process, so that I can understand the goals, performance and
resource needs of programs such as this one in order to deliver the
greatest value to the American people.
Question 41. How will you make it easier for Americans to save for
retirement?
Answer 41. I believe it is important to make it easier for
Americans to save for retirement, and also encourage Americans to do
so. An expanding economy is key to growing the assets in retirement
accounts for American workers, and relaxing burdens and costs as well
as reducing taxes on businesses is one way to do that. If confirmed, I
expect to be briefed on retirement issues and I look forward to working
with Congress as we develop the Department's regulatory policies and
priorities to support the goal of helping Americans save for
retirement.
Question 42. How will you fight sexual harassment and
discrimination in the workplace?
Answer 42. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce
the laws Congress has written fully and fairly, including sexual
harassment and discrimination in the workplace laws.
Question 43. The Department of Labor has provided competitive
grants to successful programs at community colleges to train workers.
Will you work to secure funding for similar competitive grants?
Answer 43. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on the
many training programs funded by the Department. I understand that many
of these grants have provided a substantial return on investment. I
expect to encourage Department staff to seek innovative solutions to
training and employment challenges and opportunities, and I look
forward to working with you and other members of the committee on such
solutions and initiatives.
Question 44. Will you make the enforcement of equal pay laws a
priority?
Answer 44. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce
the laws under the Department's jurisdiction fully and fairly,
including those related to equal pay.
Question 45. Do you think that the Department of Labor's past
enforcement of equal pay laws have been beneficial to women and their
families?
Answer 45. Nondiscrimination is the law. The Department enforces
the law to ensure the rights of all Americans are protected, including
women and their families.
Question 46. If you're confirmed as the Secretary of Labor, you
will inherit a number of labor cases under our free trade agreements
and trade preference programs, some of which were initially filed
between 4-8 years ago. These cases cover workplace violations including
discrimination, illegal firings, wage theft and unsafe working
conditions. Will you commit to working toward resolving these issues in
a timely manner to help level the playing field for U.S. companies and
U.S. workers?
Answer 46. The Department's Bureau of International Labor Affairs
is assigned the duty to ensure the labor provisions in trade agreements
are enforced. If confirmed, I look forward to finding out more and
working with that office in resolving the cases you describe.
Question 47. According to the Economic Policy Institute, from 1948
to 1973 worker productivity rose by 96.7 percent and wages increased by
91.3 percent; since then, however, worker productivity has increased
73.4 percent while wages have gone up only 11.1 percent. Further, a
2014 study by The Review of Economics and Statistics found that job
displacement due to trade led to real wage losses of 12 to 17 percent
from 1984 through 2002. Global companies have been known to tell their
U.S. workers that they must take pay and benefit cuts to stay
competitive, even as these companies report significant profits in
their SEC filings.
Do you believe this is just the nature of the economy and that
American families should get used to it?
If not, what is your plan, if confirmed, to change this pattern?
Answer 47. A stagnant economy and wages harms Americans; a growing
economy is the best solution to also grow wages. The President has made
clear that he is committed to returning jobs to America. If confirmed,
I will work to support that effort.
Question 48. Will you continue to support the continued strong
engagement by the United States at the ILO to encourage countries to
adhere to international labor standards?
Answer 48. The Department's Bureau of International Labor Affairs
is assigned the duty to engage with the ILO. If confirmed, I look
forward to working with that office and ensuring the United States has
a strong voice at the ILO.
Question 49. The Obama administration published an initial report
on alleged labor violations in Colombia under the U.S.-Colombia FTA.
Can you discuss your thoughts on the ongoing anti-union violence and
workplace rights violations there. If confirmed, how do you plan to
approach this problem that has included the murder of 2,500 trade
unionists there in the past 20 years?
Answer 49. The Department's Bureau of International Labor Affairs
is assigned the duty to ensure the labor provisions in trade agreements
are enforced. If confirmed, I will consult with the Bureau staff on
this important issue.
Question 50. What would you do differently than previous
administrations to address violent suppression of working people which
holds down wages, limits the growth of a middle class and by
association, harms U.S. workers?
Answer 50. Freedom of association is an important American right
enshrined in the constitution, and something we should support
internationally without the threat of violence for doing so. I believe
that the Department's Bureau of International Labor Affairs is assigned
the duty to address the issue you raise. If confirmed, I will consult
with the Bureau staff on this important issue and ask them for insight
into what has worked and what has not worked in prior administrations
to address this issue.
Question 51. If confirmed, part of your job as the Secretary of
Labor will be to ensure that foreign countries uphold minimum
international labor standards. As you know, when they do not, it
undermines wages for U.S. families.
How seriously will you take this responsibility?
Can you explain how you will work to assure compliance with
international labor standards?
Answer 51. If confirmed, I will take this responsibility very
seriously. The Department's Bureau of International Labor Affairs is
assigned the duty to monitor compliance with minimum international
labor standards and represent the United States in discussions on those
topics at the International Labor Organization. If confirmed, I will
consult with the Bureau staff on ways to help countries improve
compliance with their commitments to uphold the standards applicable to
them.
senator franken
dol management
Question 1. The mission of the Department of Labor is to
``foster, promote, and develop the welfare of wage earners, job
seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working
conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment;
and assure work-related benefits and rights.''
Do you believe this is the mission of the Department of Labor and
should you be confirmed do you intend to change the Department's
mission?
Answer 1. I support the Department's longstanding mission statement
and have no plans to change it if confirmed.
Question 2. Under the previous Administration, the Department of
Labor issued administrative interpretations to provide clarity when a
statutes meaning was too plain or unambiguous. Under your leadership
would the Department continue issuing administrative interpretations?
Answer 2. I support giving guidance to the regulated community to
ensure compliance with the law. The specific forms of such guidance may
change over time and between administrations. As I noted at the
hearing, for example, I think there's a particular value to opinion
letters, and I think that value comes from the fact that they are
grounded in a specific set of facts, and not in a broad legal premise.
Question 3. Under your leadership would the Department re-instate
the issuing of opinion letters? If so who would be permitted to request
an opinion letter?
Answer 3. As I noted at the hearing, I believe there's a value to
opinion letters because they are grounded in a specific set of facts.
There may be reasons an opinion letter should be delayed (for example,
if parties are in active litigation), but generally I see no reason I
would not support allowing any member of the public to request an
opinion letter.
Question 4. In 2011, the Department of Labor and the Department of
Homeland Security entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to clarify
the ways in which each department would work together to advance each
agency's directives and avoid conflicts. Will the Department continue
to honor the 2011 Memorandum of Understanding?
Answer 4. I believe that the Department has a longstanding
commitment to ensuring that all workplace protections are enforced
regardless of workers' immigration status. I support that longstanding
practice. I have not studied the Memorandum of Understanding you
reference, but I believe it is important that both agencies avoid
interfering in each other's responsibilities.
contracting/worker misclassification
Question 5. Under your leadership will the Department of Labor
focus on the fissured workforce and the need of employers to correctly
classify their workers as traditional employees or contractors so
workers and employers know their legal and tax obligations, and so
businesses can compete on a level playing field?
Answer 5. Employers who deliberately misclassify workers undercut
law-abiding employers who are making contributions to these systems and
paying their workers properly. If confirmed, I look forward to being
briefed on matters pertaining to the classification of employees and
will work to enforce the laws under the Department of Labor's
jurisdiction, including these employment laws, fully and fairly to
ensure the protection of all workers.
Question 6. Worker misclassification is a growing problem that
threatens workers and undercuts law-abiding employers. It is a
significant problem in Minnesota, particularly in the construction
industry. Why do you think worker misclassification is so prevalent?
Answer 6. I am not sufficiently familiar with the circumstances in
Minnesota to opine. Employers who deliberately misclassify workers
undercut law-abiding employers who are making contributions to these
systems and paying their workers properly. If confirmed, I look forward
to being briefed on matters pertaining to the classification of
employees and will work to enforce the laws under the Department of
Labor's jurisdiction, including these employment laws, fully and fairly
to ensure the protection of all workers.
Question 7. Under your leadership how does the Department plan to
address worker misclassification issues and how will you improve
Federal efforts to deter worker misclassification?
Answer 7. An important role of the Department of Labor is to ensure
that employers who want to do the right thing have clear compliance
guidance from the Department. If confirmed, I look forward to being
briefed on matters pertaining to the classification of employees as we
develop the Department's regulatory policies and priorities and will
work to enforce the laws under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction,
including these employment laws, fully and fairly to ensure the
protection of all workers.
Question 8. In 2015, the Wage and Hour division issued
Administrative Interpretation No. 2015-1 to assist employers and
workers by providing clarity as to when a worker is an employee or
independent contractor. If confirmed, would you maintain this
administrative interpretation?
Answer 8. An important role of the Department of Labor is to ensure
that employers who want to do the right thing have clear compliance
guidance from the Department. Employers who deliberately misclassify
workers undercut law-abiding employers who are making contributions to
these systems and paying their workers properly. If confirmed, I look
forward to being briefed on matters pertaining to the classification of
employees, including this Administrative Interpretation, as we develop
the Department's regulatory policies and priorities.
Question 9. Over the past 8 years, the Wage and Hour Division has
entered into a Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with many States, as
well as the Internal Revenue Service that facilitate joint efforts to
combat misclassification. Some of these MOUs are set to expire in the
coming years. Will you work to renew these MOUs? Please describe which,
if any, you would renew and any changes you would seek.
Answer 9. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on these
Memoranda of Understandings. As a general matter, I support efforts to
cooperate in enforcement matters, and such memoranda of understanding
are helpful.
wages
Question 10. The current Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour
($15,080 annually) has remained unchanged since 2009. President Trump
has said that the current Federal minimum wage is too low, and
suggested that Americans need a raise. Do you agree the current Federal
minimum wage is too low and if so to what level should it be increased
to?
Answer 10. The minimum wage is set federally by Congress but also
in States and localities by their respective governments. I recognize
that cost-of-living and other economic factors vary greatly across the
United States and that many States and localities have increased the
minimum wage above the Federal floor.
Question 11. In recent years, we have seen large amounts of growth
in the ``gig'' economy? Workers in this economy are often treated as
independent contractors and therefore do not receive employee
protections such as overtime pay, minimum wage, health insurance, or
retirement benefits. The courts are reviewing a number of cases across
the country that question what defines an ``employee.'' If confirmed,
how would you plan to use your regulatory authority to ensure that
workers in the gig economy are not being denied basic worker rights or
their ability to achieve basic economic security through their work?
Answer 11. The use of independent contractors is a legal and
valuable business practice. However, in some circumstances, when an
employer incorrectly labels a worker as an independent contractor
instead of an employee, the employer may not be abiding by their
responsibilities to compensate the worker according to the requirements
of the law. Employees incorrectly classified as independent contractors
may be denied access to critical benefits and protections they are
entitled to by law. An important role of the Department of Labor is to
ensure that employers who want to do the right thing have clear
compliance guidance from the Department. This is particularly important
in the context of a rapidly changing economy.
Question 12. Do you believe it is appropriate to have a Federal
minimum wage?
Answer 12. A Federal minimum wage is the law. I support it.
Question 13. Do you believe the Federal minimum wage should be
regularly adjusted for inflation so that workers ability to provide for
their families keeps up with the rising costs of goods and services
over time?
Answer 13. The minimum wage is set federally by Congress but also
in States and localities by their respective governments. I recognize
that cost-of-living and other economic factors vary greatly across the
United States and that many States and localities have increased the
minimum wage above the Federal floor.
Question 14. In Minnesota, employer-tipped credits against the
minimum wage are not allowed. All tipped employees must be paid the
State minimum wage of $9.50 per hour for larger employers, and $7.75
per hour for smaller employers, for all hours worked. Beginning Jan. 1,
2018 those wages will be indexed for inflation. Do you think the
Federal-tipped minimum wage of $2.13 per hour paid to employees that
receive at least $30 per month in tips is a living wage? Would you
support an increase to the Federal-tipped minimum wage? To what level?
Answer 14. The minimum wage and tip allowance is set federally by
Congress but also in States and localities by their respective
governments. I recognize that cost-of-living and other economic factors
vary greatly across the United States and that many States and
localities have increased the minimum wage and tip allowances above the
Federal floor.
Question 15. Do you believe gratuities provided by customers to
tipped employees, whether their wage is based on the Federal tipped
minimum of $2.13 per hour or other Federal or State wage levels, are
the property of the employers or the employee?
Answer 15. In its preamble to the final rule regarding this matter
in 2011, the Department of Labor stated, ``[t]he Department agrees with
the analysis in the comments that tips are the property of the employee
. . .'' Updating Regulations Issued Under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
76 Fed. Reg. 18,841 (April 5, 2011). I am informed that there is
current litigation on aspects of the rule that touch on your question,
including a pending petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Question 16. Do you believe it is appropriate for a salary test to
be one aspect of rules establishing exemptions to the Fair Labor
Standards Act's overtime provisions for certain salaried executive,
administrative, and professional employees? If so, and if a court
determined a . . .
Answer 16. This question is incomplete.
osha worker safety
Question 17. The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act was
enacted in 1970, around the same time as the Clean Air Act and Clean
Water Act. Research on our changing climate and the need to address
those concerns have led to advancements in environmental laws and the
penalties associated with breaking those laws. Unfortunately the OSH
Act has not been significantly updated since its enactment. As a result
the penalties associated with violating worker health and safety laws
are so low that some unscrupulous businesses factor in those penalties
as just a normal cost of doing business. Do you think the current
penalty levels for OSHA are an appropriate deterrent to violating
worker health and safety laws? If not what do you think is a more
appropriate level? Should criminal penalties be considered for willful
or repeat violations that lead to serious injury or fatality of a
worker?
Answer 17. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing this and many
other issues with the Department's OSHA staff, and if legislative
changes are needed I look forward to working with you and the committee
to help ensure the safety of all workers. On November 2, 2015, Congress
passed the Bipartisan Budget Act, which mandated OSHA to adjust their
penalties to the rate of inflation. The legislation included a one-time
catch up increase and an annual adjustment thereafter. In accordance
with the legislation, on August 2, 2016, OSHA raised its maximum
penalty 78 percent as a one-time adjustment and on January 15, 2017,
adjusted the maximum penalties by 2 percent over the previous year.
The OSH Act also includes criminal sanctions and an employer may be
liable for criminal prosecution where there is a willful violation of a
specific OSHA standard that causes the death of an employee. Over the
years, OSHA has made referrals to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for
cases that were deemed appropriate for criminal prosecution. In
December 2015, OSHA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with DOJ that
created enhanced procedures for OSHA to refer potential criminal cases
for consideration by DOJ. I support criminal referrals in appropriate
cases.
