[Senate Hearing 116-462]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       S. Hrg. 116-462

                      NOMINATION OF EUGENE SCALIA
                              TO SERVE AS
                           SECRETARY OF LABOR

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

                                HEARING

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
                          LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   ON

         EXAMINING THE NOMINATION OF EUGENE SCALIA, OF VIRGINIA, TO 
                       BE SECRETARY OF LABOR

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 19, 2019

                               __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
                              and Pensions
                              
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                              


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
41-398 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2021                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------          
        
        
        
              COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

		    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Chairman
  MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming		PATTY MURRAY, Washington
  RICHARD BURR, North Carolina		BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont
  JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia			ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania
  RAND PAUL, Kentucky			TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
  SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine			CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
  BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana		ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
  PAT ROBERTS, Kansas			TIM KAINE, Virginia
  LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska			MARGARET WOOD HASSAN, New Hampshire
  TIM SCOTT, South Carolina		TINA SMITH, Minnesota
  MITT ROMNEY, Utah			DOUG JONES, Alabama
  MIKE BRAUN, Indiana			JACKY ROSEN, Nevada


		 David P. Cleary, Republican Staff Director
	   Lindsey Ward Seidman, Republican Deputy Staff Director
		    Evan Schatz, Minority Staff Director
		John Righter, Minority Deputy Staff Director
                            
              
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                               STATEMENTS

                      THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2019

                                                                   Page

                           Committee Members

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, 
  Labor, and Pensions, Opening statement.........................     1
Murray, Hon. Patty, Ranking Member, a U.S. Senator from the State 
  of Washington, Opening statement...............................     5
Chao, Hon. Elaine, United States Transportation Secretary, from 
  the State of Kentucky, Opening statement.......................     7

                               Witnesses

Scalia, Eugene, Washington, DC...................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    11

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.
    Letters supporting the nomination of Eugene Scalia, to be 
      Secretary of Labor.........................................    51
    Letters opposing the nomination of Eugene Scalia, to be 
      Secretary of Labor.........................................    73
    Attachments to Responses to Democrat Questions for the Record   194

                         QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Response by Eugene Scalia to questions of:
    Senator Braun................................................    96
    Senator Collins..............................................    97
    Senator Enzi.................................................    98
    Senator Murkowski............................................    99
    Senator Roberts..............................................   100
    Senator Scott................................................   101
    Senator Murray...............................................   103
    Senator Sanders..............................................   146
    Senator Casey Jr.............................................   149
    Senator Baldwin..............................................   160
    Senator Murphy...............................................   167
    Senator Warren...............................................   168
    Senator Kaine................................................   177
    Senator Hassan...............................................   180
    Senator Smith................................................   185
    Senator Jones................................................   191
    Senator Rosen................................................   192

 
                      NOMINATION OF EUGENE SCALIA
                              TO SERVE AS
                           SECRETARY OF LABOR

                              ----------                              


                      Thursday, September 19, 2019

                                       U.S. Senate,
        Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in Room 
SD-430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lamar Alexander, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Alexander [presiding], Murray, Isakson, 
Cassidy, Scott, Enzi, Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Baldwin, 
Kaine, Jones, Murphy, Hassan, Rosen, Casey, Smith.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ALEXANDER

    The Chairman. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions will please come to order.
    Today, we are considering the nomination of Eugene Scalia 
to serve as United States Secretary of Labor.
    Let me say before I begin my opening statement that we 
welcome Secretary Chao. Secretary, good to see you. And we 
welcome Mr. Scalia's family. We will give him a chance to 
introduce all of them a little later. There are so many of them 
and I won't take the--the Scalias are an especially productive 
family, apparently, so it will not come off any of your 
allotted time for your statement.
    I would say to the family members that the confirmation 
hearings are not necessarily a family exercise. I was before 
this Committee myself more than 30 years ago to be nominated 
for Education Secretary and was grilled pretty heavily, I 
thought, with my family sitting right behind me. I was 
accustomed to it, but they were not. But they got over it 
before very long. So, we welcome you here and we are glad you 
are here.
    Yesterday, I received a letter from Senator Murray, asking 
me to delay today's hearing. As I think the Committee Members 
know, I do my best to do what Senator Murray suggests that I 
do. We work cooperatively, even when we disagree. But I am not 
going to agree to that, and I want to carefully explain why. We 
have already delayed the hearing one week at Senator Murray's 
request. Let me go over the nomination process just briefly.
    On July 18, two months ago, President Trump said he would 
nominate Eugene Scalia as the United States Secretary of Labor.
    Then on August 27th, three weeks ago, the Committee 
received Mr. Scalia's ethics paperwork from the Government, 
including his public financial disclosures, his ethics 
agreement. And based on these documents, the Office of 
Government Ethics determined that Mr. Scalia is ``in compliance 
with applicable laws and regulations concerning governing 
conflicts of interest.''
    Then, on the same day three weeks ago, August 27, the 
Committee also received his Committee paperwork, which is 
extensive, and is additional background information. So, all of 
that required paperwork has been before the Committee for 23 
days--more than three weeks. And since that day, August 27, Mr. 
Scalia has offered to meet with every Member of this Committee 
and has met with most of us.
    Now, to make sure I am being exactly fair in the way I 
scheduled these confirmation hearings, I checked closely to 
compare how the Committee handled President Obama's most recent 
Cabinet nominations and compared them with the way we handle 
President Trump's.
    This is what I found. Let us take the example of Tom Perez, 
who was President Obama's second Secretary of Labor. The 
Committee received the last of Mr. Perez' paperwork ten days 
before his hearing. Or, take the example of John King, 
President Obama's second Secretary of Education. The Committee 
received the last of Mr. King's paperwork six days before his 
hearing. So, by comparison, Mr. Scalia had all of his paperwork 
in 23 days before the hearing.
    I also think it is reasonable to vote on Mr. Scalia next 
Tuesday. This has been a thorough process. Senators have known 
for two months that the President has selected, nominated Mr. 
Scalia. As of today, we have had all of his paperwork for 23 
days.
    Today, Senators will have the opportunity to have two 
rounds of questions, so any Senator should be able to ask any 
additional question that a Senator wishes to ask that a Senator 
did not ask when that person met personally with Mr. Scalia. 
And if Senators still have questions, they can submit those by 
5 p.m. tomorrow, and Mr. Scalia will answer them before the 
vote on Tuesday.
    Now, I imagine the Democrats on this Committee disagree 
with Mr. Scalia on labor policy about as much as Republicans 
disagreed with Secretary Perez, who is now Chairman of the 
Democratic National Committee. And I disagreed with John King 
on many education matters. But when President Obama's Education 
Secretary stepped down in his last year of office, I went to 
the President, and I said, Mr. President, I think we need to 
have a confirmed Senate nominee in an important position like 
U.S. Education Secretary. If you will please nominate John 
King, with whom I disagree--I knew he wanted Mr. King, but he 
also knew we disagreed with him--I said, if you will nominate 
him, even though we disagree, we will consider and confirm him 
promptly, and we did. Within 32 days after President Obama 
nominated John King, the Senate had confirmed him.
    I also voted, by the way, for cloture on the Senate floor 
for both of these nominees, even though I did not support their 
nominations. I did this because I believe it is important that 
we have a confirmed and accountable Cabinet member for 
Presidents. That is important to the Senate so that we have a 
chance to interview and deal with our Cabinet Members. And it 
is important to the Country for the President to be able to 
have his choice of a Cabinet member promptly considered and 
confirmed.
    As a matter of fairness, if having a hearing 10 days after 
receiving the last of Mr. Perez' paperwork, and six days after 
receiving Mr. King's paperwork, was good enough for President 
Obama, why is it not appropriate to have a hearing 23 days, or 
three weeks, after we have received Mr. Scalia's paperwork? It 
would certainly be hard for me as Chairman to justify treating 
President Trump's nominees worse than we treated President 
Obama's nominees.
    As for today's hearing, Senator Murray and I will each have 
an opening statement. Then Secretary Chao will introduce Mr. 
Scalia. We welcome her. And after his testimony, Senators will 
each have five minutes of questions. And, as I said, we will 
have two rounds of questions so Senators can have time to ask 
them. I know, as is often the case, there are other meetings 
and hearings going on this morning, so I have asked Mr. Scalia, 
as I said, to stay for the two rounds.
    Last week, a Washington Times headline read ``Jobs Report 
Shows Strong Economy, Growing Wages, Low Unemployment Rate.'' 
Wages are growing at an annual rate of 3.2 percent. African-
American unemployment fell to 5.5 percent in August; the record 
low of 4.4 percent for African-American women. Overall, 
unemployment is at a 50-year low. Businesses and workers need a 
Secretary of Labor who will steer the Department with a steady 
hand. I believe Mr. Scalia has those skills.
    He has broad experience in both the public and private 
sectors. He is a partner in the Washington office of Gibson, 
Dunn & Crutcher, where he spent the majority of his career 
dealing with these issues.
    In 2002 and 2003, he was Solicitor of the U.S. Department 
of Labor for President George W. Bush. As the Department's 
chief lawyer, he led initiatives to protect workers, to reduce 
burdens, to improve enforcement of workforce safety laws. For 
example, as Solicitor, he continued a case started by the 
Clinton administration to ensure that a poultry factory was 
paying workers what they were owed. The department ultimately 
announced a $10 million settlement for workers.
    In 1992, he left the firm to serve as special assistant to 
U.S. Attorney William Barr in the George H.W. Bush 
administration.
    He has a distinguished academic background, graduating with 
distinction from the University of Virginia in 1985, and 
University of Chicago Law School, where he was editor-in-chief 
of the Law Review. He has been a guest lecturer on labor and 
employment law at Chicago Law School and adjunct professor at 
the University of the District of Columbia.
    He and his wife, Trish, have seven children.
    He is altogether well-qualified for this job.
    It is important for the Department to create an environment 
to help employers and employees succeed in today's rapidly 
changing workplace. One step the Trump administration has taken 
to help the 700,000 Americans who own and run their own 
franchises is involved with what we call the joint-employer 
standard.
    In the Obama years, in 2015, the National Labor Relations 
Board issued a decision overturning more than 30 years of 
precedent, creating a new joint-employer standard. That 
decision meant that mere indirect or even unexercised control 
over employees' working conditions could make a franchisee and 
franchisor joint-employers, discouraging large companies from 
franchising at all.
    But after the board's decision, the Department of Labor 
itself issued a guidance, broadening the interpretation of 
joint-employer. This has led to a lot of confusion. One Federal 
judge said Federal courts have adopted a ``dizzying world of 
multi-factored tests for determining joint employment.''
    The administration has attempted to eliminate this. In June 
2017, Secretary Acosta withdrew the Obama Labor Department's 
guidance. He began a rulemaking process to clear up the 
patchwork of standards. In June of this year, the comment 
period closed for a new rule, which we hope will bring 
stability.
    Then a second way the administration has sought to create 
more certainty for employees and employers has been to raise 
the salary threshold for overtime pay in a reasonable way. In 
2014, the Obama administration more than doubled that 
threshold. There was bipartisan opposition from Congress. The 
Department has proposed a much more reasonable rule. The 
Department's proposal would require input from workers and 
employers prior to future changes. I am glad to see these 
steps.
    As I mentioned earlier, the Senate confirmed John King as 
United States Secretary of Education about a month after 
President Obama said he wanted Mr. King to serve as Secretary. 
In this case, it has been about two months since President 
Trump announced that he would nominate Mr. Scalia to be the 
next Labor Secretary, and the Committee has had all of Mr. 
Scalia's paperwork and had an opportunity to meet with him for 
the past three weeks. The Committee considered President 
Obama's Cabinet nominees promptly and with respect, and I trust 
the Committee will continue that with President Trump's 
nominees.
    It was embarrassing then, and it is now, for well-qualified 
Americans to be nominated by the President of the United 
States, any President, for an important position and then say 
to them in effect, you are innocent until nominated, or drag 
things out for a long period of time.
    Mr. Scalia is supported by a number of trade organizations, 
and the Committee has received letters of support from women he 
has mentored; from former Department of Labor career attorneys, 
whom he worked with while he was Solicitor; from a Hispanic 
immigrant, whom he represented on a pro bono basis; from Cass 
Sunstein, who worked at the White House for President Obama; 
and from one of Senator Ted Kennedy's former senior counsels on 
the Judiciary Committee. Senator Kennedy, of course, was a 
former Chairman of this Committee.
    I ask unanimous consent that those letters and 17 
additional letters of support be submitted into the record.
    The Committee will vote on Tuesday on Mr. Scalia's 
nomination, and I look forward to the full Senate confirming 
him soon.
    Senator Murray.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY

    Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
Secretary Chao, it is good to see you. Thank you for joining us 
today to introduce the nominee. Mr. Scalia, I appreciate you 
and your family being here today. I look forward to you 
introducing your apparently very large family behind you. I 
know that will take a while, but we welcome all of you, as 
well.
    Mr. Chairman, I do want to start by expressing my 
frustration with this rushed process, and I have asked 
repeatedly to delay this confirmation hearing because I do 
believe that every nominee's background should be reviewed 
carefully and thoroughly, especially for a role this important.
    Moving from a formal nomination that came on September 11th 
to confirmation in less than two weeks, as we have in this 
case, is deeply concerning. Members have not been given enough 
time to review Mr. Scalia's background, and I have repeatedly 
asked for more time. And, in fact, we did not get answers to 
follow-up questions until late last night. So, I want to be 
clear. I do not consider this nominee's vet complete or 
sufficient.
    Mr. Scalia, I will be asking questions and gathering 
information about your record, and I expect thorough answers, 
and I am sure you will give them, so thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, as I said, there is going to be a markup next 
Tuesday, the 24th, and I really do urge the Chairman to move 
the markup so everyone really does have more time to consider 
this nominee's very long, complex record. Why? Because workers 
and families across the country are counting on us to take our 
vetting responsibilities seriously, especially since President 
Trump clearly won't.
    His first nominee was a millionaire fast food CEO, who 
disparaged his own workers and was forced to withdraw from 
consideration.
    His second pick served as a yes-man for an anti-worker 
agenda before resigning in disgrace as the Country scrutinized 
his decision to give a sexual predator the deal of a lifetime.
    President Trump's third pick, Eugene Scalia, is an elite 
corporate lawyer, who has spent his career fighting for 
corporations and against workers. I opposed Mr. Scalia's 
nomination to the Department of Labor back in 2001. Eighteen 
years later, his record defending corporations, as they trample 
workers' rights, has only gotten longer.
    Meanwhile, the need for someone who will stand up for 
workers and families, and stand up to President Trump on their 
behalf, has only become more urgent because we have seen time 
and again that President Trump will not hesitate to throw 
working families under the bus to help corporations and 
billionaires and the powerfully connected get even further.
    Like when he worked with Republicans to jam through a $1.5 
trillion tax giveaway for corporations and the wealthy, a move 
that some Republicans now want to pay for by cutting Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security. From rolling back a rule 
ensuring workers receive their overtime pay, to blocking 
Democrats' efforts to raise the minimum wage and ensure equal 
pay, to seizing every opportunity to undermine workers' rights 
to organize and join a union so they can advocate for higher 
pay and better benefits, and a safer workplace and a secure 
retirement.
    The Trump administration has consistently sided with 
corporations over workers. Now, instead of nominating someone 
who understands the challenges working people face and will 
fight for them, President Trump has chosen a powerful, 
corporate lawyer, who has devoted his career to protecting big 
corporations and CEOs from accountability, and attacking 
workers' rights, protections, and economic security. Instead of 
nominating a Secretary of Labor, President Trump has nominated 
a secretary of corporate interests.
    If there is one consistent pattern in Mr. Scalia's long 
career, it is hostility to the very workers he would be charged 
with protecting and the very laws he would be charged with 
enforcing, if he were to be confirmed. Like when he threw 
billions of dollars of workers' retirement savings into 
jeopardy by suing to strike down the Department's fiduciary 
rule. That is a commonsense rule that protected workers' 
retirement savings by simply requiring financial advisors to 
put their clients' interests ahead of their own.
    Mr. Scalia has made a career out of striking down laws that 
protect people like--from big businesses looking to hack away 
at the safeguards and protections meant to avoid another 
economic crash, to fighting against protections for workers' 
health and safety.
    When the Department was working on a rule requiring 
employers to make accommodations to help prevent and address 
one of the most commonplace workplace injuries--repetitive 
stress injuries--Mr. Scalia callously dismissed the health 
concerns of hundreds of thousands of workers as ``junk 
science'' and crusaded on behalf of corporate clients to 
undermine and eventually overturn that rule.
    He has not just fought against rules to protect workers' 
safety, but also those to protect workers' wages from being 
stolen by employers. Democrats have been pushing to raise the 
minimum wage to $15, to end the lower wage for tipped workers 
and workers with disabilities, to close the pay gap and make 
sure workers are not cheated out of their hard-earned pay. 
Republicans continue to block our efforts to pay workers more.
    I believe we need a Secretary who cares about giving 
workers a raise, not one who criticized President Obama's 
decision to increase the minimum wage for workers who are on 
Federal contracts; not one who fought to help corporate clients 
steal employees' tips and get out of paying overtime wages. And 
we need someone who will hold companies accountable, not let 
them off the hook at every opportunity.
    The last time Mr. Scalia served in the Department of Labor, 
he restricted protections that prevent retaliation against 
whistleblowers so severely he garnered bipartisan criticism for 
being openly hostile to whistleblowers.
    When it comes to accountability for discrimination, Mr. 
Scalia's record is equally unacceptable. In one case, he 
defended a company that discriminated against a job applicant 
because of her hairstyle.
    In another, which Mr. Scalia has previously named as one of 
the most important issues he has worked on, he argued that 
employers should be able to discriminate against people with 
disabilities based on perceptions about what they can do and 
successfully undermined the landmark protections in the 
Americans with Disabilities Act.
    When it comes to accountability for workplace harassment, 
Mr. Scalia's record got worse. While our Nation is grappling 
with this epidemic, Mr. Scalia is working to help get 
businesses off the hook. Thirty women have been fighting to 
hold Ford accountable for sexual harassment and assault they 
allege they experienced in the workplace, everything from 
unwanted touching to assault. Mr. Scalia has been fighting to 
get their case thrown out of court. He argued some of the 
survivors should have their claims dismissed because they 
failed to note the lawsuit during a bankruptcy proceeding.
    Our Nation needs a Secretary of Labor who will prioritize 
addressing the epidemic of workplace harassment, not someone 
who thinks the bar for what qualifies as harassment should be 
higher, or that the standard of accountability should be lower. 
And these are all just a few examples of the larger, alarming 
pattern of his career.
    His nomination offers a straightforward test for each of 
us. If you care about workers and families, his record is 
absolutely, to me, disqualifying for Secretary of Labor.
    But if, like President Trump, you want someone who will run 
up the scoreboard for corporations and billionaires at the 
expense of working families, his anti-worker record is exactly 
what you are looking for.
    People are getting more and more tired of President Trump's 
anti-worker agenda. The last thing they want to see from this 
administration is one more person using their power to look out 
for those at the top.
    I hope everyone who claims to care about working families 
watches this hearing closely, looks at Mr. Scalia's record 
thoroughly, and thinks long and hard about whether the workers 
they represent really want them to fight for someone who will 
not fight for them.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray. We will now 
welcome the nominee, Mr. Scalia. He will be introduced by 
Secretary Elaine Chao.
    Secretary Chao currently serves as United States 
Transportation Secretary, and she previously served as Labor 
Secretary under President George W. Bush.
    Secretary Chao, welcome.

 STATEMENT OF ELAINE CHAO, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 
                       OF TRANSPORTATION

     Secretary Chao. Thank you, Chairman Alexander, Ranking 
Member Murray.
    Before introducing today's nominee, Eugene Scalia, please 
let me acknowledge Senator Johnny Isakson, who recently 
announced his retirement. Senator Isakson's leadership, 
especially on the Pension Protection Act of 2006, has greatly 
benefited workers in our Country, and you will be dearly 
missed.
    I am pleased to be here today to introduce Eugene Scalia, 
whom I have known for decades, as the President's nominee to be 
the 28th U.S. Secretary of Labor.
    I worked closely with Gene when I was Secretary of Labor 
and can attest to his keen intellect, respect for the rule of 
law, personal integrity, and commitment to protecting our 
Nation's workers.
    Let me note that there is a quorum of Scalia members here. 
Let me especially mention Maureen Scalia, who is a treasured 
friend for many years. She has been a strong, guiding influence 
on her family. She is a proud New Englander, who ensured that 
Gene read a long biography of Samuel Adams when he was just in 
grade school, to emphasize the importance of dedication and 
character in public service.
    This is just one of the many ways that Gene's parents 
instilled within him a profound respect for public service, for 
the founding principles of our Country, and for the importance 
of using one's talents to make a difference for others. These 
ideals and background are important to Gene's success as a 
respected counselor and advisor throughout his Government 
service, and as a formidable attorney, caring educator, and 
dedicated volunteer during his many years in private practice.
    He has served three previous Cabinet officers, including 
me, with distinction. In addition to lecturing at his alma 
mater, the University of Chicago School of Law, Gene has 
donated his time as a visiting professor at the University of 
the District of Columbia's David Clarke School of Law to help 
develop and support the next generation of young leaders.
    He helped support a law camp for high school students 
organized by the National Hispanic Bar Foundation. And somehow, 
he found time to volunteer as a public member of the 
Administrative Conference of the United States.
    As a former Solicitor at the U.S. Department of Labor, Gene 
knows very well the issues at the Department. During his 
tenure, he did a stellar job of leading the Department's 
attorneys, both career and non-career, and was widely respected 
for his fairness, his ability, and his integrity.
    In private practice, Gene volunteered his time to represent 
on pro bono basis many, many workers fighting unfair dismissal 
and discrimination in the workforce.
    When I was Secretary of Labor and he was Solicitor, Gene 
played a critical role in the Department's numerous enforcement 
actions, vindicating the rights of American workers under our 
Nation's employment laws. He was a leader in our work to update 
40-year old overtime regulations to better protect our Nation's 
workers, while giving employers clear guidance on what the law 
required.
    Gene's work to protect overtime is why he gained the 
support of the 13,000-member strong Sergeants Benevolent 
Association of New York, which was able to secure $20 million 
in unpaid overtime compensation for their members because of 
the overtime regulations that he helped to craft.
    Gene understands that the mission of the U.S. Department of 
Labor is to protect and promote our Country's most valuable 
resource: the American workforce. He also recognizes that, 
because of the needs and composition of the American workforce 
and how it is constantly changing, the Department must always 
be forward-looking, responsive, and nimble.
    Gene is one of the Nation's leading experts on labor and 
employment laws and the issues at the forefront of a rapidly 
evolving workplace and workforce. He understands what it takes 
to protect workers and the importance of strong, relevant job 
training programs to empower workers with the skills that they 
need to succeed in an increasingly competitive workplace.
    I want to thank the Committee for allowing me this time to 
introduce the President's nominee to be the next United States 
Secretary of Labor, Eugene Scalia.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Chao. We know that you 
have a busy schedule, so when that schedule requires you to 
leave, you are excused. We appreciate you coming. It is good to 
have you before the Committee.
    Mr. Scalia, we now invite you to give your opening remarks, 
and if you would--and invite you also to introduce your family.

 STATEMENT OF EUGENE SCALIA, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS SECRETARY OF 
                     LABOR, WASHINGTON, DC

     Mr. Scalia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking 
Member Murray.
    If I could begin by introducing first my wonderful wife, 
Trish, seated next to my daughter, Isabella; my daughter, 
Megan; Jack; Bridgette; my oldest son, Neno.
    Then certainly not to be forgotten, behind Neno is my 10-
year old daughter, Erin. Beside her, my deeply understanding 
parents-in-law, Susan and Chris Larson. Oh, and my son, Luke. 
Luke, welcome.
    I am very grateful to my brother, Matthew, for coming up 
from Fort Benning. Thank you, Matthew, for joining. And next to 
Matthew, my formidable mother, Maureen Scalia. Thank you for 
being here.
    My brother, John; my sister-in-law, Adele; brother, Chris; 
and I--my sister Catherine is here, as well, with her husband, 
I believe, Bill Heenan; my sister, Mary Clare; her husband, 
Michael Murray; and my baby sister, Meg, with her husband, John 
Bryce.
    Trish, did I miss anybody? I thank them all for coming.
    Thank you for your patience, and thank you for allowing me 
to introduce them not on the five-minute clock that I have for 
my opening statement.
    Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray, thank you for 
the opportunity to appear today before this Committee. It is an 
honor to be here, and an honor to have been nominated to serve 
as Secretary of Labor. I am deeply grateful to the President 
for this nomination and for his trust and confidence.
    I thank Elaine for that introduction. Secretary Chao was an 
exceptional Labor Secretary. She established clear priorities 
and a smooth operating structure. If I am confirmed, her 
management will be a model for me.
    The Labor Department is a venerable agency with an 
important mission: Enforcing the worker protections enacted by 
Congress; offering programs that help prepare Americans for a 
lifetime of productive work, while also helping supply the 
skilled workforce needed by our businesses; and providing 
support to workers who have fallen on hard times, whether 
through loss of work, loss of retirement benefits, or workplace 
injury or illness.
    This is work that I valued when I served previously as 
Solicitor, the Department's third-ranking official. Then, as 
now, I was coming to the Department from the private sector, 
where I had advised and represented businesses regarding 
employment matters. But once at the Department, I had new 
clients, new responsibilities, and above all, I had a public 
trust. I am proud of the actions I took before as Solicitor to 
further the Department's mission.
    That included helping to resolve a labor dispute at the 
West Coast ports that threatened to cripple the Nation's 
economy. My goal was to act with favor neither toward the 
company, nor toward the union, but to help them resolve the 
dispute.
    I focused our enforcement efforts on low-wage and immigrant 
workers; encouraged increased use of a powerful OSHA 
enforcement tool; and took, at that point, an unprecedented 
legal action to protect the whistleblower at a garment factory.
    I took these and other actions because I believed they were 
right, they furthered the Department's mission, and because I 
believe in law and order. But there was more, too. The most 
affecting part of the job for me was encountering individual 
workers in sometimes tragic circumstances, and recognizing the 
capacity we had to respond. The construction workers who died 
in trenching accidents. The 12 miners in Alabama who gave their 
lives trying to rescue one other's. Migrant workers who 
sacrificed for their families was preyed upon by others.
    The Labor Department is a big agency with many programs, 
components, and acronyms. But, if confirmed, I will aim to 
remain mindful every day of the individual men and women like 
those to whom our efforts ultimately are targeted.
    Back in the private sector, much of my work has been in the 
public eye, but there has been an important part of my job that 
went largely unseen. That included helping clients address 
workplace misconduct, including retaliation and harassment. I 
have advised clients to fire or take other serious action 
against executives and other managers who, in my judgment, had 
engaged in harassment or other misconduct. I have had direct 
and forceful conversations with clients, telling them to take 
steps that sometimes they wished they did not have to.
    Something that became important to me at my law firm was 
supporting young lawyers who were trying to balance the demands 
of their jobs with their roles as young parents. In recent 
years, many of the young lawyers I worked with were on a part-
time work schedule so they could spend more time with their 
families. It was important to me personally to visibly support 
that.
    Shortly before the President announced he would nominate 
me, I organized a program for our summer interns to hear from 
men and women at the firm who were trying to strike that 
balance. I have had the good fortune to pursue a demanding 
career while enjoying a deeply rewarding family life. It became 
very important to me to support young men and women in the law, 
looking to do the same.
    I look forward to your questions this morning and to a 
dialog that, if confirmed, I want to continue. I enjoy 
exchanging ideas with people who see things differently than I 
do, and I am betting I will be getting some of that today. That 
is good. I learn from it. And it is partly through this dialog 
with you that I hope to justify the President's confidence and 
to be the best possible Secretary of Labor should I be 
confirmed.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Scalia follows:]
                  prepared statement of eugene scalia
    Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before this Committee. It is an honor to be here, 
and to have been nominated to serve as Secretary of Labor. I'm deeply 
grateful to President Trump for this nomination, and for his trust and 
confidence.

    Elaine, thank you for that introduction. Secretary Chao was an 
exceptional Labor Secretary. She established clear priorities and a 
smooth operating structure. Her management will be a model for me if 
I'm confirmed.

