watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 in full watch -- and watch online at any time at book tv.org. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the court, campaign, and more from the world of politics at your fingertips. you can stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available on the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download it for free, or visit c-span.org/c-span now. your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere.

>> the house will be in order. >> this year, c-span celebrates 45 years of covering congress like none other. since 1979, we have been your primary source for capitol hill, providing balanced, unfiltered coverage of government, taking you to where the policies are debated and decided, all with the support of america's cable companies. c-span, 45 years and counting, powered by cable. >> up next, acting labor secretary julie su testifying on her department's 25 budget request. the proposal totals 13.9 million dollars and focuses on creating pathways to good jobs and protecting workers. she has served as acting secretary since march 2023. she is still waiting to be confirmed as labor secretary over a year after president biden first nominated her. this house education and

workforce committee hearing is three and a half hours. dr. foxx: the committee on education in the workforce will come to order. i note that a quorum is present. without objection, the chair is authorized to call a recess at any time. acting secretary su, i know vice president harris has lobbied hard to drop the appellation "acting" from your title. but i am afraid only a vote of the full senate can grant you that promotion.

this is something they have rightly not seen fit to do. the day marks the 417th consecutive day in which you have led the department of labor, the dol, as acting secretary without the constitutionally required advice and consent of the senate. in effectively abrogating the senate nomination process, the biden administration has treated the constitution as but a footnote. that is unacceptable. in fact, you are now the longest-serving acting secretary since before the u.s. civil war. a record that was best left unbroken. as we examine the biden administration's fiscal year 2025 budget request for dol, it is important to keep that in mind. these unprecedented times demand the strictest possible scrutiny. to begin with, the fy 2025 dol budget requests an increase to

$14.2 billion in discretionary spending to support the "work" of more than 15,600 bureaucrats. by work, i mean showing up in person just five days over a two week span, as is dol's official policy. moreover, as the old saying goes, the budget is not just a collection of numbers. the budget is a statement of priorities. an overzealous regulatory action has been a blatant priority of the biden administration. the fy 2025 dol budget asks of the average american, "invest in the davis-bacon role which will make federal construction projects more unaffordable." "invest in the overtime rule," which will force employers to cut hours.

"invest in the independent contractor rule," which will bankrupt freelancers across the country. "invest in the fiduciary rule," which will limit options for individuals to invest in their own financial future. and "invest in an expansion of dol's power over apprenticeships", which will decimate the role of states and further handcuff employers. while the biden administration likes to misuse the word "invest," americans see what it really means -- a tax on workers and business in terms of both time and money. money and effort that rightfully belong to the taxpayer alone. the priorities pursued by this administration are detrimental to american workers, job creators, and taxpayers, the

very people dol should be serving. instead, dol regulations have served the interests of big labor union bosses. that the administration would install an acting secretary to carry out what i see as a very radical vision raises serious concerns for this committee. don't take my word for it. american views of the biden-su economy have soured in poll after poll. pew research finds that 26% of the electorate rates economic conditions as excellent or good, while 73% regards them as just fair or poor. 22% believe they are better off than they were four years ago, compared to 52% who believe they are worse off. the american people cite inflation, cost of living, and a lack of good paying jobs as their top three concerns.

in other words, when it comes to your record, the american people aren't buying what you are selling. i see at least three underlying economic conditions that explain why. first, americans are being crushed under the weight of inflation. groceries cost over 25% more than when biden took office, and the real medium wages haven't kept pace. second, the mirage of job growth is also subsidized by gains in the public sector. it hasn't escaped my notice that over the last two months, the bureau of labor statistics reported that employment growth in the government sector was second only to growth in the health care sector. in march, the health care sector edged out the government sector by only about 1000 jobs. in 2023, nearly 25% of added

jobs were government positions, which inevitably will be paid for by private sector jobs. third, job growth can be exclusively attributed to foreign-born workers. foreign-born workers have gained nearly 4 million jobs over pre-pandemic levels. conversely, native-born workers are still down over one million jobs since the beginning of the pandemic. republicans will unleash the american economy. we will curb reckless spending, promote growth and innovation, cut through regulatory red tape, and create more opportunities in skills development. thank you, and i yield to the ranking member for an opening statement. mr. scott: thank you. thank you, dr. foxx. acting secretary su, good

morning. i think it is important to note that your service as acting secretary has been verified as constitutionally proper by the government accountability office. so, there's no question as to whether or not you are serving consistent with the constitution. so, welcome back. it is great to have you up here before us on may day, a day in which people from all over the world can come together and recognize the importance of the labor movement. under your leadership, the department of labor has invested in registered opportunities for job seekers and championed a pro-worker regulatory agenda that includes protecting mine workers from silica dust, expanding overtime protections for millions of workers, ensuring that workers receive retirement investments, and retirement investment advice that is in their best interests. the department has also worked with the biden administration to

repeal the harmful restrictions imposed by the previous administration that allowed unscrupulous employers to mis-classify workers as independent contractors, which would deny them the benefits of being an employee, such as minimum wage, overtime, workers compensation, unemployment compensation, osha protections, health and pension benefits enjoyed by other employees, just to name a few. and i also know you are working on self insurance for the black lung disease program. since president biden took office, more than 12.2 million jobs have been created. this historic economic progress is indicative of congressional democrats and the administration's commitment to supporting workers, businesses, and families. a perfect example of our commitment is when congressional democrats and president biden saved the pensions of over one million retirees by saving the multi employer pension funds.

we also saved tens of thousands of businesses from going under. those businesses were legally obligated to pay into the failing funds until the businesses went broke. we saved them, too. as a reminder, not a single congressional republican voted in favor of this fix, even though the cost of the fix was less than we calculated we were on the hook for in future expenses. in stark contrast, house republicans have prioritized policies that undermine workers and supported destructive budget cuts at the department of labor. today, we will hear committee republicans continue to attempt to discredit our economy's performance under president biden and your leadership. for example, the record number of jobs. they consider that bad economy. under the previous administration, worst job performance in almost 100 years. and they praise that as good economy.

you can't make it up. you have to look at the numbers. of the indisputable fact, according to the department of labor, the unemployment rate of president biden has remained below 4% for the longest time in 50 years. that's a good economy. i also want to remind my colleagues that despite what the committee republicans may say, every democratic administration since president kennedy has left for their republican successors a better budget deficit situation than the one they inherited, and every republican administration since nixon left for their democratic successors a worse deficit situation than they inherited, without exception. and using every microeconomic metric, the economy does better when democrats are in charge. today's hearing is an opportunity to set the record straight and tell the truth. president biden and acting secretary su have worked to support workers, businesses, and our economy. we will continue to focus on concrete solutions to put money back into workers pockets, keep

workers healthy and safe on the job, ensure all workers can enjoy a dignified retirement, and protect children from being forced to work in illegal and dangerous conditions. to that end, committee democrats released a new report just yesterday entitled, "a slap on the wrist: how it pays for unscrupulous employers to take advantage of workers." the report details how employers feel emboldened to load violate labor laws because of weak or nonexistent civil monetary penalties. monetary penalties are supposed to serve as a deterrent and hold employers accountable for labor law violations. however, today they have become, in some cases, the cost of doing business. in other cases, no sanctions at all. later this month, the committee democrats will introduce legislation to responsibly increase these penalties to deter employers from violating workers rights. i hope my republican colleagues

will put politics aside and work with us to deliver on these priorities. so, thank you, ms. su, for your leadership and joining us today, and thank you and the department of labor for all you have done for the workers of america. also, i want to thank you for being responsive to oversight requests made by our committee. we may hear that the department has -- that the committee has sent letters. i'm delighted to know that you have responded to the majority's 25 oversight letters, and that is how it should be. you should be making those responses. and i don't need to remind anybody, but i will. the previous administration was not nearly as responsive to congress's oversight requests as this one has been. in most cases, they just ignored our requests altogether. so, throughout the hearing, i hope we remain focused on what is most important, improving the lives of workers and their families. so, thank you acting secretary

su, and madam secretary, i yield back. dr. foxx: thank you, mr. scott. pursuant to committee rule 8c, all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically in microsoft word format by 5:00 p.m. 14 days after the date of this hearing, which is may 15, 2024. and without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. i now turn to the introduction of our witness. today, we have as our witness acting secretary julie su from the u.s. department of labor located in washington, d.c. we thank you for being here today and look forward to your testimony. i'd like to remind the witness that we have read your written -

which will appear in full in the hearing record. pursuant to committee practice i ask that you limit your oral presentation to a five minute summary of your written statement. i also want to remind the witness to be a aware of her responsibility to provide accurate information to the committee. i now recognize acting secretary su. sec. su: chairwoman fox. ranking member starts and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify today on president biden's fiscal year 2025 budget request for the department of labor. as the acting secretary of labor, i get to travel the country to meet with workers like maria.

a single mom who was living paycheck-to-paycheck, worried about how she was going to get by. she went to her local social services office to apply for medicaid and s.n.a.p. benefits and that's is where she saw a flyer or a job-training program in the pipe trades. today maria is in a good union job and she has quadrupled her income. what struck me about mariah was not just how much a good income meant to her, it was the pride she found him putting in hard days work in a hard days work and getting rewarded for it, and the pride she saw in her children's eyes. it is undeniable. good jobs change lives. our $13.9 billion budget request will help more people like mariah get good jobs that can support families lift up , communities, and bring the dignity and pride that are core

to the american dream. i want to frame our request under two priority areas. first, pathways to good jobs for all america's workers. i have met with thousands of workers like mariah who are in programs that work. programs that exist because we have invested in them. that is why we are requesting investments to develop and expand proven models to connect workers to the good jobs they want and need and employers to the workers that they want and need. , for example, we are requesting a billion dollars for the carrier training fund. that investment would help as many as 750,000 people who do not see for your college as their path enroll in evidence-based high-quality training programs for actual jobs in their communities. workers can complete high-quality programs don't end up with a job search. date and end up with a good job.

we also seek $335 million for apprenticeship programs. registered apprenticeships provide training for the actual skills that employers need. they allow workers to earn while they learn and the increased job pathways for underrepresented groups including women, people of color, veterans, and individuals with disabilities. when i talk to business owners, many tell me that their top concern is recruiting and retaining workers. the investment in our budget requests are how congress and the department of labor can tap into the talents and skills of all of america's workers and make sure that the supply of skilled workers meet the demand right now and well into the future. the second priority i would like to highlight is the department of labor's mission to protect

workers including and especially those most vulnerable to exploitation. too often, employers who hire 13-year-olds to work in hazardous conditions failed to pay overtime for a 60-hour work-weeks or who put workers at risk of losing their names or even their lives on the job, do it because they believe they will get away with it. that no one will stop them. that they can operate in blatant disregard of the laws. that congress has not passed. not on our watch. that is why we are requesting a modest but important increases further department's worker protection agencies because we can't do this vital work. without dedicated public servants, the wage and hour investigators who combat child

labor, the team that ensures work for this is safety hazards. the benefits advisors who answer the phone when panicked patients have been denied coverage for mental health services by their health insurance company. we are asking for $7.5 million for additional staff to combat wage theft, child labor, and 22 million dollars to investigate high hazard workplaces, protect whistleblowers and give employers compliance assistance. and an additional $10.7 million for my solicitor's office which has been essentially fl funded for more than a decade. the president process requests would also help us advance were correct and promote a level playing field internationally. and it would better support implementation of congress also secure two point oh act. the mental health parity and addiction equity act and the no surprises act. because when you pass laws, we

should make them real. in all, this budget request will help make sure that workers can come home safe and healthy at the end of the workday with high-quality jobs. i think this committee and look forward to your questions. >> thank you. under committee rules, we will now question the witness. i asked members to keep your questions to think through the witness has time to answer within your five minute allotment. and i went to respond briefly to the ranking member's comments about the department responding in a timely fashion. it is clear that our standards on what is a timely response is very different from the ranking member's standard on what is a timely response. also, our standards for what composes a complete response, is very different from what the ranking member believes it is a complete response. we got 19 hours before this

committee hearing, a tranche of material he had asked for a month. we got it last night. i would also like to provide notice to the ranking member that i intend to serve a subpoena to the acting secretary. if we do not receive by may 6 the department's returned to office plan with the white house chief of staff constructed each agency to prepare and submit by january 26. you don't even follow your own requests by your own chief of staff. this committee requested it on march 6. i am now recognizing the ranking member. thank you.

acting secretary, after months of committee oversight, the central state's pension fund returned 127 million dollars in taxpayer money it accepted when the pension benefit guaranty corporation paid it to fund dead teamsters' pensions. as active secretary of labor, you are the chair of the pbgc board. this allowed you to be involved in the decision-making. what role did you play in pbgc's outrageous decision not to attempt to recover these overpayments? sec. su: there was never a point where there was not an attempt to recover the payments. let me state first, there were

no money paid to anybody should have received it. second is the money has been returned. the third point is that the pbgc has taken steps to make sure that all the records that were submitted -- chairwoman foxx: you are not telling me what role you played. sec. su: this is a little bit technical, so bear with me for a moment. when the money goes to the central states, the central states have a fiduciary duty over that funds. the department of labor issued an analysis. chairwoman foxx: we are not interested in the processes that worked on. we want to know, and i will submit this as a question and you will need to answer specifically what you did in terms of getting back taxpayer dollars. sec. su: i can answer that. chairwoman foxx: i have other

questions i would like to as the milk. in september and again in november, chairman good and i wrote to you expressing concerns about the employee benefit security administration's failure to conduct its investigations in a timely manner. the department's responses did not provide full answers to our questions. i am asking here and now, can you tell the committee how old ebs's investigations are well ? sec. su: there is not a statutory timeline based in the reality that some cases are simpler than others. some cases involve -- there are much larger plans. chairwoman foxx: i understand that. but you are the supervisor. what have you done personally to

ensure that they are closed in a timely manner? all our offices had to deal with this kind of thing. where do you step in to say, this is long enough, let's get this settled. sec. su: one of the things we are highlighting is in our budget request. one of the things we have is we have far more cases. chairwoman foxx: sorry. people are only coming in five days in two weeks. that ain't going to fly with me. bring people back into the office and then you can come and talk to us about more money. people are not working. so i want to know, will you, to providing the agent reports on every outstanding ebsa investigation on a monthly basis ? we want to know where you are. we have better oversight responsibility. we want to know where you are with these aging reports. sec. su: chairwoman, just went -- as the ranking member said, i want you to know that we have