Question 18. If confirmed as Secretary of Labor, do you commit that
you would not reduce existing safety and health protections for
workers? Further, do you commit to moving forward to develop and issue
new rules to protect workers as the workplace develops and new hazards
are identified?
Answer 18. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the safety
standards to help ensure the safety of all workers. The Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970 requires OSHA to ensure safe and
healthful working conditions and I am committed to carrying out this
mission. Where necessary, OSHA will promulgate appropriate and feasible
rules to address workplace hazards. OSHA has many other tools at its
disposal to carry out the obligations of the Act and to address new
workplace hazards as they emerge, including conducting training and
education, and providing compliance assistance to employers and
employees.
Question 19. Will you support and defend OSHA's Whistleblower
Protection Program? What steps, if any, will you take to ensure that
whistleblower claims that should be referred to other agencies are
promptly and appropriately referred? Do you believe OSHA's
Whistleblower Protection Program currently has the resources needed to
fulfill its mission? Will you advocate for appropriate resources for
OSHA's whistleblower programs in the future? Do you agree with the
Department of Labor's Inspector General that OSHA whistleblower
investigator caseloads should be a maximum of 6 to 8 open cases per
investigator? OSHA is currently charged with enforcing the
whistleblower protection provisions of 22 different statutes. Do you
believe it would be appropriate for Congress to consider consolidating
these 22 provisions, to the extent possible, to provide stronger, more
uniform rules for whistleblowers?
Answer 19. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing OSHA's
Whistleblower Protection Program (WPP), including ensuring the
appropriate and timely sharing of complaints with other agencies and
having appropriate resources needed to fulfill the Program's mission. I
am informed that OSHA has agreements with a number of agencies impacted
by the Whistleblower statutes to ensure a basic exchange of information
and facilitate referrals between each agency. If confirmed, I will
direct the review of resource levels for the Whistleblower Protection
Program to determine the necessary support for this important program,
and evaluate the need for the consolidation of whistleblower laws. If
changes are needed to the program, or if legislation is needed, I look
forward to working with you and the committee to see that these changes
are enacted to help protect the safety of all workers.
misc
Question 20. In your budgeting decisions, would you treat Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) in the same way you treat other workforce
training programs that are subject to discretionary appropriations? Has
the President proposed any cuts to programs subject to TAA? Do you
support the level of funding for TAA programs authorized in the Trade
Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization Act of 2015
Answer 20. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. That said, if confirmed I look forward to being
briefed on the TAA program to better understand its goals, performance
and opportunities for improvement. Training programs that serve workers
who have been displaced as a result of our trade agreements must
provide participants with skills and support required to place them in
permanent, well-paying jobs. As I understand it, the Trade Adjustment
Assistance program is one of many entitlement programs with mandatory
funding.
Question 21. Minnesota is home to the Hubert Humphrey Job Corps
Center, a site that since 1981 has helped prepare at-risk youth for
meaningful careers in in-demand fields, yet the President's budget
proposes cuts to the Job Corps program. Do you support continued
funding for Job Corps sites like the one in my State?
Answer 21. I believe the Department of Labor, along with local
governments, industry, and educational institutions, can partner to
have a tremendous positive impact on American workers, especially young
people seeking to enter the workforce and get good paying jobs. If
confirmed, I look forward to working closely with the committee to
determine the best way to ensure the success of the Job Corps program
and to identify other opportunities within our States that can be
better utilized to help our young people succeed. I look forward to
learning more about the center in your State that you mention as well
as others and our focus will be on helping Job Corps centers best
provide to students the services and training central to their core
mission.
Question 22. Youth apprenticeships have been proven to help young
people succeed in their academics and put them on a clear pathway to
meaningful work and careers. Will you continue to promote and expand
the youth apprenticeship programs that DOL has seen increase during the
Obama administration?
Answer 22. I share your belief that quality apprenticeships are
part of a clear pathway to meaningful work and careers. If confirmed, I
expect to focus attention on understanding the Department's important
role in increasing access to apprenticeships and facilitating high
performance in apprenticeship programs.
senator bennet
Question 1. Every year, my office hears from hundreds of Colorado
employers that rely on the H-2A and H-2B visa program and who, year
after year, run into difficulty obtaining visas for guest workers.
Colorado is one of the top users of this program.
The jobs they are trying to fill are critical for Colorado's
economy. From landscape and construction companies that cannot find
enough workers to meet demand, to farmers and ranchers who don't have
enough hands to cultivate the crops, there is a gap in meeting our
labor needs.
I understand the concerns about potential exploitation of foreign
workers and the desire for Americans to fill those jobs. I agree that
there are worker protections that must be enforced. But Colorado
employers lose millions of dollars every year due to the program's
inefficiencies. They do all they can to comply with the law but cannot
find American workers to fill those jobs.
Do you recognize the significance of the H-2A and H-2B visa
programs in meeting our labor needs?
Where does the program fall within the Administration's priorities,
particularly given the context of immigration reform?
Answer 1. I recognize the difficulty that many employers face on
this issue and the potential repercussions for vital industries across
the country. I understand how important an adequate labor supply is for
the Colorado industries you identify and look forward to working
together to fix this issue if confirmed. As a nominee, I have not been
involved in immigration-related discussions, but, if confirmed, my
primary goal will be to protect the interests of American workers.
Guest workers on any program should be treated fairly in order to
protect them and maintain U.S. working conditions.
Question 2. In his address to a joint session of Congress.
President Trump said that his administration
``wants to work with members of both parties to make childcare
accessible and affordable, [and] to help ensure new parents
that they have paid family leave.''
Paid family leave was also a major platform on President Trump's
campaign.
Have you discussed paid family leave with anyone within the Trump
administration? Can you discuss in further detail the Administration's
plans on paid family leave?
Answer 2. I have not discussed this matter with the Administration.
If confirmed, I will actively participate in these discussions.
Question 3. During your confirmation hearing, we discussed public-
private partnerships as part of the Trump administration's plan to help
dislocated workers find new jobs. Can you elaborate on the type of P3s
the Administration envisions? Are there examples of successful
partnerships that the Administration hopes to model? How will your
Labor Department support partnerships between schools and businesses?
Answer 3. There are numerous examples throughout the Nation of
industry, local academic and training institutions and government
partnering effectively to train and place workers in growth sectors. If
confirmed to lead the Department of Labor, I expect to take a
leadership role in compiling best practices and seeking out
partnerships with the private sector, particularly partnerships with
business and industry. We will work with employer associations,
community colleges, and other organizations to encourage sector
strategies and work-based approaches, including apprenticeship programs
and other successful models carried out by States and in local
communities across the country. Connecting dislocated workers to new
jobs cannot just be the work of the Federal Government. Private-public
partnerships with active employer engagement are essential.
If confirmed, I believe my role will be to make sure this model can
be accessed in more communities and by displaced workers who will need
to transition to new and growing industries.
senator whitehouse
Question 1. Please list all DOL regulations you would seek to
delay, modify, or eliminate.
Answer 1. As I noted in my hearing, the President has directed each
Cabinet officer to review all rules and to make determinations if any
rules should be revised. If confirmed, I will have an obligation to
comply with that directive. In addition, there are a number of rules
that are in litigation or that Congress may act on under the
Congressional Review Act, which could require the Department to make
revisions or eliminate those regulations.
Question 2. Knowing what you know now about the violations of
Department of Justice policies and Federal employment law that occurred
during your tenure by your staff at the Department of Justice, what
would you have done differently as a manager?
Answer 2. With the benefit of perfect hindsight, I would not have
assigned hiring responsibility in the manner I did and would have
focused more closely on the activities of my deputies. I also learned
the importance of ensuring that appointed personnel subordinate to you
share your values.
Question 3. Why do you think your management of your Deputy Bradley
Schlozman in the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice was
insufficient?
Answer 3. Senior leadership in government has to balance external
and internal demands. I believe I focused too much on external matters,
i.e., communications with the public and the civil rights communities.
I have since become more hands-on, and more focused on internal
matters. I have also learned to better oversee and monitor subordinates
while not micromanaging their performance. As U.S. attorney, I walked
around the office often in order to learn what AUSAs were doing. This
day-to-day contact was important, and helped me better understand and
monitor day-to-day AUSA activity.
Question 4. The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General
and Office of Professional Responsibility's report that you had
``sufficient information about Schlozman's conduct to have raised red
flags warranting closer supervision of him,'' that you should have been
alert to ``potential problems with Schlozman's conduct and judgment,''
and that you ``did not sufficiently supervise Schlozman.'' What steps
will you take to ensure that your staff at DOL do not engage in the
same sort of inappropriate behavior and illegal activities?
Answer 4. While the OIG/OPR Report did reach the conclusion stated,
the report failed to identify a single instance of anyone alerting me,
or me otherwise being aware, of the improper consideration of political
views in hiring career staff. None of the three instances on which the
report based its conclusion involved such misconduct. That said, I am
keenly aware of the laws and regulations prohibiting the consideration
of politics in hiring career staff and, if confirmed, will make it
abundantly clear to staff that such conduct will not be tolerated at
all.
Question 5. During your tenure at DOJ there was a ``significant''
drop in civil rights enforcement, according to a 2009 GAO report--
including a drop in lawsuits to enforce laws prohibiting race or sex
discrimination in employment from about 11 per year to about 6 per year
from the Clinton to Bush administration. What assurances can you give
me that we will not see a similar drop-off in enforcement under your
Department of Labor?
Answer 5. As an initial matter, the GAO report covered the 2001-07
period. As I was Assistant Attorney General for 2 of these years, I
cannot comment on the premise of the question. I would note that in
2004, the Division filed more pattern or practice employment
discrimination cases than in several of the preceding years. Further, I
would note that numbers of cases filed is not always reflective of
enforcement outcomes. For example, a complex high-impact matter may
require more resources than several low-impact cases. Yet, ``1'' high-
impact matter may have more positive enforcement outcomes than several
smaller cases. I believe the Secretary of Labor should enforce Federal
labor laws fully and fairly. As a prosecutor, I used government
resources carefully to bring the best cases possible and get the best
resolutions. I will follow that model at the Department if confirmed.
Question 6. Your tenure at the Department of Justice was marred by
conflicts between political appointees and career staff that reportedly
led to an unusually large number of career attorneys to leave the
Department. What steps will you take to retain career staff at DOL at
similar levels under the previous Administration?
Answer 6. The Department of Labor career staff is expert in their
areas of responsibility, and critical to the Department's mission.
Their knowledge would be difficult to replace. If confirmed, I hope to
convey to the staff that I value their knowledge and expertise, and
that I value them. I recognize, of course, that the appropriation
levels will ultimately be set by Congress. Nonetheless, I will advocate
for sufficient levels to ensure full and fair enforcement.
Question 7. America Rising Squared, a 501(c)(4) organization that
does not disclose its donors, recently launched a six-figure digital
and TV advertising campaign in support of your nomination.
Do you know who its donors are?
Have you had any contact with America Rising Squared, its
employees, or its donors?
Do you believe there is a risk of a conflict of interest, or of an
appearance of conflict, if funders of that effort have matters that
come before the Department of Labor?
Answer 7. I do not know who the donors to this organization are or
who they employ. Thus, I do not know if I have had contact with either.
I will assess conflict of interest questions on a case-by-case basis in
consultation with the Department's career ethics officials as they may
arise.
Question 8. In April 2016, the Department of Labor released a final
version of the Conflict of Interest Rule which holds brokers and
advisers who work with tax-advantaged retirement savings to a
``fiduciary'' standard. Do you believe that advisors providing advice
regarding retirement accounts have a legal obligation to provide advice
solely in the best interest of their clients? Why or why not?
Answer 8. Hardworking individuals and retirees should receive
advice that is in their best interest. If confirmed, I expect to
carefully examine the rule, pursuant to the presidential memorandum. If
repealed or scaled back, the basic protection articulated above would
be important to address.
Question 9. The Chamber of Commerce, SIFMA, ACLI and a number of
other trade associations opposed to the DOL fiduciary rule have argued
in court that they should not be held to a fiduciary standard because
they are not ``advisers''. According to their testimony, they are mere
salespeople engaged in arm's length transactions. Do you agree with
that argument? Please explain why or why not, citing the legal basis
for such conclusion.
Answer 9. This matter is presently under review. If confirmed, I
expect detailed briefings on this distinction, including the legal
basis.
Question 10. Apprenticeships are an important tool to train
workers, and have been critical in Rhode Island. What will you do as
Secretary of Labor to promote apprenticeships as a cost-effective tool
for workforce training?
Answer 10. Apprenticeships are part of a clear pathway to
meaningful work and careers. If confirmed, I expect to focus attention
on understanding the Department's important role in increasing access
to quality apprenticeships and facilitating high performance in
apprenticeship programs.
Question 11. Rhode Island is the home to one of the Nation's most
successful Job Corps sites, the Exeter Job Corps Center, which serves
roughly almost 200 young people. For many in Job Corps, the training
means the difference between success in getting a job or not. As
Secretary of Labor will you commit to proposing a budget with at least
level funding for Job Corps?
Answer 11. I appreciate the conversations I have had with several
Senators about the difference that Job Corps centers are making for the
young people in their States. If confirmed, I will support the most
efficient and effective use of every taxpayer dollar that Congress
directs toward job training programs, including Job Corps. Under my
leadership, the Department will continue its efforts to better align
job training with the skills necessary to meet the market demands for
workers, which I believe will improve the outcomes for Job Corps
graduates. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on the Job Corps
program and the performance of each of the more than 100 Job Corps
centers. I look forward to learning more about the center in your State
that you mention as well as others and our focus will be on helping Job
Corps centers best provide to students the services and training
central to their core mission.
Question 12. Since 1994, YouthBuild has helped over 150,000 at-risk
youth break the cycle of poverty by rebuilding their communities while
also learning key skills. Each year I hear from Rhode Islanders whose
lives were turned around through YouthBuild. As Secretary of Labor,
will you commit to proposing a budget with at least level funding for
YouthBuild?
Answer 12. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. If confirmed, I do look forward to being briefed on
the proposed budget and programs like Youthbuild, so that I can better
understand their mission, their performance and their resource needs. I
will work to maximize the impact of every taxpayer dollar directed to
YouthBuild and other job training programs. I look forward to engaging
with the committee and private and public stakeholders in a discussion
about how to improve the employment outcomes of young people in a time
of resource constraints.