    The Labor Department is a venerable agency with an important 
mission: Enforcing the worker protections enacted by Congress; offering 
programs that help prepare Americans for a lifetime of productive work, 
while also helping supply the skilled workforce needed by American 
businesses; and providing support to workers who've fallen on hard 
times, whether through loss of work, loss of retirement benefits, or 
work-related illness or injury.

    This is work I valued when I served previously as Solicitor of 
Labor, the Department's third highest official. Then, as now, I was 
coming to the Department from the private sector where I advised and 
represented businesses regarding employment matters. But once at the 
Department I had new clients, new responsibilities, and a public trust. 
I am proud of the actions I took as Solicitor to further the 
Department's mission:

          That included helping to resolve a labor dispute at 
        the West Coast Ports that threatened to cripple the Nation's 
        economy--my goal was to act with favor toward neither company 
        nor union, but to help them end the dispute.

          I focused our enforcement efforts on low-wage and 
        immigrant workers; encouraged increased use of a powerful 
        mechanism for OSHA enforcement; and took an unprecedented legal 
        action to protect a whistleblower at a garment factory.

    I took these and other actions because I believed they were right, 
they furthered the Department's mission, and because I believe in law 
and order. But there was more: The most affecting part of the job for 
me was encountering individual workers in sometimes tragic 
circumstances, and recognizing the capacity we had to respond. The 
construction workers killed in trenching accidents. The twelve miners 
in Alabama who gave their lives trying to save a co-worker's. Migrant 
workers whose sacrifice for their families was preyed upon by others.

    The Labor Department is a big agency, with many programs, 
components, and acronyms. But if confirmed, I will aim to remain 
mindful every day of the individual men and women--like these--to whom 
our efforts ultimately are targeted.

    Back in the private sector, much of my work has been in the public 
eye. But there were important parts of my job that went largely unseen. 
That included helping clients address workplace misconduct, including 
harassment and retaliation. I have advised clients to fire, or take 
other serious action, against executives and other managers who in my 
judgment engaged in harassment or other misconduct. I have been direct 
and forceful in telling clients to take steps that, sometimes, they 
wished they did not have to.

    Something that became important to me at my law firm was supporting 
lawyers trying to balance the demands of their jobs with their roles as 
parents. In recent years, many of the young lawyers I worked with were 
on a part-time work schedule so they could spend more time with their 
families. It was important to me to visibly support that. Shortly 
before the President announced he would nominate me, I organized a 
program for our summer interns to hear from women--and men--at the firm 
trying to strike that balance. I've had the good fortune to pursue a 
demanding career while enjoying a deeply rewarding family life. It 
became very important to me to support young men and women at our firm 
in doing the same.

    I look forward to your questions this morning--to a dialog that, if 
confirmed, I want to continue. I enjoy exchanging ideas with people who 
see things differently than I do. I'm betting I'll get some of that 
today. That's good--I learn from it. And it is partly through this 
dialog with you that I hope to justify the President's confidence, and 
to be the best possible Secretary of Labor.
                                 ______
                                 