responded to oversight letters and i take your oversight responsibility very, very seriously. you say you want to make sure we are responding to acknowledge when we get requests my team doesn't do that. it is very common for us to respond within minutes or hours of getting a request. chairwoman foxx: chairwoman foxx: what you are saying is answer our questions. i want to remind you that apprenticeships do not exist without employers willing to participate. the department's nearly 800-page proposed regulatory overhaul of the registered apprentice system is chock full of new mandates on employers. can you name a single burden or existing requirement on apprenticeship sponsors that you remove in the proposed rule? sec. su: one of the things the proposed rule seeks to is align high school programs and cte

better with apprenticeship programs because we are seeing both a demand for workers and a desire among young people and a need to open up opportunities for more young people so that is one of the one of the goals i . . chairwoman foxx: ok. i want to be a good role model so i will end my questioning. i will send you a specific question on that and give you a chance to give me a specific response. i recognize the next member. >> good morning. i want to thank you for your unwavering commitment. this is your second appearance here, i understand. even as republicans blocked your confirmation. thank you also for addressing the concerns i raised last year regarding delays in processing of temporary labor certifications for businesses seeking transitional worker

visas. we are entering the application season now and processing times are on time. thank you. and your department and your staff for that. the staff continue to have the need for foreign workers, but during the term in office, we have worked to minimize that defendants and we are seeing that defendants come down. but one way to ensure that there are sufficient u.s. workers for our economy is through apprenticeship. so, let me ask, your department has concentrated on -- has calculated that for every dollar that an employer invests in the registered apprenticeship program, they get $44 back, that is a very good return. unfortunately in the territories , in the insular areas and in

the outlying areas, only those with more than 100 apprenticeships are eligible for federally funded programs. with our small populations, i would like to ask you and get your commitment that we could work with your office of apprenticeship to see what this requires. i appreciate that. sec. su: yes, congressman, thank you for each of those comments. if i may start with, thank you for acknowledging the department and my staff who have worked to make sure that the processes for something that you read with me last time are actually working. i do feel the need to say that my staff of about 15,000 strong work very, very hard every single day to deliver for america's workers. many of them work in the field, many other places of employment during investigations, and their

work is incredibly important and i wish -- we should honor that. so thank you for your acknowledgment. representative: the complement is my pleasure, because, don't worry, we have -- come all this way, so thank you. sec. su: thank you. rep. sablan: can i have your commitment that we will work with the office of apprenticeships? sec. su: absolutely. the return on investment is very good, that is probably why we continue to invest in it as a proven model and you absolutely have my commitment to work with you on this. rep. sablan: thank you. maintaining this, again, this federal employment service program, you recently succeeded

in having the house-pass program, the stronger workforce for america. it's a program that helps place workers in jobs. could you explain how this program works? for a small community? sec. su: yes. so, those programs are very important because they help to connect jobseekers to jobs and employers to the people that they need. there are services that include connecting people to training programs, recruitment, understanding of what skills are needed in certain communities. so it is an important part of

our overall workforce. rep. sablan: thank you. again, we need to ask you department to work with us in addressing the lack of workforce data in the insular areas to ensure that your promulgated rules affecting overtime and exemptions and those things, reflect the economic reality in each territory, because the department acknowledges it doesn't have that data at this time. it may take a while, but we start the work. i appreciate that. ms. su, thank you very much for your continued service. i have other questions i may submit for the record. sec. su: thank you, you have my commitment on that. rep. sablan: i am over my time. chair foxx: thank you, it is understood long-termers mr. wilson, you are recognized for five minutes. rep. wilson:, thank you. i want to thank the secretary for your service and we want you

to be successful. but it concerns me that the policies of the biden administration of the end, borrow, tax, have resulted in the highest inflation in 40 years. that makes job creation that much more important and that is why your position is so critical. the biotin executive orders, the biotin executive orders, regulations and mandates as cited by chairwoman virginia foxx, these destroy jobs. this has to be addressed. on the topic of the reclassification of independent contractors who are so important in our economy -- i was an independent contractor myself so i know how important it is. the department has received several thousand public interest, from independent work of raising concerns about the new rules. however, the department choose to ignore many of the comments in the final rule by stating, " the department of labor does not believe there will be any job loss from the new rule."

however, neither the background materials provided by the labor department during the rollout of the new rule provides any backing as to the status of creation or destruction of jobs. what research do you have to support the department's juxtaposition? sec. su: since president biden came into office, we have seen over 15.2 million jobs created. at the same time unemployment levels remain below 4% for the longest stretch since the 1970's. we also see real wage gains especially for low income and middle income workers, including games that outpace inflation. rep. wilson: madam secretary, the jobs created were actually below where we were. the jobs created were in the recovery from the covid will hantavirus.

i am particularly interested in independent contractors and -- because these are entry-level jobs giving people an opportunity. there has been no citing specifically of how this rule achieves that. it is destroying jobs. sec. su: respectfully, sir, we have not only recovered the jobs lost during the pandemic, we have exceeded that number. the total job gains are not just more than it was when president biden first came into office but also it is faster than anybody predicted and we have been able to do that in a way that doesn't sacrifice the well-being of workers. meaning unemployment has remained new well labor force participation rate is also at an all-time high across just about every single demographic. rep. wilson: madam secretary, i

respectfully disagree. the jobs have not achieved where they were. the achievement of president donald trump of the lowest level of unemployment in history for african-americans, for asian americans, for women and for young people has simply not been restored. these new regulations and mandates are destroying jobs and opportunities, particularly for entry-level employees. another issue is the h2a adverse wage rates that have steadily increased in the last 10 years and i continue to hear from the agriculture community in the district i represent that it's led to unsustainable and detrimental situation for them. what is your response to the agricultural community to say that the h2a adverse effect wage rate are too costly or unworkable? sec. su: this is an important issue, so thank you for giving me a chance to talk about it.

the department issued a rule about the adverse effect wage rate because the purpose of the h2a program is to make sure that employers have the workers that they need but at the same time that workforce does not undermine the working conditions and the job opportunities for u.s.-based workers. the specific question i think you're asking about is the rule about the adverse effect wage rates recognized that there were some occupations in which the writ was actually higher. these were heavy-duty operators. construction workers in agriculture. rep. wilson: i look forward to working with you on that. another question i want to get to because my time is up, about the rules of that they make it almost impossible to terminate workers for cause. some of these people are dangerous and putting fellow workers in danger. i will be getting a question to you about the ability to

terminate h2a. i yield back my time. thank you. chair foxx: mr. courtney, recognized for five minutes. rep. courtney: thank you, madam chairwoman and acting secretary, it's great to see you here. in connecticut we have about 90,000 job openings. our labor participation rate is above the national average, 64% higher than during the trump administration or due to covid, for sure. and the lease we clearly had realized that we had to fill those positions is to close the skills gap. the labor department's workforce opportunity act is hard at work right now, they graduated 935 metal trades folks last year, submarine and shipyard. that again, wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the act. we also have real programs in

the health care sector. i was just with a group called cna boot camp where it is a funded program, eight-week program to get people trained and certified to fill all the gaps in nursing homes and hospitals. immigrant population is probably the largest cohort that is benefited from the program, the haitian community that we have in eastern connecticut. again, it is a really highly efficient, good return on investment in terms of job training in and it's a limited fashion to help deal with, again, what are still a lot of job openings in the economy. but that's not what i want to ask about today. you visited in my district about four months or so ago and visited with the nursing community in the state. of the time, as you recall, i am sure, we lost a valuable compassionate nurse who was a victim of workplace violence.

she was stabbed to death at a home health visit with a very high-risk patient. it never should have happened. again, osha has done an investigation, there is a penalty, but it is after-the-fact and a relatively meager amount in terms of the value of a human life that was that. the department's workplace violence prevention osha rule, you are working on that. can you give us an update? i think it is something the entire health care professional is desperately looking for. sec. su: thank you, congressman. it was a pleasure to be in your district with you. we went to three rivers community college and talk to people who both knew about that tragedy and who talked about the challenges in the profession from it we are working on them rule on workplace violence. we want to make sure we go through every step, as we always

do in our rulemaking. we have completed the small business review part of that process and are working on the proposed rule which will be coming out soon. you also mentioned the importance of osha and safety investigations. obviously, we investigate cases after there are injuries or deaths. to your point, the more we have a system in which employers are motivated to prevent those things from happening before they happen, that is obviously the ideal situation and penalties that aren't seen as a cost of doing business are very important for that. rep. courtney: and again, the folks that heard from you were totally convinced of your sincerity and commitment to doing this. one way congress could help is for us to pass the workplace violence prevention for health care, h.r. 266 three which has 100 65 bipartisan cosponsors. it passed in the last congress

with over 240 votes in the house. one of the key things it would do is also limit this -- is accelerate this rule process so that we could get these protections can place quicker. it is of secular congress -- that is exactly what congress did during the aids crisis to to get emergency rules so that people today are wearing gloves and disposable needles, all of that flowed from the fact that congress factor to accelerate those rules. lastly, we have a bill in the committee, the federal employees work a composition act. can you talk about that? sec. su: one of the things we have seen is a lack of adequate medical professionals to evaluate for the federal workers compensation claims is the problem. we have tried to address it. we have increased the number by

about 20% but it remains a challenge. so i very much am anxious to work with you on the proposal. rep. courtney: thank you, i yield back. chair foxx: thank you, mr. courtney. mr. walberg, are recommended for five minutes. rep. walberg: thank you chairwoman and thinking, acting secretary for being here today, i want to follow up with my colleague from connecticut relative to hr 16, and legislation have offered to enable nurse practitioners and physician's assistants to be able to practice under fica which has not been updated since 1974 when i was married. in those 50 years, i have had to update myself over the years to make sure i made it to the 50th wedding anniversary. [laughs] so i hope you would support us

with that legislation to update fica so we can add to an evolving situation in health care, these component parts that can do a great job. i have your commitment on that? sec. su: yes, thank you, congressman. we have also identified that as a challenge in the system that creates problems for people who are seeking workers compensation claims. i absolutely have -- to work with you. rep. walberg: i appreciate that. let me move to the two issues that have real-time concerns. first being the overtime rule question. as you know, dlo recently published his overtime rule which attempts to revive policies from the 2016 rule that the court threw out from the for being arbitrary and capricious. it includes automatic updates to the overtime threshold every three years, a policy which it

witnessed that our workforce protection subcommittee hearing testified would likely violate the existing procedure act because it will allow for notice and comment on the updates. the fiduciary rule questions is almost the exact same, along the same lines of previous and when the u.s. court of appeals for the fifth circuit found that the 2016 fiduciary rule exceeded dol's authority. the fiduciary rule would cover the same sales practices as the 2016 rule. so i guess i have the same question for both those issues, the overtime rule and the fiduciary rule. why do you expect that the courts will review the 2024 rules on these issues differently than they ruled before when they threw it out? sec. su: congressman, in the

process of making the rules, we did engage in the practice of -- we had listening sessions, we had open commentary and we responded and took into account all the different comments. rep. walberg: but did you check the court record on it? sec. su: yes. we are very confident that the rules not only were within our authority, but they take into account the existing case law about what was best for the prior rules were struck down. rep. walberg: why would bees be any different, the sales rule and the fiduciary rule are in violation. sec. su: i don't know how much you want me to get into the details of each, but they take into account what the court said about why the prior rules could not stand. they are different.

the retirement security rule, for example, -- is the definition of a fiduciary is different. what is covered under it is different. it does -- rep. walberg: i don't read it that way at all. and i don't know how the court will read it that way at all. so i guess we wait and see. otherwise, it's a waste of time. it is concerning for the industries themselves when we are going back and doing something that -- i mean, the uncertainty that goes on valencia street two rules, the slap back back and forth, but in these two cases, the court determined it. let me move to another one. the direct settlement, the issues of concern. the department of labor's contract rule, a devastating impact on the ability of millions of americans to engage in flexible work in the modern economy. at the workforce protection

subcommittee hearing in february, i asked the wage and hour's administration about the clarity that would be provided to industries such as real estate agents and direct sellers who are specifically classified as independent contractors under the internal revenue code. she expressed commitment to developing guidance and resources to assist these legacy independent contractors in compliance. so has the small entity compliance guide, or faq document been reflected to provide this clarity? is there any outreach to the stakeholders? sec. su: so, congressman, one of the most important rules is to make sure that working people in this country are protected. our rulemaking is a part of the permit to your prior question, i have an easier answer than retirement security which is the overtime threshold is lower than it was in the 2016 rule. when it comes to our outreach

and compliance assistance -- rep. walberg: my time is expired. i will have to submit the question. thank you. chair foxx: if you would submit your question, mr. wahlberg, you will get an answer. ms. bonamici, you are recognized for five minutes. rep. bonamici:, thank you. thank you for being here, for your work and for your testimony. thank you also for visiting northwest oregon, we appreciate your visit, all the visits, the sites we visited and we talk about the work you are doing to prepare workers, to protect them, their health and their rights and to empower them their voice of the job. one of the things we talked about during your visit was emphasizing the importance of workforce development opportunities and having that path to a good job, how important that is, and the partnerships that are so critical, partnerships between businesses, education, training programs that are really key to

the success of these programs. so while you were in oregon, we visited portland community college's megatron next lab which has partnered with state-based employers including intel to offer programs like semiconductor technician training programs and apprenticeships where we are seeing some great paths to good jobs. these sector strategies are important for prospective workers to enter and succeed in the workforce. so i am glad to see the president's proposed budget will invest in the news of total employment through career training for occupational readiness program. to support lee's evidence-based partnership models. this is a program i proposed along with representative susie lee in our community based workforce development act. will you tell us more about the benefits of that's after program and its goals for the upcoming year, and importantly if you

could describe the potential if it is fully funded. sec. su: yes, thank you so much, congresswoman. i was delighted by our time together and also to be able to put in place programs that you have envisioned. because you have seen firsthand how important it is for workforce training programs to be aligned with the needs of employers in a community tend to be able to bring all the pieces of the workforce system together so that as i said in my opening, and job training program doesn't end in a job search, it ends it an actual job. so the skills that somebody learns are actual skills that they are going to need for the job so that the educational system including community colleges, are aligned with all of that and we are recruiting for these programs in our own communities, including those who have been shut out from these in the past. so the program is specifically

about that, looking at growing sectors, growing in the streets that in this moment of historic job growth and opportunity, we should be creating trading programs that align with industry needs and that that is the way to create the most the way to create the most of the community. employers coming together to see the skills that we need. and then training programs for that. that is the best way to build what i call an infrastructure for the workforce system. rep. bonamici: i look forward to working with you on the program and i certainly hope it is fully funded. i wanted to ask you about stress. we are experiencing more extreme weather events. extreme heat. we had a heat dome in oregon that was devastating and we many people lost their lives. that means we need osha to issue a standard on the to protect workers in both indoor and outdoor settings.