Question 13. According to the Census, as of March 2016, there are
over 25 million adult Americans who do not have either a high school
diploma or a GED. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the
unemployment rate of these workers is 8 percent. Do you consider this a
problem? If so, please outline your proposal for actions the DOL would
take on this matter, if you are confirmed.
Answer 13. Our workforce training system must be positioned to
provide training and skills to the millions of workers who lack a post-
secondary education if they are to prosper in our modern and constantly
changing economy. The worker training and apprenticeship programs under
the Department's purview must position these workers with skills that
meet the needs of growth industries and sectors.
Question 14. The Obama administration took a number of steps over
the last several years to expand the anti-discrimination provisions in
Federal programs. Executive Order 13627 strengthened anti-trafficking
protections in Federal contracts. Executive Order 13548 directed
Federal departments to increase employment of workers with
disabilities. Executive Order 13583 directed departments and agencies
to implement human resource strategies that emphasize diversity and
inclusion. The Department of Labor also issued complementary guidelines
updating the Sex Discrimination and Ethnicity Discrimination rules.
These guidelines specifically addressed the needs of populations that
traditionally have been marginalized but who form a growing population
of the workforce. If confirmed, do you promise not to weaken or delay
these protections?
Answer 14. The decision as to whether to maintain, amend or rescind
Executive orders belongs to the President. As I noted in my hearing, if
confirmed, I would enforce the law fully and fairly, including
Executive orders that apply to the Labor Department or give the
Department additional enforcement responsibilities.
Question 15. Each year, thousands of workers lose their jobs simply
because they need to take a day to recover from illness or care for a
sick family member. Under Executive Order 13706 issued by President
Obama, more than one million workers who are employed by Federal
contractors gained the right to take paid, job-protected sick days. Do
you support ensuring workers employed by Federal contractors having
access to paid sick days?
Answer 15. The decision as to whether to maintain, amend or rescind
Executive orders belongs to the President. As I noted in my hearing, if
confirmed, I would enforce the law fully and fairly, including
Executive orders that apply to the Labor Department or give the
Department additional enforcement responsibilities.
Question 16. Please name which of President Obama's DOL policies
you would like to see continued?
Answer 16. The vast majority of Department policies are continued
from Administration to Administration. Executive order 13672 is one
example. There are many others.
Question 17. Studies have shown large majorities of women in the
construction industry reporting either overt discrimination or on-the-
job sexual harassment, and the percentage of constructions jobs held by
women remains very low. Do you believe this is a problem? Can we expect
you to enforce anti-harassment protections to ensure that construction
projects funded by Federal dollars provide real opportunities for
women?
Answer 17. Overt discrimination and sexual harassment are illegal,
and as I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the law
fully and fairly. OFCCP has a substantial compliance assistance program
on large construction projects designed to expand the opportunity for
women and minorities. I look forward to learning more about that
program and assuming it is successfully and efficiently expanding equal
employment opportunity, supporting it.
Question 18. According to BLS data as of December 2016, only 20
percent of all Americans with disabilities ages 18-64 were employed.
One of the key roles of the Department of Labor, particularly the
Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), is to implement programs
that help increase the labor force participation rate of these
individuals and help them lead successful and self-sustaining lives. If
confirmed, will you commit to supporting ODEP programming including the
START-UP program? Can you commit that any budget you prepare will not
eliminate funding for this department?
Answer 18. I would need to review any particular program before I
committed to supporting it, but I certainly support increasing the
labor force participation rate of disabled individuals and helping them
lead successful and self-sustaining lives. I am informed that ODEP
works with the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to help
Federal contractors meet important goals of employing disabled
Americans on Federal contracts. As to funding, I expect that any budget
I help prepare would include support to increase the labor force
participation rate of disabled workers.
Question 19. At your confirmation hearing you said you would look
into the FLSA 14(c) certificate issue. Have you looked into this? What
have you learned about this issue?
Answer 19. I understand the Fair Labor Standards Act 14(c)
exemption is statutory and is an area of concern and interest for many
Members of Congress. If confirmed, I want ensure that individuals with
disabilities who might not otherwise have a job, have access to a good
job and are trained for that job. While I would need to thoroughly
review any particular program or statutory exemption before I committed
to supporting or opposing it, I certainly support increasing the labor
force participation rate of disabled individuals and helping these
individuals lead successful and self-sustaining lives.
Question 20. In 2008, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity
Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. This law requires that
all health plans (including employee-sponsored plans) have the same
limits on mental health benefits that they do for medical or surgical
benefits. MHPAEA violations can result in a breach of fiduciary duty
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and an IRS
excise tax of $100 per covered individual per day. As Secretary of
Labor, you will be responsible for performing audits to ensure
compliance by employer-sponsored health plans. If confirmed, will you
commit to publishing the de-identified results of the audits?
Answer 20. Treatment for mental health issues and addiction can
save lives, and I support enhancing affordability and access to those
services. As noted at my hearing, if confirmed, I will work to enforce
the laws under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly,
including as to mental health and addiction coverage. If confirmed, I
look forward to learning more about the Mental Health Parity and
Addiction Equity Act and the Department's responsibilities pursuant to
the Act and working with you on this important matter.
Question 21. After the election, immigrant communities have become
concerned about the potential for mass deportations. The President has
exacerbated these fears by stating that there will be ``no amnesty''
for immigrants who came into this country illegally.
What role do you envision for DOL should policies like this come to
pass?
Answer 21. I do not believe that the Department has a role in
deportation issues.
Question 22. Immigrants fill not just high skilled roles in the
United States, but also fill technical and manual skill jobs. A 2010
study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco concluded that
immigration helps companies expand, and allows more U.S.-born employees
to assume managerial and leadership positions. In particular,
immigrants play a key role in startups. Between 2006 and 2012, 33
percent of venture-backed companies that went public were founded by
immigrant entrepreneurs, according to a study from the National Venture
Capital Association. If confirmed, your Department will have a key role
in overseeing companies that seek to hire legal foreign workers. How
will you use this oversight role to incentivize companies to hire legal
foreign workers? How will you support foreign innovators who want to
build new companies in the United States that employ American workers?
Answer 22. I recognize the role that immigration has played and
continues to play in our Nation. I also recognize that abuse of the
visa process costs Americans jobs. This is a difficult balance and one
that I will study carefully.
Question 23. If confirmed as Secretary, do you commit to having
your Department maintain the 2011 Memorandum of Understanding between
the labor agencies and DHS, which reiterates the policy goal that
immigration enforcement will not interfere with employment and labor
rights in the workplace? Do you believe that threats of deportation and
or ICE raids should not be used to intimidate those seeking to exercise
their right to organize, collectively bargain, or otherwise seek to
improve their workplaces?
Answer 23. I am informed that the Department has a longstanding
commitment to ensuring that all workplace protections are enforced
regardless of workers' immigration status. I have not reviewed it but I
believe there is a Memorandum of Understanding between the two cabinet
departments that is designed to avoid interfering in each other's
enforcement responsibilities. If confirmed, I will discuss this issue
with Department of Labor staff and ask them to work with Department of
Homeland Security staff to help ensure that both agencies can continue
to fulfill their responsibilities.
Question 24. Although human trafficking spans all demographics,
there are some circumstances that lead individuals to become more
susceptible to victimization. Foreign nationals who come to the United
States on temporary work visas are a particularly vulnerable group.
Many have paid large recruitment and travel fees to labor recruiters
and become highly indebted. Traffickers control and manipulate these
individuals by leveraging the non-portability of many temporary visas
as well as the victims' lack of familiarity with surroundings, laws and
rights, language fluency, and cultural understanding. Do you commit to
prioritizing efforts to ensure foreign nationals on temporary work
visas are not trafficked? Will you support increasing the ability of
workers on temporary visas to change jobs, in order to remove a tool
traffickers use to exploit victims?
Answer 24. Eliminating human trafficking is one of the most
important issues upon which we should focus. If confirmed, I will work
to use all tools at the Department's disposal to end this horrific
practice.
Question 25. Do you support the use of mandatory arbitration
clauses in employee contracts?
Answer 25. There is a preference for allowing the use of
arbitration generally under the Federal Arbitration Act, and the
Supreme Court has upheld that preference. If Congress were to change
that preference and disallow arbitration clauses, I would follow the
law.
Question 26. How do you view the ``contingent workforce'' and
``gig'' economy jobs, in the context of the broad definitions of
``employee'' found in the Fair Labor Standards Act? How will you
approach enforcement in this area?
Answer 26. The use of independent contractors is a legal and
valuable business practice. However, in some circumstances, when an
employer incorrectly labels a worker as an independent contractor
instead of an employee, the employer may not be abiding by their
responsibilities to compensate the worker according to the requirements
of the law. Employees incorrectly classified as independent contractors
may be denied access to critical benefits and protections they are
entitled to by law. An important role of the Department of Labor is to
ensure that employers who want to do the right thing have clear
compliance guidance from the Department. If confirmed, I will work to
enforce the laws under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction,
including these employment laws, fully and fairly to ensure the
protection of workers.
Question 27. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 18
percent of low-income American workers do not have access to paid
leave. Is that acceptable? If confirmed, will you promote policies that
increase access to paid leave for workers?
Answer 27. I recognize that many States and localities have
implemented paid leave laws. I believe attempts to expand paid leave
would require congressional action. As I mentioned in the hearing,
promoting workplace flexibility is something I support, particularly
for working parents with young children. If confirmed, I look forward
to working with the President and Congress as discussions regarding
paid leave occur.
Question 28. In recent years, there has been interest in bipartisan
criminal justice reform. An important DOL initiative supporting
criminal justice reform efforts is the Reentry Employment Opportunities
(REO) program. REO helps connect returning citizens to job training and
employment. What is your position on REO? Would you work with Congress
to ensure this important program receives at least level funding from
the previous Administration?
Answer 28. Reintegrating citizens into the economy after they have
been involved with the criminal justice system is something I believe
is of great importance, providing individual, societal and economic
benefit. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this
important program in order to better understand its goals, its
performance and its resource needs. I will work to maximize the impact
of every taxpayer dollar directed to job training programs to improve
the employment outcomes for America's workers, including offenders
transitioning back into their communities, and build a skilled
workforce that meets employer needs. I will also continue to buildupon
the body of evidence of what works to improve outcomes for individuals
who have been part of the criminal justice system, and I look forward
to working with Congress and your committee to achieve this goal.
Question 29. Congress recently repealed the DOL rule outlining the
limited circumstances that a State may drug-test individuals applying
for Unemployment Insurance. Do you support or oppose policies requiring
applicants for Unemployment Insurance be drug-tested? Do you believe
such policies are cost-effective? If so, what evidence do you have to
support your view?
Answer 29. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on this
matter so as to understand the impact such policies would have on cost
and program effectiveness. Helping the unemployed reenter the workforce
is central to the Department's mission, as is the Department's
obligation to ensure that its budget dollars and policies deliver on
that mission. I will work to ensure implementation of the provisions
set out in law as envisioned by Congress and to ensure the benefits of
the important UI program are provided to individuals meeting its
eligibility requirements, including being able to work and available to
work.
Question 30. A significant body of research finds that providing
comprehensive reemployment services through job centers can help UI
recipients become re-employed faster and ultimately reduce State UI
benefit payments overall. Federal funding for these services--through
Wagner-Peyser grants to States--has fallen by 61 percent in real terms
since 1984. At the same time, workers today face a higher probability
of permanent displacement and extended unemployment than they did a few
decades ago. Are you concerned that the Federal Government is
disinvesting in these cost-effective services? Do you believe such
proven programs are worth increased funding given current labor
participation rates and the costs and risks associated with
unemployment?
Answer 30. As a general matter, I believe job training programs and
quality apprenticeships can offer a substantial return on investment. I
look forward to being briefed on the entire universe of dislocated
worker and job training programs at the Department, if confirmed.
Understanding the intersection between UI and job training and
dislocated worker programs will be a major focus. I look forward to
understanding the budgets for these programs in order to make sure tax
payer dollars are being used effectively and to ensure the programs
have the resources needed to be effective.
Question 31. If confirmed, you might have occasion to work on the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. I hope you share
my concern for innocent youths in any transition away from DACA. These
young people are looking to better themselves by going to school and
are contributing to our economy. They are following the rules and have
often overcome incredibly difficult personal circumstances. A key
component of DACA is being able to work, and having work authorizations
to do so. DOL will likely have a say in how the Administration might
address work authorizations for DACA recipients. Do you agree that
young individuals protected under the DACA program deserve care and
consideration when developing our priorities and policies? Would you
commit to giving these young people the extra consideration they
deserve when developing future DOL policy?
Answer 31. To the extent that the Department has a role to play
regarding these issues, if confirmed I will work to ensure that due
care and consideration are taken when developing policy in this area.
senator baldwin
Question 1. Mr. Acosta, as you may know, there is strong support
among many members of this committee for employee ownership and ESOP
(employee stock ownership plan) companies. S corporation ESOPs in
particular lead to greater firm longevity and higher wages, wage
growth, job stability, retirement plan contributions, employment and
sales. It is a model that is working and that we should do more to
promote and encourage so that more hardworking Americans can own a
piece of the rock. Will the Department of Labor commit to working with
Congress to promote employee ownership and ESOPs?
Answer. I strongly support empowering Americans in all aspects of
their working endeavors. A well-run ESOP, like other employment-based
retirement plans, can provide valuable benefits to participating
workers, and I believe that Congress and the Department have a shared
responsibility to take steps to make sure that ESOPs fulfill their
important mission of providing benefits and enhancing employee
ownership. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on ESOPs and I look
forward to working with Congress as we develop the Department's
regulatory policies and priorities to expand opportunity.
senator murphy
Question 1. Today's economy demands Federal investment in a highly
qualified workforce. This is critical to ensure the United States to
remain competitive. A recent study by the National Science Foundation
found that women continue to lag behind men in obtaining STEM jobs,
despite earning an increasing number of STEM graduate degrees. At a
time when our Nation faces a serious shortage of highly skilled
employees in the STEM disciplines, what action items do you intend to
implement that will increase recruitment and retention, specifically of
women and minorities, in STEM jobs? How do you plan to ensure States
are meeting performance measures and are taking steps to increase
enrollment and completion in ``nontraditional careers''?