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Scalia. And again, welcome to 
family members.
    We will now begin a five-minute round of questions as I--I 
would appreciate--Senators, the idea with the five minutes is 
that the questions and the answers can be completed within five 
minutes. If Mr. Scalia does not have time to answer a question, 
I will give him more time if he needs it to answer that 
question. And we will have two rounds of questions to make sure 
that all Senators have a chance to ask questions if they would 
like.
    Senator Collins.
    Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
accommodating my schedule as I am managing a markup of a bill 
in Appropriations this morning.
    Mr. Scalia, before moving onto important programs at the 
DOL, including the H-2B program that is so important to the 
economy of Maine, I want to follow-up and ask you about the 
perception of some that you will not prioritize the health, 
safety, and economic well-being of working people. We have 
heard that this morning.
    From your time as Solicitor, what specific examples can you 
provide us of when you acted to protect workers in wage and 
hour cases?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator Collins, thank you, and thank you for 
the question and for focusing on that central mission of the 
Department.
    One of the first actions that I took as Solicitor when I 
was at the Labor Department before, I actually--the Chairman 
referred to briefly in his opening remarks. There was a 
possible case, an investigation, that had been at the 
Department for about two years when I came in to the Solicitor 
position concerning what are called donning and doffing 
practices in the poultry industry, whether to pay employees for 
the time they spend putting on this sometimes cumbersome 
protective gear, and then the time that they spend taking it 
off.
    The Clinton administration had overseen an investigation 
but had not been prepared to go forward with the case, and when 
I came into the Solicitor's office, that case had been around 
for about two years. I very quickly in the job sat down, looked 
at the applicable statute, the regulations, met with the career 
folks, and decided that yes, this time should be paid.
    We immediately obtained a $10 million settlement with one 
of the companies involved, which, my recollection was one of 
the largest settlements at the time in the history of the Wage 
and Hour Division.
    Then we sued the other employer in a case that was 
ultimately won under Secretary Solis. She commended it as a 
very important action by the Department.
    That is--there is more, Senator, but I should yield some 
time back to you, I know.
    Senator Collins. Thank you. In your work in the private 
sector, do you have examples of where you represented 
employees, since obviously the bulk of your practice has been 
representing employers? And my related question is, was that 
pro bono work, or were you hired to do so?
    Mr. Scalia. I did pro bono work for a number of different 
employees in my time at the firm. Just two or three examples:
    One, again, Chairman Alexander referred to. It was a young 
Hispanic woman, who had a hearing disability who believed that 
she had been subjected to discrimination in her workplace due 
to her ethnicity and that condition. And I represented her, was 
able to work out an agreement with her employer to enable her 
to continue to do the work that she wanted to do. She submitted 
a letter to the Committee about that representation.
    I will just mention one other. Again, I did this pro bono. 
This was somebody who was fairly senior in an organization, 
reported and pressed on the subject of some financial conduct 
that he thought was improper. He was asked to leave this 
institution, and I represented him in connection with that and 
with his feeling that he was being treated improperly because 
he had blown the whistle on financial improprieties.
    There are others.
    Senator Collins. Turning to the Department's role in the H-
2B program, which is especially important to Maine's tourism 
industry.
    I represent a state with 1.3 million people. We have 36 
million tourism visits in a year, so obviously the workforce is 
not adequate to handle that. As a result, we see restaurants, 
bed and breakfasts, inns, hotels, curtailing their hours, which 
hurts their regular employees, as well, because they simply 
cannot get the help they need.
    The Department received 96,400 applications on January 1st, 
and that is nearly triple the number of H-2B Visas available 
for the second half of the fiscal year. If confirmed, will you 
work with Congress to make sure that there are enough Visas, 
including opportunities for returning workers, for those 
employers who have no choice but to rely on a seasonal 
workforce to be able to operate?
    Mr. Scalia. Mr. Chairman, if I could have just a moment to 
respond to that question.
    Senator Collins, one of the privileges of being a nominee 
is the opportunity to meet with you all, with Members of this 
Committee, Members of the Senate, and to learn. And I have 
learned from you and from some of your other colleagues about 
some of the challenges that program presents and how critical 
it is to businesses and the employees that benefit from them, 
as well. So, I regard that program, and ensuring as best we can 
that it functions properly, to be an important priority if I am 
confirmed.
    Senator Collins. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Collins.
    Senator Murray.
    Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Earlier this month, the Census Bureau released some data 
showing women were paid only 82 cents for every dollar to men 
in 2018, which confirmed that women in working families--
something that we have known for a long time--the gender pay 
gap is alive and it is well, and it is even worse for women of 
color.
    Yet, just a day after that data was released, the Trump 
administration took steps to protect companies and sweep pay 
discrimination under the rug by rolling back the paid--the 
back-pay data collection at the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, so we could not collect the data. And the Secretary 
of Labor's job is to protect those workers and fight for their 
rights and speak out on their behalf, so I wanted to ask you 
today a few straightforward yes or no questions.
    Do you accept the Census Bureau's data, which show that 
women are only paid 82 cents for every dollar men are paid?
    Mr. Scalia. Ranking Member Murray, I don't know that I have 
seen that particular survey, but I am--yes, I am familiar with 
data suggesting that the figure is at about the point that you 
have identified. I think there is some data that puts it 
perhaps slightly lower. I am aware of that.
    Senator Murray. Okay. Well, I am the lead sponsor of the 
Paycheck Fairness Act. It is a bill that would close that pay 
gap. The House passed it earlier this year. Would you support 
passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act?
    Mr. Scalia. Ranking Member Murray, I support fairness in 
pay and fair working conditions for women. It is something that 
in my work at my law firm as a manager of employees, it was 
important to me; and in advising clients.
    Senator Murray. But you will not commit today to supporting 
that?
    Mr. Scalia. I will commit to two things, Ranking Member 
Murray: I can commit to providing any resources the Senate 
might find helpful in deliberating that legislation; and if it 
becomes law, which is, of course, your decision, the Senate's 
decision, Congress' and the President's. If it becomes law, I 
certainly promise to vigorously enforce it.
    Senator Murray. Okay. I just want everybody to know that if 
these historic trends continue, it is going to be 75 years 
before that gap is--gets any better.
    With just over two and a half years in office, President 
Trump's administration has rolled out a range of policies that 
are designed to reduce workers' wages and protect corporations 
who are engaging in what we call wage theft.
    The Department of Labor instituted the so-called PAID 
program. It is a wage theft amnesty program that allows 
employers to audit themselves.
    The Department proposed to rescind the Obama 
administration's overtime rule and replace it with a far weaker 
rule.
    The Department proposed to weaken the Fair Labor Standards 
Act's joint-employer standard in order to allow corporations to 
shirk their responsibility, and, of course, the House has 
threatened to veto the House-passed Raise the Wage Act, which 
would raise the wages of more than 30 million workers.
    Mr. Scalia, can you commit that, if you are confirmed, you 
will end the PAID program; yes or no?
    Mr. Scalia. Madam, Ranking Member, I cannot commit that. I 
can commit to review it. But I would also like to underscore 
how the economy that we have, in substantial part because of 
this President's policies, is delivering virtually 
unprecedented benefits to----
    Senator Murray. Okay.
    Mr. Scalia. ----American workers right now.
    Senator Murray. I have very little time, so let me get 
through a couple of important questions. And I just want to 
know yes or no.
    Can you commit to placing the Trump administration's 
proposed overtime rule on hold and defending the Obama overtime 
rule in court; yes or no?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, I can commit to review carefully the 
ongoing rulemakings that are at the Department. One of my 
responsibilities will be to look at them with a fair and open 
mind in light of the comments, but I don't----
    Senator Murray. All right.
    Mr. Scalia. ----feel it would be appropriate for me to 
commit to----
    Senator Murray. Can you commit to----
    Mr. Scalia. ----a particular----
    Senator Murray. ----abandoning the Department's current 
proposal on joint-employer; yes or no?
    Mr. Scalia. Respectfully, no, I cannot commit because I 
respect the notice and comment process established by Congress 
and would want to see what the public say about it and help 
guide the agency----
    Senator Murray. All right.
    Mr. Scalia. ----to making the right decision after.
    Senator Murray. Can you commit to encouraging the President 
to withdraw his veto threat on the minimum wage bill?
    Mr. Scalia. I, again, Ranking Member Murray, if I am so 
fortunate as to be confirmed, that is an area in which I would 
like to be able to provide support to the Congress and to the 
President, who ultimately themselves will have to make the 
decision what the proper wage is. We are then ready to work 
with you to implement it and to enforce it.
    Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you. And I have a very long 
question next, so I will retain my 20 seconds for my next 
round, if you don't mind.
    The Chairman. You certainly have that prerogative, Senator 
Murray.
    Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I apologize 
for kind of jumping the line, but I, too, have to go to the 
same Appropriations markup.
    Mr. Scalia, welcome. Thank you for your willingness to step 
forward here.
    I understand that Senator Collins asked a question related 
to the H-2B Visas. And as you and I have had discussions, this 
is a key and a critical issue in my state as we work to address 
the just dramatic seasonality that we have within our 
fisheries, the lack of available workers, and the need to find 
a permanent fix, not a Band-Aid fix that we have kind of been 
struggling with.
    We have made a little bit of headway, but just, again, 
seeking your commitment that you will work with us as you work 
with other coastal states that have such significant interest 
in their seafood processing industry.
    Mr. Scalia. Yes, Senator Murkowski. As I mentioned to 
Senator Collins, I learned from my meetings with you and others 
who spoke to me about this program and the challenges that it 
can present in, particularly, seasonal industries that 
sometimes are vital to a community--not just to the workers or 
a particular company, but a community.
    If I am confirmed, I do genuinely look forward both to 
focusing on ways we can ensure that this program fulfills its 
mission, and also to communicating with you and continuing to 
work with you to do our best to implement the program.
    Senator Murkowski. We certainly look forward to that. We 
had 43 million salmon coming into Bristol Bay this season. We 
do not have 43 million people. We will go into that later.
    I wanted to ask you a little bit more about the Industry-
Recognized Apprenticeship Programs, the IRAPs, that Department 
of Labor is working on right now and developing standards, in 
addition to the registered apprenticeship model that has been 
in place for many years.
    I do know that the registered apprenticeships have not been 
widely used in some states, and that some employers consider 
the process to become registered is pretty burdensome, time 
consuming. And we, in our state, we have got many registered 
apprenticeships that are training employees in healthcare, 
advanced manufacturing, IT, aviation, maritime, as well as the 
construction trades.
    We have heard from some of our unions up north that they 
are concerned that the IRAP training will not be as rigorous as 
the registered apprenticeships, and that the issues--some of 
the issues that they have raised with me are concerns about 
safety on the job site being compromised. They do support--and 
I think I have mentioned this to you--they support keeping the 
construction trades out of the IRAP framework.
    I have been concerned that some employers may see IRAPs as 
a way to create tax-payer funded training programs that will 
fit their immediate needs, but perhaps will not provide the 
employees with the high-quality, the portable, skills, that I 
think we recognize are needed and respected within the 
industry.
    Your thoughts a little bit more on the Department's IRAP 
efforts and whether or not you think that the construction 
trades should be included in that effort at all?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, thank you for raising it. It is an 
important subject, and happily, I think, one as to which there 
is consensus, even across the aisle, on certain basics.
    I think that people interested in our workforce and people 
interested in education, too, recognize the value that 
apprenticeship programs can have for workers--that they can 
provide benefits that may not be available in traditional 
educational settings. And, obviously, they are valuable to 
Americans' business productivity. They can serve as one 
critical way of filling the skills gap.
    Senator, you are referring to an ongoing rulemaking at the 
Labor Department, which is seeking to expand apprenticeship 
opportunities. I think, again, there is consensus to an extent 
that more apprenticeships would be a good thing.
    I recognize that some are concerned that it might be 
approached in a way that undermines existing successful 
programs, or that does not really provide the rigor needed to 
protect the interests of workers. I think those are important 
considerations that need careful attention as the Labor 
Department moves forward.
    Again, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I know 
that is one of the very important things that will be on my 
plate. And what the public has to say in that notice and 
comment process is going to be important to me in striking the 
right balance.
    Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that and look forward to 
working with you.
    I do have other questions, Mr. Chairman, but I will submit 
them for the record, and I appreciate this.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Casey.
    Senator Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Scalia, good to 
have you here and----
    Mr. Scalia. Thank you.
    Senator Casey. ----good to see your family. And thanks for 
taking the time yesterday to sit and talk. We had a good 
conversation.
    I have to start, though, by saying I am skeptical of your 
nomination based upon your record as a lawyer, and even the 
work at the Department of Labor in that period of time you were 
there. When I compare that record with the mission of the 
Department--I'm just reading from the Department's website. The 
mission, in summary form, is to foster, promote and develop the 
welfare of wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the 
United States. That's number one.
    Number two: Improve working conditions.
    Number three: Advance opportunities for profitable 
employment.
    Number four: Assure work-related benefits and rights.
    I have real concerns. Let me start with a reference from 
your opening statement. One group of Americans you referenced 
were coal miners. I think you referenced Alabama miners.
    I come from a state that has a long coal mining tradition. 
At this point, we have real concerns about what used to be 
called in the old, old days miners' asthma, pneumoconiosis, 
black lung. In fact, I am holding here a letter from two labor 
organizations, the United Mine Workers and the Steel Workers, 
sent to the Department that you hope to lead in June, raising 
questions about and asking for a new standard with regard to 
respirable crystalline silica.
    This request is made in the context of, as they say in the 
letter in paragraph two, ``One in five miners with 25 years or 
more of experience are suffering from black lung. In many of 
these miners, the disease has advanced to the PMF stage, 
progressive massive fibrosis, the worst stage of black lung 
caused by the inhalation of coal and silica dust.''
    I guess the basic question I have for you is--and this is 
referenced also in the letter where the--both the head of the 
Mine Workers, Mr. Roberts, and the head of the Steel Workers, 
says MSHA--meaning the part of Labor that does the regulation--
should consider the OSHA silica rule and then promulgate a new 
rule that is as, if not more, protective of miners. Currently 
our Nation provides less protection from silica to miners than 
to any other group of workers.
    Do you agree with that statement?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, Casey, I enjoyed our meeting 
yesterday, too, and appreciate your taking the time.
    I also genuinely share your interest in the Mine Safety and 
Health Administration. I mentioned it in my opening because the 
importance of the Labor Department to conditions in that 
industry is, I think in some ways, especially great. There, to 
my knowledge, is not another single industry that has an agency 
within the Department dedicated to it.
    When I was there, it really did come home to me, 
particularly in connection with that Alabama disaster, how 
important our role could be. I helped put together an emergency 
standard to deal with some of the problems that had caused that 
accident.
    With respect to PMF particularly, I am aware that there is 
concern that new mining techniques are causing an increase in 
this, and I have reviewed some materials--possibly that letter. 
It is something that I would want to understand better----
    Senator Casey. I just have to cut you off because----
    Mr. Scalia. I'm sorry.
    Senator Casey. ----we have limited time. I just want to ask 
you a very simple question. I asked you do you agree with that 
statement in the letter. Let me say it a different way.
    Do you agree that the standard should be, in a sense, twice 
as worse for the coal miner as opposed to any other worker? And 
I think that is just yes or no.
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, I don't know what the exact standards 
are. I agree that this is an issue that I would want to look 
at, and it was brought to my attention as an important one. And 
if I am confirmed, I would hope to have a chance----
    Senator Casey. I would ask you to do that.
    Mr. Scalia. ----to you about that further.
    Senator Casey. If you are confirmed, I would ask you to do 
that.
    Finally, let me just--and I know we will have more time 
later, but I wanted to ask you a question about a part of the 
Department of Labor that has the obligation to do enforcement.
    I would argue that enforcement of our trade agreements has 
been lacking under several administrations, going back many, 
many years. But the proposal by the administration now to cut 
the Bureau of Labor Affairs, which is the entity that does 
trade enforcement, to cut it by 78 percent from roughly 86 
million to a little more than 18 million, a $67.5 million cut. 
Now, does that make any sense to you? Do you agree with a cut 
of that dimension, where funding has been pretty level for many 
years?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, I do believe that fairness in trade 
agreements, and particularly with respect to working 
conditions, has been a priority for this President. That 
particular program is one that, if I am confirmed, I would 
commit to take a look at and evaluate whether it would be able 
to continue to perform its mission.
    Senator Casey. I have heard no good rationale for a 78 
percent cut in an office that does trade enforcement.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me a couple extra 
seconds here.
    The Chairman. Sure, Senator Casey.
    Senator Isakson.
    Senator Isakson. Welcome, Mr. Scalia. It is good to have 
you, and I appreciate the time you gave me last week in 
conversation. I enjoyed it a lot, and congratulations on your 
great family. You would solve half our labor problems if you 
all moved to----
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Isakson. We could use you in the chicken industry 
in Georgia, I can tell you that.
    I am familiar with what you mentioned about the case you 
worked on because Georgia is the largest poultry producer in 
the United States of America. And if anybody has sympathy for a 
worker, have sympathy for guy who plucks chickens all day long. 
It is a tough job.
    The stuff they wear that you worked for them to be able to 
be included in their earned time for their pay is tremendously 
important because, when they go home at night, the first thing 
they want to do is get hosed off before they darken the 
doorstep of their front step. I appreciate what you did with 
the chicken workers very much. And I wasn't aware of it until I 
found out today and I--I knew they had a good lawyer because 
they won the case. I didn't know it was you. Nobody ever brags 
about the lawyers, so I will brag.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Isakson. The results are clear, and you made both 
sides happy, which is even harder to hear.
    I have listened to a lot of things said today. You have 
been asked so many `yes or no' questions, to which there are no 
`yes or no' answers. So, those are easy for people to ask if 
they know you can't answer. It's like a trap. You know, did you 
stop beating your wife? If you say yes, I have, that means you 
did; and if you say no, I haven't, it means you are still doing 
it. So either way, you cannot answer a question--a lot of 
questions yes and no. But you----
    Mr. Scalia. That was not a question to me, was it?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Isakson. No, that was not. I was not asking you 
ratify your own harassment whatsoever, believe me.
    But I am reminded of a lot of cases in my history up here. 
Like ergonomics was a big issue during the Clinton 
administration, where they took a terminology that I was not 
familiar with at the time and began to apply it in the 
application of a rule that ultimately was to be administered by 
the Department of Labor, which ultimately would have said that 
no grocery bag kid could load a grocery bag that weighed more 
than 35 pounds. They started applying finite, definite limits 
to jobs that were done and forced employment to go up, or down 
in some cases, and it was applied because of a distant--an 
arbitrary mathematical formula, rather than doing what is 
right.
    I want to ask you a question. Can you cite a case or two 
where, as a lawyer who deals with negotiating these things if 
you are on the attack, or being attacked, or negotiating some 
other way if you are on the attack, can you think of some 
cases, other than the chicken case you talked about, where you 
have been involved and where the resolution was a solution that 
allowed the flexibility of the application, or the enforcement 
of the rule, a benefit to the employer and the employee at the 
same time, which is ultimately the way all those rules should 
go?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, if I can say first, it was a privilege 
to sit and speak with you, and I do want to echo Secretary Chao 
in thanking you for your service.
    The poultry case was interesting to me in part because when 
I came before this Committee before, I was asked by Senator 
John Edwards, who was from North Carolina, whether I had ever 
worked in a poultry factory, and I had to confess that I had 
not. I think he believed that that reflected that I would be 
unable to understand the concerns of poultry workers. I, 
therefore, found it ironic when I--one of the first things I 
did was see the problems in that plant and authorize that 
important litigation. So, thank you.
    I think that achieving the kind of, win-win that you have 
described is something that you seek for in litigation at 
times. But I would point particularly to some of the advice and 
counsel work that I have done for clients where it is, as I 
said in my opening, a part you don't see, necessarily.
    I did spend a fair amount of my time as a private practice 
lawyer telling clients what their obligations were, helping 
them meet them by putting together anti-discrimination 
policies, or policies to help workers get accommodation under 
the ADA.
    Then, as I mentioned, at times, pushing clients pretty hard 
to do what the law, and sometimes decency, indicated they 
needed to do.
    That is one area where I was proud of what I was able to 
try to accomplish.
    Senator Isakson. That is exactly what I was talking about. 
So much of this stuff that is the result of your work that 
happens in the back rooms is never seen in a courtroom. The 
important thing is you put together an adversary and an 
advocate, but they come to a common ground that is good for 
everybody, and that is the type of thing we need to have.
    I want to tell you--I have just 40 seconds and I will tell 
you one more question, if I can. And I want to thank your 
remark--your reminding me to thank Secretary Chao and the kind 
remarks she had to me about the Pension Protection Act. I am 
getting ready to enjoy a pension one of these days and I am 
looking forward to it.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Isakson. I am glad we protected it when I was not 
here so it wasn't self-interest at the time.
    My last question to you about the joint-employer rule--I 
know Senator Murray is a wonderful lady and we worked on the 
workforce development--the WIOA Act, which we worked on so 
much, we had--it was for workers, and they--the Labor 
Department enjoys so much. We won't talk about that because 
that is a perfect bipartisan example of how we get things done 
up here.
    But I do want to talk about the joint-employer rule just to 
give you a thought. The statement was made that--about how 
important the joint employment rule is to the future of 
employment and the future of workers in the United States of 
America. I don't know if that is a fair statement to make or 
not, but I know this: The application of the joint-employer 
rule to the franchise industry alone, which is most of American 
small business, will put them in the history books in terms of 
employers. Pure and simple. And it is because the application 
of that, as fair as it may sound, is absolutely impossible for 
somebody to make a living and run a business and support their 
workers, too.
    I hope when joint-employer is finally ruled on, we will not 
look at it as an absolute yes or no solution to a problem, 
which is the workers' rights; but instead, understand that 
there are millions and millions and millions of Americans who 
are employed today by franchise operators; in other words, who 
would not be employed with joint-employer rule of the United 
States of America. And that is my little speech and I will 
yield that for another day.
    Mr. Chairman, I also want to yield the rest of my time, if 
we have another round, to you, because I am not going to be 
able to stay for a second round.
    The Chairman. Okay. Thank you, Senator Isakson.
    Senator Smith.
    Senator Smith. Is it--I think it might be Senator Baldwin's 
turn.
    The Chairman. I did not see her come in. Excuse me.
    Senator Smith. No worries.
    The Chairman. Senator Baldwin. Excuse me.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you. First of all, thank you for 
meeting with me earlier this week, and I want to welcome you, 
Mr. Scalia, and your family to the HELP Committee.
    Mr. Scalia, your history and record on worker safety is of 
concern to me and is not what I would be looking for as--in our 
next Secretary of Labor. Specifically, on behalf of United 
Parcel Service, UPS, you opposed rules that would have required 
employers to pay for protective equipment for workers that they 
needed to stay safe on the job.
    You represented Sea World in a well-known case when they 
contested monetary fines and three citations, including a 
willful citation.
    Earlier this year, I met with a former nurse and a 
constituent of mine by the name of Patricia Moon Updike. On 
June 24th, 2015, while helping a patient, she was kicked in the 
throat, nearly collapsing her trachea. The assault led to 
multiple surgeries to save her life, and it sadly resulted in 
the loss of her ability to work as a nurse, which was her dream 
job since she was 9 years old.
    Violence is now the third leading cause of workplace 
deaths. The Obama administration issued a proposal similar to a 
bill that I have introduced called the Prevention of Workplace 
Violence in Healthcare and Social Assistance that would protect 
healthcare and social services workers, like Patricia, my 
constituent, from--protect them from violent attacks. But OSHA, 
under this administration, has dragged its feet and still has 
not finalized this proposal.
    Mr. Scalia, will you commit to prioritizing this proposal 
and make sure that it is finalized; yes or no?
    Mr. Scalia. First, Senator, if I can say, I did generally 
enjoy our meeting, and I appreciated your time.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. Did you say generally or genuinely?
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Scalia. I said genuinely and in full.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Scalia. With respect to the work that I did, if I could 
just respond briefly, I did handle certain cases for clients. 
It was my job at my firm and I had a duty, actually, to do that 
vigorously as a lawyer.
    When I was at the Labor Department before, I was ever 
mindful that I had a new set of responsibilities, and even a 
higher set of responsibilities. The most important thing to me 
as a practitioner has been fidelity to my obligations and to 
the law. And there was a letter submitted by about 13----
    Senator Baldwin. Yes.
    Mr. Scalia. ----career folks that I worked with at the 
Labor Department about how I discharged those responsibilities 
when I was there.
    Workplace violence happens. There are times when the 
employer is on notice and should be taking steps. I think there 
is a role for OSHA in that context. There is a balance to be 
struck, obviously, for those instances when it is just purely 
personally motivated and one would not expect to hold the 
employer responsible.
    But I have been briefed on this issue. I know it is 
important to you. And if I am confirmed, I would like to look 
at it more closely, and I would genuinely like to speak to you 
about it further.
    Senator Baldwin. I appreciate that. And I would note in 
terms of Patricia's case that she was providing medical care to 
a youth at a juvenile detention facility, and this is the type 
of context where we see social workers and nurses, and I think 
it is--I hate to see the Agency dragging its feet on 
implementation of something that is so vital.
    Mr. Scalia. Yes. I have seen the hazards in that 
environment, too.
    Senator Baldwin. According to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, more than 5,000 workers were killed on the job in 
2017, and almost three million workers were injured or got sick 
on the job. Now OSHA data shows worker safety enforcement 
activity is down, and the number of OSHA inspectors under this 
administration is at record lows.
    Mr. Scalia, will you commit to supporting increasing the 
number of OSHA inspectors so that OSHA can fulfill its mission 
and keep workers safe?
    Mr. Scalia. If I could respond briefly, Mr. Chairman. Any 
workplace fatality or serious injury is too many, but the 
number have actually been down in the last couple of years. We 
can be thankful for that.
    But you are correct. The number of OSHA inspectors, my 
understanding, is lower than Secretary Acosta, for example, 
wanted it to be. And I would commit to you to take a look at 
steps that might be necessary to get the number of inspectors 
up to an appropriate level.
    Senator Baldwin. All right. Mr. Scalia, we----
    The Chairman. We are going to have a second round.
    Senator Baldwin. I, too, have Appropriations to follow--
Okay. Very good.
    The Chairman. Senator--thank you, Senator Baldwin.
    Senator Romney.
    Senator Romney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Scalia, it is good to see you and I enjoyed our 
conversation together.
    Our young people are told that they need to go to college 
in order to get a good job, and in many cases, we find young 
people are getting a college degree and then not finding a good 
job that actually requires a college degree. Actually, almost 
about one-third of our college graduates are working in jobs 
that do not require a college degree.
    We, as a Nation, I think, have not been terribly effective 
in encouraging people in alternative career paths that have 
greater economic potential for them, and more rewarding 
opportunities for them. Some discussion of providing free 
college to everybody would just exacerbate the problem.
    I wonder, is there something that you think is important to 
be done in your administration to help educate people and 
encourage paths, other than just four-year college paths, that 
may yield greater economic prosperity and opportunity?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, I enjoyed our meeting, as well, and 
appreciate the importance of that very question.
    I was an English major in college. I thought for a while 
that that was a background everybody should enjoy. But the 
truth is----
    Senator Romney. I suffer the same problem, yes.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Scalia. The truth is that it does not always best equip 
one for the American workforce, and there are other ways that 
can be invaluable to people entering the workforce and to 
filling the skills gap that we have in our economy.
    This President has convened an intra-agency group that has 
included the Department of Labor, as well as the Department of 
Education, to look, among other things, at apprenticeships as 
an alternative way of educating people, but educating them in a 
way that is more directly targeted toward ensuring they have 
skills and talents that will be useful for them for a lifetime 
of productive work.
    I think those programs are one valuable way. I think the 
attention brought the issue by commissions, such as the 
President's, are another.
    Senator Romney. Thank you. I presume you are fully 
committed to putting the interests of American workers first, 
and consistent with that----
    Mr. Scalia. Yes.
    Senator Romney. ----where our American interests and the 
interests of our farmers and ranchers are also involved, that 
you will commit--I would hope that you would commit to endeavor 
to see if we can't make our H-2A Visa program more efficient 
and streamlined for the benefit of our ranchers and farmers. I 
am not asking for a specific recommendation, but just that you 
would look at this and see if we can't make it a program that 
fully protects the interest of American workers first; at the 
same time, provides for the interests of our farmers and 
ranchers.
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, the Labor Department programs that 
supply extra workers to businesses that, for example, have, 
particularly high seasonal demands, or for other reasons are 
unable to attract American workers to their positions, are a 
central role of the Department. It is genuinely an area where I 
think there is something for everybody to be pleased with. It 
is an opportunity for workers. It is an opportunity for 
companies to bring in workers who might not otherwise be 
available.
    It is important that in supervising that sort of interface, 
that intersection, between worker and company that the Labor 
Department be user-friendly. That is something that does not 
always come easy for the Government. I have heard from you and 
others about ways we might fall short. And if I am confirmed, 
that is high on my list of areas that, because of its 
importance, really to everybody, I want to look at closely and 
see if there is more we can do.
    Senator Romney. Thank you. You have been characterized as 
being anti-union by some, and that is also a malady I share, 
and I--the accusation, not the reality. I fully believe that 
unions play an important role in our society, have helped 
provide greater safety for our workers, greater employment 
opportunities, higher wages, and believe that unions play a 
very important role going forward.
    What are your thoughts about the role of American labor and 
American labor unions? Our labor laws, of course, were written 
and signed by Dwight Eisenhower, so it has been a long time 
since we had legislation in this regard. What are your thoughts 
about the role of labor? And you have 21 seconds.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Scalia. It is an important role that I have praised in 
a number of contexts.
    I have talked in articles about how labor unions can be 
among the most effective advocates you will see for workplace 
safety and health. I have written about that. I have seen it in 
a number of contexts.
    I have seen unions work effectively, also, to address 
discrimination in the workplace in work that I have done, and I 
have praised them for that.
    I have said, as well, that it is fundamental our system 
that workers have the ability to decide whether to form a 
union.
    I have said, I have written, that there are some workplaces 
where the best thing you could have for achieving the best 
terms and conditions of employment will be a labor union. They 
play an important role.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Romney.
    Senator Romney. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, if I am unable 
to be here for the second round, I yield my five minutes of 
time to you, sir.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator 
Romney.
    Senator Smith.
    Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 
Murray, and thank you very much, Mr. Scalia, for being here and 
thanks for your willingness to serve our Country.
    I appreciated also the chance to visit with you when you 
came to my office. We touched briefly on the issue of pensions, 
and I would like to follow-up on that.
    Last year when I was--right after I was sworn into the 
Senate, one of the first visits I made was to Duluth, Minnesota 
to talk with a group of participants in the Central States 
Pension Fund. It is a multi-employer pension fund.
    As you know, that pension fund, and more than a hundred 
others, are projected to collapse in the next two decades, 
leaving at least 22,000 Minnesotans, and maybe as many as a 
million people across the Country, without their retirement 
savings.
    Folks are scared. I will never forget the conversation I 
had with a woman named Vickie, who was talking to me about what 
was going to happen, and she said, Tina, I don't have a plan B. 
My plan B is living under a bridge. And it really helped me to 
understand how important this is.
    Also, I came to understand how this issue affects 
businesses, as well, because they have paid in. They face--
businesses face millions in costs if these pension plans fail. 
One business owner told me that his business, which he has 
spent 30 years building, is effectively worthless because of 
this pension issue.
    I would like to just ask a couple of questions about this. 
First, I assume that you believe in the union's right to 
collectively bargain for pensions and benefits and better 
working conditions.
    Mr. Scalia. I do, Senator.
    Senator Smith. Do you believe that the current situation is 
the fault of the workers in these plans?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, you are referring to the challenges 
facing, for example, the Central States----
    Senator Smith. Correct.
    Mr. Scalia. ----plan? Senator, if I could, I guess, answer 
a little bit more broadly, the--when we think of the Labor 
Department, we often think, or I think many people do, of the 
role in the workplace right now when the person is in the 
plant, safety conditions, wage conditions are very important. 
But pensions are another very central part of what the Labor 
Department does.
    Senator Smith. Right.
    Mr. Scalia. When I was at the Labor Department, we had to 
deal with the collapse of Enron and the impact that that had on 
the retirees or people who were planning on their retirement. 
It was financially a monumental catastrophe, but that broke 
down into, I think, tens of thousands of individual men and 
women who were severely affected by that unexpected loss and--
--
    Senator Smith. Through no fault of their own.
    Mr. Scalia. No fault of their own, and it was a weighty 
responsibility. And then with respect to the Central States 
particularly, I know, as I said in our meeting, which, I 
enjoyed, too.
    Senator Smith. Generally.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Scalia. Genuinely, and in full. That is a historic, 
important plan. I cannot claim that I know all of the things 
that have led to the problems it faces now, but it is no 
solution to blame it now on the workers.
    Senator Smith. Right, and nor the--would you agree, nor the 
business who paid in, as well? Both parties did what they were 
supposed to do just to save.
    Mr. Scalia. I think there has been a confluence of factors, 
Senator, that has led to the problems, and I am not steeped 
enough to know exactly what they are. But, I do agree with you 
that something does need to be done. I think there is----
    Senator Smith. Thank you.
    Mr. Scalia. ----bipartisan recognition of that. And if I am 
fortunate enough to be confirmed, it is something that I would 
want to work with people on because I think everybody 
recognizes the need to negotiate out some legislative solution.
    Senator Smith. That gets to the--my follow-up on this. And 
I want to just thank Chairman Alexander, who has served with me 
on the Select Committee on Pensions last year. And though we 
were not able to come to a resolution, I think that we did 
achieve some good education there.
    I support the Butch Lewis Act, which would provide a long-
term, low-interest loan to these troubled pension plans, and I 
think that Congress does need to act urgently, so I think maybe 
you and I would be in agreement on that. Even the Chamber of 
Commerce says that this is an urgent issue.
    Would you agree that we need to take urgent action on this?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, I would agree that we do need to take 
action, that it needs to be a priority both for the workers 
that are affected, and also for the solvency of the PBGC. That 
is the----
    Senator Smith. Which is the other issue, right.
    Mr. Scalia. Right. That is the agency that the Secretary of 
Labor has responsibility for in part, that insures pension 
plans and would face a serious--very serious--shortfall if we 
cannot find a solution here.
    Senator Smith. Would you agree that we ought to enact a 
program of long-term, low-interest loans to help the troubled 
pensions as the Chamber of Commerce has recommended?
    Mr. Scalia. Well, just because the Chamber of Commerce says 
it doesn't mean I believe it is right, Senator.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Scalia. I would be interested in looking at the 
different approaches to be taken and finding one that helps 
workers and also helps taxpayer and the PBGC.
    Senator Smith. Well, as you and I discussed when we met 
together, this is a very important issue. It is an urgent 
issue. And I appreciate your comments. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Smith.
    Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Cassidy. Hi, Mr. Scalia. Nice to see you.
    One of my--I do not read many economists, but there is one, 
Bastiat, from France, who--he has a nice quote about unintended 
consequences. He says the difference between a bad economist 
and a good economist is the bad economist really looks at the 
primary effect, if you will, whereas the good economist looks 
at secondary. Earlier it came up that raising the minimum wage 
to $15 an hour. I say all of this as a prelude to my question.
    I am struck because there is--the Foundation for Economic 
Education polled a bunch of economists, 35 percent of whom were 
Democrats, twelve Republican, and the rest Independent--seems 
like Republican are underrepresented among economists. But 74 
percent of them thought that raising the minimum wage to $15 an 
hour was a bad idea.
    The article quotes Paul Krugman. Any Econ 101 student tells 
you the answer: A higher wage reduces quantity of labor 
demanded, leading to unemployment. And then they give their 
reasons why, again, so many opposed, 69 percent of whom 
vehemently opposed. Minimum wages reduce employment; reduce the 
earnings of low-paid workers; make some low-paid workers better 
off at the expense of others; younger workers, who are less 
skilled, are less likely to be employed; lower future earnings. 
I could go on.
    Now, that said--that's a prelude to this question--have you 
seen other policies which there is an unintended consequence? 
On the face of it, it sounded great. Why wouldn't we all do it? 
And then you look at the secondary affects, and they are quite 
negative--because you will have to make those judgments as the 
Secretary of Labor. And it is not just about any particular 
policy. Just kind of your experience and your, if you will, 
method of analysis.
    Mr. Scalia. Yes. I think that, unfortunately, the great 
majority of the problems that the Labor Department faces 
involve some tradeoff, where the central mission is to protect 
workers, and also it has this very important role of training 
workers and supplying the workforce that American businesses, 
and ultimately American consumers, want available there.
    But some of those actions, if we are not thoughtful about 
how we go about them, can have adverse consequences by hurting 
the businesses that supply the jobs, sometimes hurting other 
workers, because one group benefits but another is set back. 
And, so, I think that we always need to think, as you were 
saying, like the good economists and consider not just the 
initial, first order effects, but what are the downstream 
consequences of this.
    That, I think, is something that often is helpfully 
addressed in the rulemaking process that we have. A number of 
different ongoing Labor Department rulemakings have been 
brought up in this hearing. As I have mentioned to some of your 
colleagues in our discussions, the--that process of hearing 
from the public about what they think of a proposal and what 
affects it is going to have is a really important way of 
looking far down the road.
    Senator Cassidy. It is not so much a yes or no answer. It 
is the more nuance, what do we learn from the comments to come 
up with something in which we fully evaluate secondary affects 
and make something which is the maximal good for the maximum 
number of people.
    Mr. Scalia. That is exactly right, Senator.
    Senator Cassidy. I am reassured that that is your approach. 
Now I am going to ask you something that a little bit more 
arcane that is very peculiar to Louisiana involving sugar and 
cotton.
    USDA defines the commodity, if you will, of sugar and 
cotton as refined sugar and--or raw sugar--I'm sorry--and 
cotton, which has been ginned. But so far, I gather Labor is 
defining the commodity as cotton which has been picked, not 
ginned, and still has all the things that you have to get rid 
of, and sugar cane itself.
    Now, this has an impact upon whether or not my guys can get 
H-2As to come drive their trucks. If their sugar cane itself, 
for example, is considered the final product, it is an H-2B 
issue. But if it is recognized that this is merely an 
agricultural product that has to be processed to the commodity, 
it is an H-2A issue. Now, although I am obviously begging an 
answer, it actually seems like the answer which is most 
apparent, even upon secondary analysis.
    That said, would you please consider this because right now 
those drivers are being considered as H-2Bs? They are having a 
difficult time getting them, a difficult time getting their 
product out of the field, into where it needs to be processed. 
And the difficulty of that means that there is going to be some 
product left in the field, which is bad for the consumers, bad 
for the farmers, et cetera. So, if I could have your 
commitment, I would appreciate that.
    Mr. Scalia. I will consider that, Senator. That is 
something that I certainly will look at if I am confirmed.
    Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
    The Chairman. You are helped by the expiration of his time.
    Senator Cassidy. But, I would like to say that I will be 
unable to stay for the second round and I yield my five minutes 
of questioning to the Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Cassidy.
    Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you for being here with us today.
    Mr. Scalia, as I think I mentioned to you in our private 
meeting, I have probably voted for more of this 
administration's nominees than many of my colleagues. I have 
come to the conclusion that as long as nominees are qualified 
and they are in the conservative mainstream, I think they are 
worthy of the Senate's support.
    But, as I also mentioned to you, my question that I am 
attempting to ask is whether you are indeed qualified for this 
position. Now, that might seem silly given your decades of 
experience in the area of employment law. But your entire body 
of work, at least in the private sector, as Senator Murray 
mentioned, has been devoted to representing employers against 
workers; has been devoted to trying to stop workplace 
protections from being adopted.
    Now, I have plenty of friends who work for big companies 
and work in employment law, and many of them are fine people, 
but I do not know that I would select them to be the one 
representative in the Federal Government in the Cabinet who is 
supposed to speak for workers. You might make a fine Secretary 
of Commerce in a Republican administration, but I just do not 
know that your experiences actually are qualifications to be 
the sole representative of workers. And so I put that on the 
record as the struggle that I am having, and I ask you a 
question in means of trying to seek out the values that you are 
going to bring to this job.
    Way back in 1985, you wrote an article entitled 
Trivializing the Issues Behind Gay Rights. In it, you said, ``I 
do not think we should treat it as equally acceptable or 
desirable as the traditional family life.'' But you concluded 
the article by saying, ``I'm not sure how I stand on the basic 
issue of gay rights.''
    I appreciate your honestly at the end of that article. My 
worry is that your views have not necessarily matured as the 
Country's have, given the fact that earlier this year, you 
joined the board of a group called Ethics and Public Policy--
The Ethics and Public Policy Center, an organization which 
advocates a lot of time to arguing and advocating against the 
civil rights of LGBTQ individuals.
    Let me just ask you to answer the question that you posed 
at the end of your article. Have your views changed since 1985 
on the issue of rights for individuals in that community? And I 
am not asking whether you will follow the law because I am sure 
you will, but it is a question of the priorities you are going 
to have in this position. Have your views changed since you 
wrote that article?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, thank you for the time that you made 
to meet with me earlier this week. And with respect to my 
qualifications generally for the job, I appreciate your 
positive words about the background that I have as a long-time 
labor employment lawyer. As you said, I think it is approaching 
I think three decades concentrating in the field.
    Yes, often I have represented business, but I believe that 
this Committee has the good fortune of my past tenure at the 
Labor Department, which showed how effectively I am able to 
recognize the new clients, the new obligations, that I have in 
my capacity to discharge those responsibilities very 
vigorously.
    There was a reference earlier to the issue of ergonomics, 
and it is true that I represented clients opposed to ergonomics 
regulation, which this Congress ultimately repealed the rule. 
But once I was at the Department, I worked very closely with 
some of those same lawyers. In fact, one of them--the lawyer 
who had the lead on the issue of ergonomics--wrote a letter--
joined the letter from former career officials supporting my 
nomination. So, I--as did, by the way, the chief administrative 
law judge who oversaw the ergonomics hearing, joined that 
letter saying, Gene did a very good, even-handed job here.
    With respect to the article, Senator, you are talking about 
an article that I wrote when I was in college. It was 1985, 
about 35 years ago. And yes, I certainly have changed in how I 
view any number of things since I was in college. I think we 
have all matured--one would hope--since those days. And I would 
certainly enforce the law in this area and respect the 
decisions of the Supreme Court.
    Senator Murphy. How have your views changed on this 
specific issue? You referenced in that article that they were 
not equal of the same treatment, those different lifestyles. 
Has that changed?
    Mr. Scalia. I would not write those words today, Senator. I 
would not write those words today in part because I now have 
friends and colleagues to whom they would cause pain, and I 
would not want to do that.
    Then, finally, if I could just say, you referred to an 
organization. I went on their board in March, and it is a 
respected organization that has been praised by Paul Ryan, the 
Speaker of the House; by George Will, Charles Krauthammer. 
Jeane Kirkpatrick was once on their board. That organization, 
with which I have had brief involvement, says nothing about 
what my views might be on any number of different issues.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murphy.
    Senator Scott.
    Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Scalia, good 
morning. Thank you for being here.
    Mr. Scalia. Good morning.
    Senator Scott. I do want to start off by echoing my support 
for the Department's recent efforts in joint-employer and 
overtime. I know that has been mentioned a few times. Johnny 
spent some time on it, as well. So, I am appreciative of the 
current direction. As a former employer, I think it is 
incredibly responsible actions on the part of the Department.
    I want to start the conversation off with the topic that I 
think is really important for our workforce, and frankly, it is 
going to be a topic of discussion for however long you are the 
Secretary of Labor--and I hope that that begins sooner than 
later.
    Experts say that about $2 trillion of current payroll could 
be automated. The minimum wage increase only, in my opinion, 
accelerates automation of the payroll. If we see a greater 
acceleration toward automation, what we see are the first rung 
in the ladder of economic success and mobility being pulled 
away. The response to that is that low-skill folks have fewer 
opportunities to get engaged in the workforce, which the 
consequence of that is longer terms of unemployment and a 
debilitating impact on communities of color, and in rural 
America, as well.
    What are your comments on the notion that there is a 
relationship or a correlation between a higher minimum wage and 
lower opportunities to enter the workforce?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, it is an important potential tradeoff 
that one has to keep in mind as one thinks about what the 
proper wage for a National minimum wage or for what a local 
wage might be. Different legislative bodies in different 
locales have reached different conclusions about where to set a 
wage. There is one Federal minimum.
    But as, Senator Scott, you are pointing out, every time you 
set the wage, I think people on all sides recognize that if a 
wage that is mandated is too high, there will be adverse 
impacts that actually hurt some of the workers that are meant 
to be helped. I think that needs to be considered.
    But, on the other hand, obviously the workers' interests 
more broadly need to be considered, too. We have a long-
standing Federal policy of having a Federal minimum wage, and 
it is the Labor Department's obligation to enforce that.
    Senator Scott. I would note that in New York City, when 
they increased the minimum wage to $15 an hour that from 
January 2018 to January 2019, there was a loss of about 6,500 
jobs in restaurants, which was the largest reduction since the 
2001 recession. So the impact, I think, can be measured in the 
loss of jobs.
    As a kid who grew up in some of the impoverished areas of 
South Carolina, my first job was--the minimum wage was $3.35. 
At that time, you could pay folks $2.85, or 50 cents less than 
the minimum wage, in order to encourage more employment 
opportunities for kids.
    I am not advocating that position, but I do think it is 
really important for us to recognize the powerful impact that 
minimum wage increases will have on those folks looking for 
employment. And frankly, fewer than 3 percent of the current 
workforce makes the minimum wage.
    On apprenticeship programs, which I think are incredibly 
important, I think Germany is a great model for 
apprenticeships. I am looking forward to the day that America 
is the model for apprenticeships around the world. In South 
Carolina, we have tackled the challenge of apprenticeships in a 
very powerful way. A big shout out to Apprenticeship Carolina, 
who has truly taken the responsibility seriously, and we have 
changed the trajectory of apprenticeships in our state by an 
incredible number. We are now 50 percent over our 2020 goals.
    I have legislation co-sponsored by some of my friends on 
the other side that provides tax credits to encourage more 
utilization of apprenticeship programs by reducing the actual 
cost of the programs. Any quick thoughts with my 30 seconds 
left?
    Mr. Scalia. Sure. You mentioned German apprenticeship 
programs when we met, and it is something that I am interested 
in learning more about if I am confirmed. And with respect to 
South Carolina programs, I had dinner recently with a friend 
who has been very interested in apprenticeship programs. And by 
the way, she has no South Carolina ties, but she called out 
South Carolina as a State that really stands out.
    Senator Scott. She is very educated since I----
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Scalia. Brighton is a perceptive person.
    Senator Scott. Yes, sir. Just in my few last seconds, Mr. 
Chairman, if you would allow, two things: One, the gig economy 
is something that we should have a longer conversation about; 