there could be as many as 170 thousand heat related occupational illnesses every year including up to 700 fatalities. what is the status of this licensing effort? sec. su: it is an important question. heat is a hazard, something that people lose their lives on the job when there are but to be commonsense measures that can be taken to prevent that from happening. we are working on what would be the first nationwide standard for the heat, indoor and outdoor heat to prevent exactly those kinds of tragedies from happening. we are in the midst of that work now. we are engaging with small businesses as we are both required to do and it is important to do, and we expect to put out a notice rule also later this year. rep. walberg: so any chance of anything before the heat comes in the summer? sec. su: and i mean, what people often complain about is how long

the rulemaking process takes. part of the reason it is a long time is that we have to be thoughtful, we have to engage with all the stakeholders, there is a lot of pieces to making sure that a rule is thoughtful, is consistent with our authority and it will have the effect we wanted to have. rep. walberg: my time has expired. thank you again for your testimony. sec. su: thank you, congresswoman, we will continue to do the enforcement to make sure that workers are healthy and safe on the job. chair foxx: thank you, ms. bonamici. mr. grossman, are recognized for five minutes. rep. grothman: the department has a gold standard of work-based learning. there are apprenticeships registered under the competency-based models. do you think lee's apprenticeships are good programs? sec. su: sorry, congressman, you were saying our what programs could programs?

rep. grothman: we are talking about registered apprenticeships. do you believe confidence he registered apprenticeships are good programs? sec. su: thank you, congressman, especially because your state has been such a leader in registered apprenticeships and have a million-dollar state apprenticeship expansion of land in wisconsin to help build the infrastructure to make sure that registered apprenticeships can thrive in the players can get with the needs and working people in your state can get opportunity. i believe registered apprenticeship programs are the gold standard. they provide for earn while you learn so people can't afford to just stop early in order to train can actually get into training programs. they provide for a good job at the end. they provide for wage progression and other protections for skill

standards, and because of historic investments that have been made in construction, infrastructure, clean energy and manufacturing, that there is a need for good, reliable, tested job training programs and registered apprenticeships are one of the best example of that. rep. grothman: let me ask you, what was the basis for your department issuing a proposed rule that illuminates the successful competency-based lick model or registered apprenticeships, a model that has been referred to as the bread and butter expansion and would constitute one -- more than a third apprenticeships in the next day, according to the department of labor's own projections? sec. su: in this administration, the department of labor has invested more than 400 within dollars in apprenticeship programs across the country and another $200 million that will

be announced in june. we believe in programs that are tested. that have support for that workers will actually end up in the job they are creating for it and that has real standards, in part, because standards registered apprenticeships also give working people a chance to work in the job that they got but also continue to grow in it. so registered apprenticeships are a model that are tested over time and really have been a pathway to the middle class for many, many american workers. rep. grothman: wisconsin is a big manufacturing state, actually percentage wise we are the biggest manufacturing state in the country. 20% of our workforce is in manufacturing. when i meet with industry leaders, they say issues such as retaining and recruiting employees is their biggest

challenge. the department of labor has proposed increasing over time salary threshold by about 70%, which would subject millions of currently salaried workers to overtime laws. so instead of increasing pay, the proposed rule would cause employers to shift when it celery workers to hourly workers eliminating more flexible work functions and potentially resulting in fewer work hours in regular patients and lower overall compensation. would you comment on the negative consequences of the big increase in overtime salary threshold or do you believe -- and how you learned it will affect american industry? sec. su: there is nothing about a rule that would require that outcome. the reason why he needed the overtime group was because it is really important for working people to get a fair days pay for hard days work permit and our overtime rule helps to ensure that working people who

work on a salary basis have more money in their pockets. a couple decades ago the overtime threshold covered over 60% of working people. is last administration, the threshold is set to a point where it was less than 10%. so the overtime protections have been eroded over time because of that threshold and that is why we undertook the rulemaking process to make sure that the threshold combined with the duties test that is the heart of protecting salaried employees when it comes to overtime, remained real. rep. grothman: thank you. chair foxx: thank you, mr. grossman. dr. adams, irvington for five minutes. rep. adams:, thank you madam chair and thank you, sec. soup

for testifying. i had the relatively few in charlotte for march and i appreciated you being there and also admired how much attention he preached to the concerns of ordinary workers. tell me about the efforts of your office needs to hear from you from workers on the ground and how your meetings with workers across the country have informed budget request. sec. su: thank you for that, congresswoman and thank you for are time together in your district. to give an example from the, we got to visit an organization can't she billed the city, i love the title of the permit the idea was to recruit from communities, especially women and women of color who might not see themselves in some of the jobs being created. and to give them the basic exposure to using tools, what it

would be like to work on the construction site. to meet with others who have those jobs so that they can see themselves visual opportunities, as well. those kinds of interactions are incredibly important to me of the acting labor secretary. i think our policies, our enforcement priorities and our budget requests all have to be informed by the real needs of working people. and everywhere i go, there are working people who are looking to find their pathway into the middle class, their shots of the american dream and our workforce investments are meant to create disconnections. and sadly i meet with too many workers who report that wage theft is a regular experience. workers will say that they work in jobs where injuries are, and when somebody gets injured,

they get fired. they are punished and that all painters workers from reporting. i have met with workers who are working on a salary basis -- a single mother recently who told me that our overtime rule will put another $1000 a month in her pocket. that is going to make a very big difference for her and for her children, which will also make a very big difference in her community. and so being able to hear from workers to understand what they mean to get outside of these buildings -- what they need, to get a set of these buildings and outside washington, d.c. is a privilege to me and we can make sure we are being responsive. i also meet with employers on a regular basis to understand how employers really struggle when there is not a level playing field with the standards they have to put in place in order to recruit and retain your workers, when they are not being respected by their competitors. rep. adams: let me ask you a

couple other questions. we have had some recent reports of how federal workforce funds have been used to subsidize child labor violations. there was one that found several children working in violation of labor laws permit one of them was injured. what tools are at your disposal, and what tools do you need to prevent the funds from placing children in harm's way by firms with records of child labor and health and safety violations? sec. su: it's an important question that also ties to our budget request. the reason why the child labor in the situation came to light is because our wage and hour division discovered it and held that an employer to account. putting investigators on the

ground to combat child labor is critically important. over request includes $5 million for that and $35 million overall for the wage and hour division to continue to combat wage theft . we have done -- once we learned about it, we let the local workforce board know about it and we have been working with them to mature federal funds should never be used in a way to condone or subsidize any labor law violations. rep. adams: many opponents of the term of the group will have cited the national association of insurance commissioners best interest standard as a sufficient fix to the problem. critics believe that model renders dol's rule unnecessary. let me ask you, could you explain some of the differences and why the dol's rule is necessary to ensure workers -- i

do want to enter into the record, madam chair, the cfp board's code of ethics and standards of conduct. i don't think i will have time, but if you can just send me a response to the question. madam chair, i would like to enter this into the record. chair foxx: without question and i will ask ms. su to answer your question in writing. rep. adams: thank you very much, i get back. mr. allen, you are recognized for five minutes. rep. allen:: thank you, chairwoman and thank you secretary su for being here. review here with us today. the dol received assessment number of comments in its fiduciary ruling and although the, cam: was far too short, many comments called for significant changes to the proposal and when he called for the proposal's withdrawal included the dol has emphasized that changes were made based on

input is received, however, assistant secretary gomez said in the new york times, there is nothing in these clarifications of changes that one should interpret of the watering down just as the watering down or a change of the proposal. which is it? were changes made to reflect stakeholder input on the roof or with the input ignored because the dol had already descended the desired outcome? sec. su: soto, congressman, putting aside what was ignored, both things could be truth, that we take into account comments. and we do. i could go through each of the rules that we have finalized. we not only takes comments, we also respond to all the comments from it and as many of the rules that --

rep. allen: are you familiar with -- under secretary gomez's food to the new york times? in other ways, the short comment than this was going to make it appear that there was no predetermined outcome on this yet you have these, periods -- comment periods to understand how these things will affect the business community out there, moving on, georgia represents around 30,000 franchise establishments and represents over 315,000 employees. recently the labor board issued a final rule systematically reversing the course of what constitutes joint employer. this room had previously called for small businesses over 33.3

billion dollars and a loss of over 300 thousand jobs. the last time we appeared before the committee, you didn't provide a clear response as to whether the department of labor after issued a similar rule under the fair labor standards act. after almost a year, can you know, to know the rulemaking process as it relates to joint employer? sec. su: i believe lester and i said it wasn't on our regulatory agenda. i will repeat that again because it is not on our regulatory agenda. the nlrb is a separate body the department of labor doesn't have such a rule on our proposal. i do want to say, congressman, when it comes to rulemaking we do not approach it with predetermined outcomes. we take the common period very seriously. i don't even know which rule to try to give an example on this, but one way that you will see it is, sometimes the timing of when rules go into effect are also based on the feedback we got,

including from the regulated community. rep. allen: again, we have the information from the new york times which doesn't exactly match what is going on there. i ought to follow up on the line of questioning that i have not been able to get an adequate answer for permit when he testified last june, i raised my concerns about the dol's amendments to the plan asset manager exemption which would disrupt them unnecessarily burden retirement plans who rely on qp ams to manage the daily operations and investment of employee benefit plans. last year, i didn't get a straight answer from you, and today i am still trying to get a satisfactory response. let me ask you, has the department of labor conducted a detailed and realistic

cost-benefit analysis of its amendments to the qpam exemption ? sec. su: that rule has been finalized. we always conduct a financial analysis of the impact of our rules when we do them. our rules in that space are entirely meant to make sure that retirement security of working americans, which is often the largest savings that nobody has, often saved year after year, paycheck after paycheck, think that is secure. so we to analyses on all of our rules that are public, they are part of the public notice rule. rep. allen: we need that information. i have an additional question on apprenticeships, i will submit to you in writing. i am out of time and i yelled back -- yield back.

chair foxx: you are recognized for five minutes. sec. su: rep. jayapal: ms. su, we are glad to have you here today. you have fought tirelessly for working people, especially the list we need workers in our country, domestic workers, immigrant workers, workers of color, folks who are just going to make it and deserve to be paid no matter who they are or where they are. last year biden and you delivered tremendously for the american people. i have personally witnessed you helping to bring stalemates in labor negotiations and delivering critical reduction support workers -- long for workers, health care workers, graduate students, research students in my district. you are very popular. i hope you, and visit. i have also watched you deliver on a top priority of increasing the overtime threshold so that

millions of workers ultimately get paid for the work that they are already doing putting critically needed money in their pockets for your. truly a fact that you and president biden have presided over an incredible 39 straight months of job growth and 26 months of unemployment remaining below 4% from the longest stretch we have seen in over 50 years. congratulations. i want to clear up a few things i am hoping you can help me. do you believe that bona fide independent contractors play a vital role in the u.s. economy and deserve a place within it? yes or no is fine. sec. su: yes, of course, congresswoman. rep. allen: and that the department''s final rule on discipline for fish and prevent people from entering in bona fide independent contractor

relationship? sec. su: absolutely not. rep. jayapal: does in the room to restate existing case law? sec. su: yes, it restores decades of case law on how to determine whether someone is a independent contractor or employee. rep. jayapal: does it prohibit flexibility? sec. su: it does not. rep. jayapal: it seems to be the rule ensures workers are not denied a century of labor productions because the business decides to live with them as independent contractors waiting for their employees, is that correct? sec. su: yes, we see that. we see dishwashers and workers called independent contractors, workers on construction so i called the independent workers. it is harmful to working people who should have unemployment insurance and the like. also, it makes it difficult for businesses who play by the winds to. them to thrive.

rep. jayapal: thank you. if you talked about the investments in workforce training. yesterday i was in front of the chamber of commerce visiting and i heard the same plea for those kinds of investments in workforce training. one area that you know that i focused a lot on his way of clear work, the clear economy and domestic workers. i am proud to be the host sponsor of the domestic workers bill of rights, there are 22 million domestic workers who care for our children, that makl other work possible. despite the high demand we have for the workforce, domestic workers have long been excluded from the basic protections of the fair labor standards act and they are amongst lowest paid with nearly 90% getting no benefits at all. do you agree we in government have an essential role to play

to eradicate these exclusions and ensure that protections for domestic workers such as those in the bill of rights are enacted into law? sec. su: thank you for your leadership in that space. president biden has also called for investments in our care economy. all of you in the american rescue plan act made sure there were investments that helped to keep about 220 5000 childcare facilities open when the pandemic was still -- in 2021 and 2022. in those investments help to increase child caregiver wages as well. it is a recognition we should not have to choose between affordable, reliable care and the well-being of those care workers. i would be delighted to work with you in any way to make sure those aims are met and it is something the president has been very clear about as have you and

i really appreciate how much you have raised the importance of the issue. rep. jayapal: thank you. i yield back. >> mr. thompson? rep. thompson: i am co-chair of the bipartisan career and technical education for more than a decade. since that time with the help of critical investments strength and career of the 21st century act, champion in the 115th congress, we have made tremendous strides in helping students of all ages access these high-quality affordable programs. ones that lead to certificates, on one hand, diplomas in one hand, more job offers in the other. i am concerned with your departments proposal to expand federal control over successful programs to the regulatory --

calling cte apprenticeships. honestly, we are supportive of cte at apprenticeships. i have not heard from a single student, employer, or program who thinks it is necessary to combine the two. just because each of these are successful on their own does not mean the department of labor should have any role in enforcing them together through regulation. i have significant concerns with your proposal, as do many ct advocates across the spectrum, including national advocacy association. question number one, did the department engage with ct's headquarters in the proposal and how is her input and feedback incorporated into the proposed role? sec. su: it is a pleasure to meet you. i share your interest in how we make sure our training programs are leading all community's and actual jobs. that is why there is a $1.5 million grant in your district

for our workforce opportunity and world community's grant, something we created recognize it when we talked about equity and making sure everyone is included, making sure our rural community's are not left behind. it is not meant to limit the operations of cte programs or registration programs, it is -- our hope is to bring together more conductivity where it is needed so we are not creating training programs that are not connected to actual jobs at the end of them. that is been a longtime criticism of the workforce development system. in this administration, we have leaned in hard especially because of the historic job growth we are seeing. many jobs that do not require a four-year college degree, these become -- rep. thompson: under the old adage of it's not broke, don't

fix it, no longer less enrollment, there is waiting lists. schools are looking to add programs, adding capacity because of the interest. create "industry skills framework" and the new our would have to adhere to -- the department of education it is exclusively prohibited from opposing programs. you are violating the intent of congress law i judge what you're doing. why is your department attempting in and run on this prohibition and seeking to dictate ct curriculum without the authorization of congress? where does your department -- what attorneys in some dark corner of the department, why do they believe where this authority comes from? sec. su: i hope i don't say this wrong because i'm not 100% positive, is your question about

whether we have engaged with ct providers and others -- i believe the comment period might still be open. if it is, i would encourage your constituents to engage with us. reppo's thompson -- rep. thompson: -- sec. su: i think that is about the perkins act which is under the purview of the department of education, not to department of labor. we do not seek to regulate or change that. rep. thompson: it is part of the perkins act. apprenticeships. we strengthened within the perkins act, the strength -- let me move on. recognized by the department state a partnership agencies and granted the authority to register and oversee apprenticeship programs in our state. do you believe the federal government understands the need to employers in specific

occupational requirements in each of the states better than the state a pretty ship agencies? sec. su: know, which is why many of the ways we have approached our workforce funds have been to invest in creativity and partnerships and efforts that originate on the ground. we believe employers, local workforce boards, local community based organizations, unions, and other workforce partners who are invested in creating an effective infrastructure to connect people to jobs. rep. thompson: my time has expired but it is counterintuitive and opposite of what you're doing. your department is proposing an role that would strip states and those wonderful state level agencies you talked about, it would strip them of their ability to recognize and approve occupations eligible for registered partnerships and forcing all programs to adhere to a one-size-fits-all.