Answer 1. I have stated that helping Americans find good jobs, safe
jobs, should not be a partisan issue. A labor force with the science,
technology, engineering and mathematics knowledge and skill that can
meet the needs of business and industry and help grow and sustain
healthy regional economies is important, as is a diverse and inclusive
workforce. If confirmed as Secretary of Labor, I hope to have the
benefit of an ongoing dialog with you and Members of the committee
about how best to advance these goals within the context of a dynamic,
global economy that is changing more rapidly with each passing year,
and within the constraints of limited resources. If confirmed, I also
expect to be briefed on efforts being conducted by both the Department
of Labor and Department of Education to encourage all Americans to
succeed in STEM jobs. I hope to hear from Federal, State and private
sector stakeholders on how we can ensure that performance measures are
met and exceeded.
Question 2. Last year, I spent a week walking across my State
talking to people who would not normally interact with my office. I
kept hearing from people who were working at a full-time job, but were
still not able to make financial ends meet. In light of that, do you
agree with the following statement, ``No one who works full-time should
have to live in poverty? ''
Answer 2. I hear the same concerns. That is one reason that skills
training is important, as it can provide access to better jobs. Too
many have difficulty finding good, safe jobs. As I said at the hearing,
I know every member of the HELP committee wants Americans to find jobs,
good jobs, safe jobs, even if there is a difference of opinion as to
how. If confirmed, I hope to benefit from an ongoing dialog with the
committee as to how we can advance that goal.
Question 3. Major employers across the Nation, many States
including Connecticut, and over 150 cities have embraced ``ban the
box'' and other fair chance hiring strategies that help reduce the
stigma associated with a criminal record in the hiring process. Do you
support bi-partisan legislation, such as the Fair Chance Act, that
would help advance employment opportunities for people with records?
Answer 3. I have not reviewed that particular piece of legislation,
but I look forward to working with you and the rest of the Congress to
advance employment opportunities for all Americans. I fully believe in
giving a second chance to those who have been convicted of a crime but
have paid their debts to society. I find too often that a youthful,
minor offense carries an inappropriate stigma.
Question 4. WIOA emphasizes career pathways as a proven practice.
Since the enactment of WIOA, the Departments of Education and Labor
have worked to improve coordination in order to promote and support the
expansion of this innovation. Under your leadership, would the
Department of Labor continue that work? In what other ways might the
coordination between the Departments of Education and Labor be
improved?
Answer 4. As I mentioned in my hearing, I believe that effective
coordination between these two closely linked departments is vital. I
look forward to working closely with the Department of Education on
WIOA and other matters, and I will strive to improve coordination
whenever possible.
Question 5. Under administrations led by both Republican and
Democratic presidents, the Department of Labor has funded competitive
grants for workforce training programs at post-secondary education
institutions (especially community colleges). In Connecticut, these job
training activities are funded from Trade Adjustment Assistance
Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT) grants. Will you
dedicate new funding for focused investments in community college-based
workforce training programs? If so, how will you ensure that low-income
students can affordably access the training offered under these
programs?
Answer 5. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. If confirmed, I look forward to participating in
that process so that I can understand the goals, performance and
resource needs of programs such as this one in order to deliver the
greatest value to the American people. Serving low-income workers and
workers displaced by trade are both very important responsibilities of
the Department.
Question 6. As you know, Congress recently passed a major mental
health bill as part of the 21st Century Cures Act. Among these are
provisions designed to improve enforcement and compliance with the
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.
Among other things, the new law directs the Secretary of the
Department of Labor to:
issue new Federal guidance on compliance with mental
health and substance use disorder parity requirements;
convene a public meeting to produce an action plan to
improve Federal and State coordination related to the enforcement of
parity;
audit plans that have violated mental health parity at
least 5 times; and
release an annual report for 5 years summarizing the
results of all closed Federal investigations of alleged parity
violations.
Will you commit that the Department of Labor will meet these
specific statutory obligations to improve mental health parity
compliance? Also, will you commit to have the department collaborate
with the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that parity
compliance improves significantly from where it is now?
Additionally, the White House Task Force on Parity, after
investigation and input from all stakeholders, issued a report in
October 2016 making several recommendations to improve enforcement of
the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and its implementing
regulations. For example, the report recommended increased funding for
staff to audit health plans for parity compliance and allowing the
department to assess civil monetary penalties for parity violations.
Do you support these two specific recommendations? Which other
recommendations are you prepared to support and which are you not
prepared to support?
Answer 6. Treatment for mental health issues and addiction can save
lives, and I support enhancing affordability and access to those
services. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act and the 21st Century
Cures Act and the Department's responsibilities pursuant to those Acts.
As I stated at my hearing, I will follow the laws that Congress has
passed, including any statutory obligations. I also support
coordination with other cabinet agencies to ensure the government is
effective and efficient in its actions. I would need to review any
recommendations on this issue and consult with staff at DOL before I
could commit to them.
senator warren
conflicts of interests
Question 1. Do you believe President Trump should fully divest from
The Trump Organization in order to prevent conflicts of interest for
you and other Federal Government agencies?
Answer 1. I have no personal knowledge of these issues, which are
outside the scope of the Department of Labor's responsibilities. With
regard to me personally, if confirmed, I will regularly consult with
the Department's ethics counsel to avoid conflicts of interests.
Question 2. Will you commit to enforce wage and hour and
occupational health and safety regulations against The Trump
Organization if the company violates these laws and harms its
employees?
Answer 2. As I noted at the hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce
the law fully and fairly with respect to all organizations, including
the Trump Organization.
Question 3. What is your specific plan for insulating yourself and
DOL from conflicts of interest related to DOL actions that may impact
the Trump Organization?
Answer 3. I worked with the career ethics staff at the Department
of Labor and the Office of Government Ethics to ensure any possible
conflicts of interest were addressed as part of my ethics clearance. If
confirmed, I would continue to work with ethics staff to address
conflicts of interest.
Question 4a. Will you commit to closing the revolving door and
preventing Labor Department employees from personally profiting from
their activities at the Department?
Will you prevent Labor Department employees from working on issues
that directly impact a previous employer?
Answer 4a. I am committed to seeing that employees of the
Department of Labor fully comply with all ethics laws and regulations,
including the restrictions contained in 18 U.S.C. 208 and 5 C.F.R.
2635.502. Non-career employees are also subject to additional
restrictions contained in Executive Order 13770 (``Ethics Commitments
by executive branch Appointees''), which includes a requirement that
they sign an ethics pledge.
Question 4b. Will you demand that, prior to appointment, political
appointees pledge that they will not work in industries related to or
significantly subject to Labor Department regulation for 3 or more
years upon leaving Federal service?
Answer 4b. As discussed above, upon appointment all non-career
employees are required to sign the ethics pledge set forth in Executive
Order 13770. By signing this pledge, the non-career employee commits to
``. . . not, within 5 years after the termination of my
employment as an appointee in any executive agency in which I
am appointed to serve, engage in any lobbying activities with
respect to that agency.''
All employees, including non-career appointees, are also subject to
the applicable post-employment conflict-of-interest provisions in 18
U.S.C. 207.
Question 5a. On January 28, President Trump issued the Ethics
Commitments by Executive Branch Employees Executive order, which
prohibits executive branch appointees from participating
``in any particular matter involving specific parties that is
directly and substantially related to [their] former employer
or former clients, including regulations and contracts''
for ``a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment.''\1\ The
beachhead team at the Department of Labor, however, includes
individuals who have previously lobbied on issues in DOL's
jurisdiction, including the Davis-Bacon Act and the Conflict of
Interest Rule.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/
executive-order-ethics-commit-
ments-executive-branch-appointees.
\2\ https://www.propublica.org/article/labor-department-hire-could-
presage-collision-trump-construction-unions; https://
projects.propublica.org/graphics/beachhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will you commit that, if confirmed, you and all of your
subordinates at the Department of Labor will follow this ``lobbying
ban''?
Answer 5a. I am committed to complying with the quoted provision,
and ensuring that my subordinates do as well.
Question 5b. Will you commit to firing anyone on the DOL beachhead
team who does not meet the terms of this rule?
Answer 5b. I am committed to seeing that anyone who is found to
have violated the provisions of Executive Order 13770 will be
disciplined appropriately in accordance with applicable personnel
procedures.
politicization of doj's civil rights division
Question 6. Do you agree with the DOJ Inspector General in 2008
that, as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, you failed to
appropriately supervise your staff?
If so, to what do you attribute this failure?
What lessons did you learn from this incident?
Answer 6. As I indicated at my hearing before the committee, the
conduct described in the OIG's report was wrong and should not have
taken place. The OIG concluded that I was not aware of the misconduct.
Nonetheless, it occurred on my watch as Assistant Attorney General. I
am well aware of what happened, and committed to ensure it is not
repeated. Since then, I am a more hands-on manager. I have also learned
to better oversee and monitor subordinates while not micromanaging
their performance. As U.S. attorney, I walked around the office often
in order to learn what AUSAs were doing. This day-to-day contact was
important, and helped me better understand and monitor day-to-day AUSA
activity.
Question 7. During your confirmation hearing for your DOJ position,
Senator Kennedy asked you about preventing a politicized hiring
process. You answered by saying:
``I would hope that the hiring process looks for the best
qualified individuals-- by ensuring that those who are
participating in the process, those who do the interviewing
understand what the role is and what the role is not. That's
something I think should be emphasized to all participants in
the hiring process, and certainly if confirmed I would do
that.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, July 2003. Online at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg91833/pdf/CHRG-
108shrg91833.pdf.
Given your explicit commitment to Senator Kennedy, how did you let
the DOJ politicized hiring scandal happen under your watch?
Answer 7. As I indicated in my previous answer, the conduct
described in the OIG's report was wrong and should not have taken
place. The OIG concluded that I was not aware of the misconduct.
Nonetheless, it occurred on my watch as Assistant Attorney General. If
confirmed, I will make it abundantly clear that such conduct will not
be tolerated.
Question 8. If you are confirmed as Secretary, will you commit to
preventing politicization of DOL? How will you do so?
Answer 8. If confirmed, I will make it abundantly clear that such
conduct will not be tolerated. If I learn of inappropriate conduct I
will take appropriate disciplinary action, including dismissal.
Question 9. During Mr. Trump's campaign, there were reports that
even volunteers were required to sign non-disclosure agreements. And
following his election, there were also reports that transition
officials were requesting information about career employees who worked
on issues such as climate change at the Energy Department or women's
issues at the State Department.\4\ Any implication that people who
worked on advancing policies that the new President disagrees with may
be targeted or retaliated against could create a chilling effect on
non-political Federal employees simply trying to do their jobs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/12/22/
trump-team-asked-state
-department-for-info-on-womens-issues-programs-stoking-fears-of-
another-witch-hunt/?utm_term
=.50b42eb8cf86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are confirmed, will you commit to protect the rights of all
civil servants in the Department of Labor?
Those rights include the right for civil servants to communicate
with Congress, and in fact it is against the law to deny or interfere
with their right to do so.\5\ If you are confirmed, do you commit to
protect this fundamental right for government employees?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How will you do so?
Answer 9. Civil servants have many protections under the law and I
would follow the law. If I learn of inappropriate conduct I will take
appropriate disciplinary action. If confirmed, I commit to protect the
rights of all civil servants in the Department.
budget
Question 10. President Trump's preliminary 2018 budget proposal
includes a 21 percent cut to the Department of Labor's budget.
Will you commit to advocating against large cuts to the
Department's budget?
If so, how specifically will you do so?
What level of spending on the Department as a whole do you believe
is necessary to fulfill its mission?
Answer 10. I note that the President proposes a budget but it is
ultimately Congress that will determine the funding for the Department.
If confirmed, I look forward to participating in that process so that I
can understand the goals, performance and resource needs of programs in
order to deliver the greatest value to the American people. As I noted
at the hearing, I think the principles that need to be used to guide
spending are how successful is the program and does the program address
particular needs.
Question 11. How do you believe that a 21 percent cut to the
Department of Labor would affect the agency?
How many career staff do you expect would lose their jobs?
Which programs do you expect would be eliminated or significantly
cut?
Answer 11. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. The publicly available Labor Department chapter is
all the information I have. The labor department chapter details some
proposed cuts and eliminations and is available at page 31 here:
www.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/
2018_blueprint.pdf. I have insufficient data to answer the question
more specifically.
Question 12. President Trump's budget proposes completely
eliminating the Senior Community Service Employment Program, which
helps low-income seniors seeking employment.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/
budget/fy2018/2018_blue
print.pdf; https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/labor-dept-
cuts-target-job-training-programs-for-seniors-disadvantaged-youths/
2017/03/15/4aba0966-0999-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd
74ed1_story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you believe that eliminating or significantly reducing funding
to the Senior Community Service Employment Program would be a wise
decision?
If so, why?
If not, will you commit to aggressively advocating for funding for
the Senior Community Service Employment Program?
Answer 12. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. If confirmed, I look forward to participating in
that process, so that I can understand the goals, performance and
resource needs of programs such as this one in order to deliver the
greatest value to the American people. I do believe older Americans
encounter difficulty finding jobs and that quality programs for this
community are important.
Question 13. President Trump's budget proposes significant cuts to
Job Corps, a DOL program that helps disadvantaged youth enter the
workforce.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you believe that making large cuts to Job Corps would be a wise
decision?
If so, why?
If not, will you commit to aggressively advocating for Job Corps
funding?
Answer 13. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on the Job Corps
program and the performance of each of the more than 100 Job Corps
centers. I look forward to learning more about the centers in each
State. I expect our focus will be on helping Job Corps centers best
provide to students the services and training central to their core
mission. If I conclude that a center is the best way to train a
particular population, I will advocate to fund it.
Question 14. President Trump's budget proposes significant cuts to
the Office of Disability Employment Policy, which helps people with
disabilities succeed in the workplace.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you believe that making large cuts to the Office of Disability
Employment Policy would be a wise decision?
If so, why?
If not, will you commit to aggressively advocating for funding for
the Office of Disability Employment Policy?
Answer 14. I certainly support increasing the labor force
participation rate of disabled individuals and helping them lead
successful and self-sustaining lives. The President, however, proposes
the budget and it is ultimately Congress that determines the budget.
Question 15. Do you support President Trump's proposed elimination
of the OSHA-funded small grant programs that provide workers in
dangerous jobs with life-saving information such as how to protect
themselves from chemical hazards, prevent falls, and guard themselves
against dangerous machines?
If so, why?
If not, will you commit to aggressively advocating for funding for
these programs?