perhaps a hearing on the gig economy and what the impact that 
will be on employment and the necessity of having portability 
in the benefit structure of that economy.
    I will tell you that the only way to truly understand and 
appreciate the success and the progress that we have made in 
South Carolina as it relates to apprenticeship programs is to 
perhaps come visit South Carolina. I would invite you to spend 
some time throughout the state, Charleston being the number one 
tourist destination that the Nation has today, perhaps the 
third time in the last 3 years, maybe four times in the last 4 
years. But, because my time is running out, Mr. Chairman----
    The Chairman. It has run out.
    Senator Scott. I am unable to remain for my second round of 
questions, but would like to yield my time to you if necessary.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
    Mr. Scalia. If I could say, I promise to visit South 
Carolina tomorrow for back-to-school day at my daughter's 
college.
    Senator Scott. Very good, sir.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Scott.
    Senator Kaine.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Scalia, 
congratulations on the nomination from the President.
    I noticed in the dialog you had with Senator Murphy about 
his questions--if you go back and read the transcript, your 
answers do not use the phrase LGBT. Your answers actually would 
not enlighten anyone about the discussion. And when he asked 
about the change in your views, what you said is, I would not 
write those words today because it would cause pain to 
individuals, so that makes me want to follow-up.
    I think I know the answer to this question. You do believe 
LGBTQ Americans are entitled to equal protection of the law; 
correct?
    Mr. Scalia. That is what the Supreme Court has ordained, 
Senator, and I accept that.
    Senator Kaine. Well, that is not the question that I asked.
    Mr. Scalia. Also----
    Senator Kaine. So you believe it personally? I know what 
the Supreme Court has said. I am asking about your personal 
belief LGBTQ Americans are entitled to equal protection of the 
law.
    Mr. Scalia. I do, and----
    Senator Kaine. Let me ask you----
    Mr. Scalia. ----in the article--if I could finish. In the 
article--again, it was from college, 1985.
    Senator Kaine. But I am not asking about the article. I am 
asking about your beliefs today. And let me just follow-up and 
say this. Do you believe it is wrong for an employer to 
terminate someone based upon their sexual orientation or gender 
identity?
    Mr. Scalia. I do believe it is wrong. I think that----
    Senator Kaine. Thank you.
    Mr. Scalia. ----most of my clients had policies against 
that. Certainly my firm did. And it is something that would not 
have been tolerated by me or my firm or most of my clients.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you for that answer. That is 
important.
    Should you be confirmed--this is an issue that is pretty 
important in Virginia--could you commit to requiring that 
mining companies who violated worker protections and are 
delinquent in paying the penalties that are assessed against 
them for that would be held accountable and not be able to open 
new mines until they square the account and pay the penalties 
to workers that they have been assessed?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator Kaine, I am familiar with--I believe it 
is Blackjewel, which is a company that had operations in 
Virginia, West Virginia, I think Kentucky and Wyoming, went 
into bankruptcy and has left I think thousands of workers in 
those states in the lurch. That is a serious problem. The Labor 
Department has an authority called the Hot Goods authority that 
enables it to seize goods, product, of companies that have 
defaulted on their wage obligations.
    Senator Kaine. How about the issue of opening new mines, 
getting permission to open new mines, when there are penalties 
that have been assessed and are delinquent and have not been 
paid to the workers for violations?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, I do not know what the law provides on 
that. If there are existing laws that prohibit the opening of 
new mines if there are unsatisfied pension obligations, then 
that is one that certainly the Department would enforce 
vigorously.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you. Let me ask you this. In cases of 
wage theft, the Trump administration is engaged in a practice 
where when there are wage theft findings, they order back pay, 
but not liquidated damages. And often, the back pay does not 
include interest, which means that in cases where wage theft 
has been found, workers get the pay, but get it much later and 
essentially have made an interest-free loan to the company that 
has violated the wage theft laws.
    Should you be confirmed as Secretary of Labor, would you 
work to make sure that in instances of wage theft, people are 
made whole, including interest or other calculations that would 
be necessary to truly make them whole in instances of wage 
theft?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, wage theft is obviously a violation of 
the law. When I was Solicitor, I sought to vigorously enforce 
the wage hour requirements. I have mentioned a couple of the 
cases that I brought, in certainly at least one instance, one 
that was innovative to defend employees' rights.
    There can be circumstances, though, where you can get more 
for workers by offering a cooperative program with the 
Government to satisfy obligations that a company has. You see 
those kinds of cooperative programs across agencies. The 
Justice Department, for example----
    Senator Kaine. Let me switch to another topic. Do you 
believe workers with disabilities should be paid a sub-minimum 
wage under 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act or should be 
paid a minimum wage in the same way as other workers?
    Mr. Scalia. Section 14(c), as I believe Senator, authorizes 
a different wage, and potentially a lower wage. I know that it 
is important both to you and to Senator Hassan, and that is a 
law that the Department is charged with administering.
    Senator Kaine. 14(c) was put into law in 1938 when the 
expectations for individuals with disabilities were vastly 
different than they are today. Do you have a personal opinion 
about whether workers with disabilities should be paid a sub-
minimum wage or should receive the minimum wage that other 
workers receive?
    Mr. Scalia. That, as you say, is a long-standing provision. 
If Congress were to change it, obviously the Labor Department 
would change its approach accordingly. With respect to the 
issue more generally, what I can say is I recognize that there 
are strongly held views on both sides. I think that there are 
people on both sides of this issue that, many of them really do 
think that their approach is one that is in the interest of 
people with disabilities. So, that is a discussion to be had, 
and if I am confirmed, I would be honored to be a part of it. 
I--that is another area where I think there are opportunities 
for consensus, bipartisanship, but it is a hard issue.
    Senator Kaine. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Kaine.
    Senator Murray and I are going to go vote in the 
Appropriations Committee. Senator Enzi has agreed to preside. 
We will be back shortly, and there will be--and I will stay for 
a second round of questions until Senators have a chance to ask 
the questions that they would like to of Mr. Scalia.
    Senator Enzi.
    Senator Enzi. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank 
Mr. Scalia for being willing to take this job. As we go through 
confirmation hearings, I often wonder why.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Enzi. Of course, I got to ask you that personally 
and appreciated your answer and appreciated all the public 
service that you have done.
    I was here for your 2001 confirmation and enjoyed your 
answers then and enjoyed the conversation that we had the other 
day in my office. And I have to say, you have the biggest 
family attending in the 22 and a half years I have been here, 
and you have also got the highest percentage that have stayed 
for the questions.
    Mr. Scalia. I see that Isabella left, the 5-year old.
    Senator Enzi. She was probably the one understanding the 
questions, too.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Enzi. I appreciated Senator Murray's comments about 
pay gap. It is something that I have been concerned about for a 
long time. But, I am an accountant, and now you have to settle 
for the accountant's questions.
    If anybody is not being paid the same thing for the same 
job in the same company, I will help get them to a--get an 
attorney that will prosecute on it. That is what the law is. It 
is not that everybody is going to get the same wage that is 
doing the same job regardless of what company they work for and 
the other person might work for.
    Some of the most fascinating hearings that I have been at 
here have been ones where people were--had gone into non-
traditional jobs. I remember having a young lady sitting where 
you are sitting and talking about how she had always wanted to 
be a brick mason, and she was, and she got to build some flower 
boxes, and then she got to build some patios, and then she got 
to build some fountains. And at the present time, she was 
hanging marble on New York skyscrapers at high altitudes. We 
asked her what her pay was, and I can tell you that she exceeds 
anything that we make.
    If we can get more into the non-traditional jobs and have 
them trained, then we do not have to worry about the minimum 
wage as much because minimum wage is minimum skills. When you 
first hire somebody, you do not know what their capabilities 
are. You have to spend a lot of time training them for the work 
that they are doing. And, when you increase the minimum wage, 
it increases everybody's salary. I mean, you cannot put the 
lowest one up above the next one in skill level.
    It escalates everything, and that is good, provided the 
business can afford to do that, but they have to have the 
economy to do that. I have got to say that the Tax Cuts and 
Jobs Act did help the economy a little bit. It blossomed the 
economy. I had a little bit of a role in that, and so I get a 
little upset when anybody mentions the trillion and a half 
deficit. That was as though that bill would make no difference 
in the economy. That is how that scored.
    We all thought that it would make some difference, and it 
has made a difference. Last year, there was more revenue coming 
into this Country from taxes than there had been any previous 
year. And now this year, we are beating last year for some of 
the overseas money starting to come in.
    There are a number of things that pay into these--play into 
these things, and one of them, of course, is job training. And 
the last two states in the Nation to get a Job Corps training 
center were New Hampshire and Wyoming, and we both have job 
training centers now, and I think they are making a difference.
    What are your ideas and priorities for what you would like 
to encourage--accomplish in terms of job training? And does the 
Job Corps fit into your vision of such training?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, briefly on the subject of the economy 
and the minimum wage, yes, we have been talking today about the 
minimum wage a bit. But, as you know, there are other factors 
that sometimes are even more important to the well-being of 
American workers and how well jobs pay. And right now, we are, 
in part because of the act that you mentioned, we are looking 
at virtually record-low unemployment, record-low unemployment 
for African-Americans, Hispanics. We are looking at more than a 
year of 3 percent wage growth, and people at the lower end of 
the wage scale are enjoying some of the biggest benefits. So it 
is important to enforce the minimum wage law, but we should not 
lose sight of the changes that we have seen in our economy as 
part--partly as a result of this President's policies.
    With respect to Job Corps, that is an important 
responsibility of the Department of Labor. You and I spoke 
about I think a new center that you have near the Wind River 
Range. And I think that, again, that is one of a number of 
different ways that the Labor Department helps workers, but 
also helps America's productivity by matching interested, 
willing workers with businesses that have the kinds--that have 
the need for the kinds of talents that they are bringing.
    Senator Enzi. Thank you. And Wyoming had some people that 
invented something called Climb Wyoming, which is for single 
moms to get non-traditional jobs. They are driving trucks and 
managing warehouses, and the programs are being copied by a 
number of other states now.
    My time has expired.
    Senator Rosen.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you, Senator Enzi, and thank you, Mr. 
Scalia, for your willingness to serve and for meeting with me 
yesterday.
    Mr. Scalia. My pleasure.
    Senator Rosen. I enjoyed meeting with you, as well.
    I want to talk a little bit about Nevada and Nevada's test 
site where we are responsible for the integrity--personal 
integrity of our nuclear arsenal.
    The Department of Energy Employees' Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program, what it does is provide services to 
former Energy employees, like Nevada's nuclear test site 
workers, and compensation for work-related illnesses developed 
as a result of exposure to radiation and toxic substances. 
These hard-working Americans have sacrificed and served our 
Country by working at test sites and other locations that are 
essential to defending our Nation from attack.
    I have a deeper question, so I am just going to ask this 
yes or no. Are you aware of this program at the Department of 
Labor?
    Mr. Scalia. I am. I think it used to go by the name of 
EEOICPA----
    Senator Rosen. Yes.
    Mr. Scalia. ----was the acronym?
    Senator Rosen. Yes. It is a hard acronym, so----
    Mr. Scalia. I could not spell that acronym, but I think I 
can pronounce it. But it was a program that was having some 
problems when I was at the Department before. I do not know how 
it is doing now, but----
    Senator Rosen. Well, let me finish----
    Mr. Scalia. ----I know it is on the radar.
    Senator Rosen. ----and I am going to ask a question about 
working on it and maybe making it better.
    I understand from our home healthcare workers in Nevada 
that changes implemented by the Department earlier this year 
have made it harder for former Atomic and Energy workers to get 
their claims processed and to access the benefits to help them 
afford their healthcare because of these--because of their 
prior working conditions.
    What I really want to do is ask you if you will commit to 
looking at this program, working to streamline the claims, the 
approval process, and specifically implementing an electronic 
claim so that Energy workers, many of them who are so sick--
they are aging, they have chronic pain. They really need to get 
the care that they need.
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, I am not familiar with the particular 
problem that you are referring to, but I would be interested in 
reviewing it, studying it more, and--if I am confirmed, and 
working with you to address it.
    I do recognize that there are some Labor Department 
programs that are not as attuned as they could be to changes in 
our economy and changes in how people communicate, how they 
access and submit information. There are other program areas 
where we would benefit, and I think have tried to benefit, by 
greater reliance on electronic communications.
    Senator Rosen. I look forward to streaming--streamlining 
that for you to benefit their care.
    I want to move on quickly to workforce and apprenticeships. 
I know they have been touched on here before. Registered 
apprenticeships, of course, popular across the country, very 
popular in Nevada. As I mentioned in our meeting yesterday, we 
have more than $20 billion worth of construction projects just 
in the Southern Nevada area alone.
    Our carpenters, our electricians, they have very robust 
training programs, and so what we need to work on is those 
nationally recognized credentials. Apprenticeships strengthen 
our economy. We know they create pathways to good paying 
careers and help meet our Country's current workforce demand in 
middle-skilled job.
    For all those reasons, it is troubling to me that the 
administration is not supporting registered apprenticeships 
programs. The President only requested $160 million for the 
Office of Apprenticeship, only a small increase, and we need to 
help our businesses develop these skills so we can continue to 
grow our communities.
    The Department has failed to properly staff the registered 
apprenticeship program. Six to eight office apprenticeship 
director positions are vacant, including one in Nevada. These 
vacancies are in the Employment and Training Administration's 
regional offices, and of course at Job Corps.
    If confirmed, will you commit to properly staffing, to 
increasing the staffing, and to working on promoting these 
registered apprenticeships that will really build our Nation's 
economy?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, the apprenticeship programs are, I 
think, very important to our President. He has made it an area 
of emphasis. There has been interagency interest within the 
executive branch in looking at ways to improve apprenticeship 
programs. And as you are noting, there is an ongoing 
rulemaking----
    Senator Rosen. There is a vacancy in Nevada. I have $24 
billion in construction projects. I need some more 
apprenticeship programs.
    Mr. Scalia. Yes. I can commit, if I am confirmed, Senator, 
to take a look at that because this administration is 
interested and supportive of these programs. And if there is a 
vacancy causing a shortfall there, that is something that, if I 
am confirmed, I would want to take a look at and see if we can 
address it.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you.
    Senator Enzi. I will yield the chair back to the Chairman, 
and also yield any additional time in case I do not make it 
back.
    The Chairman. [Presiding] Thank you, Senator Enzi, and 
thank you for chairing the Committee.
    Senator Hassan, are you ready?
    Senator Hassan.
    Senator Hassan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you to Ranking Member Murray, as well. Thank you, Mr. Scalia, 
for being here today. Congratulations on your nomination.
    Mr. Scalia. Thank you.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you for meeting with me earlier this 
week. And I just want to thank your family, too. Public service 
is a family affair and a family commitment, and I am grateful 
for your family's commitment to public service.
    I wanted to just start on the issue again of the rights of 
workers with disabilities. We have had a little bit of a 
discussion about it.
    Throughout your career in a number of cases, you have 
represented companies that denied workers with disabilities 
needed accommodations. In a letter to Senator Ted Kennedy 
during your nomination to be the Labor Department Solicitor in 
2001, you named one particular disability case, EEOC versus 
UPS, as in the top five most important legal issues you had 
worked on. This case was ultimately used to narrow the 
Americans with Disabilities Act and its protections for workers 
with disabilities by permitting employers to limit employment 
eligibility based on a perceived disability and how it limits a 
prospective worker's activity.
    I will just note in the discussion about 14(c) that you 
just had with Senator Kaine, that is a little bit of what we 
are trying to get at. New Hampshire was the first State in the 
Country to repeal the sub-minimum wage for people with 
disabilities, which I will note we did because the business 
community came forward and said this is not right or fair. And 
it was, again, about pre-judging people with disabilities and 
their capacity, something that I think we have been trying to 
change over time.
    In the case of your private law practice and in the case--
the UPS case that I just cited, I know you were representing 
your client as a lawyer, but today I would like to know your 
personal views because I think that is relevant should you 
become Secretary of Labor.
    Do you believe that workers with disabilities are entitled 
to accommodations in the workplace? And if so, can you provide 
an example of the type of accommodation you think they are 
entitled to?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, I appreciate how important these 
issues are to you and the work that you have done, including 
with respect to 14(c). And if I am confirmed, I would welcome 
the opportunity to speak with you about it further because, as 
I think we discussed, I see this as an area where people across 
the aisle historically have had--found ways to work together. 
As you know, the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed by 
President George H. W. Bush.
    Senator Hassan. That's right.
    Mr. Scalia. With respect to accommodations, of course the 
law does require workplace accommodations, and I think that 
they are a good thing for the workers and for business, as 
well. There are a range of different things, as you know, that 
can be appropriate accommodations. You see, for example, 
accommodations to enable people who need a wheelchair to get 
about to work more productively in the workplace. At times, 
there can be accommodations to help people who have hearing 
problems to function fully in the workplace. There is a range 
of things.
    I would like to talk briefly about that EEOC case you 
mentioned, but I want to emphasize, too, I have spent a fair 
amount of time with clients, explaining to them both the legal 
obligations they have under the ADA, but also ways that they 
can satisfy them because a lot of managers, shop level 
managers, think, I can't do that.
    Senator Hassan. Right.
    Mr. Scalia. That is impossible. Or, we have never done 
that.
    Senator Hassan. Let us move on just a second because I am 
limited in time, and I appreciate that answer.
    I also want to touch on the issue of disability claims in 
terms of systemic discrimination, because you have also argued 
that such claims brought by a class of workers with 
disabilities are not suitable for class action because each 
case required individual proof.
    You mentioned in your answer to Senator Collins that you 
had represented clients pro bono who needed representation when 
they thought their disability was impacting their treatment in 
the workplace.
    I would like to make sure that clients do not have to go 
finding a lawyer who will be willing to represent them pro 
bono. If there is systemic discrimination, I would like the 
Department and its leadership to really move to eliminate a 
system of discrimination.
    Can you give me your thoughts, not in your past 
representing clients, but about the role of investigations 
concerning systemic disability discrimination?
    Mr. Scalia. This is an area that is the responsibility of 
the EEOC to a great extent, as you know. I do think that in 
areas where it is difficult for one reason or another for 
individuals to come together and bring a class action, there 
may be a greater demand on the Federal Government to step in.
    When I was at the Labor Department before, an area of 
emphasis for me was low wage and immigrant workers. I met with 
my staff on ways we could change our programs to better address 
those conditions because I believed that those were people 
among those most likely to be victimized and least likely to be 
able to address it. And so I think in circumstances where class 
actions are harder to bring because of the Supreme Court's 
rulings and because of the rules that govern them, there may be 
a greater demand on the Government.
    As you know, at the Labor Department we have what we call 
ODEP, which is an office dedicated to helping with research 
and, in some circumstances, outreach and education on 
accommodating people with disabilities.
    Senator Hassan. Thank you, and I notice I am well over 
time. So thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you Mr. Scalia.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
    Senator Jones.
    Senator Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 
Scalia, for being here, your willingness to serve, and also for 
the visit yesterday.
    I would like to revisit a couple of questions asked by 
Senator Murphy and Senator Kaine regarding protections for 
LGBTQ individuals in this Country because, quite frankly, I 
think we are kind of dancing around the heart of the matter.
    Right now there are three Supreme Court cases in front of 
the court that will be heard in October concerning 
discrimination in the workplace for LGBTQ individuals. The EEOC 
said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 guarantees protections from 
workplace discrimination for LGBTQ individuals. The Trump 
administration, as I understand it, has taken a different 
approach and said that that cannot--they cannot read the 1964 
Act to apply to discrimination based on sexual orientation.
    What is your position? You are not--we are not here as a 
judge like your dad was. What is your position with regard to 
the Civil Rights Act and whether or not it can protect those 
LGBTQ employees from discrimination based on their sexual 
orientation?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, this is an area where, as I think you 
are suggesting, to a significant extent that the Supreme Court 
has stepped in and spoken and established certain parameters. 
And then when it relates particularly to the Labor Department, 
President Obama amended the executive order administered by the 
Department regarding discrimination to include LGBT. And 
President Trump has reaffirmed his commitment to that. That is 
a law that I would have, if I am confirmed, responsibility for 
enforcing, and that I--I would not hesitate to do so.
    With respect to the cases that are now in the Supreme 
Court, I think that the Department of Justice has taken one 
position. I do not know currently what position is being staked 
out by the EEOC, but I do not believe that the Department of 
Labor has been called to present its views because it is not a 
statute administered by the Department, again, focusing on the 
statues administered by the Department and the executive order.
    As I said back in that college piece, prejudice is 
abhorrent. I agree with that. It is not something that I have 
tolerated in my workplace, and I would vigorously enforce the 
laws in my responsibility as Secretary if I were confirmed in 
that important area.
    Senator Jones. I appreciate that. I am concerned, though, 
that from a private sector, that the--should these cases not go 
the way that I think they should go, then the LGBTQ folks are 
going to be without any real enforcement under the law.
    What I am concerned about, if you couple that with the 
administration's proposed religious exemption rules, which I 
believe gives folks, under--using Federal tax dollars the right 
to discriminate folks.
    What do you believe--what is your view on that issue and 
the religious exemption right now? Because we--times have 
changed a lot. We have had the Obergefell decision, but we have 
also had Hobby Lobby, and I think people can hide behind that. 
I am all about religious freedom. I really am. But I do not 
want that religious freedom to be used to discriminate against 
people in the workplace, and I am afraid that the proposed rule 
with the Department of Labor and the administration is going to 
do just that. And, so, how do you reconcile those two?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator, I think your question began by asking 
about the cases in the Supreme Court and, we will see what the 
court decides.
    Precisely who to protect from discrimination in the 
workplace or elsewhere often ultimately is a decision to be 
made by Congress, or states and locales. The executive branch 
and the Department of Labor can provide a role in helping 
Members of Congress make that decision. And then if the Supreme 
Court does not address these issues in a way that Members of 
this Committee or Members of the Senate think is appropriate 
and legislation is enacted, then, again, that is an important 
role for us to make sure it is enforced.
    With regard to the rulemaking that you mentioned, this is, 
Senator, an ongoing rulemaking within the Labor Department 
concerning Federal contractors who are religious organizations. 
And, as I understand it, it seeks to update the existing rule 
to protect religious rights in a manner more similar to the way 
that is done under the law enacted by Congress, Title VII.
    There are, I know, strong views. I have read I believe at 
least one letter--I think it was submitted earlier this week--
by a member of the Committee on the rule. And if I am 
confirmed, I am going to take a careful look at that rulemaking 
to see that we get that balance right between our interest in 
protecting religious liberty on the one hand, and on the other 
hand not discriminating improperly on other grounds.
    Senator Jones. Thank you, Mr. Scalia. And I know, Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to just add that I appreciate Congress' 
role. Unfortunately, the way the Senate of the United States is 
operating right now, we do not do anything unless the 
administration expresses a willingness to sign it and sign on.
    I would urge, if you are confirmed, to help regard and make 
sure that protections for LGBTQ people are across the board, 
private and public.
    Thank you so much.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Jones.
    Mr. Scalia, we have--except for my questions, which I will 
ask in a minute, we have completed one round of questions, and 
I will stay in case Senators have a second round of questions. 
But let me ask a few, and then I will turn to Senator Murray, 
and then we will see what other Senators might come back.
    There have been a number of allusions to your 
representation of clients and the clients' views. You practiced 
law for a prominent law firm for a long time. You have probably 
represented some clients who were pretty good people, or my 
experience with a law practice is people who are in real 
trouble. And we have a very good lawyer over here, a trial 
lawyer, defense lawyer, Senator Jones. He has probably 
represented some real scoundrels in his day because that is 
mostly politicians. They have needed a really good lawyer.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. If I am not mistaken, when he was elected to 
the U.S. Senate, he was the president of the National Trial 
Lawyers or something. No, wait. It was the District Attorney--
U.S. Attorney. What was it?
    Senator Jones. National Association of Former U.S. 
Attorneys.
    The Chairman. Yes. But he is such a good prosecutor that 
people in trouble I will bet have come to him to get out of 
trouble.
    One of my earliest lessons in United States history was 
about John Adams, who was President of the United States. 
Before he was President of the United States, he was a lawyer 
in Boston. If I remember right, he represented a British 
colonist who had murdered or killed a British soldier, which 
had to be a very unpopular thing to do in the midst of the 
American Revolution.
    I wonder if President Adams' representation of a British 
soldier who had killed an American colonist--I wonder if you 
would want to reflect on that story in American history and 
talk about your representation of so many clients over a period 
of time, and the difference between your views as Secretary of 
Labor and what your views might be as a very effective 
advocate.
    Mr. Scalia. Well, yes. With respect to John Adams, I should 
say I was blessed with an extraordinary father, but with an 
extraordinary mother, too, who is Boston Irish and loved John 
Adams. And I lived in Virginia, and she did not care much for 
George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, but I had--I learned a 
lot about John Adams and Samuel Adams, and other things, by the 
way.
    As I said, my mom was Boston Irish, and I remember growing 
up as a kid and my mom telling me there used to be signs when 
she was a kid, No Irish. So, that was--part of my upbringing 
was my mother, Irish, telling me about the kind of just, 
blatant, shameless, overt discrimination that she witnessed as 
a kid.
    But yes, I learned about John Adams and that story, which 
you have mentioned, Chairman Alexander, is one of the great 
stories in American history. The Boston Massacre was, a 
terrible event. It was a seminal event in the American 
Revolution. And John Adams did the deeply unpopular thing of 
representing these British soldiers and getting their 
acquittal, and it is a wonderful story about the Bar, about 
lawyers and their obligations--sometimes their obligation to do 
things that they disagree with. And I am proud to have had the 
representations that I have had in the business world and have 
represented my client zealously. But you are absolutely right 
that I am not necessarily my clients. I will seek to defend 
them, to vindicate their rights, but that does not mean that I 
necessarily think that what they did was proper, or that I----
    The Chairman. Well, I would assume that some of your 
clients came to you because they were in trouble. Is that 
right?
    Mr. Scalia. That is usually why you----
    The Chairman. I mean, you just don't have a lawyer to lunch 
at X hundred dollars an hour, but--if everything is doing fine.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Scalia. Sadly, they were not coming just because they 
liked me.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Scalia. As I have suggested earlier, part of that 
relationship with my clients is there is what I am doing in 
court and defending their rights and addressing what their 
rights are under the law. But on the other hand, there can be a 
separate conversation sometimes with a client where I know, and 
maybe they know, that there was something done that was wrong 
and we need to find a way to fix that. And that is part of my 
responsibility, and a part of my job that I cherished.
    Then finally, of course, I have had the U.S. Government as 
a client before. I have--this would be my fourth time in 
Government, including as the principal law enforcement officer 
for the Department of Labor. And of the clients that you can 
have, that is the most important. That is the weightiest and 
gravest responsibility. It meant a great deal to me when I was 
Solicitor. And if I were confirmed, I would certainly, again, 
be so mindful of the special duties that come when you are 
representing the United States Government, and when you are 
looking out for people who lack the means to care for 
themselves.
    The Chairman. Thank you for your answer.
    We will now begin a second round of questions, and I will 
go in a minute to Senator Murray.
    But I have--I have noticed over the last several years and 
really been concerned--and this is not a Republican or Democrat 
issue--if you are an effective lawyer, you are going to be 
representing a lot of people. You don't start out by 
representing people whose views agree with yours. There are 
certain ethical responsibilities lawyers have, but you 
represent people who have a right to be heard, to get justice 
before the Bar. In our society, we need to remember the story 
of John Adams and the British soldier whom he represented. That 
is an important part of our system of justice in this Country. 
Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and very effective 
advocacy now because of Supreme Court rulings, and I don't like 
to see nominees, or lawyers who are not nominees, criticized 
for effectively representing people who have different views 
than someone else.
    Senator Murray, your turn.
    Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Scalia, back in 2001, when you appeared before this 
Committee for your nomination as Solicitor, I asked you a 
question about the pervasive problem of workplace harassment. 
And unfortunately, little has improved over the last 18 years.
    Over the past 2 years of the Me Too movement, countless 
women and men have come forward to share their stories, and I 
have heard from domestic workers and hotel housekeepers and 
fast food workers, and many others, about the harassment that 
they have faced in their workplace and how much they have 
feared coming forward and what--I believe we have to do better.
    Earlier this year, I introduced the BE HEARD in the 
Workplace Act to help prevent and address workplace harassment 
and ensure that all workers are treated fairly and with 
dignity. Now, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, you have 
represented corporations that defended against allegations of 
rampant harassment--the Ford Motor Company against more than 30 
female workers alleging sexual harassment and retaliation at 
the Chicago assembly plant. Women there reported unwanted 
touching, unwelcomed sexual advances, requests for sexual 
favors, and attempted rape.
    Many women never speak out about harassment in the 
workplace because they are afraid of being fired, so I am 
really glad those women did speak out and speak up about their 
experience in the workplace. And I wanted to ask you, do you 
agree that the laws and regulations on the books today are too 
weak to actually adequately protect workers from harassment and 
discrimination at work?
    Mr. Scalia. Madam Ranking Member, we spoke yesterday when 
we met about sexual harassment in the workplace. I know what an 
important issue it is to you, and I have, as you mentioned, 
spent a number of years in the field of labor and employment, 
among other things, dealing with issues of harassment. And I 
was struck and disappointed, too, as the Me Too movement took 
off with the extent of mistreatment that we learned about at 
different workplaces. So, it is, and continues to be, a 
problem. It is one that in my practice I have helped clients 
try to address, help them improve their discrimination 
policies, help them improve their policies regarding respecting 
whistleblowers or those who have reported a potential 
harassment. As I said in my opening, I have had some very 
difficult conversations with clients where they have wanted 
to----
    Senator Murray. I appreciate that experience, and you did 
speak to it. But I just wanted to ask, in that experience, do 
you think our laws are strong enough to protect workers, or do 
you agree that we need to strengthen our laws so that they have 
protections in place today?
    Mr. Scalia. I think that--honestly, Senator, I think we do 
have some strong, important protections in place. I think 
education on those protections sometimes is needed. I do 
believe that it is important to have vigorous enforcement of 
the rights of women and others against harassment. And then if 
the Congress were to conclude that even more tools were needed 
and the Labor Department were to become involved in that, I 
would certainly----
    Senator Murray. But you would not lead any efforts or speak 
out in any efforts to do that, which really concerns me because 
in my experience, it is very--the current system is very 
ineffective.
    Mr. Scalia. If I could just respond to that briefly, 
Senator. Legislatively, if I were confirmed, I would view my 
job as following Congress' lead, and if new laws were enacted, 
to enforce them. But as Secretary, there are things that I 
could do and would look into doing----
    Senator Murray. Yes.
    Mr. Scalia. ----as relates----
    Senator Murray. I will just generally say that many of your 
answers have been that you will follow the law. Obviously, we 
all expect any Secretary to do that. But oftentimes our 
Secretaries need to step up and say our laws are not effective 
enough or encourage legislation. I hope you would think about 
that, as well.
    I only have a few seconds left in my second----
    The Chairman. Take your time.
    Senator Murray. Okay.
    The Chairman. Whatever you want.
    Senator Murray. I wanted to ask you about the fiduciary 
rule because a lot of our economy has really shifted from 
traditional pension, where the risk is on the employer, to 
plans like 401(k)'s, where workers face all of the risk; yet, 
these savers who needed help figuring out their investments 
have been surprised to learn that professional advisors are 
today under no obligation to put the needs of savers and their 
families first, and that conflicted advice costs families 
billions of dollars annually.
    In order to make workers help manage the risk they bear in 
retirement, the Obama administration worked to help retirement 
savers get investment advice that was free from conflicts of 
interest. You have been an outspoken critic of that commonsense 
protection. You have called it a regulatory Godzilla. Even 
after several courts upheld the fiduciary rule among legal 
challenges, you fought to get it overturned.
    I wanted to ask you just this simple question: Do you think 
families who are seeking professional investment advice about 
their retirement savings deserve advice that is in their best 
interest?
    Mr. Scalia. I do think that they should be able to seek 
that advice, and Senator----
    Senator Murray. And know that when they get it, it is in 
their interest, not the person who is advising them?
    Mr. Scalia. I think that that should be available and they 
should be informed of the nature of the advice they are 
receiving and if there are conflicts.
    This is a case where, as the Chairman and I were discussing 
earlier, I was retained by clients to address a rule that was--
it was a controversial rule. Thankfully, the Security and 
Exchange Commission has now stepped in and itself adopted what 
is called a Best Interest standard with respect to broker/
dealers, who are folks that ordinarily are regulated directly 
by the SEC, rather than by the Department of Labor.
    But I, again, having worked at the Department before, I am 
very mindful of the special role the Department has in 
protecting pensions and workers' retirements.
    Senator Murray. You have had a lot of work done on this in 
overturning the rule. Would you recuse yourself from 
participating in DOL's forthcoming revised fiduciary rule 
because of that?
    Mr. Scalia. As you know, there are Federal ethics rules 
that will govern what matters that I can work on when I am at 
the Department where there might have been some prior 
connection on my part or the part of my firm or a client. And 
so in the case of the fiduciary rule, I would seek guidance 
from the designated agency ethics official at the Department of 
Labor regarding what my ability to participate would be.
    Senator Murray. Okay. And one final on this. You are 
obviously being nominated to lead the Department of Labor, 
which Congress explicitly selected to oversee retirement 
investment advice. In the wake of the Studebaker pension 
failure, Congress wanted to provide a higher level of 
protection for retirement savings than investments overseen by 
the SEC; yet, you have suggested that the Department of Labor 
should allow the SEC to oversee the fiduciary rule, and that is 
ironic since you spent a significant part of your career 
attacking the SEC rules.
    If you are confirmed as Secretary of Labor, do you intend 
to cede DOL's authority to the SEC?
    Mr. Scalia. If confirmed, I would not cede responsibility 
to the SEC. I engaged in some vigorous actions as Solicitor to 
help protect the right of retirees to their pensions. I 
mentioned the Enron pension plans and actions that I took 
there. I worked particularly closely, actually, with some of 
the lawyers in that office at the Labor Department and know how 
important that mission of the Department is.
    I will say that the Labor Department's mission, although 
very important, is focused on employment retirement savings. 
One of the concerns raised by the fiduciary rule was that they 
were actually treading on the SEC's jurisdiction. So I think 
part of what is necessary in the Government is making sure that 
there is the proper balance between the different regulatory 
authorities, and I would want to, if I am confirmed, work with 
the SEC if necessary to strike that balance correctly.
    Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you. And thank you for the 
additional time. And I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. 
Chairman, to enter 16 letters in the record expressing concern 
or opposition to the nomination.
    The Chairman. So ordered.
    [The following information can be found on page 73 in the 
Additional Material.]
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray.
    As a courtesy to the witness, we are going to take a five-
minute break before we proceed with the second round of 
questions, but I will be glad to stay here as long as Senators 
would like. The Committee is in recess for 5 minutes.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray. We will continue 
with our second round of questions.
    Senator Casey.
    Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much.
    Mr. Scalia, I know you have had a long morning and just 
have a couple of follow-up questions. I will try to be brief in 
the interest of time for colleagues, as well.
    Senator Kaine had asked you about employment of Americans 
with Disabilities, and I will not--I will follow-up with you 
later, but I was hopeful that maybe that is something that, if 
you were to be confirmed, that you could work together with us 
on. The particular issue is competitive integrated employment. 
I have the leading bill on this in the Senate, and I hope we 
talk more about that.
    Also, on the question of disability claims and what happens 
in the workplace, obviously Department of Labor plays a big 
role in that. The United Parcel Service case that Senator 
Baldwin referred to, and others, I have real concerns about how 
you might approach issues that were involved in a case like 
that, which did narrow the protections for workers under the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, so I will be following up with 
you on that.
    I wanted to ask you in particular, and I am going back to 
the issue of what happens to one category of workers--coal 
miners. The Black Lung Disability Trust Fund is running out of 
money to cover the cost of both health and disability benefits 
for coal miners with black lung disease. The Department of 
Labor administers claims filed under the Black Lung Benefits 
Act.
    I would ask you just a simple question: Do you believe that 
coal companies that benefit from the hard labor of those miners 
should be responsible for paying the health and disability 
benefits for those miners who develop black lung disease, which 
is unfortunately on the rise now?
    Mr. Scalia. Senator Casey, I share your hope that, if I am 
so lucky as to be confirmed, the ability for folks with 
disabilities to participate more fully in the workplace is 
something we might work together on. I think, as we discussed 
earlier, there are reasons for people of sort of all stripes of 
views and beliefs to want to help and work together and make 
that happen. And so, I would welcome the chance to contribute 
to that.
    I feel I should respond briefly on the EEOC case that has 
been mentioned a couple of times. That was a matter I was 
handling for a client. I was not, that I can recall, personally 
seeking to make any significant change with respect to the 
Americans with Disabilities Act.
    The Federal Government had brought this case against my 
client. It was seeking to force UPS to hire drivers for 
somewhat heavy trucks who had vision out of only one eye, and 
UBS--UPS had some safety concerns. There were Federal rules 
saying that to drive a good sized truck, it was important to 
have vision out of both eyes. And so that--I was just defending 
them in the case, but I was not seeking to make any significant 
change in the law.
    Finally, with respect to coal miners, I confess that I 
would need to study more fully the exact parameters of the 
obligations that coal companies currently have to their 
workers, but my understanding is that they are currently 
obligated to make contributions to fund the healthcare.
    Senator Casey. The contribution is a lot smaller. That is 
the problem. That is why the trust fund has run out of money.
    I would say on both issues--and I know we are short on 
time--that I realize that as a lawyer in private practice, you 
have clients that you represent. You have to represent them 
zealously. But you are going to be wearing a different hat if 
you are nominated--or if you are confirmed. And just to say, 
well, I hope we can work together on that, or I cannot comment 
on a bill, or I cannot--you can be, in this position, an 
advocate. And both your advocacy, your point of view, your 
attitude about these issues matters, and I would hope--I would 
hope that, if you are confirmed, that you would act like a 
champion, not just business as usual.
    The reason I mention the ADA is it is about more than a 
quarter century old, and there are two problems with it. Number 
one is we have not achieved the goals of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act; nowhere close in large measure. And number 
two is there are constant hits that are taking place over time 
that are undermining the goals of the Act. So, we need 
champions in both parties, in both branches. That is all I 
would say, and I know I am out of time, but thank you.
    Mr. Scalia. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Casey.
    Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the 
opportunity for a second round.
    I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Casey. Obviously your 
chief responsibility is to enforce and implement the law, but 
good Secretaries are also advocates for change in the law when 
they think that we can do better. And you obviously will have a 
lot of decisions to make about priorities when you get there.
    One area of law in which the prior Secretary was an 
advocate on was the issue of mental health parity. This is the 
law that requires our insurance companies to treat mental 
health coverage just like they treat coverage for all sorts of 
other conditions.
    The President's commission, President Trump's commission, 
on combatting drug addiction and the opioid crisis called on 
the Department to aggressively enforce the Mental Health Parity 
and Addiction Act. It suggested additional authorities be given 
to the Department of Labor, which Secretary Acosta agreed with; 
in fact, asked this Committee for additional audit abilities 
and civil monetary penalty authority for violations of the law.
    Maybe I won't ask you to, weigh in specifically on those 
recommendations, but I think we were really making some 
progress until Secretary Acosta's departure in trying to get 
this Congress to give the Department more authority. And I just 
want to get your confirmation that you will be, an active 
participant in what--in the work that the Department of Labor 
can do to combat the drug addiction crisis and the mental 
health crisis in this Country. You have an active role to play 
to make sure that insurance companies do not continue to be 
part of the problem.
    Mr. Scalia. I would welcome that opportunity, Senator. I 
had a good conversation, among others, with Senator Smith, too, 
about these issues. And when I was speaking to her, I think I 
mentioned that, as I look at people that I know that are 
struggling with medical problems of these days, it is not I 
broke my leg on the job or something of that nature, although 
that still happens. It is difficulties with substance abuse or 
depression or the like, and it--I agree that it is very 
important that we not slight the needs that people have in that 
area or treat them as less worthy of attention than other kinds 
of illness or injury.
    Then with respect to opioids particularly, it is a National 
crisis. I am well aware of the role that the Labor Department 
can play. I think it has been doing some good things. I had 
some good conversations as I was getting briefed by personnel 
at the Department, some good conversations about some programs 
that are in the works. And that is an area that, again, there 
is room for consensus and cooperation because there are ways to 
help these people with opioid addiction better than we are 
doing. And I think the Labor Department has made some strides 
in its workers' compensation program. But also, there is--
business wants to help because this is one of the reasons we 
have a skills gap right now.
    Senator Murphy. Well, we just all know that when you go to 
access a mental health benefit or an addiction benefit, you go 
through all sorts of hoops that you do not have to go through 
if you are getting reimbursement for an orthopedic procedure, 
and that is a violation of the law, and the Department of Labor 
can help us clarify that.
    Second, Mr. Scalia, the Eastern Connecticut Manufacturing 
Pipeline initiative is an example of these innovative efforts 
that are happening all around the Country to try to make sure 
that we are ready for all of the new defense jobs that we are 
funding. We have a defense/industrial-based workforce crisis in 
this Country.
    You do not have a lot of experience in workforce 
development, but that is a big part of your job, and it is 
vital that the Department of Labor, the Department of Defense, 
and state and local Governments partner together to make sure 
that, as we are building more submarines and more ships, more 
land-based military vehicles, that we have the workforce to 
fill those roles. And there is just no way to do that without 
the Department of Labor playing an active role. We could not 
have gotten that partnership off the ground in Connecticut. We 
just had a 92 percent job placement rate without the Department 
of Labor.
    Secretary Acosta came to Connecticut, spent a day looking 
at the partnership, was I think very impressed by it. I would 
invite you to do the same, but I would also love to know that 
this will be a focus of yours because it will be a crisis in 
this Country if we cannot meet that workforce need.
    Mr. Scalia. I welcome the chance to visit, Senator, if I am 
confirmed. And I am deeply appreciative, and even more so 
having come through this process now, of the role the 
Department of Labor does play in sustaining programs like what 
you just described.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray--Murphy. I was 
thinking of calling on Senator Murray, but thank you, Senator 
Murphy.
    Senator Murray, do you have any other comments or questions 
you would like to make?
    Senator Murray. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think there were 
several Members of our set who wanted to come back with 
additional questions but were unable to come back, so I know 
they will have questions they will submit for the record. I 
will, as well, on a number of topics that I want to get 
additional information from the nominee. And I would really 
seriously hope that we get those back in a timely fashion so 
that we can all have the information we need in moving this 
forward. So thank you again, and thank you, Mr. Scalia, for 
being here, and thank you to your very large family for sitting 
behind you for a very long time.
    Mr. Scalia. Thank you so much.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murray, and Senator--I 
want to thank my colleagues for conducting a confirmation 
hearing that included vigorous questioning of the nominee, 
which one would expect for someone from--who has been nominated 
by any President for Secretary of Labor. There is probably no 
set of issues about which we have more different opinions 
politically than on labor issues, but with treating the nominee 
with the kind of respect that a Presidential nominee should 
have. So I thank my colleagues for that.
    I thank Senator Murray and her staff and our staff for the 
professional way they have conducted the various discussions we 
have in connection with the nomination.
    Mr. Scalia has--it has been two months since the President 
made known his intent to nominate Mr. Scalia. We have had all 
of his records sent for three weeks. We will--we have had good 
questions today, and we will vote next Tuesday.
    I will not have any further questions except to make a 
couple of comments. One is there are opportunities, as Senator 
Murphy indicated, despite our political differences, to get 
some pretty good results, and we often did on the Committee. 
Senator Murphy has been a part of that with mental health 
parity, so I hope you will take those opportunities seriously.
    Senator Murray and I are regularly looking for areas of 
agreement where we can move ahead. We cannot do anything in the 
Senate unless we have bipartisan agreement, and sometimes we 
get it. And usually, when we do, we are in the middle of it, so 
I would encourage you to continue your visits with Democratic, 
as well as Republican, Members of this Committee and identify 
areas where the administration and Members of the Committee can 
work on.
    From my part, I hope you will take a look at association 
health plans. We have big differences on Obamacare, but one 
things that is clear is people who make $50,000 a year in 
Tennessee, songwriters, independent business people, they are 
paying through the nose for their health insurance, and the 
association health plans are a help for that.
    There is a rule that Secretary Acosta put out that was 
stopped by Federal court, but Avalere, the independent agency 
that reviews such--or reviews health insurance, estimated that 
this kind of coverage could help as many as three or four 
million Americans reduce their insurance premiums by about one-
third. Now, one-third of a $20,000 a year insurance bill is a 
lot of money. It is several thousand dollars. And this is not 
junk insurance. This is insurance of the kind the big companies 
have. It is insurance that includes pre-existing conditions and 
all of the--and those sorts of benefits. So, the whole point of 
it is, if it is good enough for IBM, why is it not good enough 
for the small business?
    I would encourage you, as a tactic, not to try push the 
envelope as far as you can and get overruled by the courts, 
but--my piano teacher used to tell me at a recital, play it a 
little slower than you can play it. So, if you can get a rule 
out there, or enforcement out there, that is clearly within the 
law, go ahead and take that opportunity because there are lots 
of people--in Las Vegas, for example--in small business who are 
already signed up. There are many in Tennessee who would like 
to sign up. And I would like to see association health plans go 
as far as they can within the law.
    Same with the overtime rule. We need changes in the 
overtime threshold. It just needs to be done in a reasonable 
way. There was bipartisan concern about the earlier decision, 
so I hope that you will enforce that and come up with that in a 
way that is within the law. It may not go as far as somebody 
would like--for example, people at the Office of Management and 
Budget. They might want to push you a little further. Well, you 
do not need to go that far from my point of view. I would like 
to see you play it a little slower than you can play it, and 
make sure we get a rule on overtime and rule on association 
health plan and enforcement of those areas that is clearly 
within the law and that actually helps people.
    The questions for the record will be due at 5 p.m. 
tomorrow. The record will remain open for 10 days. Members may 
submit additional information for the record within that time 
if they would like.
    The Chairman. Mr. Scalia, I thank you for being here today 
and answering all the questions the Senators had. We would 
expect the answers to their additional questions to be here by 
the time we vote on next Tuesday.
    The Committee will stand adjourned.