it is a bad role. thank you. >> missed stevens? rep. stevens: thank you. it is such a delight to be in the presence of a phenomenal leader in this presidential administration for the country. ms. su, you have been at the department of labor during some of the most -- pardon me. critical times in this country -- all of the sudden i lost my voice. i have been sitting here for hours. thank you for time. hopefully, i can go over. i was just on the phone. but you have been at the department of labor during some of the most critical times in this country's recent economic

trajectory. record job growth during unprecedented challenge. that needs to be recognized as well as the symbolism of your leadership, which means so much not only to the workers of this country, but to women. in women who are being tried and stretched every step of the way seeking daycare, managing 40 hour work weeks and looking for a pay raise. i want to start with the topic that is on the minds of so many of my constituents which is pension and retirement savings. we have seen pension risk transfers emerge as a method for companies to partner with insurance companies to manage some of their pension risks. in 2002, commerce as the department to undergo a review of the regulatory standards surrounding the sale of prt's

which really had not been done since 1995. i was just wondering if you could give us an update on the timing for when the departments report on it will be released? sec. su: thank you and thank you for your comments. i think it is worth noting to your point that under president biden's leadership, the labor force participation rate for primates working women has reached an all-time high since this data was first collected and especially coming out of a pandemic where women were so devastated by so many things, including a lack of infrastructure to support the responsibilities that women bear. rep. stevens: and i know you can talk about -- sec. su: at the department of labor, we regularly review our regulations to make sure they

keep up with the times. that is why as i mentioned earlier, overtime regulations, retirement security roles, and our guidance on pension plan transfers. as you know, a lot has changed since 1995 when our pension risk guidance was first put out. so we are taking a look at that now. we are still in the review process. i look forward to sharing our findings with you as soon -- rep. stevens: we salute your ever to represent pension holders who are at front and center in this labor market and are certainly eager to see their hard earned retirements be there for them. also we know that we have just been at a tremendous moment with regard to the 20% true labor movement and its proliferation. michigan has been front and center. we were so delighted to see your boss not deliver from a podium

or large rally, but to stand there on a picket line. i was wondering if you could talk briefly about the value that labor organizations bring to the workforce to meet the needs of our cutting edge economy. sec. su: i think there is no better way to say it then what the president says regularly, which is that the middle class -- he often says wall street did not build it. the middle class built america and unions built the middle class. that is in part why i'm very proud we have a president who is providing over a moment in which labor unions are organizing in ways that hasn't happened in some time, where the outcomes of the bargaining table are wins for workers and employers and industries represented, and

where public sentiment about unions is at an historic high. rep. stevens: and you're playing a role in in making sure that unions have a seat at the table as we implement some of these very historic investments at the democratic caucus so proud to make alongside president biden. infrastructure bill, things we are not blocking, delivering for the american people. ships act and the inflation reduction act as well. sec. su: thank you. the law says workers should have a free and fair right to join a union and the president believes that and so do i. the units have provided opportunity and the middle-class life were for so many americans, including -- i have told this before, but my parents both worked minimum wage jobs initially. through the job my mom got at a county in a union, it really helped to provide us with a

middle-class life that allows me -- rep. stevens: i yield back. chair foxx: mr. banks, your recognize. rep. banks: your proposed printer ship rules cites the visor committee on apprenticeships recommendations to justify its dei policies. which say that some printer ship sponsorships are "actively hostile to hiring minorities." can you expand what that means and you agree that some registered apprenticeship programs armored -- managed by racist? if so, who are they? sec. su: i believe that we have the opportunity in this country at this time, given the unprecedented investments being made in american industry in american jobs, in with the president's has all the time, we should be able to make things here that we invent -- no reason

why we can't be the ones to manufacture. >> the committee's justification for the rule says "some of printer ship sponsors are actively hostile to hiring minorities. does that mean their racist pretty ship programs in our country? sec. su: i don't know the specific quote. i think there is no reason why we should not be able to tap into the full talent and ability and promise of every single american in every single community. sen. part of what has helped people back from being able -- rep. bentz: ma'am -- sec. su: i --

rep. banks: what are the racist ones you are referring to? sec. su: what we should be doing is making sure opportunity is broadly shared and investments -- rep. banks: i take it you don't want to answer. it says registered partnerships have been "the domain of white able-bodied men" which is a direct quote from the committee nor department. do you agree with that? sec. su: i don't know what you're reading from. rep. banks: the advisory committee biannual report to the secretary of labor dated may 10, 20 23, page 14, the justification for the new apprenticeship rule that justifies forcing dei programs and mandates on a pretty ship programs. i'm reading from something that comes directly from your department and i'm asking if you

agree. do you agree with this statement that apprenticeships have in the "domain of white able-bodied men." do you agree? sec. su: gate sounds like you're reading from a report submitted to me. rep. banks: that you -- this is all -- this is coming from your department. if you don't agree, say you don't agree. sec. su: what i agree is that we are a country -- rep. banks: let me ask a different way, is having fewer white men in apprenticeships the goal of the df revisions and the proposed rule? is having fewer white men in apprenticeships the goal of the proposed dei rules and mandates in the rule? is that the goal come -- fewer white men? sec. su: absolutely not. rep. banks: will the department punish states that don't meet the racial quotas? sec. su: congressman --

rep. banks: advocate reason for asking because propos section 29. 27v2 would require states to submit a strategic plan for increasing participation from underserved communities that include the current participation by each race and demographic group and set specific targets for increasing participation for each race. can you explain to me how -- would you war wouldn't you punish states that don't need that, this racial quotas for apprenticeships? sec. su: we have never gone wrong in this country when we have expanded opportunity to more individuals come to more communities. rep. banks: you will seek to punish states that don't need that mandate? sec. su: i don't even know what punitive scheme you're talking about. when we engage with employers,

with workforce boards, with unions, with community based organizations -- these are all the stakeholders that i regularly engage with when i travel the country to talk about how we're going to help me the workforce needs of america and the desire to work of americans of all communities, urban and rural, of all colors. women, individuals with disabilities, veterans. our apprenticeship programs and investment -- rep. banks: read your own rule. your justification behind it is very offensive, i believe dangerous, and un-american. with that, i yelled back. chair foxx: your recognize for five minutes is manning. rep. manning: i would like to thank you very much for your many years of extraordinary service to our country. in response to remarks made at the top of this hearing, i would like to clarify for the record

the prior present use the cabinet and cabinet level jobs as a virtual temp agency with 22 cabinet and cabinet level officials who served in an acting capacity for a total of 2700 36 days, including acting secretary of defense come acting secretary of homeland security, acting secretary of the interior , labor, veterans affairs, secretary of state, on become epa, and acting chief of staff to name just a few. our job here today is not to beat up on you for beyond your control but to find out how we can help solve the workforce shortages our employers are facing, how we can help protect workers, constituents who are taking of by unscrupulous employers and help those businesses that are doing the right things for their workers but have trouble competing with employers who cheat or abuse

their employees. i would like to start by talking about wage theft. wage theft occurs when employers don't pay the full wages due to their employees. this includes paying workers less than minimum wage for not paying overtime to workers who worked more than 40 hours a week , or asking employees to work off the clock before or after their shifts. and we know this happens. do you have an estimate of the total amount of u.s. department of labor has recovered on behalf of workers due to wage theft? sec. su: i do. thank you so much for that. in fy 23, we recovered $156 million in wages for working people. it is worth noting the overwhelming amount of those wages come from unpaid overtime

wages. rep. manning: so the total enforcement staff has declined. this has -- my colleagues across the aisle are proposing significant cuts to that division. can you explain why it is important to have funding necessary to put boots on the ground to ensure workers are being paid what they are owed? sec. su: yes.

don't investigate every employer. we shouldn't investigate anyone in full compliance of the law. but even there, the wage theft we see, the child labor that is grown, we need to have the resources to be able -- rep. manning: let me move to the child labor. we have seated explosion and the abuse cases in the last decade. you are addressing this with record low numbers of staff. also resource starved solicitor and labor office. what are the effects of your ability to enforce with less staff and how would proposed cuts harm this mission? sec. su: it is horrific the

kinds of labor cases we are uncovering. we're talking about 13-year-olds working on the kill floor up a meatpacking plant, on the overnight shift, with dangerous chemicals. we are talking about a 16-year-old who recently lost his life working as a sawmill operator. these are jobs that are dangerous and illegal for children to be doing. we're not talking about a young person learning how to show up on time and do a good job and do it with customers in a job appropriate for a young person. our -- children working on roofs. our ability to be clear that when employers engaged in this practice is, that they cannot just consider it the chance of getting caught to be slim the consequences if they do to be minimal. you have to change that calculus and having a strong investigative capability is

important to that. rep. manning: my time is expired and i yelled back. chair foxx: mr. good come your recognize. rep. manning: from your official twitter account you tweeted, if your boss says everyone at work is like family, you might need a union. do you think it is a negative thing to treat people like family at work? sec. su: no. i do not. >> he was eight treating people like work as a positive or negative thing? sec. su: i think people treating with dignity -- >> i didn't ask that. is it a good thing or bad thing to treat them like family? i would like you to say good or bad. sec. su: i think all should be treated with dignity and respect. rep. good: so treating them like family does not accomplish that. if your boss says everyone at

work is like family, you might need a union. why would that be? sec. su: i think that all working people deserve a just days pay for hard days work. rep. good: if you have a workplace culture like family, i don't know if you have ever been to small businesses are not or been around a small business where they have long time, family-like atmosphere, like it and want to work have worked there long time, building retirement for themselves and so forth and they say, this is like a family atmosphere, you would say that is a negative thing, they need to be rescued by union? sec. su: i would not. rep. good: so you don't agree with what you said. sec. su: my parents have businesses growing up. what i learn from them is you should always treat your workers the way you would want to be treated. rep. good: and i was --

i would -- i'm going to change subjects. why should not every federal employee show up to work every day? sec. su: i want to say any suggestion to the contrary is both nonfactual and i think highly offensive. working -- rep. good: should every federal employee show up every day? sec. su: without all of the resources that we need, which is why we come with this budget request. rep. good: you proposed a recent policy change, instead of reporting two days a week, we're going to report five days a week to work instead of two days. that is what you reported. that is your new rule supposedly in the department of labor that has not been implemented because they are literally protesting showing up to work. i hope you see the irony. march 19, a group of department

of labor employees showed up in person -- the irony -- to a federal building in boston not to work but to protest the proposed plan to show up to work 50% of the time. so they would not show up in person to work, i don't know why they did not protest remotely but they thought they needed to show up in person to protest having to come to work in person. do you see the irony? sec. su: i think it is not right to ridicule the hard-working federal employees. rep. good: i would suggest if they are not showing up to work, they may not be hard-working employees. sec. su: for example, many of my staff show up not to an office to work because that is not -- rep. good: many of your staff do not show up in person? sec. su: i said show up to an office. rep. good: suggest they work better not in person? our constituents would say they are not getting adequate and

effective service from most federal agencies, especially since have 80% do not come to work, don't show up to work. our constituents have to show up to work. we choose to show up. but you are not even implementing your own rule they have to show up to work 50% of the time. sec. su: i do not believe your constituents would be the ones who are getting federal worker compensation claims, which we have continued to process and have cut down the timeline for doing so. i do not believe those -- rep. good: excuse me, this administration is trying to change the rules to make it harder to fire federal employers in the anticipation of the new administration. why would they do that? why would they need to protect those from being accountable -- maybe those who don't want to show up to work -- that it might be easier to fire them, why was this demonstration be fighting the anticipation of the new administration? sec. su: federal employees are civil servants. they are public servants.

rep. good: i'm going to submit they are not serving when they are not coming to work and taking full advantage of three-year-old covid -- four-year-old covid policies and still not reporting to work every day. that is offensive to the people they're supposed to serve. i yield back. chair foxx: i would like to enter into the record without objection the correction of the statement made by the acting secretary earlier that the labor force participation rate is at an all-time high. that is not correct. according to the bls, labor participation rate for march 2024 was 62.7%. in the past 10 years, labor force dissipation rate reached its highest level under the trump administration at 63.3%. we will enter the appropriate charts into the record. with that, i recognize mr.