Answer 15. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. That said, if confirmed I look forward to being
briefed on all aspects of the Department's budget and will work to
ensure that workers are protected while the taxpayers' dollars are
spent in the most effective ways possible. If, after review, I believe
this program offers the most efficient use of funds to encourage safety
then I will advocate for it.
voter supression and discrimination
Question 16. When you were the head of the DOJ's Civil Rights
Division the Texas State Legislature proposed a redistricting plan that
the U.S. Supreme Court found ``failed to protect minority rights,'' you
recused yourself with no explanation. Your deputy overruled several
career attorneys and analysts and allowed the redistricting plan to
proceed.
To your knowledge, why did your office overrule DOJ career
appointees' recommendations with regard to the Texas voting rights
cases?
Why did you recuse yourself from that case?
Answer 16. Recusal is appropriate where an official has an actual
conflict of interest, or where under the circumstances the official may
reasonably appear to have a conflict of interest. As I mentioned at my
hearing, I have a longstanding friendship with the then-Solicitor
General of Texas, Mr. Cruz, who was litigating this matter personally.
I recused myself out of concern that this contact may be portrayed as a
conflict of interest. I take recusal obligations very seriously. It is
as important to recuse in cases where recusal is required as it is not
to recuse in cases where recusal is not required. In this case I
believe my decision to recuse from any involvement in the Department's
deliberations and decisionmaking was appropriate. Because I was recused
from the matter I was not privy to the decisionmaking process.
Question 17. Will you commit to respect the policy findings and
conclusions of DOL experts and career staff?
Answer 17. If confirmed, I will certainly need the advice of career
staff to ensure I am fully informed about issues. I respect their
expertise. Policy decisions are ultimately for the leadership of the
Department.
Question 18. In 2004, while you were the head of the DOJ's Civil
Rights Division, you defensed an Ohio voter challenge law that
disproportionately disenfranchised African American voters. Despite
there being no formal intervention in the case by your office, you
submitted a letter-brief to the judge arguing in favor of the voter
challenge law, just 4 days before the 2004 presidential election.
Why did you submit a letter-brief in that case?
In how many other voting rights cases in which DOJ did not formally
intervene nor submit an amicus brief did you submit a letter-brief?
Answer 18. The Department of Justice has a long history of
submitting its views of statutes committed to its enforcement. The
Department of Justice is charged with enforcing both the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (``HAVA'') and the Voting Rights Act (``VRA''). At the
time, HAVA was a relatively new statute. Because of this, there was
value in bringing to Judge Dlott's attention key aspects of HAVA, i.e.,
that State and local election officials must permit any individual
whose name does not appear on the official registration list or whose
eligibility to vote is called into question to cast a provision ballot
even if they are unable to answer specific questions posed by election
judges; that provisional ballots are part of a congressionally
established balance between ballot access and ballot integrity; and
that as a result, non-discriminatory challenge statutes are not
prohibited on their face (although they can be prohibited as applied).
Provisional ballots would mitigate the impact of the Ohio ``challenge
statute'' at issue in that case, which otherwise may have resulted in
the disqualification of some voters without any recourse to confirm
their eligibility and to restore their vote. The letter alerting Judge
Dlott to HAVA's requirements was consistent with the Civil Rights
Division's many other efforts to raise awareness of and to enforce HAVA
in several States during 2004, and although I recall full amici briefs,
I do not recall other less-impactful letter briefs. Importantly, the
Department did not speak to the specific allegations raised by the
plaintiffs in that suit, but limited its comments only to the statutes
on their face.
Question 19. What key challenges do you see in enforcing labor laws
that protect workers' civil rights? Which areas of enforcement will you
prioritize?
Answer 19. The Department shares responsibilities for labor and
civil rights enforcement with a number of other agencies. If confirmed,
I would consult with career staff to identify the areas of greatest
need and direct available resources to address those areas, but I would
also want to make sure that the Department was coordinating with the
other agencies that share the same responsibility.
At the Department of Labor, I would work with the agencies involved
in civil rights to ensure that their efforts have the greatest benefit
for those who are discriminated against, serve as a deterrent by
example for those who accidentally or purposely discriminate, and
increase overall compliance.
Question 20. What metrics will you use to determine whether DOL is
fulfilling its role in protecting workers' rights and stamping out
discrimination?
Answer 20. I believe results matter and need to be quantified, but
it can be hard to measure reductions in discrimination. For example,
one high impact case can reduce discrimination more than several lower
impact matters. As a prosecutor, I used government resources carefully
to bring the best cases possible and get the best resolutions for the
largest number of victims. I also brought smaller individual cases. I
will follow that model at the Department if confirmed.
Question 21. What key challenges do you see in enforcing labor laws
that protect workers against discrimination? Which areas of enforcement
will you prioritize?
Answer 21. If confirmed, I would consult with career staff to
identify the areas of greatest need and direct available resources to
address those areas, and I would also want to make sure that the
Department was coordinating with the other agencies that share the same
responsibility.
Question 22. Which workers do you believe are at greatest risk of
discrimination? What specific actions will you take to protect them?
Answer 22. If confirmed, I would consult with career staff to
identify the areas of greatest need and direct available resources to
address those areas, and I would also want to make sure that the
Department was coordinating with the other agencies that share the same
responsibility for discrimination prevention. I note that there may
very well be different issues dependent on wage rates, industries, and
regions of the country.
enforcement and regulation of wage and hour laws
Question 23. Will you commit to continuing enforcement of DOL wage
and hour and workplace safety standards?
Answer 23. Yes.
Question 24. What metrics will you use to assess the effectiveness
of your enforcement efforts?
Answer 24. Each enforcement agency may have different metrics
because of the nature of their responsibilities and legal authorities.
Increased compliance with the law is a great metric to consider but can
be hard to measure. For example, one high impact case can reduce
violations more than several lower impact matters. As a prosecutor, I
used government resources carefully to bring the best cases possible
and get the best resolutions for the largest number of victims. I also
brought smaller individual cases. I will follow that model at the
Department if confirmed,
Question 25. If President Trump's 20.7 percent proposed budget cut
is enacted, it will be virtually impossible to maintain the level of
enforcement the previous administration obtained. How will you
prioritize enforcement activities and investigations in the Wage and
Hour Division if this budget is enacted?
Answer 25. As budgets are reduced, high impact cases become more
important as they tend to offer more impact per dollar. It is
important, however, to bring smaller individualized cases as well.
Question 26. President Trump has expressed criticism of the DOL
Overtime Rule. Will you commit to defending the Rule, which would
extend overtime protections for millions of American workers, in court,
starting by appealing the injunction that is currently in place
preventing implementation of this rule?
If not, what are your specific plans for updating regulations so
that only bona fide executives, rather than low-income workers, are
exempt from overtime protections, as the FLSA requires?
Answer 26. As I noted at my hearing, I am sensitive to the fact
that the overtime rule has not been updated since 2004. If confirmed,
this is an issue I will look at very closely and commit to examining
the rule and the legal basis of the judge's decision.
Question 27. I am concerned about DOL's duty to ensure that all
employers are held accountable for abuses of their employees--including
large corporations that try to shirk responsibility through franchises,
over whose policies and balance sheets they maintain significant
control. Will you hold parent companies responsible for violations of
the minimum wage or overtime laws of the workers in their franchises
where the parent company is legally culpable?
Answer 27. This answer would be dependent on a specific set of
facts. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the
Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly.
Question 28. What are your specific plans to protect the rights of
workers of franchised companies?
Answer 28. If confirmed, I look forward to receiving input from the
Department of Labor staff and Congress to improve the working
conditions and opportunities for all Americans.
Question 29. Workers' ability to collect back wages is a crucial
part of the enforcement of Wage and Hour Laws. Yet recent reports
indicate that some workers are turning down back pay because they fear
deportation in light of President Trump's anti-immigrant policy and
rhetoric.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.bna.com/workers-turn-down-n57982084889/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If confirmed, will you commit to investigating this phenomenon to
determine whether workers are declining back pay because they fear
deportation?
If you find that this is taking place, what is your plan for
ensuring that all workers who experience wage theft are able to access
back wages, regardless of immigration status?
Answer 29. The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division
enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act, and other laws in its purview,
without regard to immigration status. If confirmed, I look forward to
being briefed by DOL staff and learning more about these concerns and I
will work to enforce the laws under the Department of Labor's
jurisdiction fully and fairly, including wage and hour laws, to protect
all workers' rights.
Question 30. What will you do to improve the implementation and
enforcement of Federal labor law and ensure that all American workers
can work in a safe and healthy environment, achieve financial security,
and retire in old age?
Answer 30. As I noted at the hearing, if confirmed, I will enforce
the law fully and fairly. I also look forward to working with Congress
to further improve safety, security, and retirement of workers.
Question 31. Some employers misclassify their employees as
independent contractors in order to avoid wage and hour laws and other
basic worker protections, paying taxes, and fair competition with other
employers. In what specific ways should the Department of Labor improve
its efforts to (a) identify mis-classified workers and (b) conduct
enforcement actions against employers that misclassify them?
Answer 31. An important role of the Department of Labor is to
ensure that employers who want to do the right thing have clear
compliance guidance from the Department. The use of independent
contractors is a legal and valuable business practice. However, in some
circumstances, when an employer incorrectly labels a worker as an
independent contractor instead of an employee, the employer may not be
abiding by their responsibilities to compensate the worker according to
the requirements of the law. Employees incorrectly classified as
independent contractors may be denied access to critical benefits and
protections they are entitled to by law. This incorrect classification
may also generate losses to the Federal Government and State
governments in the form of lower tax revenues, as well as to State
unemployment insurance and workers' compensation funds. Employers who
deliberately misclassify workers undercut law-abiding employers who are
making contributions to these systems and paying their workers
properly. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on matters
pertaining to the classification of employees and will work to enforce
the laws under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction, including these
employment laws, fully and fairly to ensure the protection of workers.
If businesses are found to be incorrectly classifying workers in a way
that violates the law, I will fully and fairly enforce the relevant
laws.
wells fargo, restaurant associates, and other ongoing investigations
Question 32. Will you continue all ongoing investigations at the
Wage and Hour Division of DOL to ensure that workers will not suffer
setbacks in their effort to recover lost wages as a result of the
change in leadership?
Answer 32. As a nominee, I do not have specific knowledge of
investigations in which the Department of Labor is engaged. As a
general matter, I will enforce the law fully and fairly, and I expect
investigations to go forward.
Question 33. Will you continue with debarment proceedings of
Restaurant Associates to ensure that the workers who feed Federal
workers and Senate employees aren't cheated out of their wages and to
ensure that Federal taxpayer dollars are being used responsibly?
Answer 33. As a nominee, I do not have specific knowledge of this
matter. As a general matter, I will enforce the law fully and fairly,
and I expect ongoing enforcement to go forward.
Question 34. Will you continue with any other ongoing debarment
proceedings?
Answer 34. As a nominee, I do not have specific knowledge of other
ongoing debarment proceedings. As a general matter, I will enforce the
law fully and fairly, and I expect ongoing enforcement to go forward.
Question 35. Will you promise to continue the Department's ongoing
investigation of wage and hour violations at Wells Fargo?
Answer 35. As a nominee, I do not have specific knowledge of this
matter. As a general matter, I will enforce the law fully and fairly,
and I expect investigations to go forward.
implementing dol's conflict of interest rule
Question 36. The memorandum President Trump issued on February 3
requires you to conduct a new economic and legal analysis of the
Conflict of Interest Rule, and, depending on the results of this
analysis, publish a new rule or rescind the rule. DOL has already asked
for public comment on this analysis. Additionally, DOL has closed the
comment period on a proposed 60-day delay of the April 10 applicability
date of the rule.
(a) Did the President or anyone in the White House, on the
transition team, or at DOL consult you about the contents of his
memorandum? If so, please list the names of all parties you consulted
with and send any correspondence on this topic.
(b) If you are confirmed before the 60-day delay of the fiduciary
rule is finalized, will you stop the delay?
(c) Do you think the costs to investors of the delay are justified?
If so, please explain how you have calculated the benefits of the delay
and please identify the parties that would benefit from the delay under
your analysis.
(d) Do you agree with President Trump's decision to call for
additional analysis of the Conflict of Interest Rule?
(e) What information will you review as part of this assessment?
(f) Will you commit to only reviewing information that is
independent and is not funded or otherwise compromised by financial
industry players with a vested interest in the findings?
(g) Please identify all political staff at DOL that will conduct
the analysis.
(h) Do you have any reason to believe that the findings of the new
analysis will be any different from the detailed, multi-year analysis
of the costs and benefits of the rule that was already conducted by DOL
before the proposed rule was issued or in the extensive Regulatory
Impact Analysis that was issued at the time the rule was finalized? If
so, why?
(i) The memorandum asks you to consider litigation costs and
possible disruptions to the financial services sector in your economic
and legal analysis, Will you also consider the full benefits of the
rule for retirees and consumers in addition to any potential costs for
the financial industry? Will you consider the costs to financial
advisers who have already invested in complying with the rule?
(j) The DOL finalized the Conflict of Interest Rule after a long
process of extensive public comment periods, meetings with
stakeholders, and days of public hearings. Will you commit to following
the same process before finalizing any new change of the Rule, in order
to allow the public to comment on the DOL's new analysis?
(k) Big banks that make huge sums of money from selling high-fee,
high-commission products to investors have made it very clear in
Washington that they do not support the Conflict of Interest Rule, to
the point of drowning out the voices of thousands of Americans who have
lost a large portion of their retirement savings because of bad advice
from someone with conflicted interests. Before you make any final
decisions on the Rule, will you commit to soliciting input from the
victims of bad retirement investment advice?
(l) Will you refrain from taking any additional action to delay or
limit the rule until your analysis is complete?
(m) Will you commit to informing Congress on an ongoing basis of
the status of this analysis?
Answers 36(a) and (g). As a nominee, I did not participate in
discussions regarding the presidential memorandum and do not know who
will handle the analysis at the Department of Labor.
Answers 36(b)-(f), and (h)-(l). As I noted at the hearing, the
presidential memorandum addresses with specificity the fiduciary rule
and details the Department of Labor's obligations to review the rule.
If confirmed, I will conduct the review in accordance with the
presidential memorandum. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, all
stakeholders may comment and their views must be considered by the
Department. As Chairman Alexander noted, as a nominee it would be
presumptuous to make any further regulatory determinations at this
time. With that said, it is important that the retirement savings of
working Americans be protected. I support empowering Americans to make
their own financial decisions, to facilitate their ability to save for
retirement and build the individual wealth necessary to afford typical
lifetime expenses, such as buying a home and paying for college, and to
withstand unexpected financial emergencies.