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

                  letters of support for eugene scalia
                           Ken Anderson and others,
                                                September 17, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: The undersigned 
are a group of people who have known Gene Scalia in a number of 
different capacities. We represent a broad political spectrum. Some of 
us are Democrats who have been active in campaigns for Democratic 
candidates at all levels of elective office. Some of us have held 
positions in Democratic administrations. Others are Libertarians or 
Conservatives who are equally active in support of a different set of 
candidates. And some of us are not politically active. Despite these 
differences, we are united in our wholehearted and unqualified support 
for the nomination of Gene Scalia to serve as the Secretary of Labor.

    We have each known Gene for at least 15 years (some of us for more 
than 30 years). Some of us met Gene in college or law school. Some of 
us met Gene during his previous government service. Many of us met Gene 
through our work with him at Gibson Dunn. We all agree that Gene is a 
first-rate person. His intellect is razor-sharp, his judgment sound and 
his integrity absolute. Gene is the sort of person one seeks counsel 
from for the most difficult and sensitive of issues.

    We would be remiss if we did not also mention Gene's openness to 
views different than his own. Gene's broad-mindedness is evident in his 
dealings with a range of people, including classmates, friends, 
colleagues, and others whose views differ significantly from his own. 
Gene enjoys healthy debate, is open to others' positions and enjoys 
challenges to his own views. A good number of us thoroughly enjoy 
catching up with Gene, among other reasons, to have a discussion/debate 
on any number of different topics on which we know he will 
(respectfully) both consider and challenge our views and on which we 
will be encouraged to challenge his. In these discussions, Gene's humor 
and decency, as well as his great intellect and respect for others and 
for intellectual discourse, shine through.

    We are each highly confident that Gene will serve the Labor 
Department and our country with the same keen intellect, open-
mindedness, decency and integrity that we have seen in all of our 
dealings with him over the years. We recommend him most heartily; our 
government would be most fortunate to have his service again.

    Please let us know if we can provide further information.

            Very truly yours,

 Ken Anderson, Ted Boutrous, Barbara Becker, Scott Harris, 
          Mark Grannis, Jim Hallowell, Jason Mendro, Chuck 
     Muckenfuss, Andrew Nussbaum, Adam Offenhartz, Michael 
      Small, Jeff Thomas, Rebecca White, Sam Wilkins, Bill 
                                    Wiltshire, Meryl Young.
                                 ______
                                 
          Sergeants Benevolent Association, Police 
                      Department, City of New York,
                                              New York, NY,
                                                   August 19, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Murray: I am writing on behalf 
of the more than 13,000 members of the Sergeants Benevolent Association 
of the New York City Police Department to advise you of our union's 
support for the nomination of Eugene Scalia to be Secretary of Labor. 
We ask that once his nomination is received in the Senate that you 
promptly schedule a confirmation hearing so that he may be considered 
by the full Senate as soon as possible. As the Department of Labor 
works to finalize several important rulemakings and chart a course for 
regulating a rapidly evolving workplace, it is vital that it have a 
confirmed, competent leader willing to accept input from all of the 
Department's stakeholders.

    My union's experience with Mr. Scalia dates to his previous tenure 
at the Labor Department, when he was a critical part of Secretary Chao' 
s team that developed the 2004 Overtime Rule. This rule clarified 
important protections for police sergeants and other first responders. 
It was decisive in our union's fight with the city of New York to 
obtain $20 million of unpaid overtime for our members.

    In addition to his public service, Mr. Scalia has had a 
distinguished career in private practice as a management-side labor 
lawyer. While he has no history of working directly with unions, we 
never experienced--nor have we heard from any third parties who have 
dealt with Mr. Scalia--that he harbors any animus toward unions or 
their members. In fact, in an article on occupational safety and health 
enforcement written after his service at DOL, Mr. Scalia acknowledged 
that ``[u]nions are among the most effective advocates for workplace 
safety'' and ``play an important role in identifying and addressing 
occupational hazards.''

    Mr. Scalia has qualities beyond his knowledge of labor and 
employment law that we feel make him well-suited to be an effective 
Labor Secretary. Throughout his career, Mr. Scalia has exhibited a 
capacity to place his respect for the rule of law above his personal 
ambitions and preferences. We are confident that he will take his oath 
of office seriously. We are also confident that he will recognize the 
limitations that the law places on him and his Department, and that he 
will abide by any recusals arising from his past work. In addition to 
sharing our union's respect for the rule of law, Mr. Scalia is also 
someone likely to resume the Department's past practice of giving all 
stakeholders a fair hearing on matters under its purview.

    Our nation is fortunate that someone of Mr. Scalia's considerable 
abilities is willing to leave a successful law practice to return to 
public service. We hope that you will facilitate prompt consideration 
of his nomination by the full Senate so that the DOL can once again 
have proper leadership.

            Sincerely,

                                     Ed Mullins, President,
                                  Sergeants Benevolent Association.
                                 ______
                                 
           Air Conditioning Contractors of America,
                                             Arlington, VA,
                                                September 19, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: The Air 
Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA) is the national association 
of heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) 
professionals across the U.S. with a membership of nearly 60,000 
industry leaders. We write in support of the nomination of the 
Honorable Eugene Scalia to serve as the U.S. Secretary of Labor.

    The HVACR industry is a backbone of the American economy. The 
products ACCA members design, install, service, and maintain are 
responsible for ensuring information technology centers are 
operational, making modern medicine possible, maintaining a fresh food 
supply, and providing essential comfort for every home, office 
building, and healthcare facility in the country.

    The HVACR industry is experiencing significant workforce challenges 
and the Department of Labor plays a pivotal role in helping address 
these issues. By 2022, the HVACR industry will require more than 
115,000 skilled professionals to fill jobs due to retirement and 
anticipated growth in the industry.

    ACCA supports efforts from the Department of Labor to expand 
industry recognized apprenticeships and promote rewarding careers in 
the skilled trades. Throughout his time in office, President Trump has 
focused efforts from his administration to drive more men and women 
into the skilled trades and these efforts are having a positive impact. 
President Trump is also advancing a regulatory agenda, including the 
overtime rule, that will have a positive impact on workers and small 
businesses.

    ACCA is confident that Mr. Scalia will continue to lead efforts 
promoted by the Trump administration to address our industry's 
workforce challenges. Mr. Scalia has a history of supporting workers, 
promoting workplace safety, and holding executives accountable for 
misconduct. ACCA believes that Mr. Scalia will also support President 
Trump's initiatives to promote the value a highly educated and skilled 
workforce to meet the growing demand in our industry.

    Additionally, Mr. Scalia comes from a family that has emphasized 
the importance of public service. He has served our country honorably 
for many years and we look forward to a swift conformation by the U.S. 
Senate.

    If we can be of any service, please reach out to Alyx Simon on my 
staff.

    Thank you for leadership on the Senate Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor and Pensions. ACCA has enjoyed positive relationships 
with your staff and fellow Committee Members for several years.

            Sincerely,

                           Barton James, President and CEO.
                           Air Conditioning Contractors of America.
                                 ______
                                 
            American Hotel and Lodging Association,
                                             Washington, DC
                                                 September 19, 2019
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of the 
American Hotel and Lodging Association (AHLA), I write in strong 
support of the nomination of Eugene Scalia to be Secretary of Labor. 
Mr. Scalia is extremely qualified to serve in the role to which he has 
been nominated, and his swift confirmation is necessary to ensure the 
Department of Labor (DOL) continues to fulfill its mission to wage 
earners, job seekers, and retirees by improving working conditions and 
advancing opportunities for profitable employment.

    Eugene Scalia has decades of experience as a labor, employment, and 
regulatory lawyer. Outside his extensive legal career, Scalia served as 
Solicitor of the Department of Labor under President George W. Bush's 
administration from 2002-2003, Special Assistant to U.S. Attorney 
General William P. Barr during the George H.W. Bush administration from 
1992-1993, and as a speechwriter for Education Secretary William J. 
Bennett from 1985-1987 during the Reagan administration. AHLA believes 
Mr. Scalia is an extremely qualified nominee who would be a welcome 
addition to DOL and the President's Cabinet. We encourage the U.S. 
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions to move 
swiftly to approve the nomination of Mr. Scalia.

    Serving the hospitality industry for more than a century, AHLA is 
the sole national association representing all segments of the U.S. 
lodging industry, including iconic global brands, hotel owners, REITs, 
franchisees, management companies, independent properties, bed and 
breakfasts, state hotel associations, and industry suppliers. The 
lodging industry is one of the Nation's largest employers. With 8.3 
million employees in cities and towns across the country, the hotel 
industry provides more than $92 billion in wages and salaries to our 
associates and generates $660 billion in economic activity from the 5.3 
million guestrooms at nearly 56,000 lodging properties nationwide.

    I urge the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 
Pensions to approve the nominee promptly following this hearing, so the 
Senate may confirm him, and DOL can fulfill its mission.

            Respectfully,

                              Chip Rogers, President & CEO,
                            American Hotel and Lodging Association.
                                 ______
                                 
               Associated Builders and Contractors,
                                            Washington, DC,
                                                September 18, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of 
Associated Builders and Contractors, a national trade association 
representing nearly 21,000 members from construction and industry-
related firms, we write in strong support of the confirmation of Eugene 
Scalia as the next secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor.

    We are confident Scalia will embrace DOL's mission of protecting 
workers and promoting policies that put Americans to work. As a 
seasoned attorney with positions in the public and private sectors, 
Scalia has decades of real-world experience working on the issues and 
challenges that our workers and employers face every day. We believe he 
is the ideal candidate to continue this administration's mission of 
putting our workers first and expanding economic opportunities for all 
Americans.

    DOL plays an important role in ensuring workers are provided with 
workplace flexibility and protected from policies that limit their 
growth potential. We trust that Scalia will focus on collaborative 
efforts with employers and ensure industry stakeholders' voices are 
heard and workers' rights are protected.

    As builders of our Nation's communities and infrastructure, ABC 
members believe exceptional jobsite safety and health practices are 
inherently good for business. We understand the value of standards and 
regulations when they are based on solid evidence, with appropriate 
consideration paid to implementation costs and input from the business 
community. However, during the last administration we witnessed 
businesses struggle due to the DOL's numerous misguided, unnecessary, 
burdensome and costly regulations. We applaud President Trump for 
charting a different course and we look forward to working with Scalia 
on crafting common-sense policies and regulations.

    Additionally, during his previous stint at DOL, Scalia was 
instrumental in the creation of the Honors Program in the Office of the 
Solicitor at DOL, which attracts top law school graduates to work for 
the department and develop their professional talents while working in 
public service. At ABC, workforce development is the cornerstone of our 
mission: we believe all Americans should develop new skills and 
continue their professional education to better themselves and benefit 
their communities. Scalia's efforts to create the honors program 
illustrates his focus on development and continuing education.

    ABC and our members fully support the nomination of Scalia as the 
next DOL secretary. ABC strongly encourages the U.S. Senate Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions to give him a fair and 
thorough hearing and the Senate to move quickly to bring his nomination 
to the floor for a vote.

            Sincerely,

     Kristen Swearingen, Vice President of Legislative and 
                                         Political Affairs.
                               Associated Builders and Contractors.
                                 ______
                                 
         Associated General Contractors of America,
                                             Arlington, VA,
                                                September 25, 2019.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC.

    Dear Leader McConnell: On behalf of the Associated General 
Contractors of America (AGC), I write to you to express support for the 
nomination of Eugene Scalia to serve as the next Secretary of Labor.

    AGC is the leading association for the construction industry 
representing more than 26,000 firms including America's top general 
contractors, specialty contractors, service providers, and suppliers 
consisting of both union and open shop firms engaged in building our 
Nation's infrastructure. The majority of AGC member firms are small and 
closely held family businesses.

    Mr. Scalia has a strong background in employment matters, making 
him highly qualified to be the next secretary. His broad perspective 
and experience in labor and governance issues will be welcomed at the 
department as it finalizes the President's deregulatory agenda. More 
important will be the department's focus on creating opportunities for 
the Nation's employers to create new, high-paying jobs. The department 
will also play a crucial role in rebuilding the Nation's workforce 
training system and making sure industries have access to trained and 
safe workers.

    AGC looks forward to the swift confirmation of Mr. Scalia so he can 
lead this important agency through a smooth leadership transition and 
work on behalf of millions of construction workers.

            Sincerely,

  Jimmy Christianson, Vice President, Government Relations,
                         Associated General Contractors of America.
                                 ______
                                 
                                                   August 19, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: I am writing in 
support of the nomination of Eugene Scalia to be Secretary of Labor. I 
believe that he is a superb choice for the position, and I am confident 
that he would do an outstanding job.

    In terms of qualifications: Scalia has a tremendous intellect, and 
he has devoted much of his career to labor and employment law. As you 
are aware, he was Solicitor of Labor from 2002 to 2003, where he 
compiled an excellent record and earned immense respect from diverse 
people. In private practice, he has specialized in the field. In the 
process, he has also learned a great deal about Federal regulation--
both procedure and substance. He counts as a master of that topic. In 
terms of background and expertise, he is an exceptionally distinguished 
nominee, among the very few most impressive and perhaps at the very top 
in past decades.

    In terms of character: Scalia is gracious and honest, and he is 
unfailingly decent and kind. He knows what it means to be a public 
servant, and to have the privilege of serving the American public. His 
knee does not jerk. He doesn't kiss up, and he never kicks down. What 
most matters, of course, is what a public official does, not whether he 
is a nice guy. But in Scalia's case, his work and his character are 
closely related. His decency is part of what makes him someone who 
tends to go case-by-case, and to end up where the facts and the law 
take him.

    In terms of his likely performance as Secretary: Scalia is 
exceptionally fair-minded, and he listens to arguments--carefully and 
always with respect. I should add in this regard that I have known him 
for thirty years, from his time at the University of Chicago Law School 
to the present. In all of those years, he has been open to the force of 
the argument, and he engages carefully with the particulars. (He is 
also able to change his mind.) I was not at all surprised to see that 
in the George W. Bush administration, he worked hard and successfully 
on behalf of workers, often trying to protect their economic interests.

    I am aware that in some domains, Scalia has taken positions, in 
terms of policy and law, in opposition to regulations that many 
reasonable people strongly support. (I suspect, though I do not know 
for sure, that he has opposed regulations that I strongly supported 
during my time as Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration.) For Scalia, as for 
many lawyers, it is easy to take comments or positions out of context, 
and to give a less-than-favorable picture of what he really thinks, or 
what he would do in a position of public trust. It is important to 
emphasize that there is all the difference in the world between a 
private lawyer, representing a client, and a cabinet official, working 
for the American people. Whether the issue involves occupational 
health, overtime pay, racial discrimination, or pensions, there is no 
question that Scalia would be keenly sympathetic to the rights and 
interests of working people. He does not have an ideological 
straightjacket. He takes issues on their merits.

    With your indulgence, I will conclude with some more personal 
points. As a Senate-confirmed appointee in the Obama administration, I 
have had a firm practice, since January 2017, of neither publicly 
supporting nor publicly opposing any nominees of President Trump, on 
the theory that for officials in the immediately prior administration, 
silence on such matters is generally golden. This is the first time 
that I have broken that practice, and I expect that it is the only time 
that I will do so. I might add on some important questions (including 
several that involve the Department of Labor) it is an understatement 
to say that I have been concerned about policies adopted or proposed 
since 2017. Even--especially--in these circumstances, there is good 
reason to support an exceptionally qualified and exceptionally fair 
person to lead a Cabinet-level Department.

    Scalia is a terrific choice. I am honored to support him, and I 
would be honored to discuss his nomination at any time.

    All best wishes.

            Sincerely,

                                          Cass R. Sunstein,
                              Robert Walmsley University Professor.
                                 ______
                                 
                                                      24 July 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander: I am a deaf, Hispanic immigrant to the 
United States and (as a result of divorce) a single mother, working 
full-time to support my special-needs daughter, and I have 
information--which I hope will be helpful in considering Mr. Eugene 
Scalia's impending nomination to be Secretary of Labor--about his 
handling of a labor/employment matter involving me. When I read the 
news that the President intended to nominate Mr. Scalia, I immediately 
thought to write this letter--on my own initiative, without any 
prompting from, or co-ordination with, Mr. Scalia.

    In 1991, I began full-time work for a very large private employer 
in Washington, DC. By 1998, the work environment there had become 
increasingly hostile toward me, abusive, and difficult for me to bear, 
and I was terrified that I would lose my job. In desperation (I was 
heavily in debt following my divorce and living from paycheck to 
paycheck, just to make ends meet), I went to several labor-lawyers in 
the area, who advised me that they thought I had grounds to file 
lawsuits under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the DC Human Rights Act, and 
the Americans with Disabilities Act, based on the facts of my 
employment situation, and on the grounds of my ethnicity/race, my 
hearing disability, my sex, my marital/family status, and a medically 
diagnosed chronic condition I was suffering from and under treatment 
for at the time. Unfortunately, all of these lawyers--even those who 
said that they were willing to take my case on a contingency-fee basis-
insisted on my paying them a substantial retainer up front, and l had 
no money to pay them any more than their consultation fees.

    Then a friend of mine recommended that I try the ``pro-bono'' 
program at Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, and that I try to get help from 
Mr. Scalia in particular. I was very nervous and asked my brother (who 
is not deaf) to call for me, and see if I could have an appointment. I 
was so worried that Mr. Scalia might be too busy and turn me away 
(after all, I had never even heard of him before)! But he agreed to an 
appointment immediately. At our meeting a few days later, Mr. Scalia 
was so kind, and thoughtful, and patient. (I remember that he even 
asked to see a picture of my little daughter.) I fear I must have 
rambled a great deal when I told my story, but he didn't seem to mind.