norcross for five minutes. rep. norcross: thank you. it is great to have you here. couple of things i would like to talk about but let's start with should a worker who has active covid show up for work at the workplace? sec. su: i don't think anybody who is sick and can get other people sick should show up to work. rep. norcross: just for the record, there are many members that did not come to work during the pandemic that voted remotely. and some of those are in this room. maybe we should go back and try to get there pay back because they did not show up for work, either come according to some people. but that is just my view. it is not just the ones who are serving us here in washington, but i remember seeing many of them back home sitting in their homes saying they are working. a little ironic this is now in

issue. let's switch to something a little more important, at least the way i look at it. the registered apprenticeship programs. i think they are incredibly important. i would suggest one of the most successful workforce programs in the history of our country. 93% of those people who completed a register program are employed upon completion. that is pretty good. average wage is 77,000 dollars. yet i continue to hear about these unregistered programs. madam secretary, is there anything in the law that prevents a company from privately creating their own registered program? sec. su: there's nothing preventing that. rep. norcross: at any time, any company can say, i am creating this unregistered program and do it? nothing in the law. it is only when they want to receive monetary dollars8

accreditation from the federal government they have to follow those registered rules. remember that. they can do it anytime they want . it is when they want us to give them money that we are saying you must follow the rules. let me give you a good indication why. there's something called storm break. it is a largest group of employers and employees in this world went hurricane, tornado, natural disaster hits an area and wipes out the power systems. it is something called mutual aid for storm break, people come across the country. historically, it used to be one of the most dangerous times for workers being killed because people turned on electric. a registered apprenticeship program allows this to happen. so those being trained in

california are the same in new jersey or florida. so we all come together understanding there's a certain way to do it. this is just one example of the value of a registered partnership program. can you talk to us where that is today? is it now the law of the land to have registered a printer should programs? sec. su: you are 100% right that employers can set up programs to train, recruit, retain, and call them apprenticeship programs as well. what i see around the country in this moment is because of the jobs being created in communities all across america to rebuild roads and bridges, to make sure every family has clean drinking water when they turn on the faucet, to make sure every one has high-speed internet, --

access to high-speed internet, a clean energy and a future where everyone can breathe clean air, we are in a moment of tremendous job growth. registered apprenticeship programs are helping to deliver the workers that are needed. i talked about mariah in my opening statement. it is not just having a worker filled a need to come it is about a worker getting to do a job, getting to do it in a way that keeps themselves healthy and safe, get them to learn a skill they might not have had and to start their job without debt and continue to grow in that job and to get what i hear from working people and people in a printer should programs all the time, a little bit of security, -- apprenticeship programs, a little bit of security, little bit of breathing room. >> i want to talk about the

independent contractor rule. what is the goal of that rule or that piece of legislation? sec. su: thank you for the question. the goal of the rule is under the fair labor standards act, employees are entitled to a host of protections. minimum-wage come over time and others. the definition of who is employee is important because independent contractors don't have those protections and employees do. what we were doing -- >> isn't that the choice of the employee? i am still going back to it simply put, what is the goal of the independent contractor rule? sec. su: the goal was to restore decades worth of interpretation about who and independent

contractor and who was -- >> you think your best suited to make that definition? sec. su: i did not make up the test. when i say comes from decades -- >> i am confused on what the goal of the rule is. where's the problem? it seems like we're trying to fix a problem that does not exist. sec. su: this classification is a real problem. it refers to -- rep. mcclain: what is the problem? people have a choice. am i mistaken? i'm looking for an example. i want an answer. if the problem is you are hired to do a job in which you should have all the protection of play status. rep. mcclain: then choose an employer. you can be a 1099 for a w-2. that is your choice. if i don't want to be an independent contractor, is there

a law that says i can only be an independent contractor? the answer to that because i know you're going to give a 20 minute dissertation, is no. have you ever been a business owner? sec. su: for the many workers who have come to us and said i wasn't paid what i should have been paid. rep. mcclain: stop. you are mixing apples and oranges. if i go and i am an independent contractor, i know i am an independent contractor, and what is the problem? you know what you're doing. you're either an independent contractor or you are not. my biggest concern, and you have not even been able to clearly articulate what the goal of that rule is -- i mean, we talked in circles. do you believe in capitalism? yes, wonderful. have you ever owned a business? sec. su: i have said this before

and i'm sure i will get cut off saying it now -- rep. mcclain: yes or no. that is great. this should be real easy for you. let's try again. listen carefully if you need to write a note down, fine. have you -- it is kind of comical when you're supposed to be the acting secretary and you can't answer a question. i am with you on the comedy. unfortunately, it is not that comical because it is real life. have you come another daughter come not the mother cannot the sister come not the and, have you ever owned a business? sec. su: you asked -- rep. mcclain: let's try this again. you are making a ton of money. you are making legislation for business owners. you're supposed to be in charge as the acting person yet you can't answer a simple question. amazing to me.

maybe we should just pay your money and that would help you answer the question. have you ever owned a business? not a trick question. sec. su: there are working people -- rep. mcclain: this is the very reason why you can't get confirmed is because you can't answer a question, right? i will even accept "i don't know." have you ever owned a business? yes, i am congresswoman. have you ever owned a business? sec. su: people are entitled to basic protection -- rep. mcclain: yes you own or no? you are brilliant at answering a question i did not ask.

this is the very reason why you can't get confirmed in the senate because nobody trust you because you can't answer a simple question. if you are supposed to be in charge, i would think it is not too much to ask to be able to answer a question. with that, my disappointment to needs to grow and your smugness continues to be very unacceptable. but you continue being acting secretary making policies of which you know nothing about. with that, i yield back. chair: recognize for five minutes. >> madam secretary, julie, i am very proud of you. as a friend and colleague for many years and as a former business owner who has made lots of payrolls, as much as i admire people who own businesses, it is not discovering the cure to

cancer. in that regard, i did want to talk to you specifically about the work you're doing that helps small businesses. when we enforce labor laws, when we make sure our workforce is protected -- again, as somebody who has been in the restaurant business and my success was directly related to my employees , and making sure i respected them and they respected me as an owner and manager, a lot of what we're doing here is making sure the underground economy and people who don't respect their employees, who don't pay them, who don't go by the law, we found out in california -- former congresswoman mimi walters and i did and underground economy and i think you may have been there. how hard it was for business owners who complied with labor laws amongst others to compete with the underground economy which at that time was about 25%. so we aggressively in a bipartisan way went about that.

a lot of the work you have done is not just in protecting the employees but protecting high road employers. the cost goes of the world as opposed to the walmart -- coscos of the world versus walmart. we have worked on that together. by doing what we did and no taxpayer money was expended, we saved retirement for 800,000 american workers. let's see 40,000 michigan, 40,000 in ohio, 22 thousand in wisconsin. that was a real accomplishment. we struggled with how we were going to save and make that hold. one quote amongst many many stories we heard about individual americans from the gentleman from wisconsin, i saved and paid for my pension to help me pay my bills in retirement. i had a bad back and knees and

do not see a job i could accomplish after working for the trucking industry for years. my wife worked in public school and has a small pension which will not cover our bills. how do i get a job in my mid-70's given my retirement might go away? i worked long hours in terrible weather turned my pension and thought i play for my retirement and trusted it. i worry about how we will survive with no pension. we saved that man's retirement. you did come your department and our committee. it is surprising to majority bring this up. i would describe it as political malpractice of their assertions that dead people get paid and taxpayers pay for this. could you respond a little bit more? you did not have time when the chairperson was asking you. this is a real success story and was from small business. we estimated up to 3000 businesses, small businesses, would have gone bankrupt because

of their obligations had we not done and you knocked on your department done the work you did -- and your department not done the work they did. sec. su: that was a big accomplishment in making sure working people who had saved their entire careers for retirement were able to actually have a secure retirement. as you noted, it was very important for the employers who would have been stuck without real options and would have either gone bankrupt or had to try to get loans without the ability to do so. this was a real example of congress coming together, certainly in partnership with president biden who has long been a champion of making sure every working person who saves gets that retirement this is

about basic security. the fact that some of that money came back from central states was actually -- the process worked. none of the money went to someone who should not have had a. new safeguards have been put in place. rep. desaulnier: did we find any evidence that dead people got money? sec. su: no evidence at all. rep. desaulnier: do you have any idea where that came from? that talking point? the money has been returned. there safeguards in place. we implement a program that has been incredibly impactful outcomes for working people and their families. rep. desaulnier: thank you, madam secretary. some people don't like competent people. chair: ms. miller?

rep. miller: the department of health and human services and homeland security have acknowledged despite the child trafficking under the biden administration, even the left-wing new york times has been forced to report on child trafficking crisis at our southern border which has been caused by joe biden. on this chart, you can see the massive spike in child trafficking during the biden administration because joe biden is allowing cartels to traffic children across our borders. acting secretary, do you believe the open border policies of the biden administration have caused an increase in the child labor violation? sec. su: so come as somebody who has worked directly with survivors of trafficking, i think human trafficking is

devastating, terrible. re. miller: not to my question at all. do you believe the open border policies have caused this spike in child trafficking and expectation, yes or no? sec. su: no. re. miller: no. ok, look at the statistics here. how do you explain them? better put your glasses on. despite -- you own this because your policies have created this crisis at our border. i want to know do you or joe biden take any responsibility for the spike in child exploitation? sec. su: to be clear, trafficking is one thing and child labor is something else. sometimes the two could be because -- re. miller: dhs is reporting 85,000 children who crossed the

border are missing. just the department of labor have any idea where these 85,000 actually plus when i was at the border, border patrol suggested there were 100,000 children, americans are outraged over this, do you have any idea where these children are? sec. su: i'm in, when i talk about child labor and increase in child labor, one of the reasons why we are able to document an increase is because the department of labor is doing law enforcement duty. the cases that have come to light have come to light because we are investigating, we are working on the ground to identify where you have children. rep. miller: you are not dealing -- you have lost 85,000 children. so you don't know where these children are. are you horrified you don't know where these 85,000 children are? sec. su: i am horrified by the child labor that we have

uncovered in to any workplaces -- rep. miller: joe biden and his administration have caused this. moving on, consistently false. financial media outlets have reported the numbers are repeatedly false. as you can see here, the reports either you're putting out fake numbers to get joe biden good headlines and revising the job numbers down or to bureau of labor statistics is failing to report accurately the numbers. why should we continue to fund the bureau of labor statistics when it is clearly not fulfilling his duties -- it's duties? sec. su: congresswoman, the bureau of labor statistics puts out the most reliable data about our workforce, about unemployment, about job growth in industries that there is.

rep. miller: never to this level have the numbers been so inaccurate. who is responsible for this and has anybody been held accountable? sec. su: those headlines do not show they are inaccurate. those headlines demonstrate that part of the court -- rep. miller: you are wrong. you're constantly doing revisions. sec. su: the bureau has always done revisions. the bls does revisions -- rep. miller: never to this level has it so inaccurately reported. we can see why you cannot continue to serve as acting secretary. you are allowing cartels to traffic tilden, sweatshops, and then losing track of them. you are wildly misreporting the jobs numbers and revising them down which suggests either political motives or incompetence. you are violating the constitution by remaining in

office when the senate has stated they would not confirm you. you should step down. thank you. i yield back. chair: ms. hayes is recognize. rep. hayes: welcome. i would like to stay for the record that we have asked for multiple hearings on child labor on this committee. the democrats have asked and the majority has refused to do that so i would welcome the conversation have a real honest discussion about what child never looks like in this country and ways we can address that as a problem. thank you for being here. i jotted down a few things before i get to my questions. i want to ask directly, have you ever been an employee? sec. su: have i ever been an employee? yes. rep. hayes: does the department of labor have any responsibility? to workers, employees? sec. su: yes, we do. rep. hayes: so the idea that only business owners should have

any input in this space is completely flawed because a majority of your job in the work you do affects employees, am i correct? sec. su: our fundamental mission is to serve the working people of this country. rep. hayes: that's what i thought. it is appropriate someone who has been an employee would lead the department of labor. yes? sec. su: yes. rep. hayes: i also want to bring up another interesting thing i heard, in my district, i've seen a lot of businesses who hire individuals with disabilities, cafes that are thriving, new businesses that have opened. it is a very exciting trend in the district where the community is involved and invested. we have seen a lot of second career older americans who are getting trained for a new career

as a result of workforce development. can you tell me why the department of labor even cares about programs like diversity, equity, and inclusion? sec. su: as i have said, we've seen record labor for participation a prime age working people in this country who are seeing record levels of various committees including people with disabilities. that is important. we have an office policy because it is so important to make sure when we create opportunity everybody gets to participate. part of what we are seeing when it comes to individuals with disabilities is because of really changes over the last couple of decades, more and more individuals with disabilities are doing work through something called competitive integrated employment which also allows them to participate more fully in the work place. rep. hayes: diversity, equity,

inclusion brings all people into the workplace and making sure they have a full workplace experience. sec. su:. yes. . rep. hayes: thank you for sharing that because i think people are confused about what that means and how we all benefit when we put more people back to work. another thing i heard come up in the hearing over and over is the idea of people working in person. i think if we are -- if our programs are geared to training the next-generation workforce, we have to be creative and innovative and get people out in the communities. to your point you said over and over, showing up to work this not mean sitting at a desk all day. i will get to my actual questions. i'm interested in the career training find the department of labor has included as part of their proposed budget. $8 billion for this program. i have two questions. one dovetails on what i asked.

how would this program incorporate the existing workforce but also keep pace and prepare for a changing workforce? and what supports would be provided for participants? things like food, transportation that people need to remove the barriers so they can get this training. sec. su: thank you. i often say i think of the workforce system as a form of infrastructure. it is not physical roads and bridges, but what connects people to the job they need an employer's to the people they need. that has to be as strong as our physical infrastructure. their programs talking about today, apprenticeship, educational institutions. the $8 billion grant is meant to help supplement to make sure every individual who is looking for a job and who needs to be in a training program to do so has

some support to do that. it is one piece of the overall puzzle for how we meet this demand employers have. again, in a growing economy we are seeing more and more employers looking for workers that everybody has the support they need to do that. we look forward to working with you and other members of the committee and of congress. rep. hayes: i am over my time but i appreciate you being here. we worked really hard on the legislation to get people back to work, to make things here and to get language like fair labor standards into that legislation to make sure it affects our communities. i would appreciate a commitment from the department to make sure that is followed through so my constituents feel the benefit of that work. chair: mr. moran is recognize. reppo moran i have a few questions today about the red latorya flexibility act.