Answer 36(m). If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress
as we develop the Department's regulatory policies and priorities to
safeguard retirement security.
Question 37. On February 14, I sent a letter to the White House and
DOL asking about reported involvement by a Financial Services
Roundtable lobbyist in the development and drafting of President
Trump's memorandum. I have not heard back from either the White House
or DOL.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Elizabeth. ``Warren Questions White House, Labor, Financial
Services Roundtable on Report that Wall Street Lobbyist Reviewed Drafts
of Trump Executive Orders and Memorandums.'' Online at: https://
www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1451.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will you commit to responding to the questions I asked in that
letter about the potential involvement by a Wall Street lobbyist from a
leading advocacy organization for the financial services industry?
Answer 37. I have not received a copy of your letter, and without
knowing the contents of the letter it would be inappropriate for me to
make specific commitments.
Question 38. My office has issued two reports on kickbacks like
lavish vacations, tropical cruises, and other prizes that are offered
as incentives to salespersons in the annuities industry.\11\ Do you
believe that these incentives could encourage a salesperson to
recommend a product that is not in the best interest of the customer?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Elizabeth Warren. ``Villas, Castles, and Vacations: How Perks
and Giveaways Create Conflicts of Interest in the Annuity Industry.''
Online at: http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2015-10-
27_Senator_Warren_Report_on_Annuity_Industry.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer 38. It is important that the retirement savings of working
Americans be protected, and certainly there are individuals that may
put their personal interests ahead of their clients in many industries
where that is potentially unethical and illegal.
Question 39. If a family member or personal friend were to ask you
about how to pick a financial adviser, would you recommend that he or
she pick an adviser with a fiduciary duty to their client, or not?
Answer 39. If asked, I would recommend to my friend someone who I
knew and trusted. I would also advise that in my experience the best
advisors in professional fields are transparent about their fees and
products, including in regards to compensation structure.
Question 40. In your confirmation hearing, you refused to offer
your personal views on or commit to implementing the Conflict of
Interest Rule. You said that, if confirmed as Secretary of Labor, you
would work for the President, which is troubling in light of President
Trump's anti-worker statement and policies.
Will you commit to expressing disagreement with President Trump if
and when his rhetoric or policy proposals, including Executive orders,
conflict with the DOL's mission to promote the welfare of wage earners,
job seekers, and retirees?
To the extent they conflict, will you commit to relying on the
expertise of the DOL career staff rather than the political interests
of the White House in making decisions about the Conflict of Interest
Rule and other policies on which hundreds of millions of workers and
retirees are relying?
Will you commit to following the Administrative Procedure Act,
which governs the rulemaking process, in all rulemakings you
participate in if confirmed?
Will you do so even if the President asks you to do otherwise?
Answer 40. All Cabinet officers work for the President. That does
not mean, however, that one cannot express disagreement on particular
matters. As I stated, if confirmed, I will advocate for the mission of
DOL. This includes disagreement regarding priorities or implementation.
Once a decision by the President is made, however, I have an obligation
to implement it or to resign. I certainly respect the expertise of
staff. At all times, I will follow the law as I understand it. No one,
including the President of the United States, is above the law,
including the APA.
protecting workers from discrimination
Question 41. On June 14, 2016, the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP) at DOL issued a final rule, Discrimination
on the Basis of Sex, which updated OFCCP's sex discrimination
regulations to explicitly include ``the protections against
compensation discrimination; sexually hostile work environments;
discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical
conditions; and discrimination based on unlawful sex stereotypes,
gender identity, and transgender status.''\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ U.S. Department of Labor, ``U.S. Labor Department Announces
Updated Sex Discrimination Regulations for Federal Contractors'' (June
14, 20160 (online at https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/
ofccp20160614).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you commit to fully enforcing this rule, should you be
confirmed as Labor Secretary?
Please describe the specific steps you would take to improve
enforcement of this rule, and the specific metrics you will use to
measure the effectiveness of the rule and its enforcement by DOL.
Answer 21. The President, through an executive action, has directed
all Cabinet secretaries to review all rules within each Cabinet agency.
If confirmed, this responsibility will fall to me, including for this
rule. With that said, I strongly support equal employment opportunity
and, if confirmed, I will apply the law fully and fairly to prevent sex
discrimination in areas under authority of the Secretary of Labor.
Question 42. DOL's Civil Rights Center ``oversees EEO in programs
and activities receiving Federal financial assistance'' from DOL. The
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, meanwhile, oversees EEO
programs among ``employers holding Federal contracts and
subcontracts.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. Department of Labor, ``Equal Employment Opportunity''
(online at https://www.dol
.gov/general/topic/discrimination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Will you ensure that DOL's Civil Rights Center is fully funded,
so that Americans are protected from discrimination on the basis of
race, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or genetic
information?
(i) If confirmed, will you commit to continuing the Civil
Rights Center's work?
(ii) What metrics will you use to evaluate its success or
failure?
b. Will you ensure that DOL's Office of Federal Contract Compliance
Programs is fully funded, so that employees of Federal contractors are
protected from discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex,
national origin, disability, or genetic information?
(i) If confirmed, will you commit to continuing the Office of
Federal Contract Compliance Programs' work?
(ii) What metrics will you use to evaluate its success or
failure?
Answer 42. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. I note that the President proposes a budget but it
is ultimately Congress that will determine the funding for the
Department's agencies. Although the level of budget reductions have not
yet been approved by Congress, some reduction is likely. I cannot
commit to insulate any one program from some reduction. Each
enforcement agency may have different metrics because of the nature of
their responsibilities and legal authorities. I am aware that each
Federal agency has developed comprehensive metrics and reports on them
regularly. If confirmed, I will consult with staff and review the
performance metrics DOL enforcement agencies have been using to see if
there might need to be changes and then evaluate the agencies
accordingly. The missions of both of these offices are important and I
would work to ensure they can perform their responsibilities.
federal contractors
Question 43. Now that congressional Republicans and President Trump
have rescinded the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive order, what
authorities does DOL have to ensure that contracting agencies have
access to and can consider prior labor violations in procurement
decisions (as Federal law and acquisition regulation requires)?\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 41 U.S.C. Sec. 6706; 41 U.S.C. Sec. 6504; 41 U.S.C. Sec. 3144;
Manuel, K. ``Responsibility Determinations Under the Federal
Acquisition Regulation: Legal Standards and Procedures.'' Congressional
Research Service (January 4, 2013). Online at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/
misc/R40633.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will you implement these authorities?
Answer 43. I understand that government agencies have suspension
and debarment authorities and that the Department of Labor has existing
capacity in the context of some of its statutes, including the service
contract act. For example, I am informed that for certain contracts,
the contracting officer at a Federal agency would be required to check
if the potential contractor had received a recent review by OFCCP
before awarding a contract. I am committed to providing agencies this
data so they can make an informed decision.
Question 44. The Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal
Contractors Executive order (Executive Order 13706) requires Federal
contractors to offer covered employees up to 7 days of paid sick leave
each year, giving sick leave to around 1.15 million workers.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Final Rule: Executive Order 13706, Establishing a Paid Sick
Leave for Federal Contractors.'' Wage and Hour Division, United States
Department of Labor. Online at: https://www.dol.gov/whd/govcontracts/
eo13706/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you advise President Trump to retain this Executive order?
Will you commit to enforcing this Executive order?
Answer 44. The decision as to whether to maintain, amend or rescind
Executive orders belongs to the President. As I noted in my hearing, if
confirmed, I would enforce the law fully and fairly, including
Executive orders that apply to the Labor Department or give the
Department additional enforcement responsibilities.
Question 45. The Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors
Executive Order (Executive Order 13658) gives 200,000 workers raises by
setting the minimum wage for Federal contractors at $10.10, with modest
cost-of-living increases going forward.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Fact Sheet: Final Rule to Implement Executive Order 13658,
Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors.'' Wage and Hour Division,
United States Department of Labor. Online at: https://www.dol.gov/whd/
flsa/eo13658/fr-factsheet.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you advise President Trump to retain this Executive order?
Will you commit to enforcing this Executive order?
Answer 45. I believe that the vast majority of Federal contractors
pay this wage irrespective of the Executive order. The decision as to
whether to maintain, amend or rescind Executive orders belongs to the
President. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the
law fully and fairly, including Executive orders that apply to the
Labor Department or give the Department additional enforcement
responsibilities.
Question 46. The Sex Discrimination Regulations Executive order
(Executive Order 11246) prohibits discrimination on the basis of
pregnancy and childbirth, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and
updated guidelines on fair pay and sexual harassment for
contractors.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ ``OFCCP's Sex Discrimination Final Rule, Fact Sheet.'' United
States Department of Labor. Online at: https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/
SexDiscrimination/SexDiscrimFinalRuleFactSheet_
JRFQA508c.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you advise President Trump to retain this Executive order?
Will you commit to enforcing this Executive order?
Answer 46. The decision as to whether to maintain, amend or rescind
Executive orders belongs to the President. As I noted in my hearing, if
confirmed, I would enforce the law fully and fairly, including
Executive orders that apply to the Labor Department or give the
Department additional enforcement responsibilities.
Question 47. In addition to the Executive orders described above,
what are your specific plans to address the widespread labor law
violations by contractors of the Federal Government? If confirmed as
Labor Secretary, what will you do to ensure that taxpayer dollars are
spent more responsibly?
Answer 47. I understand that government agencies have general
suspension and debarment authorities and that the Department of Labor
uses a similar authority in the context of some of its statutes,
including the service contract act. If confirmed, I would need to
discuss this issue with DOL staff to better understand your concerns
and what additional authorities DOL may have in this area.
workplace health and safety
Question 48. Will you commit to pursue all penalties allowed by law
for employers who put their workers in harm's way?
Will you commit to pursuing criminal penalties, including jail
time, for employers who willfully violate OSHA and cause the death of
an employee?
Answer 48. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing this and many
other issues with the Department's OSHA staff, to help ensure the
safety of all workers. I support the use of all of OSHA's penalties. If
criminal penalties are warranted in a given situation they will be
pursued. When the evidence demonstrates a willful violation of a
specific OSHA standard that causes the death of an employee, an
employer may be liable for criminal sanctions. In such cases, if
confirmed, I will direct OSHA to continue to refer potential criminal
matters for consideration by Department of Justice (DOJ) pursuant to
established procedures, including the recently executed Memorandum of
Understanding between OSHA and DOJ in 2015.
Question 49. Will you commit to ensuring that OSHA is fully funded
so that it can continue its inspection and enforcement efforts?
Answer 49. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. I note that the President proposes a budget but it
is ultimately Congress that will determine the funding for the
Department's agencies. Although the level of budget reductions have not
yet been approved by Congress, some reduction is likely. I cannot
commit to insulate any one program from some reduction. Each
enforcement agency may have different metrics because of the nature of
their responsibilities and legal authorities. I am aware that each
Federal agency has developed comprehensive metrics and reports on them
regularly. If confirmed, I will consult with staff and review the
performance metrics DOL enforcement agencies have been using to see if
there might need to be changes and then evaluate the agencies
accordingly.
Question 50. Even when OSHA is fully funded, it can't inspect every
workplace every year. What types of inspections will be the highest
priority to the agency, and what industries will you prioritize for
inspections?
Answer 50. If confirmed, I look forward to discussing this and many
other issues with the Department's OSHA staff and working with them to
make certain that the appropriate prioritizations for inspections are
in place to help ensure the safety of all workers. As specified in the
OSH Act, OSHA operates a balanced program of enforcement, compliance
assistance, training, outreach and voluntary collaborative programs to
maximize its effectiveness. OSHA cannot inspect all 8 million
workplaces it covers, and as such prioritizations are required. The
industries with the highest hazards will receive top priority.
Question 51. In June, OSHA's new Silica Rule, which will save
hundreds of lives by protecting the 2.3 million workers exposed to
silica in their workplaces from diseases like silicosis and lung
cancer, went into effect.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ``OSHA's Final Rule to Protect Workers from Exposure to
Respirable Crystalline Silica.'' Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. United States Department of Labor. Online at: https://
www.osha.gov/silica/factsheets/OSHA_FS-3683_Silica_Overview.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In your hearing, you would not commit to enforcing the silica rule
because the President's January 20 memorandum asks agency heads to
delay rules that are not yet in effect by 60 days. But the silica rule
is already in effect. Will you commit to ensuring that the upcoming
compliance dates for industry are implemented as currently set forth in
the final rule?
Will you commit to enforcing this rule and inspecting workplaces to
ensure that this rule is being properly implemented?
Will you defend the rule against any ongoing legal challenges in
the courts?
Answer 51. The President, through an executive action, has directed
all Cabinet secretaries to review all rules within each Cabinet agency.
If confirmed, this responsibility will fall to me. As part of that
responsibility I look forward to discussing this and many other issues
with the staff of the Department's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration.
Question 52. Will you enforce the beryllium rule if you are
confirmed?
Will you commit to adhere to the currently scheduled compliance
dates and not delay of the effective date of this life-saving rule any
further?
Answer 52. The President, through an executive action, has directed
all Cabinet secretaries to review all rules within each Cabinet agency.
If confirmed, this responsibility will fall to me. As part of that
responsibility I look forward to discussing this and many other issues
with the staff of the Department's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration.
Question 53. On February 22, just hours after your nomination
hearing, the Senate repealed OSHA's ``Volks Rule'' using a resolution
of disapproval under the congressional Review Act. The rule clarifies
OSHA's authority to hold employers accountable for their continuing
obligation to maintain accurate injury and illness records for 5 years.
As a result, underreporting of workplace injuries and illnesses will
skyrocket and the odds that a worker is increased on the job will
increase.
How will the Department of Labor enforce OSHA's recordkeeping
requirements in the absence of this important rule?
How will you ensure that the DOL's statistics on workplace injury
rates remain accurate, considering that employers will not be required
to maintain accurate records after 6 months?
Answer 53. I believe the Occupational Safety and Health Act still
requires employers to maintain records for 5 years and that the DC
Circuit overturned an attempt to apply a continuing violation
previously given the Act's 6-month statute of limitations. If
confirmed, however, I look forward to discussing these and many other
issues with the Department's OSHA staff to make certain that employers
comply with the law regarding the recording of injuries and illnesses
in the workplace in order to ensure that all workers are protected.
fair scheduling legislation
Question 54. As Secretary of Labor, what specific steps would you
take to improve the working conditions of low-wage workers in the food
service, retail, and cleaning sectors?