    Our meeting lasted a long time, but he didn't ask for a 
consultation fee or a retainer, and he told me right there that he and 
his law firm would take my case ``pro bono.'' He said that he didn't 
think a lawsuit (which could take a long time) would be necessary, 
because often these matters could be resolved through what he called 
``firm negotiations,'' which he was fully willing to undertake for me. 
He made every effort to reassure me, saying that he and his associate 
would do everything they could to ``resolve this'' for me. He seemed to 
sense my extreme anxiety and tried his best to calm my fears. I was 
able to walk away with confidence and hope.

    The negotiations went on for several weeks, but they were 
tremendously successful--much more than I had even hoped for. ``Firm 
negotiations'' is right: The employer agreed to just about everything I 
had asked for, and ``my lawyers(!)'' got the employer to agree to 
things I hadn't even thought to ask for. Not only did he and his very 
helpful associate negotiate around the employment problems that I was 
facing right then, they took great care to look ahead and watch out for 
my future interests. A few months later, when I was able to get a new 
job, with a different employer (as a result of the settlement Mr. 
Scalia got for me), I was impressed to receive brief word from him, 
saying that he had heard of my new job and hoped that my daughter and I 
were well. We sure were--and are . . . thanks in such great part to 
him.

    Throughout my ordeal, Mr. Scalia went out of his way to help. He 
seemed especially to be concerned about not making things worse for me 
on the job, while he was vigorously defending my rights against my 
employer. Even though he had never seen me before and even though he 
knew I could never pay him, simple justice is what he wanted for this 
employee and worked hard to get. And that is exactly what he got for 
me. I am so very grateful to him for his efforts as my lawyer. And I 
hope you soon will allow this advocate for justice and fairness in the 
workforce to have an opportunity to serve the people of the United 
States--my adopted country--as Secretary of Labor.

    Please let me know if you need more information from me or if I may 
help with Mr. Scalia's impending nomination in any way.

            Sincerely,

                                             Cecilia Madan.
                                 ______
                                 
                       Central Staff Services, Inc.
                                           Mount Sinai, NY,
                                                 September 9, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander: I am writing to support Eugene Scalia's 
nomination to be the next Secretary of Labor.

    Mr. Scalia is an extremely well qualified candidate to lead the 
U.S. Department of Labor. He has a keen understanding of both the 
regulatory process within the Department and its enforcement 
responsibilities. He has the intellectual and legal background and the 
temperament to oversee fair and sensible regulations that both protect 
employees while at the same time allowing small businesses like mine to 
thrive.

    I would urge you to move quickly to confirm Eugene Scalia as the 
next Secretary of Labor.

            Sincerely,

                                Georgia Perrone, President,
                                       Central Staff Services, Inc.
                                 ______
                                 
                                                   August 30, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: We formerly 
served in various leadership positions as career attorneys and, in one 
case, as the Chief Administrative Law Judge, in the United States 
Department of Labor, and are writing to support the nomination of 
Eugene Scalia for the position of Secretary of Labor. We were all long-
term employees of the Department of Labor and worked closely with Gene 
during his tenure as Solicitor of Labor and Acting Solicitor of Labor. 
Some of the undersigned worked in Washington, DC, and others served in 
Regional Offices.

    Gene would bring to the position of Secretary of Labor an in-depth 
knowledge of the Department of Labor (``DOL'') and all of the laws DOL 
is charged with administering and enforcing. These include the Fair 
Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the 
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Mine Safety and Health 
Act, and the Black Lung Benefits Act, among many others.

    As Solicitor of Labor, Gene's ``clients'' were the Secretary of 
Labor and all of the Assistant Secretaries who headed the various 
components of DOL. The mission of the Office of the Solicitor is to 
meet the legal service requirements of DOL by providing legal advice to 
the Secretary and other DOL officials, representing the Secretary and 
client agencies in both enforcement actions and defensive litigation, 
and providing legal assistance in the promulgation of regulations and 
legislative proposals.

    Gene showed great respect for the mission of the Office of the 
Solicitor and DOL and understood the role of the Solicitor in ensuring 
that the laws and regulations within the agency's purview were 
faithfully executed. He was very supportive of enforcement litigation 
to vindicate the rights of workers, both at the trial and appellate 
levels.

    Gene would bring a powerful intellect to the position of Secretary 
of Labor. As Solicitor of Labor, he analyzed complicated legal issues 
on a daily basis. He was always willing to listen to divergent views. 
He quickly learned the intricacies of our laws and regulations and 
brought to the position thoughtful analyses and a willingness to make 
difficult decisions.

    Gene was also very interested in pursuing initiatives to strengthen 
the Solicitor's Office. The most notable example is his creation of the 
Honors Program to attract the best and brightest law school graduates. 
Honors attorneys spend their first two years handling a broad range of 
assignments before being placed in a permanent position. The program 
has been in effect for 18 years now, and has been highly successful in 
recruiting, training and retaining a strong pool of new attorneys.

    Gene's temperament is well-suited to the position of Secretary of 
Labor. As Solicitor, Gene headed a legal staff of approximately 500 
career attorneys and support staff, located in the Washington, DC. area 
and in 14 regional and branch offices. He consistently treated us with 
respect. He was fair, open and honest and listened attentively when we 
discussed legal issues with him. He also displayed a wry sense of humor 
and seemed to take delight in interacting with people. He is very much 
a ``people person,'' which made working with him an enjoyable 
experience.

    For all of these reasons, we believe that Gene would be an 
outstanding Secretary of Labor in this administration, and we fully 
support Gene's nomination.

            Respectfully,

Richard J. Fiore, Jaylynn K. Fortney, Theresa S. Gee, Craig 
W. Hukill, Judith E. Kramer, Frank V. McDermott, Catherine 
      O. Murphy, Leslie Canfield Perlman, Donald S. Shire, 
   Michael A. Stabler, William W. Taylor, John M. Vittone, 
                                        Joseph M. Woodward.
                                 ______
                                 
                      The Erisa Industry Committee,
                                             Washington DC,
                                                September 19, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: The ERISA 
Industry Committee (``ERIC'') strongly supports the nomination of 
Eugene Scalia to Secretary of Labor and encourages the Senate Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to vote favorably on his 
nomination. Mr. Scalia's experience both as Solicitor of Labor and 
Acting Solicitor of Labor as well as at a major law firm handling 
relevant legal matters makes him uniquely qualified to head the 
Department of Labor (``DOL''). Representing the views of large 
employers that provide health and retirement coverage to millions of 
their own employees and families across the country, we believe that it 
is critical for the Secretary of Labor to understand the importance of 
employee benefits and the impact on the Nation's workforce.

    ERIC is the only national trade association that advocates 
exclusively for large employers on health, retirement, and compensation 
public policies on the Federal, state, and local levels. ERIC member 
companies operate in every industry sector and most have employees or 
retirees in every state. As such, the work of the DOL has a significant 
impact on the ability of our member companies to continue providing 
generous employee benefits to workers and retirees across the Nation. 
We believe that Mr. Scalia is the right person for this job.

    Mr. Scalia's experience in the Solicitor's Office at the DOL 
provides him with an in-depth knowledge of the DOL that will allow him 
to immediately engage on substantive issues. Also, as a former 
Solicitor of Labor, he has worked with all of the laws DOL is charged 
with administering and enforcing including the important Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act (``ERISA'').

    As an employee benefits organization, we are most impressed with 
Mr. Scalia's experience with ERISA. In addition to his work at the DOL, 
he has done significant work in private practice to ensure that 
employers are able to continue providing voluntary health care and 
retirement benefits, including working to preserve Federal ERISA 
preemption which is critical to large multi-state employers that offer 
benefits to employees and their families in every community in the 
country, as well as the fiduciary requirements under ERISA. These 
examples demonstrate that Mr. Scalia has a deep understanding of an 
area of labor law that is complicated and very important to the lives 
of millions of Americans who rely heavily on employer-provided health 
care and retirement benefits.

    For all of the reasons above, ERIC urges a positive vote on the 
nomination of Eugene Scalia as Secretary of Labor. We are happy to 
answer any questions or provide additional information. We appreciate 
the opportunity to share our support for Mr. Scalia.

            Sincerely,

                Annette Guarisco Fildes, President and CEO,
                                      The Erisa Industry Committee.
                                 ______
                                 
      Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association,
                                            Washington, DC,
                                                   August 30, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: I am writing you 
today as President of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association 
(FLEOA) to endorse Eugene Scalia to serve as Secretary of the 
Department of Labor. FLEOA is the largest nonpartisan, nonprofit 
professional association, exclusively representing more than 26,000 
Federal law enforcement officers from over 65 different agencies.

    Mr. Scalia is a qualified candidate for this position, with a Juris 
Doctorate from the University of Chicago and an MBA from the Wharton 
School at the University of Pennsylvania. Scalia has continually 
demonstrated his appreciation for rule of law and labor policy. In 
serving as special Assistant to the Attorney General within the 
Department of Justice, Scalia became familiar with many of our members 
in law enforcement agencies. In his role as Solicitor of Labor during 
the George W. Bush administration, Scalia received exposure to all 
facets of the Department of Labor.

    We believe Scalia's background in understanding the unique issues 
experienced by law enforcement and knowledge of the fundamental 
responsibility of the Department of Labor to facilitate the treatment 
of injuries sustained by Federal officers while performing their duties 
are the ultimate qualifications for undertaking the role of Secretary 
of Labor. We are confident in Scalia's ability to serve law enforcement 
within the American workforce.

    FLEOA fully supports the confirmation of Eugene Scalia to serve as 
Secretary of Labor and encourages a swift confirmation.

            Sincerely,

                      Nathan R. Catura, National President,
                      Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
                                 ______
                                 
                National Fraternal Order of Police,
                                            Washington, DC,
                                                    21 August 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: I am writing on 
behalf of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to express our 
strong and unreserved support for the nomination of Eugene Scalia to be 
our Nation's next Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor.

    His nomination comes at a pivotal time for the Labor Department, 
which is finalizing important rulemakings and need a confirmed and 
sure-handed leader at the helm who understands these issues and can 
work with organizations representing the rank-and-file like the FOP.

    We have every confidence that Mr. Scalia will be a partner to the 
law enforcement community because we had the pleasure of working with 
him closely in the Bush administration under then Labor Secretary Chao 
to help develop overtime reform regulations in 2004. The revised rules 
clarified important protections for law enforcement and other public 
safety officers, particularly those who had some supervisor role, like 
sergeants, yet were still fully engaged in law enforcement operations. 
During this process, Mr. Scalia demonstrated a willingness to listen, 
the ability to lead, and a commitment to an outcome that was fair to 
the American worker.

    While in private practice, Mr. Scalia's clients were on the 
management side of the labor management paradigm, he has always 
demonstrated the utmost respect for the role that unions and collective 
bargaining units play. After he left the Labor Department, Mr. Scalia 
acknowledged that ``. . . unions are among the most effective advocates 
for workplace safety'' and ``play an important role in identifying and 
addressing occupational hazards.'' The FOP strongly agrees.

    The FOP believes that President Trump has made an outstanding 
choice in nominating Eugene Scalia to be the next Secretary of the U.S. 
Department of Labor. We have every confidence that his knowledge of 
labor law, his commitment to the rule of law and his understanding of 
the limitations the law places on him and the Department will prove him 
to be a highly effective Secretary. Like his predecessor, we have no 
doubt that the FOP and other labor organizations will always have an 
open door and a fair hearing before Eugene Scalia.

    On behalf of the more than 349,000 members of the Fraternal Order 
of Police, I am proud to offer Eugene Scalia our strong and 
enthusiastic support. If I can provide any more information in support 
of this nomination, please do not hesitate to contact me or Jim Pasco, 
Senior Advisor to the National President, in my Washington office.

            Sincerely,

                          Patrick Yoes, National President,
                                National Fraternal Order of Police.
                                 ______
                                 
                             HR Policy Association,
                                             Washington DC,
                                                September 20, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: HR Policy 
Association is a public policy advocacy organization representing the 
chief human resource officers of major employers. The Association 
consists of more than 390 of the largest corporations doing business in 
the United States and globally. Collectively, their companies employ 
more than 10 million employees in the United States, nearly 9 percent 
of the private sector workforce. The Association is writing to support 
the nomination of Eugene Scalia for the position of Secretary of Labor.

    Mr. Scalia has extensive public and private practice experience and 
a great depth of knowledge regarding the various laws and regulations 
enforced by the Department of Labor. He is an incredibly thoughtful 
person that is open to a wide variety of perspectives, making him 
especially suitable to meet the challenges of today's evolving 
workplace.

    Mr. Scalia has more than three decades of outstanding private 
practice experience, involving compliance advice and litigation in 
nearly every area of labor and employment law. His demonstrated in-
depth understanding of administrative, constitutional, and labor and 
employment law make him especially qualified to lead the Department of 
Labor.

    Mr. Scalia has already demonstrated his leadership ability during 
his previous tenure as Solicitor of Labor. His actions as Solicitor 
include significant contributions to overhauling the Federal overtime 
rule by greatly simplifying the underlying methodology used to 
determine exemption status, ensuring workers are adequately 
compensated. Further, as Solicitor, he secured a $10 million settlement 
for poultry factory workers--a settlement that at the time was one of 
the largest in the history of the Wage and Hour Division, and which 
earned the praise of the United Food and Commercial Workers union 
leadership. Mr. Scalia again earned praise from union leaders for his 
role in resolving a West Coast ports labor dispute between ownership of 
the ports and unions, with the leadership noting that his efforts 
``showed that the administration was seeking to heed union concerns.''

    Throughout his outstanding career in the public and private sector, 
Mr. Scalia has demonstrated the intellect, leadership ability, and 
critical understanding of the Nation's extensive labor laws and 
regulations necessary to lead the Department of Labor as it faces the 
important challenges related to the future of work.

    For these reasons, the Association firmly believes that Eugene 
Scalia would be an exceptional Secretary of Labor and fully supports 
his nomination.

            Sincerely,

                  Daniel V. Yager, Chief Executive Officer,
                               Timothy J. Bartl, President,
        G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel,
                                           H.R. Policy Association.
                                 ______
                                 
               International Franchise Association,
                                             Washington DC,
                                                September 24, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of the 
members of the International Franchise Association (IFA), I 
respectfully urge you and your fellow HELP Committee Members to support 
the nomination of Eugene Scalia to serve as Secretary of the U.S. 
Department of Labor (DOL).

    The IFA is the world's oldest and largest organization representing 
the industry. Since 1960, it has educated franchisors and franchisees 
on beneficial methods and business practices to improve franchising and 
better serve communities around the country. Through its educational, 
public-policy, and government-relations programs, it furthers the 
interests of more than 733,000 franchise establishments supporting 
nearly 7.6 million jobs and contributing more than $674 billion to the 
U.S. economy.

    Mr. Scalia is a labor law expert and a dedicated public servant who 
has spent years wrestling with complex legal issues. He recognizes the 
importance of certainty in the law for businesses and the need to 
balance the interests of employers with employees. Further, Mr. 
Scalia's experience in both the private and public sectors has prepared 
him to be an effective leader of the DOL.

    The importance of quickly confirming Mr. Scalia cannot be 
overstated because franchise business owners continue to face a great 
deal of unnecessary risk due to regulatory overreach by the Department 
of Labor during previous administration. One example is the previous 
administration's expansive view of joint employer liability, which has 
annually cost the franchise community an estimated $33.3 billion and 
376,000 jobs. We are hopeful that, once confirmed by the Senate, Mr. 
Scalia will make it a priority to finalize the Department's proposed 
rulemaking on joint employment (RIN 1235-AA26) to provide clear rules 
to both job creators and employees.

    In sum, the IFA urges the Committee to approve Mr. Scalia today and 
the full Senate to confirm him without delay. Thank you for considering 
our views.

            Sincerely,

                        Robert C. Cresanti President & CEO,
                               International Franchise Association.
                                 ______
                                 
                                         Bob Adams,
                                                September 18, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    I had the pleasure of visiting with you earlier this year to review 
the Form 5500 filing matter and PEO's having to report their client 
names and FEIN as part of that process. I appreciate your time and 
consideration of this important matter which has an impact on the 
13,000+ employees Adams Keegan serves in Tennessee.

    I'm writing today to ask that Senator Alexander and the HELP 
Committee move quickly to report favorably to the Senate on the 
nomination of Eugene Scalia to lead the U.S. Department of Labor. 
Secretary-designate Scalia is an extremely qualified candidate for this 
position and holds proven, impeccable legal credentials and experience. 
He has a demonstrated understanding of both the regulatory process 
within the Department and its enforcement responsibilities and has the 
ability to oversee sensible regulations that protect employees while at 
the same time allowing businesses to continue to create jobs. In short 
we believe he is an excellent choice to lead the agency. I ask that you 
encourage the Committee to move with all due speed to approve 
Secretary-designate Scalia's nomination.

    Thank you for the your consideration and if I can assist you in any 
way please let me know.

            Sincerely,

                                                 Bob Adams.
                                 ______
                                 
          Gabrielle Levin and Katherine V.A. Smith,
                                             Washington DC,
                                                     July 29, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: We are labor and 
employment partners at the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 
(``Gibson Dunn'') and write to enthusiastically support the nomination 
of Eugene Scalia to serve as United States Secretary of Labor.

    We have both worked closely with Gene for over a decade and have 
the honor of considering him a law partner, mentor, and friend. Gene 
has been among our biggest supporters at Gibson Dunn, both on the path 
to partnership and after we became partners. Gene has provided us 
critical opportunities to develop as attorneys and showcase our skills 
on high-stakes and high-profile matters. While working with Gene, we 
personally have first-chaired jury trials, argued motions in court, 
taken and defended key depositions, interviewed senior executives of 
large corporations, and presented to boards of directors. Gene has also 
introduced us to several significant clients, and has made room for us 
to develop our own relationships and connections with those clients, 
which has in turn allowed us to develop our own practices and business. 
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Gene has always been available 
to us to provide his sage advice, whether it be on case strategy, our 
careers, or business development.

    Working closely with Gene has also afforded us the opportunity to 
observe first-hand how he interacts with and manages associates at 
Gibson Dunn. And we have both seen Gene to be an incredibly strong 
advocate for our women associates. He has pushed for women associates 
to be promoted, and he has given them critical opportunities such as in 
trial, in depositions, and in court. He gives them leadership 
opportunities and formal and informal guidance.

    Gene also seeks to ensure that the women he works with get the 
support they need in balancing their personal and professional lives--
including when they are going out or coming back from maternity leave, 
or when family or personal issues arise. Many of the women associates 
that Gene works with are on a ``flex time'' or part-time schedule with 
small children, and Gene is invested in helping these associates keep 
their schedules to flex time, which is naturally challenging in 
litigation where we are constantly responding to changing and fast-
paced case deadlines. It is for these reasons, among many more, that we 
routinely advise junior associates that they should make every effort 
to work with Gene.

    We have also witnessed first-hand how Gene handles the harassment, 
discrimination, and whistleblower retaliation matters that are a 
regular part of our labor and employment practice. Gene has not 
hesitated to counsel clients to terminate, where appropriate, the 
employment of managers-including senior executives-who have engaged in 
inappropriate behavior, including sexual harassment. Furthermore, 
employment litigation often requires fact-finding into issues of sexual 
harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, and Gene always approaches 
these matters with sensitivity and respect, and demands the same of the 
team members working with him on these cases.

    For these reasons, we offer our support for Gene's nomination 
without reservation.

    We would be pleased to discuss these matters with you further.

            Sincerely,

                     Gabrielle Levin, Katherine V.A. Smith.
                                 ______
                                 
                                          Lyons HR,
                                              Florence, AL,
                                                September 11, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander: Please accept this letter as an indication 
of support for Eugene Scalia's nomination to be the next Secretary of 
Labor.

    Mr. Scalia is an extremely well qualified candidate to lead the 
U.S. Department of Labor and has proven to have a keen understanding of 
both the regulatory process within the Department and its enforcement 
responsibilities. He has the intellectual and legal background, along 
with the requisite temperament, to oversee fair and sensible 
regulations that protect employees while allowing small-to medium-sized 
businesses (like Lyons HR and our clients) to thrive.

    I would urge you to move quickly to confirm Eugene Scalia as the 
next Secretary of Labor.

            Sincerely,

Catherine Reeves Glaze, Vice President Human Resources and 
                                         Corporate Counsel,
                                                          Lyons HR.
                                 ______
                                 
     National Association of Professional Employer 
                                     Orginizations,
                                            Alexandria, VA,
                                                September 10, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander: I am writing on behalf of the National 
Association of Professional Employer Organizations (NAPEO), the voice 
of the industry that provides HR solutions to small business. NAPEO 
represents approximately 500 professional employer organizations (PEOs) 
and service partner members representing approximately 4 million 
employees in all 50 states. I ask that your Committee move quickly to 
report favorably to the Senate the nomination of Eugene Scalia to lead 
the U.S. Department of Labor.

    Secretary-designate Scalia is an extremely well qualified candidate 
for this position. Indeed, his entire career has been in training for 
it. He has impeccable legal credentials and experience. His intellect 
and ability in this area is unequalled. He has a keen understanding of 
both the regulatory process within the Department and its enforcement 
responsibilities. He has the ability to oversee fair and sensible 
regulations that both protect employees while at the same time allowing 
businesses to continue to create jobs. We believe he is an excellent 
choice to lead the agency.

    I would urge you to move with all due speed to approve Secretary-
designate Scalia's nomination.

            Sincerely,

                             Pat Cleary, President and CEO,
                                                             NAPEO.
                                 ______
                                 
                        National Retail Federation,
                                             Washington DC,
                                                September 24, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of the 
Nation's retail industry, I write to share the National Retail 
Federation's strong support for the nomination of Eugene Scalia to be 
the next Secretary of Labor. Mr. Scalia is a highly qualified and well-
respected labor attorney with decades of experience, and NRF urges 
Members of the Committee to support his confirmation.

    NRF is the world's largest retail trade association, representing 
discount and department stores, home goods and specialty stores, Main 
Street merchants, grocers, wholesalers, chain restaurants and Internet 
retailers from the United States and more than 45 countries. Retail is 
the Nation's largest private sector employer, supporting one in four 
U.S. jobs--42 million working Americans. Contributing $2.6 trillion to 
annual GDP, retail is a daily barometer for the Nation's economy.

    Mr. Scalia's diverse experiences in both public service and the 
private sector position him well to be an effective leader at the 
Department of Labor and member of the President's Cabinet. He has 
extensive expertise under the many statutes administered by the 
Department, stemming from his role as Solicitor of the Department of 
Labor during the George W. Bush administration and his decades of 
experience in private practice. The new Labor Secretary will play a 
critical role in continuing to implement the President's regulatory 
reform Executive Orders, and NRF looks forward to working with Mr. 
Scalia once confirmed on a pro-growth agenda that supports innovation, 
investments in the workforce, and American competitiveness.

    The nominee is extremely qualified, and NRF urges Members of this 
Committee and the Senate to move toward Senate confirmation without 
delay.

            Sincerely,

                       David French, Senior Vice President,
                                      Government Relations,
                                        National Retail Federation.
                                 ______
                                 
      The National Roofing Contractors Association,
                                             Washington DC,
                                                September 18, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: The National 
Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA) strongly supports the nomination 
of Eugene Scalia as Secretary of Labor. We urge the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions, Committee to advance his nomination to the full 
Senate for consideration.

    Established in 1886, NRCA is one of the Nation's oldest trade 
associations and the voice of roofing professionals worldwide. NRCA's 
nearly 4,000 member companies represent all segments of the industry, 
including contractors, manufacturers, distributors, consultants and 
other employers in all 50 states. NRCA members are typically small, 
privately held companies with the average member employing 45 people 
and attaining sales of $4.5 million per year.

    Mr. Scalia has developed an impressive track record in both the 
private and public sectors. He has built a valuable resume working in 
government, having served as solicitor of the Department of Labor 
during the administration of George W. Bush, as well as positions at 
the Justice Department and Education Department during the George H.W. 
Bush and Reagan administrations, respectively. In addition to his work 
in government, he has garnered vast experience on employment law issues 
in the private sector.

    NRCA strongly urges the Committee to report Mr. Scalia's nomination 
as Secretary of Labor to the full Senate. Thank you for your 
consideration of NRCA's view on this important appointment.

            Sincerely,

                      Reid Ribble, Chief Executive Officer,
                                                              NRCA.
                                 ______
                                 
     The National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association,
                                            Alexandria, VA,
                                                September 18, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of the 
over 400-members of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association 
(NSSGA), I am writing to express our strong support for the 
confirmation of Eugene Scalia to be the Secretary of Labor.

    NSSGA is the leading voice and advocate for the aggregates 
industry, with member companies representing more than 90 percent of 
the crushed stone and 70 percent of the sand and gravel consumed 
annually in the United States. Our members are responsible for the 
essential raw materials found in every home, building, road, bridge and 
public works project, employing over 100,000 working men and women. 
Aggregate businesses can be found in every congressional district and 
are a trusted resource for all issues related to the aggregate 
industry.

    Mr. Scalia is an expert in workplace and administrative law, who 
has the right skills and experience to guide the Department of Labor 
(DOL) on its critical mission to protect workers, while simultaneously 
ensuring the Department engages in policies that foster job creation 
and economic opportunities. Further, we appreciate Mr. Scalia's 
commitment to addressing the current skills gap facing many of our 
Nation's employers, including aggregates producers, and promoting 
critical job training programs that ensure American workers have the 
skills for in-demand jobs.

    NSSGA and our member companies are committed to furthering the 
safety and health of our most precious resource: American workers. We 
are pleased that Mr. Scalia shares these important values and look 
forward to working with him to continue promoting safe and healthy 
working conditions for all the men and women in the aggregates 
industry.

    We appreciate your consideration of our views and thank you for 
your dedication and tireless work to advance the nomination of Mr. 
Scalia. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach 
out to Michele Stanley, NSSGA Vice President of Government and 
Regulatory Affairs.

            Sincerely,

                     Michael W. Johnson, President and CEO,
                         National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association.
                                 ______
                                 
                                          Nextstep,
                                                Norman, OK,
                                                 September 9, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander: I am writing to support Eugene Scalia's 
nomination to be the next Secretary of Labor.

    Mr. Scalia is an extremely well qualified candidate to lead the 
U.S. Department of Labor. He has akeen understanding of both the 
regulatory process within the Department and its enforcement 
responsibilities. He has the intellectual and legal background and the 
temperament to oversee fair and sensible regulations that both protect 
employees while at the same time allowing businesses like mine to 
thrive.

    I would urge you to move quickly to confirm Eugene Scalia as the 
next Secretary of Labor.

            Sincerely,

                         Brian E. Fayak, President and CEO,
                                                          Nextstep.
                                 ______
                                 
                                  Peter J. Hurtgen,
                                         Laguna Niguel, CA,
                                                 September 2, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: I write to 
advise you of my support for the nomination of Eugene Scalia for 
Secretary of Labor and of my experience working with him on a labor/
management problem of tremendous import in the Fall of 2002.

    In that year I was appointed, after Senate confirmation, to the 
office of Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 
(FMCS), a position which reports directly to the President. Immediately 
prior to this I had served as a Member of, and then Chairman of, the 
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), appointed by President Clinton, 
and as Chairman by President Bush.

    Shortly after my appointment as Director of the FMCS, I sought to 
intercede in the negotiations between the International Longshore and 
Warehouse Union (ILWU), and the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA), the 
employer association representing all the west coast ports in the 
negotiations to renew the parties' collective bargaining contract. The 
negotiations had been in progress for weeks and involved all the ports 
on the west coast. A threatened shutdown would inflict economic damage 
reportedly of one billion dollars a day.

    The PMA was amenable to my mediating the negotiations but the ILWU 
was not. After several meetings with ILWU leadership, including all the 
local unions involved, I finally convinced them that my efforts would 
be impartial, non-partisan, and balanced; and that I would seek only a 
fair contract based on principled compromises. Thereafter, negotiations 
resumed at my direction and with me chairing the meetings.

    Bargaining continued for several weeks with little progress. The 
structure of the negotiations made it very difficult to craft small 
agreements which could lead to larger ones. Each side had twenty-five 
to thirty-five individuals involved and each side was plagued by 
internal disagreements which made consensus formation almost 
impossible. A constant undercurrent to the negotiations was a union 
view that the PMA and the Bush administration were aligned and that the 
administration would support PMA tactics and positions. The PMA did 
nothing to disabuse the ILWU of that opinion.