let's start with the regulatory budget ability act. can you tell me if you know what that is? sec. su: i believe that you are talking about a rule, a law, that we adhere to in our rulemaking to make sure we are hearing from all stakeholders, including small businesses in the process of our rulemaking. rep. moran: i gave you a b. you have to listen to small business owners but you have to quantify in your rulemaking process exactly what the affect would be of the administrative burden, cost burden on small businesses if a rule was to go into place. from 1980, it has been around for a long time. most agencies don't do it. 75% of the time they don't go through the process they are supposed to. i am glad you even know what it is. i want to ask how the department of labor goes through this process and how it went through the process on the independent

contractor rule. do you know? sec. su: i hope my parents are watching because they will not like the b. i know the rule because we take our obligations in the rulemaking space very seriously. people always complain come often complain we take too long to put out rules. rep. moran: i will give you another grade. for the department is an f. the estimate for the independent contractor rule says the estimated compliance cost of the administration of burdens and the expenses to small businesses at the end up in a contractor rule were to go in place was in your opinion and your 30 minutes unless -- and less than $25 for a small business. we know better than that. the proposed original rule was -- we know it will take longer than 30 minutes just to read the proposal as we are going down

that process. for businesses, their people going from independent contractors to now employees, we have a ton more expenses that are going to be on the line including new health-care expenses, tax expenses, retirement, leave, all that stuff has a benefit to businesses is actually a burden. did you take that into account when you determined it was going to be merely 30 minutes and less than $25 impact when it went into place? sec. su: we take all of our obligations seriously when it comes to rulemaking. when we do osha rules, we have another requirement to engage with small businesses. in all rules, we comply with the acts that you name. rep. moran: who said it is a mere 30 minutes and $25 for this

independent contractor rule? sec. su: being that it is also national small business week, i want to say another thing we make sure to do is to provide as much compliance assistance as we can so that once our rules are put in place, we are helping, especially small businesses who have different burdens and who we know do not have the hr shops or the legal shops that might help them -- rep. moran: between the two of us, i am the only one that was a small business owner. the federal government is not there to help you. it is there to put a burden and rigell torry barrier in front of you -- and a regulatory barrier in front of you most of the time. sec. su: the small businesses who really need a level playing field on which to compete so that when they play by the rules , others be, too. rep. moran: most small businesses are people that want to try to get into small businesses, minority-owned and

women-owned, in particular, need the rule to be what it was, not it is. i will yield the remainder of my time. rep. kelly: i only have a few seconds here. can you tell me how things are going with the implementation of the independent contractor rule? seven weeks or so, what has changed, what enforcement action, what is going on? sec. su: we have some tools in place. they are basically small entity guides, following up on congressman moran's question, to help small businesses, employers, to understand the -- rep. kiley: what have you done that is different from the old rule? sec. su: i mean, this classification has been a

concern of the department, making sure that employees who should receive all the labor law protections to which they are entitled actually get them. i do not know if we were -- if we are talking past each other deliberately or unintentionally, but let me say, i think there is a difference between somebody who sets up shop to do something that they have a talent, they have an ability. it could be somebody sets up an independent contractor to do plumbing, and we hire them to do plumbing in our building. there is something different between that and someone who is an employee working in a situation, sometimes side-by-side with other people actually called employees but they are called independent contractors and therefore denied their basic rights under the law. rep. kiley: we will continue this in a little bit. i recognize the representative

from pennsylvania, ms. wild. rep. wild: thank you very much secretary su, thank you for coming back to endure yet another hearing before this committee. i apology for the occasional lack of civility. in my many years of courtroom experience before i came to congress, this kind of lack of civility, cutting witnesses off, not letting them finish and answer, not caring about the truth of the matter or drawing on their experience to provide a full picture, would never have been tolerated by a judge. i know we are not in a courtroom. sometimes i often wish that we were we had somebody independent who could call out by saying something. i have never owned a business, but as a lawyer, i represented many businesses, small and large, and during those years, i often had occasion to counsel

one of my clients on whether they could classify an employee or employees as independent contractors. often, the business was very anxious to classify them as end up in it contractors for reasons that i think we all are aware, but just to summarize, because wage laws, workplace protections , retirement benefits and other benefits would not go to such employees, or such independent contractors. many times i had to go through with these lawyers the six-factor rule that has for a very, very long time been the rule in this country until the trump administration decided to get rid of it, and explain to the employer why there are these people that work for them that could or cannot be classified as independent contractors. and it was a very detailed process. i will say, sometimes i do not

give my clients, the business owners, the answer they wanted, but it was the truthful legal answer. i think it is really important that people understand more about the independent contractor rule. misinformation has come from my opponents on the other side of the aisle. can you explain what this rule does and does not do, the biden rule that was put back into place to rent state that? sec. su: thank you, congresswoman. the test for whether someone is an employee or independent contractor has been developed over many decades, mainly by courts. and our rule takes the criteria that courts have put into place and makes them the rule under the fair labor standards act. that is what the rule is if you just look at the case law. as you mention, the last administration's rule was out of

step with that case law, so we have now restored it. i did not make of the factors your and my team did not make up the factors. we put in place a rule that was the standing rule for a very long time. rep. wild: let me interrupt briefly, so was not, in fact, a rule fashioned on the california assembly bill ab5, but rather was a reinstatement for what existed for decades? sec. su: correct, and we were exclusive in doing it that we did not have the authority to adopt what was ab5, but the abc test that exists in a number of states. rep. wild: ok, so what kinds of cases have you seen that are problematic in your position in terms of violations of the independent contractor rule? tell us how it hurts workers. sec. su: for example, we had a case recently that involved residential home care workers. these are caregivers.

congresswoman jayapal talked about, about how so many workers in that industry end up working long hours, low wages, without basic protections. we see this in restaurants where someone is washing dishes and is called an independent contractor. we have seen it in hotels where a hotel operator will hire some housekeepers, cleaners, to do the work as employees and others doing the same work and call them independent contractors. rep. wild: those are great examples. often that enables the employer to avoid certain types of payroll taxes, correct? sec. su: correct. rep. wild: in turn, they workers not getting the benefits and that kind of thing. correct? sec. su: correct.

rep. wild: and there is sometimes a difference of opinion on this in the committee, but the department of labor is not there just to protect the rights of employers, am i right? sec. su: correct. rep. wild: but workers? sec. su: yes, but in doing so, we also help see a level playing field and support a strong economy that also benefits employers. rep. wild: thank you. i yield back. chair: ms. steele is recognized for five minutes. rep. steel: thank you very much. i want to put on the record this article from the san bernardino sun published on april 6 title -- prepared to forgive herself. the article references guidance issued the department of labor in december 2023 and potential for forgiveness for an estimated already million dollars -- $30

billion in fraudulent pandemic unemployment benefit payments issued by california economic development department. after looking at guidance from december regarding state laws, it appears that it is, in effect, allowing states to sweep fraud under the rug and not pursue fraudsters and recoup the billions lost to them. this is what the article is saying. secretary su, thank you very much for coming on today because i have been wanting to really ask this to you directly because this is a very important hearing. want to request before i ask a question, to provide this committee with a copy of the february 2024 letter referenced in this article and any relevant correspondence between california ddd and dol.

does dol intend to forgive the nearly $30 billion in fraudulent payments that the california edp paid out to fraudsters, scammers, and known international organized crime rings that occurred under you in california? sec. su: thank you, congresswoman, for giving me a chance to address that. it is absolutely false that the guidance of the department of labor put up with forgive any fraud. so fraud is never ok. we do not condone it. we should not overlook it. in fact, both oig and others have been trying to combat the fraud that was overwhelmingly paid in a program that was set up by congress to address the pandemic that allowed for both automatic backdating and self certification in its design.

so the fraud is not acceptable, and we, the department of labor, certainly did not waive any kind of efforts to combat the fraud or to recover fraudulent payments. in fact, just recently, my inspector general chased some funds all the way to another country in which fraudulent funds were used to purchase property, and we are now trying to seize that property to get the money back. we are serious about combating fraud. with the guidance would -- did was, within the cares act, there is the ability to waive nonfraudulent overpayments that might have been made to individuals, working people who struggled through the pandemic, like anybody else, and got overpayments that were not their own fault. and so the waiver is meant -- suppose still so out of the $30 billion from california -- rep.

steel: so out of the $30 billion from california, how much is overpayments, not fraud by those criminals? how much are we talking about? sec. su: it is a good question. i do not know the answer to that, ma'am, because after i left california, there was still work being done. and i think all states are still trying to assess exactly what happened during that period of time. but overwhelmingly in a program that was not typical unemployment insurance. rep. steel: thank you very much for assuring us that you are not doing it because for giving these fraudulent payments would appear to be a major conflict of interest. the -- sec. su: can i also clarified the guidance was not just for california. rep. steel: i get that, because out of 100 milk -- out of $130 million, 25 fraudulent payments were made in california. so that is why i am asking you for that.

the state controller knows california is waiting for final federal approval of the request indicated in the february 2024 letter before the event can be recognized in the financial statement as a forgiveness of debt. that is what they actually wrote on the financial report on the california financial report. so i really want to see why they created this kind of language on their financial statement. because you already knew, because you are the one stated that edd, that preparations left it unable to manage, so you knew that when we were getting cares act money that, you know what, all these criminals, they are not going to take money, and then you already stated that california did not have enough security measures in place when you were actually labor secretary in california. so you know what, this is actually under your watch that it happened.

you are actually forgiving this fraudulent payment to california, if you are, it is not really acceptable. so thank you for assuring us that you are not going to do it, but you did it on ab5, which is wiping out all the independent contractors, except a few industries that you said that you would not come and could not, implement in the national, nationwide in united states, but you did it anyway on march 11 when your department issued new rules -- chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. rep. steel: i want to make sure you are not forgiving this california debt and money going to criminal rings. my time is up. chair: representative from indiana is recognized. quick's thank you, acting secretary su. thank you for being here today

to discuss the fraudulent request for the upcoming fiscal year. congress recently came to a consensus and passed fiscal year 2024 budget, which i was proud to support on behalf of the workers and families of northwest indiana. today the committee has come together to discuss continue investment in these programs for the upcoming fiscal year. i would like to highlight the rule recently finalized by the department to ensure fiduciary investment advice is provided in good faith across industries, including stakeholders representing educators, public safety, government employees, transit, airlines, the trades, and more. the retirement fiduciary rule has been widely supported recently with an estimation by the council of economic advisers determined that conflicting advice could cost savers up to $5 billion a year. that is why i was proud to coleader a letter in support of the retirement security rule for people in my district and across

the nation deciding how to invest their retirement nest egg, the biggest financial decision they will have to make. for families planning budgets with a rising cost of living, so they can responsibly put money away for retirement. a devalued investment for their retirement is not feasible. can you explain how congressional action would negatively impact workers and their families? sec. su: thank you, congressman. as you already said, the retirement security rule is meant to protect the retirement savings of hard-working americans, to make sure that when you put away money throughout all your working years, that when you seek to invest that money, that the advice that you get is based on your best interests as the investor, rather than on any financial benefit or the conflict of interest that might come to the advisor.

most people think that that is what they are getting anyway. but as you noted, there are studies that demonstrate that conflicted advice can be very costly to working people you would in fact, the study you mentioned by the council of economic advisers was just about one retirement product. it was only about six index annuities. so this is just an area in which we want to make sure that working people, when their retirement savings are being invested and they go to someone for advice about that, that they can actually rely on that advice maximizing their savings and giving them some real peace of mind in the retirement. rep. banks: the budget request for the security administration, how did it insure the department had the resources to protect retirement benefits, particularly those from small savers, from poor advice? sec. su: thank you for that. the rule is important because it sets a standard. the budget request for our employee benefits to the

administration is so that we can enforce the law. two quick examples of what our edsa does. one, we had a situation where a retiree worked for 30 years, and at the end of his work life, he did not get any of his retirement benefits. he became part of what is known as a lost participant in a program. when we got involved, we were able to identify that he was entitled to that money, and he and his family got a significant lump sum payment and payments going forward. so one of them is just making sure that people who safe for retirement are not lost in the system and actually get their benefits. once we did that for one individual, it ended up being something that the employer and the plan sponsor did for others, too. the second example, because this also helps to make sure that people get the health benefits to which they are entitled, and we had a case recently where an

individual needed a heart transplant, and his insurer, employer-sponsored insurer, said it was not a necessary surgery. we got involved. we found that it was covered, and that man is alive today because of it. i have not again talked about our work in the mental health space. but it is so important to enforce laws to make sure that they feel meaningful and real for working people in this country. rep. banks: i want to thank you for standing up for working men and women and for setting guidelines to make it fair and level playing field. thank you for your work. i yelled back. >> i would like to play a quick video. sec. su: did u.s. me a question? >> i recognize myself. we are going to play a quick video.

>> do you support reclassifying end up and it contractors as employees against their will? >> for those who work in the game economy, absolutely. >> that was with the chosen witness of the minority at a recent hearing. do you agree with her? do you support classifying and dependent contractors as employees against their will? sec. su: can you do that again? >> sure, play it again. [video clip] >> do you support reclassifying independent contractors as employees against their will? >> for those workers at work in the gig economy, absolutely. >> agree, disagree? sec. su: congressman, let me say i do not agree that she has the

authority to enforce any kind of classifications against people's will. i will say that the laws of this country protect working people when they should be called employees and are misclassified as an up in a contractors. >> when you say you do not have the authority to do that against people's will, what do you mean? if there is a new rule enforcing that will change people status, right? sec. su: that was very quick, and it sounded like you question was, do you support forcibly making people who are independent contractors in the gig economy into employee's? >> yes, or no, do you support that? sec. su: what i am saying is nothing that we are doing in the department of labor, including putting out a rule that stores the employee -- that restores the employee versus an up or the contractor rule, two decades of caselaw -- not criteria that i made up, not a test for what i

thought should be put in place, it is based on decades of case law interpreting -- rep. kiley: so nothing about that would force a buddy and to employ status without their will, correct? sec. su: that is a different question from the first question you asked. rep. kiley: not really. if someone says i want to be an independent contractor, that is good enough and you will not challenge that? sec. su: the law says that what you call someone, even if, let's say, they signed an agreement saying that is what they would use, saying they are an independent contractor, saying they would get 1099's, that that should be enough, the case law is clear that that is not sufficient to find that someone is an independent contractor -- rep. kiley: the law you are heavily involved in creating, you finalized and signed off on it, so the question is whether under that rule, someone will be

forcibly reclassified against their will. there is a group called women in motion, group of truck drivers -- i encourage you to meet with them, a great group, and they have told some stories. for example, we have bambi behind me who says she likes to be an end been a contractor and has chosen to do so because she wanted to run her own business. she says, i thought it was time for me to grow, and when asked about a ban on it would affect my life, she says it would be devastating. can you assure bambi, who is an owner operator, a truck driver, that this new rule will not change her status? sec. su: well, congressman, the outcome of applying the test really does depend on the facts of a particular circumstance. rep. kiley: she is an

independent contractor, truck driver. do you know how many there are in this country? sec. su: i understand what you are saying. rep. kiley: do you know how many? sec. su: i do not know the answer. rep. kiley: 350,000, i believe. take bambi, can you assure her you will not come after her and tell her she has to run her business differently? sec. su: congressman, the purpose of having a rule and a test is so that we can make sure that working people who should be entitled to the protections of the fair labor standards act yet them. that is not inconsistent with the ability of bona fide independent contractors to operate. rep. kiley: ok, i am asking a simple question about this particular person. when you were labor secretary, you did not enforce ab5 against toll categories of people who were exempted. i'm asking right now, are independent owner operator trick divers going to be treat it differently under the rule you

just published -- owner operator truck drivers, will they be treated different way? sec. su: what you just sit yourself was several categories were exempted from ab5. they were not covered by that. the point you're making and saying it is simple, i am telling you it is not simple because you have to apply the facts of the case to the law. rep. kiley: you're missing the point. at the point in which a statute you can say this whole profession is exempt from the law, that was not a fact dependent on determination. i am asking, this particular profession, truck drivers, independent owner operators, hundreds of thousands that are vital to our supply chain, can you answer right now as to how they will be treated under this new rule? sec. su: our new rule does not have entire exemptions for entire industries. that is not what the case law says, so we were following both the plain language of the fair labor standards act and the cases that have interpreted it. that is what is within my

authority to do, and that is what the final rule does. >> thank you so much, mr. chair, and thank you so much, secretary su, for taking the time to be here with us today. and i have read your remarks, your testimony. measuring the economy undergirds and president biden's leadership, it is doing quite well despite what others would have us believe -- measuring the economy under yours and president biden's leadership, it is doing quite well. a strong job market with record low unemployment. there is more that can be done to ensure that every american has the opportunities that will lead them to highly skilled and in quality careers and enable them to provide a good life for themselves and for their families. almost all of the good paying jobs in our economy actually require some sort of post secretary credential or education. and that could be an

apprenticeship. a short-term training program or a two or four-year degree program and higher. however, most americans in the labor force have either some college education or actually less, and like a high school diploma or equivalent. despite most americans not having a college degree, the federal government still only spends a fraction on workforce development programs compared to what is spent on traditional higher education programs, as you can actually see behind me. we spent 5, 10, or even 20 times more in any given year on our university system than we do actually on employment and training services. so the fact of the matter is that you do not have to have a college degree to be successful, although it certainly helps. but it is not the only path to a good paying job.