Answer 54. If confirmed, I look forward to receiving input from DOL
staff and Congress to improve the working conditions and opportunities
for all Americans, and particularly those in low-wage sectors.
Question 55. Will you support the passage of the Schedules that
Work Act, which would help workers address unstable and unpredictable
schedules?\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=896.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If not, what are your plans for introducing fairness into work
schedules so that workers are able to arrange for childcare, juggle a
second job, or go back to school?
Answer 55. I would need to thoroughly review that legislation
before I committed to supporting it. As I mentioned in the hearing in
the context of the gig economy, promoting workplace flexibility is
something I support, particularly for working parents with young
children.
workforce development
Question 56. Will you commit to fully implementing the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)?
Answer 56. As you know, WIOA was enacted in 2014 and many
implementing regulations have been promulgated. If confirmed as
Secretary of Labor, I also will work to maximize the impact of every
Federal taxpayer dollar directed to job training programs and
employment service formula grants while discussing shared
responsibility for these grants by States, localities and employers. I
do support and commit to fully implementing the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act.
Question 57. Will you commit to aggressively advocating for any and
all funding that is needed to implement WIOA?
Answer 57. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. If confirmed, I look forward to participating in
that process, so that I can understand the goals, performance and
resource needs of programs such as this one in order to deliver the
greatest value to the American people. Further, I believe that job
training can offer substantial positive returns on tax payer dollars
and do commit to aggressively advocate for it.
Question 58. In light of the importance of summer jobs programs for
disadvantaged youth, will you commit to expanding the summer jobs
program for youth so that every young person who could benefit from a
summer job will have access to one?
Answer 58. If confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on the
Department's activities and programs related to providing summer jobs
for disadvantaged youth.
Question 59. Important Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
(WIOA) programs are designed to connect people with disabilities to
employment opportunities. How will your administration ensure that
State and local workforce plans and boards use these programs and
related funding streams to improve employment outcomes for people with
disabilities?
Answer 59. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on WIOA and all
related programs and implementing regulations, so that I can understand
the goals, performance and resource needs of programs such as this one.
Taxpayer dollars are scarce and it is important that we ensure that
State and local workforce plans and boards use these programs and
related funding streams to improve employment outcomes for people with
disabilities. I believe metrics should be used to measure outcomes
success.
Question 60. What will you do as Secretary to encourage self-
employment and entrepreneurship among Americans with disabilities?
Will you support the Office of Disability Employment Policy's
START-UP program, which provides technical assistance and training to
States to promote entrepreneurship among Americans with disabilities?
Answer 60. I would need to review any particular program before I
committed to supporting it, but I certainly favor increasing the labor
force participation rate of disabled individuals and helping them lead
successful and self-sustaining lives.
labor statistics
Question 61. Do you have doubts about the non-partisan objectivity
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
If so, what evidence do you have to support those doubts?
If not, do you believe it is appropriate for the President to
attack the credibility and objectivity of an independent government
agency like the BLS?
Answer 61. As I noted at the hearing, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics has kept statistics for decades. It has a transparent
procedure that makes clear how they calculate statistics. I think that
procedure is very important because BLS keeps data that is used not
just for today but for the future. BLS provides several measures of
unemployment. There is, however, legitimate disagreement as to which
particular BLS measurement for the unemployment rate tells the true
story of the economy.
Question 62. If confirmed, will you commit to defending the
independence of the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
Answer 62. Yes. As I noted at the hearing, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics has kept statistics for decades. It has a transparent
procedure that makes clear how they calculate things. And I think that
procedure is very important because BLS keeps data that is used not
just for today but for the future.
Question 63. What steps will you take to ensure that the BLS's
professional staff continue to collect and report employment and
related data free from any political interference?
Answer 63. BLS must be viewed as a reliable collector of data. If
confirmed, I will insist that BLS continue its tradition of being
insulated from political interference.
Question 64. If confirmed, will you commit to aggressively advocate
for full funding of the Bureau of Labor Statistics?
Answer 64. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. I note that the President proposes a budget but it
is ultimately Congress that will determine the funding for the
Department's agencies. Although the level of budget reductions have not
yet been approved by Congress, some reduction is likely. I cannot
commit to insulate any one program from some reduction. That said, as I
mentioned at the hearing, I certainly understand the value of BLS and
support its mission.
Question 65. The Department of Labor announced last year that it
would conduct a survey on contingent and alternative employment as part
of the May 2017 Current Population Survey, after collecting no such
data since 2005, with the intention of continuing the CPS supplement on
alternative work arrangements every 2 years going forward.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ https://blog.dol.gov/2016/03/05/measuring-gig-work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will you advocate for continued funding to conduct the contingent
worker supplement to the CPS?
Will you commit to conducting the supplement at regular intervals
in the future and to communicating the results of that survey to
Congress and the public?
What steps will you take to ensure that DOL regulation, compliance,
and enforcement policy adapts to the results of this survey and the
changing nature of the workplace and safety net in the United States?
Answer 65. I would need to review any particular program before I
committed to supporting it. That said, as I mentioned at the hearing, I
certainly understand the value of BLS data and the ``gig'' economy is
something that the Department of Labor needs to address. Data from such
a BLS survey may be helpful, and I would support its collection. One
reason for this is that the data will assist DOL in adapting to the
changing nature of the workplace.
senator kaine
Question 1. Through Federal support and States encouraging
apprenticeship models, the number of registered apprenticeships has
increased. This includes the extension of the apprenticeship model
beyond the construction and mechanical trades, into industries such as
information technology, insurance, and health care. However, the
average age of an apprentice still remains high at around 30, which
suggests we're not doing a sufficient job of routing young people into
these pathways. Will you support expanding pre-apprenticeship programs
in order to create on-ramps and more seamless pathways for youth into
apprenticeships and middle-skill jobs?
Answer 1. I appreciate you raising this issue that I agree is
vitally important. I share your belief that getting more young people
involved in apprenticeship programs is an important goal. There are
numerous examples throughout the Nation of industry, local academic and
training institutions and government partnering effectively to train
and place workers in growth sectors. I understand that encouraging
quality pre-apprenticeship programs is part of the Department of
Labor's apprenticeship expansion strategy. If confirmed as Secretary of
Labor, I expect to examine the Department's options for providing
quality pre-apprenticeship programs with States and others interested
in developing this important on-ramp to careers. If confirmed, I
believe my role will be to make sure this model can be accessed in more
communities and by displaced workers who will need to transition to new
and growing industries.
Question 2. The Secretary of Labor chairs the Board of the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Do you believe there is a retirement crisis in this country?
Will you propose a plan to Congress to address the insolvency
issues at the PBGC and large multiemployer pension plans before they
fail?
Answer 2. If confirmed, I will be chair of the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation's Board of Directors and expect to be briefed on
the matter of underfunded multiemployer pension plans. I believe our
system of private pensions and retirement savings is working well for
many Americans. Yet, too many workers are saving too little to ensure
their financial security in old age. In addition, we must grapple with
the legacy of pension promises that were made but not fully funded. As
I noted in the hearing, I have not proposed a plan to address the issue
of underfunded multiemployer plans and I wish there were an easy
solution. These workers have worked hard for pensions they expect upon
retirement, I understand that. I look forward to working with Congress
and the President as solutions are proposed.
Question 3. The Department's conflict of interest rule was
finalized after extensive public comment periods, including multiple
meetings with stakeholders and 4 days of public hearings.
Will you commit to following that same transparent process and
allow members of the public to comment fully on the Department's new
analysis before it is finalized?
Would a delay of this rule a month before its applicability date
create additional uncertainty for savers and the financial institutions
that have spent considerable sums of money to comply with this rule?
Answer 3. I understand the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
governs the rulemaking process and if confirmed I will abide by the
requirements of the APA. As I noted at the hearing, a presidential
memorandum addresses with specificity the fiduciary rule and details
the Department of Labor's obligations to review the rule. If confirmed,
I will conduct the review in accordance with the presidential
memorandum. I believe part of the inquiry the Department is conducting
addresses the issues of the effects of investor uncertainty and
expenditures to meet the rule's requirements.
Question 4. What will you do as Secretary to encourage self-
employment and entrepreneurship among Americans with disabilities? Will
you support the Office of Disability Employment Policy's START-UP
program providing technical assistance and training to States to
promote disability entrepreneurship? How will you partner with the
Department of Commerce and the Small Business Administration to support
people with disabilities who want to launch their small businesses or
become entrepreneurs? Furthermore, how do you plan to include business-
owners with disabilities in the competitions to obtain government
contracts?
Answer 4. I would need to review any particular program before I
committed to supporting it, but I certainly support increasing the
labor force participation rate of disabled individuals and helping them
lead successful and self-sustaining lives. As I noted at my hearing, I
believe it is important for the Department to break down silos between
governmental agencies to improve efficiency, and if confirmed, I will
ask Department staff to look into interagency cooperation with Commerce
and the Small Business Administration on this issue. I believe it would
be illegal to discriminate against disabled business-owners in awarding
Federal Government contracts, and I expect that they would be
encouraged to compete for contracts by all government agencies.
Question 5. Immigrants fill not just high-skilled roles in the
United States, but also fill technical and manual skill jobs. A 2010
study by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco concluded that this
helps companies expand, and allows more U.S.-born employees to assume
managerial and leadership positions. What role can the Department of
Labor play in ensuring that employers have access to sufficient workers
to perform roles needed for expansion, including access to immigrants
to perform technical and manual skill jobs if needed?
Answer 5. I recognize the role that immigration has played and
continues to play in our Nation. I also recognize that abuse of the
visa process costs Americans jobs. This is a difficult balance and one
that I will study carefully.
Question 6. I am a strong supporter of DOL's job training and
workforce programs. I am very worried that President Trump's budget
cuts to job training programs are a direct attack on the programs
necessary to help put Americans back to work. Will you commit to
fighting these cuts and defending the proven job training,
apprenticeship, Job Corps, and career pathway programs at DOL?
Answer 6. I share your belief that job training programs can offer
substantial returns on investment. The bi-partisan enactment of WIOA
made advances based on evidence, lessons learned, and promising
practices, such as increasing strategic alignment of investments in
these programs and enhancing employer leadership and engagement. If
confirmed, I will work to continue to advance goals like these within
the reality of our constrained resources. I share your sense of how
important these programs are and I pledge to focus on making them as
effective and successful as possible.
Question 7. The U.S. Labor Department plays a critical leadership
role in shaping Federal policy to help the one in three adults in the
United States (over 70 million) who have a criminal record to navigate
the challenging employment landscape, and the 700,000 Americans who are
released from prison every year and seek out employment in their
communities. For example, DOL is the lead agency that funds reentry
training and job placement services, which are funded by WIOA, the
Second Chance Act and other critical programs, and promotes the
business hiring incentives made available by the Work Opportunity Tax
Credit and the Federal Bonding Program. Probably most importantly,
working with other Federal agencies, the Secretary of Labor is in a
unique position to engage the business community to recruit and hire
people with records building on the remarkable momentum generated by
business leaders on this issue over the past several years. Federal
funding of job training, job placement and reentry services is a
critical component of the national strategy to help move people with
records back into the labor market. As Secretary of Labor, would you
prioritize support for WIOA, the Second Chance Act, and other critical
reentry programs?
Answer 7. I share your belief that job training programs can offer
substantial returns on investment. The bi-partisan enactment of WIOA
made advances based on evidence, lessons learned, and promising
practices, such as increasing strategic alignment of investments in
these programs and enhancing employer leadership and engagement. If
confirmed, I will work to continue to advance goals like these within
the reality of our constrained resources. I share your sense of how
important these programs are and I pledge to focus on making them as
effective and successful as possible.
Question 8. We know that fair workplaces are good for business and
good for the economy. Ninety-two percent of Fortune 500 companies have
adopted nondiscrimination provisions protecting lesbian, gay, and
bisexual workers and 82 percent have adopted protections for
transgender workers. These protections are essential. Recent studies
have shown that more than one in five LGBTQ workers experience
discrimination on the job. Transgender workers face even greater
obstacles. As Secretary, you will be charged with furthering the
mission of the Department of Labor, which includes advancing
opportunities for all workers. What steps are you prepared to take to
ensure that the Department continues to protect the rights of all
workers, including ensuring the Department is proactively taking steps
to combat discrimination against LGBTQ workers?
Answer 8. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce
the Department's laws fully and fairly. This includes efforts to combat
discrimination against LGBTQ workers.
Question 9. The majority of minimum wage workers are women and over
one-quarter have children to support. In Virginia, women earn 80 cents
to every dollar that men earn. This information is concerning, but
specifically for those of us who want to see women thrive and not be
held back. Women make up two-thirds of the minimum wage workforce. And
women are the sole or co-breadwinner in half of families with children.
Do you believe gender pay discrimination exists?
Answer 9. Discrimination based on gender, including as to pay, is
illegal. Though unfortunate, it does exist. As I noted in my hearing,
if confirmed, I would enforce the Department's laws fully and fairly.
Question 10. If confirmed, will you take action to address and
prevent pay discrimination?
Answer 10. Discrimination based on gender, including as to pay, is
illegal. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I would enforce the
Department's laws fully and fairly.
Question 11. What do you believe is a fair minimum wage? In your
view, do you believe that raising the minimum wage is a way to close
the gender pay gap between men and women?
Answer 11. The minimum wage is set federally by Congress but also
in States and localities by their respective governments. I am unaware
if raising the minimum wage would have any effect on any variance in
wage rates paid to men and women respectively, but discrimination based
on gender, including as to pay, is illegal.
senator hassan
Question 1. Low-income older Americans have an unemployment rate
three times greater than other workers. Will you continue to support
funding of the Senior Community Service Employment Program, the only
Federal workforce program targeted to serve older workers?
Answer 1. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. If confirmed, I look forward to participating in
that process, so that I can understand the goals, performance and
resource needs of programs such as this one in order to deliver the
greatest value to the American people.
Question 2. Do you believe registered apprenticeship programs--
whether union or non-union affiliated--are beneficial to training
workers to become better and more skilled employees? Why or why not?
Answer 2. As I mentioned during the confirmation hearing, I believe
that quality apprenticeship programs are an important part of workforce
development and training and are often a vital pathway to skills
attainment and a prosperous career. Earn while you learn programs like
Registered Apprenticeship represent work-based learning experiences
that create real opportunities to develop a workforce that is capable
of meeting employers' skill needs regardless of union affiliation.