    After a month of negotiations, during which time I kept Labor 
Secretary Chao advised of the day to day developments, or lack thereof, 
I was introduced to Eugene Scalia, the Solicitor of Labor. He became 
the Secretary's principle liaison with me and I relied upon him to 
support my efforts to achieve balance concerning the issues and to 
convince the PMA that it had to compromise to reach a settlement; that 
legal or political pressure would not suffice.

    Mr. Scalia understood that economic pressure, including strikes and 
lockouts, was the most effective way to resolve a collective bargaining 
labor dispute, and he counseled restraint in the administration's 
seeking an injunction under the Taft-Hartley Act. He also proposed a 
short-term agreement to both parties to forestall an injunction 
proceeding and to give them more time to reach a permanent agreement. 
The ILWU agreed to his proposal but the PMA did not.

    Notwithstanding my efforts, and with the support of Mr. Scalia, to 
craft a settlement, it did not occur. An injunction was entered and 
bargaining proceeded thereafter. Throughout the post-injunction 
bargaining period, Mr. Scalia urged the PMA to compromise and unlike 
some in the business community, administration, and Congress, was not 
critical of the Union. He understood the bargaining process, the 
pressures it produces, and demonstrated objectivity and even-
handedness.

    My experience with Mr. Scalia, as summarized above informs me that 
he has the objectivity, knowledge, temperament, and balance necessary 
to serve as Secretary of Labor and I urge his confirmation.

            Respectfully,

                                          Peter J. Hurtgen.
                                 ______
                                 
                    Premier Employer Services, Inc,
                                             Englewood, CO,
                                                 September 9, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander: I am writing you today to offer my support 
for Eugene Scalia's nomination to be the next Secretary of Labor.

    Mr.Scalia is an extremely well qualified candidate to lead the U.S. 
Department of Labor. He has a keen understanding of both the regulatory 
process within the Department and its enforcement responsibilities. He 
also has the intellectual and legal background, along with the 
necessary temperament,to oversee fair and sensible regulations that 
both protect employees while at the same time allowing small businesses 
like mine to thrive and grow.

    I would urge you to move quickly to confirm Eugene Scalia as the 
next Secretary of Labor.

    Thank you for your time and consideration.

            Sincerely,

                          Roger Hays, Jr., President & CEO,
                                     Premier Employer Services,Inc.
                                 ______
                                 
               Retail Industry Leaders Association,
                                            Washington, DC,
                                                September 18, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On September 19, 
the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (HELP) will 
consider the nomination of Mr. Eugene Scalia to serve as Secretary of 
the Department of Labor. We write today to support Mr. Scalia and to 
urge the full Senate to confirm his nomination as quickly as possible.

    By way of background, RILA is the trade association of the world's 
largest and most innovative retail companies. RILA members include more 
than 200 retailers, product manufacturers, and service suppliers, which 
together account for more than $1.5 trillion in annual sales, millions 
of American jobs and more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing facilities 
and distribution centers domestically and abroad. RILA and its members 
strongly support equal employment opportunity and have adopted policies 
to achieve this core mission of the EEOC.

    We want to highlight our strong support for his nomination. Mr. 
Scalia is a highly accomplished lawyer who understands the myriad 
complexities of the statutes that the Department of Labor administers. 
His prior service as Solicitor of Labor gives him a firm grounding in 
the positions of the Department.

    As a private practitioner, Mr. Scalia provided invaluable advice to 
the RILA Board of Directors when he served as Counsel to the Board from 
January 2012 until January 2019. During his tenure, he helped the CEO's 
who serve on RILA's Board navigate multiple challenging industry issues 
including those related to the retail workforce. Mr. Scalia 
successfully argued on behalf of major retailers in Walmart v. 
Maryland, explaining to the court why it should invalidate a state law 
that unlawfully singled out large retail employers.

    The mission of the Department of Labor is to enforce laws that 
govern the workplace. The retail community has hundreds of thousands of 
workplaces and employs millions of workers. Mr. Scalia's experience 
counseling the retail industry has given him an additional perspective 
on the workforce that further strengthens his candidacy for Secretary 
of Labor.

    RILA strongly encourages the Committee to review and send the 
nomination to the full Senate to confirm Mr. Scalia as Secretary of 
Labor as expeditiously as possible. Please do not hesitate to call on 
us if we can provide any additional information.

            Sincerely,

                                  Sandy Kennedy, President,
                               Retail Industry Leaders Association.
                                 ______
                                 
                                    Shola Omojokun,
                                                    August 8, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: I am honored to 
ask that you support the nomination of Eugene Scalia for the position 
of Secretary of Labor. Mr. Scalia possesses a unique combination of 
character, acumen, and humanity that makes him professionally, 
intellectually, and personally qualified for this position.

    Mr. Scalia has spent decades building a distinguished and 
unparalleled legal career in the public and private sectors. He is 
recognized as a passionate and adept defender of the Constitution, and 
is a respected expert on labor, employment, and administrative law 
issues. Mr. Scalia's professional accomplishments are clear and cannot 
be reasonably debated.

    Mr. Scalia's professional accolades are well deserved, but his 
character is his most impressive trait. Mr. Scalia is a person of 
integrity who has been a compassionate mentor, a loyal ally, and a 
teacher to numerous attorneys. I met Mr. Scalia in the Fall of 2008 
when interviewing for a Summer Associate position at his law firm, 
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. I was a second-year law student at the 
University of Virginia School of Law, a recent immigrant, and a first-
generation aspiring lawyer who had limited experience with the practice 
of law in the United States. During my interview, Mr. Scalia asked 
thoughtful questions and provided insightful advice on various 
professional and personal matters. Mr. Scalia also offered a kind 
exchange during our conversation--if I was diligent and receptive to 
constructive feedback, he would mentor me and help guide my legal 
career. Over a decade later, Mr. Scalia has kept his promise. As an 
Associate Attorney at Gibson Dunn, Mr. Scalia was generous with his 
time, knowledge, and wisdom. Mr. Scalia was also a fierce advocate for 
female Associate Attorneys, regardless of their political affiliations. 
Five years after departing from Gibson Dunn, Mr. Scalia remains a 
mentor, teacher, and advocate. He was there when I lost my father and 
he has been there at various stages of my legal career.

    I have no doubt that someone with this level of commitment to 
others--who gives of himself without expecting anything in return--will 
stand up for all workers across the country and will prioritize their 
interests above any others. I have always known Mr. Scalia to be a fair 
and principled individual who is passionate about the law and about 
providing opportunities for everyone, regardless of their personal 
traits. And I hope that you and the Committee vote to confirm his 
nomination as the 28th United States Secretary of Labor.

    Sincerely,

                                            Shola Omojokun.
                                 ______
                                 
             San Jose Police Officers' Association,
                                              San Jose, CA,
                                                   August 29, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: On behalf of the 
San Jose Police Officers' Association (SJPOA), I am writing to advise 
you of my union's support for the prompt and fair advancement of the 
nomination of Eugene Scalia to be Secretary of Labor. The SJPOA is a 
labor union charged with the enhancement of wages, benefits, and 
working conditions of over 1,100 men and women of the San Jose Police 
Department. We have been the collective bargaining agent for San Jose 
police officers since 1968. In addition to serving as the collective 
bargaining representative for San Jose's finest,the SJPOA supports the 
San Jose community through charitable giving, community service, and 
the promotion of programs that enhance public safety.

    Mr. Scalia is indisputably qualified by his professional experience 
to serve as Labor Secretary. He witnessed first-hand during his service 
under former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao what it takes to execute 
faithfully and well the responsibilities of this office. While we 
cannot know what the future holds, we have reason to believe that he 
will follow her example and render good and honorable service to the 
Nation if confirmed.

    We know that Mr. Scalia has an appreciation for the men and women 
of law enforcement. This dates back to his service at the United States 
Department of Justice under Attorney General Barr during the 
administration of George H.W. Bush. During the George W. Bush 
administration, Mr. Scalia served as part of Secretary Chao's highly 
capable team that crafted regulations on Part 541 of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, clarifying and enhancing important overtime protections 
for police officers and other first responders. We are confident that 
he will defend these important wage protections. Furthermore, Mr. 
Scalia's support for the men and women of law enforcement has continued 
during his years of private practice at one of California's preeminent, 
home-grown law firms, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP. Among other acts, 
Mr. Scalia participated in a pro bono representation to save the job of 
a police officer accused of off-duty misconduct.

    While Mr. Scalia's considerable private practice experience has 
been as a management-side labor lawyer, we see no indication that he 
possesses the anti-union animus common to many of his management-side 
peers who might have been selected for this position. He has never 
disputed the right of unions to exist. He has actually acknowledged in 
his scholarly writings the important and valid role that labor 
organizations play in the American workplace. For instance, he has 
praised unions as being ``among the most effective advocates for work 
place safety.''

    Mr. Scalia is a seasoned, capable public servant who respects the 
rule of law and the men and women of law enforcement who uphold it. We 
hope that he will be confirmed promptly so that the Labor Department 
can have capable, inclusive leadership with integrity. We appreciate 
your consideration of the SJPOA's views on this matter.

            Sincerely,

                                     Paul Kelly, President,
                             San Jose Police Officers' Association.
                                 ______
                                 
          Small Business & Entrepeneurship Council,
                                                Vienna, VA,
                                                September 23, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: The U.S. Labor 
Department is critically important to America's small businesses. 
Business owners, entrepreneurs and their employees desire a fair, 
responsive, and qualified individual to lead this Federal entity. 
Eugene Scalia is eminently qualified to serve as the next Secretary of 
Labor and the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) 
strongly supports his nomination and confirmation. We urge all Members 
of the HELP Committee to vote favorably on his nomination.

    Unprejudiced minds who still believe that qualifications and 
experience matter for these key Federal leadership positions, will find 
Mr. Scalia's background quite impressive. He is among the most 
respected labor and employment lawyers in the country and would be one 
of the most qualified nominees ever put forward for Secretary of Labor.

    Mr. Scalia served as Solicitor during the George W. Bush 
administration, and during his service fairly applied workplace safety 
laws, minimum wage and overtime requirements, and other statutes 
administered by the department. In the aftermath of the Enron scandal, 
Mr. Scalia was highly engaged in addressing the losses of the company's 
pension plans so that employees and retirees would not be financially 
harmed. In his confirmation hearing, he noted other areas where he 
vigorously applied the law regarding key actions, which demonstrates 
his respect for both the rule of law and the mission of the U.S. Labor 
Department.

    Mr. Scalia is an engaged leader who will listen to the small 
business community. This is vitally important, as outdated or 
potentially excessive regulation can make it more difficult for small 
firms to compete and hire employees, or for new businesses to launch. 
The U.S. economy is highly dependent on robust entrepreneurship and 
small business growth, therefore a Labor Secretary who takes into 
account small business impact, as he or she deliberates proposed 
actions or new initiatives, is critical to the future of startup 
activity and quality job creation.

    A comprehensive and fair review of Mr. Scalia's career, especially 
the period he spent in public service, will show that he appropriately 
administered the laws and did the right thing for workers and small 
businesses alike.

    A Labor Secretary who understands the evolving economic and 
competitive landscape, and who can take a balanced approach toward 
protecting workers and the health of the job-creating sector is vital 
to America's economic future. An objective review of Mr. Scalia's 
career, devotion to the rule of law, pro bono work on behalf of 
employees, and actions taken during public service at the U.S. Labor 
Department demonstrate that he is eminently qualified to be its next 
leader.

    Mr. Scalia's qualifications and engaging leadership are the right 
fit for this dynamic period, and SBE Council urges a ``yes'' vote on 
his confirmation as U.S. Labor Secretary.

    Thank you for considering our views, and do not hesitate to contact 
SBE Council if you have questions.

            Sincerely,

                           Karen Kerrigan, President & CEO,
                                                       SBE Council.
                                 ______
                                 
                        Stafflink Outsourcing, Inc,
                                            Plantation, FL,
                                                September 11, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander: I am writing to support Eugene Scalia's 
nomination to be the next Secretary of Labor.

    I am confident that Mr. Scalia is an extremely well qualified 
candidate to lead the U.S. Department of Labor. He has a keen 
understanding of both the regulatory process within the Department and 
its enforcement responsibilities. He has the intellectual and legal 
background and the temperament to oversee fair and sensible regulations 
that will balance the need to protect employees, while at the same time 
allowing small businesses like mine to thrive.

    I urge you to move quickly to confirm Eugene Scalia as the next 
Secretary of Labor.

            Very truly yours,

                              Abram Finkelstein, President,
                                        Stafflink Outsourcing, Inc.
                                 ______
                                 
                                            Syndeo,
                                               Wichita, KS,
                                                September 11, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander: I am writing to support Eugene Scalia's 
nomination to be the next Secretary of Labor.

    Mr. Scalia is an extremely well qualified candidate to lead the 
U.S. Department of Labor. He has a keen understanding of both the 
regulatory process within the Department and its enforcement 
responsibilities. He has the intellectual and legal background and the 
temperament to oversee fair and sensible regulations that both protect 
employees while at the same time allowing small businesses like mine to 
thrive.

    I would urge you to move quickly to confirm Eugene Scalia as the 
next Secretary of Labor.

            Sincerely,

                             Bill G. Maness, President/CEO,
                                                            Syndeo.
                                 ______
                                 
                                  Thomas M. Susman,
                                            Washington, DC,
                                                 September 6, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: I am writing in 
my personal capacity to express my strong support for the confirmation 
of Eugene Scalia to be Secretary of Labor. I have been a lawyer for 
over 50 years and spent the early part of my career in all three 
branches of government--as a law clerk to Fifth Circuit Judge John 
Minor Wisdom, an attorney in the Department of Justice Office of Legal 
Counsel, and a senior counsel for Senator Edward Kennedy on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. I have also worked in the private sector, 
including 27 years as a partner in a major law firm and over a decade 
with a large nonprofit association, and I got to know Gene personally 
and professionally during that time. I have also known his family for 
over four decades.

    Gene's intellectual and professional qualifications, as outlined on 
his resume, are both stellar and obvious. But his personal attributes 
and character are even more impressive and remarkable. Gene is 
precisely the kind of person that our country needs in the Cabinet: 
experienced, ethical, professional, open-minded, fair, and brilliant. 
We certainly have our political differences, but that does not stand in 
the way of my stepping forward to voice enthusiastic support for him.

    The idea that a lawyer should be judged by positions he or she 
takes for clients belies our Nation's history of taking pride in an 
independent legal profession that stands ready to serve all clients and 
interests that need effective counsel--whether popular or unpopular, 
claimants or defendants, employees or management. The question should 
not be what side the lawyer was representing, but whether the lawyer 
did so with diligence, honesty, integrity, candor, energy, even-
handedness, and respect for both the opposing parties and our legal 
institutions. By this measurement, Gene Scalia deserves tremendous 
accolades.

    I urge you to confirm Gene without delay. I am confident that he 
will serve the Department and our Nation with dignity, honor, and 
distinction.

            Sincerely,

                                          Thomas M. Susman.
                                 ______
                                 
                   Ashutosh Bhagwat and co-authors,
                                                   August 22, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray: The co-authors 
of this letter, as third-year law students in 1989 and 1990, were each 
members of the Editorial Board of The University of Chicago Law Review, 
whose leader at the time was our classmate Eugene Scalia, the Editor-
in-Chief. We vary in the degree to which we have worked with or 
remained close to Gene in the years since law school, but based on our 
collective experiences with Gene, including time together serving on 
the Editorial Board of the Law Review, we all uniformly support his 
nomination to serve as Secretary of Labor and are writing to convey our 
enthusiastic endorsement.

    Being appointed to the Editonal Board of the Law Review is an 
honor. These appointments are made by the prior year's Editorial Board 
members, so it was that group of individuals who chose each of us for 
the editorial positions we held and chose Gene as our Editor-in-Chief. 
Our work as a newly constituted Editorial Board started in the summer 
of 1989, as we began to plan and assemble the first of four issues 
comprising Volume 57 of the Law Review. It is the responsibility of the 
Editorial Board to determine what legal scholarship the Law Review will 
publish, what topics it will feature in assembled collections of 
articles or symposia, what books to review, which legal academics to 
solicit as authors, and which student-written articles, or 
``comments,'' to include among the Law Review's pages. And it was the 
job of the Editorial Board to select which staff members to elevate to 
Board positions for the following year. We made these decisions 
collectively, under Gene's leadership, in an environment in which we 
were each free to openly express our views and opinions.

    The composition of our Editorial Board reflected the diversity of 
the law school as a whole. Our Board was fairly evenly split between 
women and men, and we came from diverse regional and educational 
backgrounds, with a wide range of viewpoints across the political and 
ideological spectrum--a diversity that is reflected among the 
signatories to this letter. Whatever our differences in perspective, as 
an Editorial Board we had a common goal: to publish sound legal 
scholarship worthy of the Law Review's reputation for excellence. Our 
individual perspectives and views played no role in determining what we 
would publish or by whom, and in this regard Gene as our leader set a 
strong example.

    One of the more controversial decisions we made as an Editorial 
Board involved two reviews we published of Judge Robert Bork's book, 
The Tempting of America. Judge Bork had been nominated to the U.S. 
Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan in the summer of 1987, roughly 
two months before we started law school. The Senate rejected his 
nomination by a 58-42 vote in October of the same year. For each of us 
as first-year law students at the time, these unusually contentious 
confirmation hearings, involving a distinguished alumnus of our law 
school, made a searing impression. Some of us felt the outcome was 
justified, while others did not. Two years later, we found ourselves in 
a position of some influence. Judge Bork's new book, The Tempting of 
America, was his personal memoir and commentary on the failed 
nomination and related hearings. We were the only prominent law review 
in the country to review the book, and the decision of what type of 
review to publish and by whom was subject to our editorial discretion.

    In the interest of achieving balance and offering differing 
perspectives, we solicited two reviews of the book, one by Ronald 
Dworkin and the other by Robert Nagel. As it happened, both reviews 
proved quite negative. It is notable, we think, that these two critical 
reviews were published at a time when Gene Scalia was the Law Review's 
Editor-in-Chief. Gene knew Judge Bork personally, and his father 
(Justice Scalia) had previously served together with Judge Bork (from 
1982 to 1986) as a federal appeals judge on the DC Circuit. Yet, 
consistent with the approach taken by our Editorial Board under Gene's 
leadership, personal views and affiliations had absolutely no bearing 
on our editorial decisions.

    As a law school classmate and as the leader of our Editorial Board, 
Gene exhibited many other positive qualities, qualities that those of 
us who know him best can attest he continues to exhibit today. He was 
and is an excellent colleague. When debating points of law or other 
strongly held views, Gene is unfailingly courteous and shows due 
respect for the opinions of others. He is open to being persuaded by a 
well-supported argument, even where doing so may involve conceding 
error. In all of his dealings with others, Gene is exceedingly 
professional and respectful. And he places great value on encouraging a 
diversity of perspectives. Indeed, he drew upon that diversity in 
ensuring that we as an Editorial Board made the best decisions possible 
with regard to article and author selection, staff promotions, and the 
like.

    In short, we have the utmost respect for Gene as a person, a 
colleague, and a lawyer. Although we cannot speak to all of his many 
qualifications, we believe Gene's character, temperament, intelligence, 
and personal integrity will be crucial assets for this important 
executive branch position. We are confident that he will serve 
admirably should he be confirmed as Secretary of Labor and we are 
pleased to convey our unqualified support for his nomination.

            Sincerely,

Ashutosh Bhagwat, M. Sean Royall, Jacqueline Gerson Cooper, 
  J. Robert Robertson, D. Gordon Smith, Andrea Nervi Ward, 
                                          Cynthia Vreeland.
                                 ______
                                 
             letters opposing the eugene scalia nomination
             Service Employees International Union,
                1800 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC,
                                                September 17, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray:

    On behalf of the 2 million members of the Service Employees 
International Union (SEIU), I write to oppose the nomination of Eugene 
Scalia to be Secretary of Labor. Mr. Scalia has spent his entire career 
putting the interests of big corporations ahead of workers, defending 
an entire range of bad corporate behavior no matter how egregious. 
America needs a labor secretary who will protect workers' right to 
organize and form a union and uphold worker protections. Mr. Scalia is 
unfit in every sense to serve as Labor Secretary and his nomination 
should be rejected.

    Mr. Scalia has consistently sided with corporations at the expense 
of workers. Mr. Scalia represented SeaWorld when it unsuccessfully 
tried to fight off an Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) citation and fine for failing to protect Dawn Brancheau, a 
trainer at SeaWorld who was killed on the job by a killer whale. Mr. 
Scalia' s work on this case demonstrated his utter hostility to the 
core mission of the Department of Labor, and he would likely continue 
this administration's assault on the most basic of rules that protect 
workers every day from harm on the job.

    Furthermore, Ford Motor Co. has turned to Mr. Scalia to defend the 
company in numerous cases involving sexual harassment at the company's 
plants. Mr. Scalia has been involved in at least 27 cases involving 
sexual harassment since 2007, and he has defended the company 
continuously despite a very clear culture of harassment at the company. 
Given his history, it can be inferred that Mr. Scalia would not take 
seriously sexual harassment claims made by workers, and that he would 
continue this administration's efforts to undermine the mechanisms 
established in law by which workers can have their voice heard on the 
job. At a time when workers have been Empowered by the #MeToo movement 
to come forward to share their stories and their trauma and demand 
stronger workplace rights and safety, Mr. Scalia is continuing to work 
on behalf of those that would silence the voices of these workers.

    Mr. Scalia has also made it clear he will not enforce evidence 
based rules the Department of Labor has put in place to protect workers 
and their families. As a lawyer representing the U.S. Chamberof 
Commerce, Mr. Scalia fought to have the Courts strike down the `` 
fiduciary rule,'' which required investment advisors to put the 
interest of retirees and clients ahead of their own profit interests. 
Mr. Scalia's record demonstrates that he consistently chooses to put 
profits over workers no matter the negative impact his actions have on 
working families.

    Based on his record, we respectfully urge you to reject Mr. 
Scalia's nomination to be Secretary of Labor and urge you to call upon 
the President to put forth a candidate who will be a champion for 
working families. We will consider adding any vote on this nomination 
to our legislative scorecard. If you need any additional information, 
contact John Foti.

            Sincerely,
                   Mary Kay Henry, International President,
                              Service Employees International Union
                                 ______
                                 
                               United Steelworkers,
                   1155 Connecticut Ave, NW Washington, DC,
                                                September 11, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray:

    On behalf of the 850,000 members of the United Steelworkers and in 
support of all working Americans, I urge you to oppose the nomination 
of corporate attorney Eugene Scalia to serve as Secretary of the United 
States Department of Labor.

    While the Department of Labor's mission is to protect the welfare 
of wage earners, job seekers, and retirees, Eugene Scalia has spent his 
entire career dismantling labor and financial regulations aimed at 
protecting American workers and consumers. Specifically, he has worked 
to remove protections aimed at decreasing injuries from repetitive 
stress, ensuring retirement advisors act in the best interests of their 
clients, and holding Wall Street accountable for abusive financial 
practices.

    Scalia's career is littered with efforts to help corporations 
defeat state laws and regulations that would have protected worker's 
pay and lives. It is egregious that the nominee for the Federal agency 
that will oversee the Occupational Safety & Health Administration 
(OSHA) once opposed a policy that would have required employers to 
purchase personal protective equipment (PPE) for their employees. 
Workers should not be subjected to buying equipment to safely work on 
the job. Scalia has fought against casino workers ability to take home 
their hard-earned tips, and opposed efforts to spend a minimum share of 
profits of major corporations, like Walmart, on employee healthcare.

    More recently, the nominee challenged a new law in California that 
allows workers to participate in process safety management (PSM) 
standards at oil refineries. He has even defended employers, like 
SeaWorld, against workplace safety violations following the death of a 
worker killed on the job.

    Over his career, Scalia has devoted countless hours to ensuring 
that corporate greed and investor interests are prioritized over worker 
and consumer safety and well-being. After years spent stripping workers 
of their rights to fair and safe working conditions, Eugene Scalia 
should not be the individual tasked with enforcing them.

    The Secretary of Labor has a responsibility to protect employees in 
the workplace, to hold corporations accountable for the lives and 
safety of their workers, and to fully enforce some of America's most 
important Federal labor laws. Given Eugene Scalia's long history of 
pro-business deregulatory work, he is unfit to carry out the 
responsibilities of the job.

    The United States deserves a Secretary of Labor that will protect 
workers, not corporations. The USW urges you to oppose the nomination 
of Eugene Scalia to serve as Secretary of Labor.

            Sincerely,
                Roy O. Houseman, Jr., Legislative Director,
                                                United Steelworkers
                                 ______
                                 
                                          WorkSafe,
                                                September 18, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray:

    On behalf of Worksafe, I write to register our opposition to the 
confirmation of Eugene Scalia as the next Secretary of Labor.

    Worksafe is a California-based organization dedicated to 
eliminating workplace hazards. We advocate for protective worker health 
and safety laws and effective remedies for injured workers. We watch 
dog government agencies to ensure they enforce these laws. We also 
engage in campaigns in coalition with unions, 
workers,community,environmental and legal organizations, and scientists 
to eliminate hazards and toxic chemicals from the workplace.

    Mr. Scalia has spent virtually his entire legal career working to 
expand corporate and employer power, and narrow protections for 
workers. He is, quite simply, not someone who is suitable to serve as 
this country's chief advocate for working people. The mission of the 
Department of Labor is to ``foster, promote and develop the well-being 
of wage earners, job seekers and retirees of the United States; improve 
working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; 
and assure work-related benefits and rights.'' We do not believe that 
Mr. Scalia, whose greatest accomplishments have included defeating 
rules that would have protected millions of workers from 
musculoskeletal disorders and required that retirement investment 
advisors put a client's financial interests ahead of their own, will be 
able to fulfill this critical mission.

    If confirmed, Mr. Scalia will be among the most conflicted Labor 
Secretaries in the agency's history. His list of potential recusals is 
extensive, underscoring that he consistently engages in work that is at 
odds with what is in the best interest of our Nation's workforce.

    His views about sexual harassment are also far outside the 
mainstream of both law and public consensus. In a controversial 1998 
article written for the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Mr. 
Scalia argued that ``quid proquo'' sexual harassment on the job should 
not be categorized as a separate form of discrimination.

    Further examples of his overly zealous championing of big business 
include the following:

          Leading the opposition to an OSHA rule that would 
        have regulated workplace conditions to prevent musculoskeletal 
        disorders (MSDs)--repetitive motion injuries that can be 
        crippling. Although the rule would have protected an estimated 
        one million workers, Scalia led the fight against the rule, 
        writing numerous articles and public comments dismissing years 
        of science-based data on the effects of ergonomics as 
        ``quackery'' and ``junk science.'' He also argued that 
        employers should not be responsible for MSD prevention.

          Defending Walmart when the State of Maryland 
        attempted to establish a law that would make it mandatory for 
        companies to either pay a portion of their payroll on 
        healthcare or contribute to Medicaid.

          Defending Wynn Las Vegas Casino when it fought for 
        the ``right'' to steal dealers' tips so that it could 
        redistribute them to other workers, rather than paying those 
        workers decent wages in the first place.

          Defending SeaWorld when the Occupational Safety 
        Health Administration (OSHA) cited the theme park after a 
        trainer was killed by an orca whale at one of their facilities.

          Defending the Boeing corporation when it tried to 
        relocate jobs from Washington State in order to avoid 
        recognizing a union duly elected by its workers.

    These are but a few examples of the kinds of interests and 
employers uniformly represented by Mr. Scalia. While as a private 
citizen he has every right to pursue the type of legal career he 
chooses, his choices prove beyond any doubt that his sympathies lie 
strictly within the interests of corporations and employers, not 
workers. A Labor Secretary who has built his career on the backs of 
everyday working people is the wrong choice to lead the Department of 
Labor. I urge you to reject Eugene Scalia's nomination as the next 
Secretary of Labor as an act of solidarity with working people.

            Sincerely,
                     Nicole Marquez, Senior Staff Attorney,
                                                           Worksafe
                                 ______
                                 
                                           AFL-CIO,
                           815 16th St., NW Washington, DC,
                                                September 17, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray:

    On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing to express our strong 
opposition to the nomination of Eugene Scalia to be Secretary of Labor.