but that is not the message we are sending to these vastly different funding levels. shouldn't we be meeting our students where they are and provide support for these necessary training programs? it is a disservice to our students and our employers as shown by the debt and work force shortages that we see across the country. the failure to invest in our workforce is not just leaving families and businesses behind, it is risking our competitive advantage on the world stage globally. you can see that we spend drastically less on these efforts than our allies in other comparable countries around the world. the u.s. spends just .004 of a percent on our workforce

training. america should lead. that is unfortunately not possible when we habitually underfund our workforce programs. secretary su, can you talk about how important it is for us to fully fund these efforts and expand upon the work that you have done on apprenticeships -- with apprenticeships and other nontraditional workforce element programs? sec. su: thank you very much, congresswoman. we have models for what works to connect people to good jobs and employers to people. i travel the country and i see them and hopefully you see them in your districts too. we need to scale those models because employers are looking for working people and working people are looking for good jobs. registered apprenticeships is one of those -- i talked about our workforce system as being

infrastructure, roads and bridges that connect people to employers. apprenticeships are superhighways, very effective way of bringing people that do not have a four-year degree and don't want to get a four-year degree into the workforce, into a good paying job with security and lifelong opportunity to be able to contribute to build to make things. and so, our budget request is really about making sure that we take things that we know can be done to fulfill employer needs and to make opportunity broadly available and double down on those investments. and those investments are good for everybody. they are good for people of all races, from every community, because the desire for people to be in a good job that will change their lives is something that i know you see in your district and that i see everywhere i go.

rep. mcbath: thank you for that because as we discussed the new nature of work is what we have now particularly coming through covid so workers are caregivers, they are themselves looking for education. they are working. so we have to make sure that we are able to address all the needs they have specifically in being able to provide the educational resources they need but more importantly, that they deserve and he wife your testimony. >> the representative from florida is recognized. >> good afternoon to you. how long have you been the acting secretary? sec. su: i was -- i'm not going to get it exactly right but i believe i was nominated in march of last year. >> that would be 13 months? is that accurate? congratulations. i think you set a record.

my team says you are the longest-serving acting secretary that we have had in quite some time. how long do you plan to stay without being confirmed? you have been nominated twice. sec. su: i came to the administration as the deputy secretary of labor and i was confirmed for that job in 2021. when my predecessor left i became the acting secretary -- rep. bean: is it ok for someone to serve in the capacity -- article number to section number two of the constitution had our founding fathers say that there should be consent that secretaries should be confirmed. how long do you plan to stay if you are not confirmed? sec. su: i was very honored to be nominated. rep. bean: i'm with you on that. it is a big deal. how long are you planning to stay? sec. su: our statutes and i believe it was already mentioned

by the ranking member. rep. bean: you don't know. sec. su: in fact, the reason why we have an opinion about that is -- rep. bean: you would say that people can stay as long as they want as on his they have a ruling? they can stay without being confirmed? sec. su: no, i said i was confirmed as a deputy secretary in 2021. rep. bean: you are no longer the deputy. you are the person in charge. and our constitution says you are to be confirmed. you are not confirmed. how long are you staying? sec. su: when my predecessor left -- rep. bean: by not leaving, are you saying that future secretaries, we don't have to worry about the constitution. we can say as long -- we can stay as long as you want. sec. su: that is not what i'm saying. thank you for being the body

that asked. rep. bean: but you have not answered it. you see the president. it is a loophole if you stay forever without being confirmed. sec. su: it is not a loophole at all. rep. bean: i'm just asking how long you are staying. happy small business week. we are having a showcase in the visitors center today at 3:00. if you talk to those business owners they will tell you you're getting strangled with new rules and regulations that make it very hard. i'm all for small businesses. it is tough. you are often the first to arrive and the last to leave and last to get page. it is a struggle all the way. sometimes though small business is an independent contractor. the last survey i saw said 86% of independent contractors love what they do. they don't want to change. i know chair kylie asked you

this, but are you willing to continue to reclassify with over 86 percent of independent contractors saying, we want no change. it will threaten their livelihood. are you still willing to go forward though this is against their will, to reclassify them as an independent contractor? sec. su: in addition to the 15.3 million jobs that a been created in the country since president biden became president, we are seeing a small business boom. rep. bean: they don't want to lose their jobs. california did something similar. ab 5, they had to exempt over 100 professions because it was going to be a disaster. are we prepared that this could be a disaster and people lose their jobs? finally, let me ask you this -- you believe as do i that people should have choice for quality health care. would you agree? sec. su: yes.

rep. bean: i would agree they should have quality health care. let me tell you what you and dol did. the previous administration published a rule that allowed independent contractors to join the employer's' health plan. cbo projected that 400,000 people are now getting there health care through this rule but your agency reversed that this week and taking all 400,000 people that get there health care from their employer. and that rule changed that so we just kicked 400,000 people off. i am bummed out about that. i yield back. >> ms. wilson is recognized. rep. wilson: thank you.

and i would like to thank acting secretary su for being here today. welcome to you. jobs, jobs, jobs -- that has always been my mantra. and our economy added 303,000 jobs in march and the unemployment rate moved down to 3.8 percent. the jobless rate has been in the low for percent for 26 months and a row. the longest stretch in more than 50 years. am i correct that these numbers are right and they are night and day compared to what occurred during the trump administration. can you talk about the economy that the biden administration inherited? and the policies that

congressional democrats and president biden implemented to turn things around? i think people are forgetting where we were and how far we have come. sec. su: thank you, congresswoman. yes, when president biden first came into office, just to do what you just said to think about where we were, the unemployment rate was at an all-time high. the pandemic was reaching. people did not know if they would be able to get toilet paper or baby formula when they needed it. and today, we have seen 15 million jobs created, and unemployment -- and unemployment rate less than 4%. labor participation rate is strong. real wages are up meaning that it has outpaced inflation which translates into more money in working people's pockets.

and we are in the midst of delivering historic investments and our nations infrastructure, in manufacturing, in clean energy and in bringing industry back to the u.s. so working people can have good jobs, and good union jobs in the u.s. it is important to also note that none of this was promised. in fact, most people, even as it was happening, kept saying that it was impossible or that it was going to be too hot and it would crash or the recession is coming. i think it is important to acknowledge that while we still have work to do and should continue to do it and we know that working people still need more support and that is partly reflected in our budget, that the recovery we have seen would not have been possible without strong leadership, good economic policies, investing in working people and in really trying to expand opportunities for all americans.

rep. wilson: thank you. thank you so much. we need that. we need to know. secretary su, 86% of public school districts reported challenges hiring teachers this year as wages have increased in other sectors. teacher pay has not kept pace. the average teacher salary when adjusted for inflation has actually decreased over the last decade. this has led to more educators leaving the profession and that turnover negatively affects students learning. next week is teacher appreciation week. and so, with the support of fellow lifelong educators in congress, i introduce the american teacher act in 118th conference. the intent of the act is to address teacher shortage i

directing the department of education to award teacher salary incentive grants. my bill establishes grants to increase the minimum salary of public, elementary and secondary school teachers. it also authorizes the national campaign regarding the value of the teaching profession. in fact, in the last two state of the union addresses, president biden declared from the podium increasing teacher pay as a national priority and i quote -- i want to give public school teachers a raise, is what he said, and the next thing he said, let's give public school teachers a raise. do you have any thoughts on guidance on teacher pay raises from the department of labor? sec. su: thank you for that, congresswoman. the president has been very supportive as you noted of making sure that the teachers do

well in our country and he said many times the billionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than teachers. one of the ways we has seen teacher pay go up over the last year is unions at the bargaining table negotiating for higher wages. and that is not just the teacher industry. we are also working to make sure that we help to fill the need for teachers through programs like the workforce ones that we were talking about. and to your point, sometimes the challenge of getting workers into a certain field is because the job quality needs to be improved. people need to know that when they do the work, they can make a decent living, feel secure and support their families and have a secured retirement. so we have started -- >> your time has expired. the gentleman from missouri is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you.

acting secretary su, as has been mentioned you are now breaking records for the longest-serving acting secretary in the history of the united states, really. as was mentioned, article number two, section number two, clause number two says you are to serve but only with the consent of the senate. how many times has the senate rejected your confirmation? sec. su: the senate confirmed me in 2021 to be the deputy secretary. >> but not the secretary. how many times have they rejected your nomination to be secretary? sec. su: the reason i'm sitting here is because of that confirmation. once my predecessor left, i became the acting secretary i virtue of having been confirmed as deputy secretary. rep. burlison: you have not been confirmed. at what point do you think you are in violation of the

constitution? sec. su: you ask that question of the gao and you got your answer. i'm not in violation of any law sitting here but i do want to say that i respect the role of the senate -- rep. burlison: to me, i think you continuing to serve is, if anything, a disrespect for the constitution and a disrespect for the senate. clearly the senate feels -- gives deference to other secretaries under the biden administration and they have approved but they have not given that deference to you. at what point will you acknowledge that you have not been accepted by the senate and will step down? sec. su: i was confirmed by the senate as a deputy -- rep. burlison: despite the fact that in my opinion you are operating as an illegitimate secretary, your agency, even though you have zero

jurisdiction over union election procedures, you have created a prounion propaganda website called workers center dot dove that basically regurgitates information from many of the acting -- the think tanks for labor unions to encourage people to organize. what authority, what jurisdiction do you have to create such a website? sec. su: one thing that has come up here today is the importance of listening to workers. understanding what they want, what they need and trying to be responsive to that. one thing that we found before we created the website was some 60 million americans word -- would join a union if they knew how to do it, if they felt they could do it without fear, if they could do it without -- rep. burlison: my question was, under what jurisdiction? sec. su: it is one of many ways

that we do education outreach. this website was responsive to what we were hearing, that workers wanted to know. rep. burlison: how much when he did you spend on the website? taxpayer money that most people would objectively call propaganda, how much did you spend? sec. su: it is a worker organizing resource and knowledge center meant to give anybody, it is public, knowledge about the steps to take if they want to join the union but even what does a union do. rep. burlison: i have little time so i'm moving on. you publicly testified the short notice for hearings required and their short comment period for the new fiduciary rule saying that the department had already heard comments. is the 2004 department of labor

fiduciary rule a new rule or not? sec. su: it is a new rule that was just finalized last week. rep. burlison: if it is a new rule, we are now in may 1, how long did you get for comments before you issued this new rule? sec. su: that is a good question, thank you. we had a 60 day comment period. that comment period is quite standard not just for the department of labor but for other agencies also. during that comment period we held two public hearings. i have to say sitting here that i don't know. rep. burlison: they were not involved. you recognize that each state insurance commissioner serves a vital role in the process. sec. su: the comment period is public meaning -- we benefit

from more widely known -- rep. burlison: the answer is no because their association issued a statement saying there was virtually no coordination with state insurance regulators in implementing the role. my time has expired. thank you. >> the representative from minnesota. >> it is good to see you again, secretary su. i wanted to talk a little about the child labor violations that are soaring that we are seeing throughout the country. we are also seeing some states holding back labor protections for minors from florida to iowa, republican lawmakers have been weakening child labor laws. could you provide an update on the interagency task force on

child labor and how the department of labor is following up on potential hotspots? sec. su: thank you, congresswoman. the department of labor has been very hard at work trying to combat the scourge of child labor. one of the reason so much attention is being paid to it today is that we have uncovered some really horrific cases. and there is no mistaking that these are both really young children, some of them working the night shift under very hazardous situations. a 13-year-old working on a kill floor using toxic chemicals and losing limbs and their lives. so last year, the last fiscal year, the department of labor assessed the most penalties we have ever assessed under child labor laws. we also lead an interagency task force that you mentioned in order to make sure that all of

government is working together on the various pieces it will take to keep children safe, to engage with all the other parties that might be helpful to us as we try to identify these cases and to hold employers accountable who engage in this practice in such blatant disregard of the law. that work continued -- that task force continues to work together to identify gaps and to try to make sure that we are putting a stop to the practice. rep. omar: thank you for that. the bureau of international labor played an essential role in leveling the playing field for all workers. could you explain how the interest and priorities of workers across the globe are interconnected? and how should we be thinking

about the plight of workers and mexico for example as it relates to the plight of workers in the united states? and what would it mean ever publicans were successful in slashing the budget? and you can be as precise as possible. sec. su: the well-being of workers in this country is tied to the well-being of workers in other countries. we have the ability to create a race to the bottom where all workers are vulnerable to the exploitation of use is not good for any worker. through our eye lab we both produce reports and advocate to make sure that, for example, prohibitions against goods made through forced labor from coming into this country are and forest. we work closely with our partners at the department of homeland security with that. the u.s.-mexico canada agreement -- we play a role in making sure that those provisions are enforced and that working people

in mexico also have a bowl and fair right to join a union of their choice -- have a full and fair right to join a union of their choice and we believe that will think proof -- that will improve working conditions for workers in mexico but also here in the u.s. rep. omar: i commend you for that work. i'm also proud of the work the biden administration and congressional democrats did in an acting the american rescue plan to save many multiemployer pensions. actually, in my district, the twin cities, the pension plan was one that benefited from that. 1000 75 pensions were saved. what happened to my constituents, businesses and employees across the nation if we did not address the multiemployer pension plan?

sec. su: this is so important. this is about basic security in retirement. this is about working people who have saved and are relying on having the retirement savings so they can stop working at the end of a career and know they can continue to live with security. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage you can find it any time at c-span.org. videos of debates and other key events feature markers, these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on

select videos. this makes it easy to quickly find out what was debated in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. >> do you solemnly swear that in the testimony you are about to give you will say the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> saturdays, watch american history tv explore major investigations in our country's history by the u.s. and senate. each week authors and historians will tell the stories and we will see historic footage from those periods and we will examine the legacy of key hearings. this week the 1975 hearings led by frank church examining alleged abuses within the u.s. intelligence community. watch congress investigates saturdays at 7:00 p.m. eastern

on c-span two. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government supported by these television companies and more including wow. >> the world has changed. today, a fast and reliable internet connection is one that no one kindle without so wow is there for our customers with speed, reliability, value and choice. it all starts with great internet. wow. >> wow supports c-span as a publ service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy.