Apprenticeship sponsors that meet national or State standards include a
range of organizations, including employers, industry associations,
joint labor-management organizations, government and the military. If
confirmed, I hope to learn more about apprenticeship programs and will
look for every opportunity to help position such programs to best serve
workers and the economy.
Question 3. In 2014, a national goal was set to double the number
of Registered Apprenticeships--``earn and learn'' on-the-job training
programs--within 5 years. Apprentices earn, on average, $60,000 after
completing an apprenticeship program, and recent research shows that
the benefits to employers, employees and taxpayers outweigh the costs.
Congress has increased investments to expand apprenticeships, helping
to create tens of thousands of new apprenticeships across the country,
in traditional industries like construction, as well as non-traditional
industries like health care, advanced manufacturing, and information
technology. Importantly, those funds are also aimed at ensuring greater
racial and gender diversity in apprenticeship. As labor secretary, will
you continue to work toward a goal of doubling the number of registered
apprentices in the United States? If so, how will you proceed?
Answer 3. I am told that a study of U.S.-Registered Apprenticeship
programs found a return of nearly $28 in public benefits for every
dollar of public funds invested in the program, and that these programs
leverage significant private investment, estimated at $1 billion, to
maximize the impact of every taxpayer dollar Congress directs toward
this job training program. The Department supports this public-private
partnership where both employers and workers win, and if confirmed as
Secretary of Labor, I will work with the Department team to support
States in their efforts to expand apprenticeships and work to reduce
barriers to employer participation.
Question 4. A Georgetown study titled America's Divided Recovery
recently found that 99 percent of the jobs created since the end of the
Great Recession, 11.5 of 11.6 million jobs, went to workers with some
post-secondary education. These trends seem likely to be only
exacerbated by technological changes related to the automation of low-
skill work. As a result workers in this country that lack some post-
secondary education, whether through an apprenticeship, industry-
recognized credential, a certificate or a college degree, will
increasingly find it difficult to secure gainful employment. Do you
believe the Department has a responsibility to help every American gain
the skills, particularly the post-secondary training, they require to
be competitive in the labor market?
Answer 4. Post-secondary training--whether it be 4-year college,
community college, apprenticeship or industry-recognized credential--
are vital in positioning job seekers to survive in our modern economy,
as you point out. If confirmed, creating viable pathways that will
provide more workers with this sort of education and training will be a
priority for the Department under my leadership.
Question 5. Do you think collective bargaining is an appropriate
means of increasing the share of the Nation's wealth that goes to
middle-class Americans?
Answer 5. The right to collectively bargain is clearly established
in law, as is the right of workers to decide whether to join a union or
to refrain from joining a union. The decision of whether to join a
union should be left to the individual. If they believe that joining
together to bargain collectively will increase their share of the
Nation's wealth then they should do so.
Question 6. Do you support executive actions like Executive Order
13548, that President Obama issued to mark the 20th anniversary of the
signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act and committed the
executive branch to being a model employer of people who experience
disabilities, including hiring an additional 100,000 employees with
disabilities?
Answer 6. I support actions that uphold the Federal Government as a
model employer.
Question 7. In light of the budget proposal stating it will
eliminate ``less critical technical assistance grants'' within the
Office of Disability Employment Policy, will you commit to providing
this office with the support it needs within the Department? Yes, or
no?
Answer 7. As a nominee, I have not participated in the current
budget discussions. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on this and
other programs to understand how they are succeeding in accomplishing
their mission. Serving Disabled Americans in search of employment is a
particularly important part of the Department's mission. If confirmed
as Secretary of Labor, I will focus the expertise and resources of the
Office of Disability Employment Policy on the areas where it can be
most effective.
Question 8. Will you continue to direct the Department of Labor to
work with the Office Personnel Management to assist executive
departments and agencies to recruit, hire, and retain employees with
disabilities?
Answer 8. I certainly support increasing the labor force
participation rate of disabled individuals and helping them lead
successful and self-sustaining lives. Such efforts contribute to our
economy, and as important, to individual self-esteem. If confirmed, I
expect to be briefed on programs at the Department that serve the
disabled in order to understand how they are succeeding in
accomplishing their mission.
Question 9. According to a recent report from the previous
administration, students with disabilities graduate high school at the
lowest rates of any minority population. Nationally about 83 percent of
all students graduated in 2014-15. Students with disabilities graduated
at a rate of nearly 65 percent. How will you partner with the
Department of Education to ensure that youth with disabilities get the
education and training they need to enter the workforce? What will you
do through the Employment and Training Administration to ensure that
youth with disabilities can gain the skills needed to compete in the
21st century economy?
Answer 9. I certainly support increasing the labor force
participation rate of disabled individuals and helping them lead
successful and self-sustaining lives. Such efforts contribute to our
economy, and as important, to individual self-esteem. If confirmed, I
expect to be briefed on programs at the Department that serve the
disabled in order to understand how they are succeeding in
accomplishing their mission. As I mentioned in my hearing, I believe
that effective coordination between the Labor and Education departments
is vital. I look forward to working closely with the Department of
Education on disabled employment and training and other matters and I
will strive to improve coordination whenever possible.
Question 10. Under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, new rules
mandate that all Federal contractors must take affirmative action to
recruit, hire, promote, and retain individuals with disabilities. The
new rules established a 7 percent utilization goal for individuals with
disabilities. They also required increased data collection and record
keeping to improve employer accountability. This is an important part
of solving the unemployment and under-employment of people with
disabilities. Will you commit to enforcing this regulation, which is
under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction?
Answer 10. I certainly support expanding opportunity for the
unemployed and under-employed generally, including particularly
Americans with disabilities. If confirmed, I will comply with that
directive. As I noted in my hearing, if confirmed, I will work to
enforce the laws under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and
fairly, including regulations requiring contractors to improve their
equal employment opportunities for disabled Americans.
Question 11. What steps will you commit to take to continue to
vigorously enforce the Fair Labor Standards Act, including violations
relating to wage theft, and ensure that there is no political
interference with the Wage and Hour career staff?
Answer 11. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the
Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly, without regard to
political pressure, and would expect the same commitment from all
Department of Labor staff.
Question 12. Can you ensure that hiring made by the Department of
Labor remains strictly non-politicized?
Answer 12. As I noted at the hearing, political views in the hiring
of career attorneys or staff should not be used, and, if confirmed, I
will not allow it. The Federal Government has merit selection processes
that should be followed in hiring career staff.
Question 13. Will you take steps as Secretary of Labor to ensure
that decisionmaking about case selection and litigation strategy to
enforce labor and employment protections is free from improper
political influence? What specific steps will you take?
Answer 13. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the
Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly, without regard to
improper political influence. I will make this clear to all staff.
Question 14. What did you learn from the DOJ hiring scandal that
will change the way you manage personnel decisions at the Department of
Labor?
Answer 14. Senior leadership in government has to balance external
and internal demands. I believe I am more hands-on, and more focused on
internal matters. I have also learned to better oversee and monitor
subordinates while not micromanaging their performance. As U.S.
attorney, I walked around the office often in order to learn what AUSAs
were doing. This day-to-day contact was important, and helped me better
understand and monitor day-to-day AUSA activity.
Question 15. Do you think employers should be responsible for
providing health benefits to their employees?
Answer 15. Many Americans get their health care coverage through
their employers and value that benefit. If confirmed, I expect to be
briefed on health benefit issues in the Department of Labor's
jurisdiction and I look forward to working with Congress as we develop
the Department's regulatory policies and priorities to promote greater
access to health care.
Question 16. At the end of the Obama administration, the
unemployment rate hit a 9-year low of 4.6 percent. How do you propose
continuing this trend? How will you make sure that, if jobs are
created, they pay a living wage? Which of President Obama's policies
would you like to see sustained?
Answer 16. Ensuring that all workers are positioned to find a good
job and possess the skills needed to succeed and meet the needs of a
changing economy will be a major priority of mine, if confirmed. Many
Americans have left the workforce or are under-employed or discouraged.
We must restore their faith in the American Dream and create the
conditions for them to believe they can be more prosperous than their
parents, as was the case in so many previous generations.
Question 17. What do you believe an appropriate minimum wage should
be? Do you believe that the minimum wage should provide employees a
path to the middle class?
Answer 17. The minimum wage is set federally by Congress but also
in States and localities by their respective governments. I recognize
that cost-of-living and other economic factors vary greatly across the
United States and that many States and localities have increased the
minimum wage above the Federal floor.
Question 18. Survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and
stalking are present in workplaces of all kinds across the United
States. Do you believe that domestic violence and sexual assault
survivors should be able to take paid time off at work in order to seek
medical attention, participate in legal proceedings, and seek other
services related to their victimization?
Answer 18. Violence of all forms, including gender-based violence,
is wrong. Further, gender-based violence can cause psychological issues
that impact the employment. I believe expanding job-protected leave
would require congressional action and, if confirmed, I look forward to
working with the President and Congress as discussions regarding leave
occur.
Question 19. Should workers come to work with the flu? Doesn't
coming to work sick risk spreading the illness to coworkers? Should
workers in this country be guaranteed paid sick leave? Which is a
better way for a company to spend five million dollars: paid sick leave
for all workers or executive bonuses?
Answer 19. I recognize that many States and localities have
implemented paid leave laws. I believe attempts to expand paid leave
beyond Federal contractors would require congressional action. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with the President and Congress as
discussions regarding paid leave occur.
Question 20. Is sexual harassment in the workplace an issue you
could decisively oppose and how would you demonstrate your opposition?
Answer 20. Sexual harassment in the workplace is illegal and wrong.
If confirmed, I will enforce the laws against sexual harassment that
are within DOL's jurisdiction.
Question 21a. As Secretary of Labor, would you enforce the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?
Answer 21a. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the
Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly, including those
portions of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that fall within DOL (as
opposed to EEOC) jurisdiction.
Question 21b. What role will the Department of Labor play under
your leadership in addressing violations of equal pay laws so that
women and people of color get equal pay for an equal day's work?
Answer 21b. Employment discrimination on the basis of sex and race
are illegal and wrong. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
instead of the Department of Labor, is generally tasked with
enforcement of discrimination laws. The Department's Office of Federal
Contract Compliance Programs enforces presidential Executive Order
11246, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment by Federal
contractors. If confirmed, I will work to enforce the laws under the
Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and fairly.
Qiestion 21c. U.S. businesses say they can't find the qualified
workers they need; skills attainment is vital to our country's economic
competitiveness. Today's manufacturing jobs require skills that were
not necessary even 5 years ago. As Secretary, how would you enhance
America's competitiveness by upskilling our workforce?
Answer 21c. As our economy innovates and changes, the training we
provide must do likewise. If confirmed, I expect to be briefed on what
the Department is doing to respond to the needs of a rapidly changing
economy, and will focus my attention on ensuring that the taxpayer
dollars that we invest in such programs are being used effectively,
efficiently and with a focus on the future of our workforce. Closing
the skills gap by matching training and employment services to growth
industries, and expanding access to quality apprenticeships are steps I
believe would be a major part of enhancing our competitiveness.
Question 22. Under your leadership, how would intermediary
organizations like nonprofits help deliver workforce training and
connect Americans to employment and career advancement?
Answer 22. Intermediary organizations currently help deliver
workforce training and connect Americans to employment and career
advancement as recipients of DOL grant funds. If confirmed as
Secretary, I will review all workforce programs to maximize the impact
of every taxpayer dollar Congress directs toward employment and job
training programs, and I am open to maintaining the role of
intermediary organizations in this effort if they are doing the best
job. Furthermore, if confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on how
such programs and partnerships can be leveraged in order to train more
workers and place more Americans in prosperous employment.
Question 23. WIOA Title I prioritizes services to out-of-school
youth. Under your leadership, will the Department of Labor provide
timely technical assistance and guidance to States and local
communities on effective practice and strategies?
Answer 23. If confirmed, I believe the Department should strive to
be a clearinghouse of best practices and guidance to States and local
communities in this area. The Department of Labor should take a
leadership role in identifying and compiling promising practices and
evidence-based approaches to improve youth services under the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act. If confirmed as Secretary of Labor, I
will work with the Department of Labor staff to continue to identify
and disseminate to States and localities these practices and approaches
to serving out-of-school youth to make maximum use of Federal taxpayer
resources. I expect to be briefed on such existing efforts and look
forward to working to make sure that programs and practices that are
most effective are shared and replicated far and wide.
Question 24. Do you consider it a form of theft when an employer
fails to pay a worker the wages that worker is entitled to by law? If
so, would you therefore agree that the Department of Labor should hold
employers accountable for such theft? How should the Department of
Labor hold such employers accountable?
Answer 24. As I noted at the hearing, if confirmed I will work to
enforce the laws under the Department of Labor's jurisdiction fully and
fairly, including wage and hour laws.
Question 25. Do you think an employer should be able to take
punitive action against a woman because of her reproductive health
decisions? Yes or No?
Answer 25. A person's decisions regarding starting a family should
be a private matter. Dependent on the specific facts, the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act would likely make such decisions illegal. The
Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended title VII, prohibits an
employer from discriminating against an applicant or employee because
of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical
conditions.
Question 26. Do you think an employer should be able to deny a
woman insurance coverage of birth control? Yes or No?
Answer 26. The issue of whether contraceptive coverage is required
is a matter that I understand is subject to litigation and was part of
the Affordable Care Act and its regulations.
Question 27. Do you think an employer should be able to ask a
female job applicant about whether she intends to become pregnant? Yes
or No?
Answer 27. A person's decisions regarding starting a family should
be a private matter. Dependent on the specific facts, the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act would likely make such decisions illegal. The
Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended title VII, prohibits an
employer from discriminating against an applicant or employee because
of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical
conditions.
Question 28. Do you think an employer should be able to fire,
demote or otherwise take a punitive employment action against, an
unmarried woman who becomes pregnant? Yes or No?
Answer 28. A person's decisions regarding starting a family should
be a private matter. Dependent on the specific facts, the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act would likely make such decisions illegal. The
Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended title VII, prohibits an
employer from discriminating against an applicant or employee because
of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical
conditions. There are some instances where the law allows religious
organizations to require fidelity to tenets of the faith as a condition
of employment.
Question 29. Can you tell me your opinion on electronic delivery
and what changes you would make to any rules and processes, if any and
how so?
Answer 29. I am not clear as to what kind of electronic delivery or
Departmental program or initiative your question references, so I am
unable to answer this question without additional information.
[Whereupon, at 11:44 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]