>> -- taxpayers at a time when construction costs are increasing dramatically due to inflation. do you think it is fair at this time to add an additional cost to the taxpayers? sec. su: the reason why the laws are in place is to make sure that federally funded construction projects do not suppress wages in the area and that is policy but i also think it is fair to make sure it doesn't happen. >> do you think the federal government should set wages in other areas as well? sec. su: my role as the acting labor secretary is to enforce provisions that congress passes. we have a federal minimum wage -- >> this update did not come from congress.

we oppose it and i sent a letter with chairwoman fox opposing this change specifically because it will increase federal costs. this is not congress that has done this, it is come directly from the biden administration. sec. su: the rule was a department of labor rule but the principal that there should be a set prevailing wage so it doesn't have a negative effect on the wages in the area is part of the act from congress. rep. smucker: why should the government set construction wages but not nurses wages, for instance? sec. su: so i think that is a question for congress. if you set nurses wages at something i would be enforcing those wages as well. rep. smucker: do you think the federal government should set wages and other sectors other than construction? sec. su: i think a basic wage

floor beneath which no one should be forced to live and work is incredibly important. rep. smucker: this is not a minimum wage. this is literally having the federal government abandon free market principles and set wages at some level. that is what this is. this is not minimum wage. i do have a quick question on apprenticeships as well. others have been talking about this. you have said you want to cooperate with states. i want to put in the record that many states not in a bipartisan manner have talked about these new regulations. for instance, michigan, this is a quote -- said the new regulation requirements will be an added formidable burden to employees connecticut said the role would have a chilling effect on employers entering apprenticeships. your home state of california said the rule does not clearly

demonstrate evidence-- i just want to express my concern but also the concerns of many states where we will see less individuals involved in apprenticeship programs. i think we agree that apprenticeships are very great career path to a great job to a great career but these regulations will not help to allow more people to enter in and they will have the opposite effect. i am out of time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the representative is recognized. >> thank you, acting secretary su i want to begin with an apology for the disrespectful behavior from some of my colleagues. rather than allowing you to provide substantive answers to their questions, you have been interrupted numerous times.

i also want to clarify. the senate has never rejected your nomination. in fact, your nomination was passed and your nomination as secretary was passed out of the appropriate committee. the fact that you have stood with workers and workers families should be something that we all celebrate because that is indeed in your job description. we appreciate it. i know that workers and the worker families and my district and state appreciate it. i also want to thank you for doing a great summary in response to some of the other questions about how far our economy has grown, how many jobs we have added in the last four years especially when you think or when you answer the questions -- are we better off today then we were four years ago? four years ago were dark under former president trump. people were worried about losing

their apartments. as you pointed out, you could not buy toilet paper. it was scary. it was dark. and because of the investments done, we have come out of it. but there is a lot more work to do especially in rural areas that i represent. we know that education skills, apprenticeships make a big difference in securing better paying jobs. and you need the better paying jobs if you are going to fight the inflation that, let's be honest about it, has been fueled by greedy corporations whose record profits are on the back of consumers. let's be honest about where inflation comes from. there is a great federal reserve article about that. these certification courses are really important and apprenticeships are another one. they don't always apply in rural areas. and my district -- in my

district a commercial driver would have to drive three hours to get to some of these federally funded training programs. i want to see if you can talk about expanding the department of labor workforce opportunities for rural communities initiative so we can start granting those funds in western rural committees on a bipartisan basis. the rest is checkerboard, blue and red, you need to get the funding out there. how do you see that would make a difference if we moved it to the west? sec. su: thank you, congresswoman. the workforce opportunity for rural communities is something that we wanted to do in order to make sure that we are really achieving equity. that every community is seeing benefits from the investments being made. i think we are on the fifth round of those investments. and being able to expand them will only allow us to further

reach individuals, families and communities that have been left out for far too long. it is an important time to do it as well because part of president biden's vision is that we invest in every single community. for example, when we make sure there is reliable broad's -- reliable high-speed broadband in every community. the people that live in that community that work on those jobs is really significant. if i could also just mention, you and congressman wilson have grants which is another way that we supplement the workforce program to ensure that we reach all those communities. rep. fernandez: i have an appropriation letter and hopefully we will see these programs in my district. i want to turn to something else that new mexico and other places like arkansas and missouri --

the arts and recreation. the creative sector makes a difference, about a trillion dollars to the economy. i want to have the department of labor work with us to explore how federal workforce about a program such as apprenticeships can better serve nontraditional sectors like the arts. also like outdoor recreation. we just passed the explorer act on the floor of the house led by chairman restaurant, my republican colleague from arkansas. he talked about what they are doing in terms of the economic growth in these rural areas who would love to work with you on that and look forward to talking to you about that. i have run out of time. thank you so much. >> the senator from kansas. >> thank you, chairman and thank you acting secretary su for being here.

i know you have been here for a long time so i will try to move quickly through my comments. last week the department of labor -- the so-called -- the fiduciary rule. i have concerns about the substance and impact of the rule but the administration's rollout of the role is also disappointing. my other colleagues have talked about how it was rolled out and there was only 40 -- 45 business days over a holiday period so it really was not the appropriate approach of how you get comments back. but instead of talking about that, i want to talk about how the white house in the rollout of that used the term eliminating junk fees as part of the reason for doing this. and that is the first time ever that annuities have ever been accused of having junk fees. my concern is that this is a propaganda -- that there is a

propaganda aspect to this. can you explain how that term works and if not for this rationale of the white house trying to hype up a phrase, can you explain why there is no signal -- single reference to junk fees? sec. su: thank you, congressman. our public comment period was 60 days and we held two public hearings. we received 400 individual comments, over and just under 20,000 petition submissions. the public comment period is incredibly valuable and important and we take into account the comments we got and try to put out a rule that is as -- that achieves the goals of whatever that rule is. rep. estes: the junk fees is really what i want to focus on and not the number of comments. sec. su: our rule seeks to make sure that any retiree, and

investor, that the advice they get from a financial advisor is in their best interest and not informed by the interest of the financial advisor. and one way the conflict of interest could come into play is that there could be a fee that the retiree had to pay -- rep. estes: i understand and we would expect people to get paid a fee for a service. it is an insulting terminology used for folks trying to help people save for their retirement. i take offense at the term "junk fees" being used in this manner. from a standpoint of the cost talking about fees, prior to the release of the fiduciary rule, the inflation numbers came out hotter again for the third month in a row. since president biden has been in office cost inflation has gone up over 19 months. 19% and the joint economics

committee has determined in my home state of kansas people pay $1000 more a month for this in food, same rent as they did in january 2020 one. and wages are down 3.9%. in terms of net wages since the president has come and office. at a time when people are struggling to meet their daily needs with inflation, i'm concerned about the higher costs being applied to people trying to save -- there was a deloitte study done prior to the fiduciary rule that more than 10 million low and middle income individuals lost access to investment assistance during the short time that the 2016 fiduciary rule was effective. i saw middle-class savers having to pay more in fees because of that fiduciary rule. fortune a the fifth circuit rescued the american people from that and with this new role, it seems the administration is

wanting millions of more people of low to middle income to lose access to investment assistance and have to spend more money to keep the access. so how many individuals does the department expect to lose access to investment because of the new fiduciary role? sec. su: to be clear, i was not referring to the fees that advisors charge. i'm referring to the fee charged to an investor that would not be charged but for that conflict of interest. we certainly, our goal is to expand retirement security. not to shrink it. rep. estes: my concern on this question was that people are losing access because of cost and because of the extra burden placed on the investment advisors. sec. su: well, our hope is that by eliminating conflicts of interest, that retirement savers

actually do better. their investments are being put into vehicles that optimize their savings. and as was noted earlier, there are studies that show -- rep. estes: i am glad that is a shared hope and i'm sorry to cut you off. i'm out of time but the prior studies show people that have lost access and that is my concern. we are not helping people save for their retirement. i yelled back. >> mr. scott is recognized. >> a lot of the republicans on the committee may not like the law but the fact is the constitution and present statutes have you legally serving as acting secretary of labor. they may not like it but you are there and it is certainly legal. in terms of child labor, we have another example of -- in

congress, complaining about something as if it is a solution. we are seeing this in immigration. there are a lot of complaints about what is going on in immigration. when you have a bill that comes up to do something about it, they killed the bill, say out loud that if we had passed the law it would not -- it would mean we could not campaign on it, and then go back to complaining. previously, i sent a letter along with dr. adams to chairman fox asking for a hearing on child labor and we have not had it yet. we have senator casey and a representative sending a letter to the gao asking them because we cannot get it done through committee, to study the situation on child labor. there is also no support for our bill to increase fines for child labor violations. we find that even adjusting for

inflation, the funding for enforcement funding is down. with all that going on, can you tell us what some republican governors are doing in the child labor space? sec. su: unfortunately, ranking member, the same time that we see devastating cases involving children working in illegal and harmful conditions, there are some rollbacks in states of child labor protections. rep. scott: thank you. you mentioned showing of her work, isn't it a fact that many department of labor employees work in places other than the offices, working hard on inspections and things like that? sec. su: yes, yes, yes. rep. scott: and we have had this incredible back and forth about a choice about being an independent contractor or employee. can an employee elect to be an

in -- to be an independent contractor and not be eligible for minimum wage or other protections or more accurately in real life, can an employer tell a prospective employee, if you want to work here, you are going to be an independent contractor? and if they say ok, can the employer then strip the employee of their right to minimum wage, overtime, worker's comp., overtime compensation, osha protection or benefits that other employees get because the employee agreed to be an independent contractor? and an employer can save a lot of money doing that or does the employer have to follow the law? sec. su: employers have to follow the law. rep. scott: the job numbers have been discussed. the bureau of labor statistics -- it happens every month that they revise the last months numbers? sec. su: the revisions to the

numbers are part and parcel of what the bl left does and the reason they do that and the reason they are recognized as a most accurate and reliable source of employment information is because they have a vast body of data on which they rely. rep. scott: this is not revising numbers with nothing. in terms of numbers, in the first years of the trump administration -- total numbers for the trump administration ended up losing 2.7 million jobs total. so far, the biden administration has created 15.2. they talk about the black unemployment, the lowest trump had was 5.3. the lowest biden has gotten his four-point tape. just to put the numbers out there.

when trump left office, there was an african-american unemployment of -- .3. the lowest unemployment period under 4% in 50 years -- i don't know how you can spend that other then those are good numbers. and furthermore, the pandemic -- president trump does not get any credit for having the pandemic. he had 10 months of the pandemic all president biden had two years of a pandemic to deal with but he was able to create all of this great economy in spite of the pandemic. under president trump, the wheels came off and we went into the ditch. mr. chairman, thank you. >> i will recognize the ranking member again for a closing statement. rep. scott: thank you. it is evident that the department of labor under the leadership of the biden administration and legally

serving acting secretary su remained committed to uplifting workers and families through policies and prioritizing rights and the well-being of the workers. this might attempt to undermine this progress, the facts speak for themselves. thanks to acting secretary su, wages have increased and critical protections have been restored. and the truthful numbers show it. moving forward, our priority should be to support the biden administration's pro-worker, pro union agenda to advance policies that protect workers rights have foster the economic growth for all. so i thank you acting secretary su for your leadership and for being focused on improving the lives of workers and their families. thank you, mr. chairman. >> acting secretary su, i'm going to be blunt. it is time for you to step down. this has gotten ridiculous. you have shattered all records as far as an unconfirmed nominee clinging to power.

and, you know, regardless of whether this is technically a legal arrangement which is very much an open question, that is why everything the department does is under a legal cloud, it is just wrong. i think every reasonable person looking at this knows it is wrong. this is not the way it is supposed to work. this is not what our constitution puts into place when it comes to separation of powers. there are plenty of people and this country who are qualified to be sec. of labor. and while you are correct you had -- it was appropriate for you to become the interim acting secretary for a short period, while the new nominee was being confirmed, the fact is it became different when you became that nominee and did not get confirmed. you tried, you tried really hard. you met with a lot of senators. the president, the white house set up a war room to try to get people to confirm you. there was an ad campaign out about it and it did not work

out. the senate had ample opportunity to confirm you last year and they did not and were -- and returned your confirmation last year. they had ample confirmation to do it this year and they chose not to. i would implore you to do the right thing. it is time for you to resign and we will get a new secretary that can go through the process and be confirmed by the senate. it is what the american people deserve. rep. scott: the letters that reference earlier be introduced to the record along with a report, slap on the rest taking advantage of workers. >> without objection. the committee stands adjourned.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it anytime online at c-span.org. here key events, feature markers that guide you to newsworthy items in the highlights. they appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this timeline makes it easy for you to quickly get to what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and find -- and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest.

♪ >> will you solemnly swear that in the testimony you are about to give, it will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you got? >> saturday, watch congress investigates as we expljor investigations in our country's history by the u.s. and senate. each week authors will tell the stories, we will see historic footage and we will examine the impact and legacy of key congressional hearings could this week 1975 senate committee hearing led by senator frank church examining alleged abuses within the u.s. intelligence community. watch congress investigates saturdays at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including wow. >> the world has changed.

today a fast and reliable internet connection is something no one can live without so wow is there for our customers with speed, value and choice. now more than ever it all starts with great internet. wow. >> wowupports c-span as a public serce along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> president biden talked about the ongoing college campus protests over the israel-hamas work saying both freedom of speech on the rule of law must be upheld. the president spoke to reporters at the white house before traveling to north carolina. this is about five minute. -- this is about five minutes. >> good morning. before i head to north carolina, i wanted to speak a few moments about what is going on at our college campuses.