    The Department of Labor is critical to the rights and well-being of 
millions of workers in this country, and working people need a 
Secretary of Labor who has demonstrated a commitment to the 
Department's mission. The Department has the critical task of ensuring 
fair payment of wages and overtime, safeguarding workers' benefits, 
protecting workers from harassment and discrimination, guaranteeing 
their health and safety, and providing opportunities for job training 
through high quality registered apprenticeships. We need a Secretary of 
Labor whose top priority is protecting the health, safety and economic 
security of working people.

    By contrast, Eugene Scalia has spent his entire career representing 
corporate interests and fighting against the interests of working 
people. He has spent decades defending corporate interests such as Wal-
Mart, the Chamber of Commerce, Wall Street banks, and Boeing. As AFL-
CIO President Richard Trumka said when Scalia's nominations was 
previewed back in July:

        Eugene Scalia has spent his entire career making life more 
        difficult and dangerous for working people. We opposed him in 
        2002 for Solicitor of Labor based on his anti-worker record, 
        and his disdain for working people has worsened, not improved. 
        His extreme views are in direct conflict with what America 
        deserves from a secretary of labor.

    In 2001, President Bush nominated Scalia to be Solicitor of Labor. 
Unions and other workers advocates strongly opposed Scalia's nomination 
in large part because of his opposition to the Clinton administration's 
efforts to adopt a standard to protect workers from repetitive motion 
injuries (the so-called ``ergonomics'' rule). Speaking on behalf of the 
employers, Scalia had dismissed ergonomics as ``junk science'' and 
``quackery.'' In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, he had written 
``that ergonomic regulation will force companies to give more rest 
periods, slow the pace of work, and then hire more workers (read: dues-
paying members) to maintain current levels of production.''

    After leaving the Labor Department in 2003, Scalia returned to the 
law firm of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, where he continued defending 
corporations against worker lawsuits and opposing regulations that 
provide protections for workers and consumers. He has earned a 
reputation as the ``go-to'' lawyer to attack worker-protective 
regulations.

    As demonstrated by his entire career, Eugene Scalia is the 
antithesis of what is required from a Secretary of Labor and what 
working people deserve to expect from the Department of Labor. 
Corporations and the rich already have abundant representation in the 
Trump administration. Working people cannot afford to have yet another 
corporate defender representing them at the Labor Department.

    For these reasons, the AFL-CIO strongly opposes this nomination.

            Sincerely,
               William Samuel, Director, Government Affairs
                                 ______
                                 
                                   Allied Progress,
                1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC,
                                                 September 9, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Alexander:

    On behalf of Allied Progress, a leading consumer watchdog group, I 
am writing to urge you to reject the President's nomination of Eugene 
Scalia for U.S. Labor Secretary when the matter comes before you in the 
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Committee. We know 
everything we need to know about Scalia's record to conclude today that 
he is too extreme and too conflicted for this role, including his 
troubling views that companies shouldn't be held responsible for sexual 
harassment at the workplace.

    The President has a history of appointing known enemies of Federal 
agencies to lead them, whether it was Scott Pruitt's corruption-soaked 
tenure at the EPA or Mick Mulvaney's `bull in a china shop' turn as 
Acting Director of the CFPB. Eugene Scalia would be no different as 
someone who regularly criticized and litigated against Labor Department 
policies. As a typical example, Scalia represented the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce in 2017 as it was challenging the U.S. Labor Department's 
Fiduciary Rule, the Obama-era consumer protection that required 
financial advisers and their firms provide retirement investment advice 
that is in their clients' best interests. \1\ The Fifth Circuit Court 
of Appeals ultimately ruled in Scalia's client's favor, \2\ allowing 
unscrupulous Wall Street brokers to continue grifting their own clients 
out of billions of dollars of retirement savings without any 
consequences. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Hugler, 231 F. Supp. 3d 152 
(N.D. Tex. 2017).
    \2\ ``Fifth Circuit Vacates Labor Department's ``Fiduciary Rule'' 
``In Toto'' In Chamber Of Commerce Of U.S.A., Et Al. V. U.S. Dep't Of 
Labor.'' Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher, March 19, 2018.
    \3\ Scheiber, Noam. ``Trump's Labor Pick Has Defended Corporations, 
and One Killer Whale.'' The New York Times, July 19, 2019.

    The Labor Secretary is supposed to be the Advocate-in-Chief for 
America's hard-working men and women. Instead, Trump chose a high-
powered corporate attorney who built a career on representing powerful 
interests at the expense of everyday workers, including cases involving 
workplace safety and sexual harassment. It is your responsibility to 
consider whether someone who put themselves in an adversarial role 
against workers time and again is able to `flip a switch' and advocate 
on behalf of all the Nation's working families, even when their 
interests come up against those of his long list of former corporate 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
clients. We firmly believe he is not capable of making that transition.

    It is the kind of bad corporate behavior he was willing to defend 
that we believe is most disqualifying for this post. For instance, 
Scalia represented a major auto manufacturer as it was sued for 
harboring a culture of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and 
retaliating against employees who spoke out against the hostile work 
environment. \4\ Scalia also represented the same company after its 
retirement plan allegedly ``violated its fiduciary duties'' and 
shortchanged and employee's retirement benefits. \5\ Scalia represented 
a package delivery company as it was accused of a ``pattern or practice 
of unlawful discrimination'' in violation of the Americans With 
Disabilities Act. \6\ Scalia defended a major airline company as it was 
accused of illegally threatening a union and attempting to force it to 
agree to a ``No-Strike Clause'' in its Labor Agreement. \7\ Scalia 
represented a major retail corporate chain as it fought lawsuits 
accusing it of illegally firing corporate whistleblowers, and again as 
the corporation fought against a Maryland Law requiring it to help 
cover its employees' healthcare costs. And Scalia represented an 
electronic component distributor when employees sued the company for 
allegedly denying them overtime compensation by misclassifying them as 
`` `administrative' '' workers. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Kanu, Hassan A. ``Ford Turned to Trump Labor Pick Scalia to 
Fight Harassment Suits.'' Bloomberg Law, August 19, 2019.
    \5\ Jennifer Strang v. Ford Motor Company General Retirement Plan 
et al., (6th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, (U.S. June, 25, 2018) (No. 16-
2090).
    \6\ Hohider v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 574 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 
2009).
    \7\ Haberman, M., Scheiber, N., and Crowley, M. ``Trump to Nominate 
Eugene Scalia for Labor Secretary Job.'' The New York Times, July 18, 
2019.
    \8\ Colson V. Avnet, Inc., 687 F.Supp.2d 914 (D. Ariz. 2010).

    The list of cases of this kind goes on and on. For any corporation 
accused of violating workers' rights or defrauding consumers that is in 
need of legal representation, they could not do much better than Eugene 
Scalia. It is clearly what he is good at. But it is these same deep 
relationships with corporate America that makes him perhaps the most 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conflicted choice Trump could have made to be the next Labor Secretary.

    What is also deeply concerning is the extremes Scalia was willing 
to go to defend companies in conflict with workers. Consider:

          Scalia Argued That Companies Shouldn't Necessarily 
        Bear Legal Responsibility for Bosses Who Sexually Harass or 
        Threaten Employees. In 1998, Scalia argued that companies 
        should be let off the hook in sexual harassment cases in the 
        Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, offering these 
        scenarios: ``One supervisor orders his assistant to accompany 
        him on a business trip and gropes her on the plane, at dinner, 
        and in the hotel. A second supervisor does the same and tells 
        her that's what he did with her predecessors. I believe the 
        employer should not be liable in any of these scenarios unless 
        it endorsed the conduct.'' Scalia also opined: ``Saying `You're 
        an incompetent stupid female bitch' a single time is not 
        actionable environmental harassment.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Scalia, Eugene. ``Article: The Strange Career of Quid Pro Quo 
Sexual Harassment.'' Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Spring 
1998, 307-25.

          Scalia Argued the Federal Government Does Not Have A 
        Leading Role in Occupational Safety and That Repetitive Stress 
        Injuries on the Job are Medical ``Quackery''. Scalia 
        fundamentally disagrees that one of the most important 
        responsibilities of the Labor Department is enforcing the laws 
        that protect the health and safety of the Nation's workers, 
        writing in 2005: ``The Government does not have the sole-or 
        even primary-role in furthering occupational safety and health 
        or compliance with the employment laws.'' \10\ Scalia's 
        opposition to Federal workplace oversight made him a natural 
        fit to represent a number of corporate interests in their 2001 
        fight to undo the Clinton-era ergonomics rule--a regulation 
        designed to prevent injuries among workers who perform 
        repetitive tasks. Scalia called it ``the most costly and 
        intrusive regulation in (OSHA's) history'' \11\ and often 
        trashed the science of ergonomics as ``quackery.'' \12\ Scalia 
        changed his tune, however, when he was nominated to be Labor 
        Solicitor during the Bush administration, admitting that 
        ``ergonomic pain is real'' when a promotion was on the line. 
        \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Scalia, Eugene. ``Inspection and Enforcement Strategies at the 
U.S. Department of Labor.'' University of Pennsylvania Journal of Labor 
& Employment Law, Spring 2005
    \11\ Gearan, Anne. ``SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK: Marksman Scalia bags a 
buck.'' Associated Press, May 1, 2001.
    \12\ Benton, James C. ``Bush Upsets Unions by Choosing Scalia.'' 
Congressional Quarterly Weekly, August 10, 2001.
    \13\ Jackson, Robert. ``Split panel approves Scalia for Labor 
post.'' The Chicago Tribune, October 17, 2001.

    Workers deserve a Labor Secretary who is always on their side, not 
just when it is politically convenient. Someone who believes the 
government should have minimal say in keeping workers safe may be a 
great choice to represent corporations that like to cut corners, but 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
they are a dangerous choice to be enforcing laws as Labor Secretary.

    There is no mystery what Eugene Scalia stands for. When there is a 
dispute, Scalia believes corporate CEOs are always right, and workers 
are always wrong. This is not someone who would take his responsibility 
to uphold the Family And Medical Leave Act \14\ seriously after 
repeatedly defending corporations against lawsuits from workers who 
claimed they were fired for taking leave. \15\, \16\ This is not 
someone who will be concerned about fair wages or the income inequality 
crisis in America after publicly deriding even a modest proposal for 
raising the minimum wage for Federal workers. This is not someone 
interested in helping workers hoping to climb into the middle class if 
it in any way impacts the corporate bottom line. \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ ``Major Functions of the U.S. Department of Labor.'' 
Congressional Research Service, September 7, 2018.
    \15\ King v. Ford Motor Co., 872 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2017).
    \16\ Buckman v. MCI World Com Inc., 374 Fed. Appx. 719 (9th Cir. 
2010).
    \17\ Scalia, Eugene & Mondl, Rachel. ``Obama's minimum-wage 
increase is on shaky legal ground.'' The Washington Post, February 20, 
2014.

    Eugene Scalia may be a gifted legal mind when it comes to defending 
big businesses, but he has no business leading the Labor Department. 
America's working families deserve far better. I strongly encourage you 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to oppose this nomination on its face.

            Respectfully,
                               Kyle Herrig, Senior Advisor,
                                                    Allied Progress
                                 ______
                                 
                                BlueGreen Alliance,
                                                September 18, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray:

    As members of the BlueGreen Alliance, a coalition of the Nation's 
largest labor unions and environmental organizations collectively 
representing millions of members and supporters, we urge you to oppose 
the confirmation of Eugene Scalia as Secretary of Labor. Mr. Scalia has 
built his career endangering, dismissing, and cheating American 
workers. His nomination is an offense to the Department of Labor (DOL), 
its mission, and our Nation's workforce.

    Mr. Scalia is a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher where he 
specializes in defending corporate clients on employment and labor law 
issues. Scalia has built his practice by sustaining an assault on 
government efforts to protect American workers and communities.
                      Oil Refinery Safety at Risk
    In the wake of catastrophic refinery fires in Houston, Texas; 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Superior, Wisconsin, Mr. Scalia--rather 
than taking steps to improve the safety of the Nation's refineries--has 
instead chosen to file lawsuits in both Federal and state courts on 
behalf of Chevron, Shell, Phillips 66, PBF, BP, Valero, Marathon, and 
other refiners to obstruct the Nation's first modern refinery safety 
regulations. These regulations were adopted in California in 2017, 
after a catastrophic explosion and fire in 2012 at the Richmond, 
California Chevron refinery, which nearly killed 19 refinery workers 
and caused 15,000 residents to seek medical attention for symptoms 
related to exposure to the smoke and fire gases.

    Another catastrophic explosion in 2015 at the ExxonMobil refinery 
in Torrance, California threatened a tank containing tens of thousands 
of pounds of hydrofluoric acid (HF). Given the 330,000 residents, 71 
schools, and eight hospitals located within three miles of the plant, 
the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) concluded 
that had the tank ruptured, the resulting HF release--which vaporizes 
when released from its container--had ``the potential to cause serious 
injury or death to many community members.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB), U.S. Chemical Safety Board 
Finds Multiple Safety Deficiencies Led to February 2015 Explosion and 
Serious Near Miss at the Exxon Mobil Refinery in Torrance, California, 
January 2016. Available online: https://www.csb.gov/us-chemical-safety-
board-finds-multiple-safety-deficiencies-led-to-february-2015-
explosion-and-serious-near-miss-at-the-exxon-mobil-refinery-in-
torrance-california/.

    California's 2017 refinery safety regulations represent the 
Nation's first successful update to refinery safety since 1992, and Mr. 
Scalia is going to court to stop them, despite the continuing record of 
150 major industrial chemical fires, explosions, and releases that 
occur each year, on average, in communities across the Nation.
                 Bulldozing Basic Workplace Protections
    In his legal practice, Mr. Scalia has focused on cynically 
attacking the safety and economic security of American workers and 
their families. For example, he has:

          Fought to overturn rules that require employers to 
        pay for workers' protective equipment, such as hardhats, 
        respirators and gloves; \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Court of Appeals of Michigan, United Parcel Service Inc V. 
Bureau Of Safety And Regulation, November 2007. Available online: 
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1469254.html.

          Fought OSHA for SeaWorld, arguing that the company 
        did not need to follow OSHA regulations after a trainer was 
        killed on the job by an Orca whale; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 
Seaworld Of Florida Llc V. Perez, April 2014. Available online: https:/
/caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1663286.html.

          Stopped a Maryland law that would have required 
        Walmart and other employers with more than 10,000 workers to 
        spend 8 percent of payroll on their workers' health insurance, 
        or contribute to the state's Medicaid fund; \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Casetext, ``Retail Indus., v. Fielder,'' January 17, 2007. 
Available online: https://casetext.com/case/retail-indus-v-fielder.

          Fought for Boeing against NLRB charges that the 
        company illegally retaliated against striking workers in its 
        unionized Seattle plant by transferring work to South Carolina; 
        and \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), NLRB v. The Boeing 
Company, Case 19-CA-32431. June 2011. Available online: https://
www.nlrb.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/basic-page/node-3347/
mot.19-ca-032431.rs-opp-to-agcs-mot-to-strike-boeings-14th-aff-def.pdf.

          Successfully led the U.S. Chamber of Commerce effort 
        to stop OSHA's ergonomic regulations, which would have 
        protected millions of workers from disabling injuries caused by 
        unsafe workplace design. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Eugene Scalia, OSHA's Ergonomics Litigation Record: Three 
Strikes and It's Out, August 2016. Available online: https://
documents.pub/document/oshas-ergonomics-litigation-record-three-
strikes-and-its-out.html.

    Scalia's virulent attack on the proposed Ergonomics Standard was 
enough to stop the Senate from confirming his 2001 appointment as 
solicitor of the Labor Department. President Bush later used a recess 
appointment to give him that job.
                        Taking Us Back 100 Years
    Safety regulations are borne out of tragedy. They reflect ``lessons 
learned'' and seek, albeit imperfectly, to protect workers and 
communities from industrial hazards. The historical record illustrates 
that regulations also protect industry from its own excesses and 
shortsightedness.

    From the fire exit rules that resulted out of the Triangle 
Shirtwaist fire of 1911 to California's 2017 refinery regulations in 
the wake of the Richmond Chevron fire, safety is a thin line drawn out 
of public concern and shaped by public officials who respond to that 
concern with new laws and regulations. Mr. Scalia will be charged with 
enforcing those protections, including the Occupational Safety and 
Health Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave 
Act and others that American workers and their families have come to 
depend on.

    Mr. Scalia has devoted his career to demolishing these basic 
protections. The signatories to this letter urge you in the strongest 
possible terms to oppose his appointment.

            Sincerely,
                                        BlueGreen Alliance,
          International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and 
                                     Transportation Workers (SMART)
           International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers
                                  Natural Resources Defense Council
                                                        Sierra Club
                                      Union of Concerned Scientists
                                          United Steelworkers Union
                                   Utility Workers Union of America
                                 ______
                                 
                         Economic Policy Institute,
                                                 September 6, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray:

    The EPI Policy Center strongly opposes the nomination of Eugene 
Scalia for U.S. Secretary of Labor, and we strongly urge you to vote 
against his confirmation. The mission of the Department of Labor is to 
enforce labor law and improve the wages and working conditions of 
everyday Americans. In contrast, Mr. Scalia has built a career 
representing corporations, financial institutions, and other business 
organizations while fighting against worker protections like health and 
safety regulations, retirement security, and collective bargaining 
rights.

    This is not Mr. Scalia's first nomination for a role in the 
Department of Labor. In 2001, President George W. Bush nominated him 
for Solicitor of Labor, an appointment that was swiftly blocked because 
of Mr. Scalia's extreme views against worker health and safety 
protections. President Bush circumvented the Senate and installed Mr. 
Scalia as Solicitor through a recess appointment. Since leaving the 
Labor Department in 2003, Mr. Scalia has represented powerful 
corporations and financial institutions--such as HSBC, Boeing, and 
Walmart--in labor cases while working as a partner at the Washington, 
DC-based law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Mr. Scalia's reputation as 
the go-to lawyer for corporations looking to avoid worker protections 
is so infamous that the headline for a profile piece on Mr. Scalia in 
Bloomberg Businessweek read ``Suing the Government? Call Scalia!" \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Robert Schmidt, ``Suing the Government? Call Scalia!,'' 
Bloomberg Businessweek, January 26, 2012.

    This nation's workers deserve a Labor Secretary who will look out 
for their interests, establish and enforce strong health and safety 
standards, and safeguard their retirement security. As a corporate 
attorney, Mr. Scalia has fought against the Department of Labor and the 
interests of working people in his representation of major corporations 
ranging from Walmart to Wall Street banks. Mr. Scalia also led the 
legal challenge to the Department of Labor's April 2016 fiduciary rule, 
which safeguarded workers' retirement security by ensuring financial 
advisers are acting in the best interest of workers and do not have 
conflicts of interest. And he represented SeaWorld when it 
unsuccessfully tried to avoid responsibility and an Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration (OSHA) citation and fine for failing to 
protect Dawn Brancheau, a trainer at SeaWorld who was killed on the job 
by a killer whale. Simply put, Mr. Scalia is the wrong person for the 
job.
    We are not alone in our concerns about Mr. Scalia. As of September 
6, 2019, more than 93,000 people have signed a petition opposing Mr. 
Scalia's confirmation, \2\ and that number is growing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Action Network, ``Sign Now: Reject a Labor Secretarcy Who Sides 
with Big Business over Working People'' (online petition), accessed 
September 4, 2019.

            Signed,
Celine McNicholas, Director of Government Affairs and Labor 
                                                   Counsel,
                        Margaret Poydock, Policy Associate,
                                                  EPI Policy Center
                                 ______
                                 
                                 Jobs With Justice,
                          1616 P Street, NW Washington, DC,
                                                September 18, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray:

    On behalf of Jobs With Justice, I write to you to oppose the 
nomination of Eugene Scalia to be the U.S. Secretary of Labor. Jobs 
With Justice is a national network expanding people's ability to come 
together to improve their workplaces, their communities, and their 
lives. We create solutions to the problems working people face by 
leading campaigns, changing the conversation and moving labor, 
community, student and faith voices to action.

    The Secretary of Labor is responsible ensuring that the rights and 
dignity of working people in the United States are respected in our 
economy. In particular, at a time in which we as a nation are finally 
coming to grips with the systematic gender-based violence, harassment, 
and discrimination suffered by women of color and white women on the 
job, and after the previous Secretary of Labor was forced to resign for 
the actions he took that protected a sexual predator, the new Secretary 
of Labor must have a demonstrated commitment to supporting working 
women and standing against gender-based violence, harassment, and 
discrimination. Unfortunately, far from demonstrating such a commitment 
to working women, Mr. Scalia has repeatedly sought to protect 
businesses from the consequences of their discriminatory and unsafe 
workplaces.

    In addition to protections against gender-based violence, 
harassment, and degradation, the Secretary of Labor is responsible for 
overseeing laws requiring that working people receive fair pay, be safe 
on the job, be supported as they join the workforce and learn new 
skills, and be protected when they blow the whistle on law-breaking 
bosses. Working families demand a Labor Secretary who will look out for 
them. But Mr. Scalia has spent his career both within and outside 
government, looking out for the richest CEOs and Wall Street investors 
and has undermined the rights of working people whenever they get in 
the way of corporate profits.
         Eugene Scalia Holds Extreme Views on Sexual Harassment
    Mr. Scalia's views on gender-based violence and sexual harassment 
in the workplace are outside the legal mainstream. He believes that in 
most circumstances, companies have no legal duty to stop their 
supervisors from demanding sex acts from the employees they supervise 
even if the bosses explicitly threaten to fire employees who do not 
comply. The Supreme Court has unanimously held and repeatedly 
reaffirmed the basic principle that sexual harassment violates Title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's prohibition on sex discrimination 
in employment. \1\ And contrary to Scalia's view, the Court has further 
held that when an employee's boss sexually harasses an employee he or 
she supervises, the company for which they both work bears a special 
responsibility for this sexual harassment. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See, e.g., Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986); 
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993); Faragher v. city 
of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998); Burlington Industries, Inc. v. 
Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998).
    \2\ See Ellerth, 524 U.S. at 753-54; Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807-08.

    This rule takes a small step toward dealing with the power dynamics 
embedded in our society. While both women and men can be perpetrators 
and victims of sexual harassment, eighty percent of sexual harassment 
and employment discrimination complaints filed with Federal regulators 
were filed by women. \3\ When a boss harasses an employee, not only is 
he imbued with the economic power of our capitalist country--likely he 
has more money, greater job security, and the ability to fire the 
victim--he also is imbued with the social power given to men in our 
patriarchal country. Companies that let this power dynamic flourish to 
such an extent that a boss felt free to engage in sexual harassment or 
gender-based violence against a person he supervised should bear the 
costs associated with that boss's actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See Elyse Shaw, et al., Sexual Harassment & Assault at Work: 
Understanding the Costs, Institute for Women's Policy Research, Oct. 15 
2018 (available at https://iwpr.org/publications/sexual-harassment-
work-cost/).

    For Mr. Scalia, however, even this modest step is too much. Mr. 
Scalia argued in a law review article that a company is not responsible 
even if a boss orders someone he supervises to go on a business trip, 
gropes her in public and in private and tells her that she'll be fired 
if she doesn't submit unless the employer ``endorsed the conduct.'' \4\ 
Such a rule would immunize the vast majority of companies from sexual 
harassment liability, further endanger the millions of women who 
experience sexual harassment on the job, and take away one of the few 
mechanisms that exist in our law to deal with the inequality and lack 
of collective power that women have in our economy. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Eugene Scalia The Strange Career of Quid Pro Quo Sexual 
Harassment, 21 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 307, 323 (1998).
    \5\ See Paula A. Johnson, et al., Sexual Harassment of Women at 28, 
The National Academies Press (2018) (``Numerous studies have 
demonstrated that more than half of working women report experiencing 
sexually harassing behavior at work. . . .'') available at https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507206/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK507206.pdf.

    Mr. Scalia's actions as a lawyer underscore his problematic views 
on sexual harassment. In private practice, Mr. Scalia took on the giant 
bank HSBC as a client when an employee filed a lawsuit against it based 
on its response to a sexual harassment claim. The American Prospect 
reported that, as part of his defense, he took the deposition of the 
harassment victim and during that deposition, he ``repeatedly brought 
her to tears, not so subtly accusing her of promiscuity and scheming to 
extract money from the bank.'' \6\ Mr. Scalia's actions went far beyond 
lawyers' obligations to zealously represent their clients, and veer 
toward an unethical attempt to intimidate a sexual harassment victim 
into recanting her story.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ David Dayen, Eugene Scalia Once Represented a Big Bank in a 
Sexual Harassment Case. It Got Ugly,'' The American Prospect, July 22, 
2019, available at https://prospect.org/article/eugene-scalia-once-
represented-big-bank-sexual-harassment-case-it-got-ugly.

    Mr. Scalia's views on sexual harassment are particularly 
problematic because the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has a special 
role in ensuring that U.S. workplaces are free from gender-based 
violence and harassment. DOL's Office of Federal Contract Compliance 
Programs is the government agency tasked with ensuring that all 
government contractors comply with anti-discrimination law, including 
the prohibition against sexual harassment. \7\ In addition, DOL's Civil 
Rights Center investigates complaints of sexual harassment and other 
discrimination by DOL's own employees and by grantees of DOL programs. 
\8\ Furthermore, DOL oversees an array of programs dedicated to 
ensuring that working people are able to gainfully participate in our 
economy, including the Office of Apprenticeship, Job Corps, and the 
Women's Bureau. All of these programs would be negatively impacted by a 
Secretary of Labor with such an extreme view of sexual harassment laws. 
And finally, the Nation's working people and business community look to 
DOL to set the standard for fair treatment of working people because 
DOL's mission is to ``foster, promote and develop the well-being of 
wage earners, job seekers and retirees of the United States; improve 
working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; 
and assure work-related benefits and rights.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See About Us page of DOL's Office of Federal Contract 
Compliance Programs, available at https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/
aboutof.html.
    \8\ See About Us page of DOL's Civil Rights Center, https://
www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/about.
    \9\ 29 U.S.C. Sec. 551.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scalia Sought to Weaken Protections for Whistleblowers While he was the 
                     Labor Department's top Lawyer
    As the Solicitor of Labor, DOL's chief lawyer, Mr. Scalia fought to 
weaken whistleblowing protections. In 2002, Mr. Scalia filed a brief 
before DOL's Administrative Review Board that was considering a case 
filed by a Department of Justice employee who claimed the Department of 
Justice had retaliated against him for blowing the whistle on the 
Justice Department's decision not to go after a polluter. \10\ In the 
brief, Mr. Scalia argued that whistleblowing protections did not apply 
to contacts with individual Members of Congress unless they were 
conducting official investigations. \11\ Senators Charles Grassley (R-
IA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) stated in response to the brief that Mr. 
Scalia's view would deter whistleblowing in a number of contexts, with 
Senator Grassley stating that ``If this is the way the Labor Department 
intends to enforce the new law, then most corporate whistle-blowers 
won't be protected,'' \12\ The Washington Post reported that advocates 
for whistleblowers said that Mr. Scalia appeared to be trying ``to 
establish a precedent that would undermine whistle-blowers in cases 
against corporations.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ See Brief for the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety 
& Health, Sasse v. Office of the U.S. Attorney, ARB Case No. 02-077, 
Sep. 12, 2002, available at https://www.peer.org/assets/docs/dol/
scalia-amicus-brief.pdf.
    \11\ See id. at 23.
    \12\ Christopher Lee, Whistle-Blower Case at Issue, Wash. Post, 
Oct. 25, 2002.
    \13\ Id.

    This is particularly troubling, because much of DOL's enforcement 
depends on whistleblowers. DOL solicits complaints for workplace health 
and safety violations, minimum wage and overtime violations, retirement 
fund fraud, civil rights complaints, and for violations of many other 
statutes within its jurisdiction. If potential whistleblowers have to 
face a hostile Secretary of Labor, it would seriously harm DOL's 
ability to enforce the laws protecting working people.
 Scalia has Repeatedly Fought to Weaken Protections for Working People
    As a private attorney, Mr. Scalia has uniformly fought to decrease 
the responsibility that corporations have to ensure that working people 
are paid a decent wage for their labor, that worksites are safe and 
that workplaces are free from discrimination. He has systematically 
worked to decrease the ability of working people to exercise their 
collective power and participate in our economy in a fair way. At every 
turn, he has chosen to maximize profits for corporate CEOs, Wall Street 
investors, and the corporations they control at the expense of the 
working people for whom the Secretary of Labor is supposed to look out.

    Some examples of the anti-working people positions Scalia has taken 
in private practice include his opposition to the ergonomics rule put 
out by DOL's Occupational Safety and Health Administration in the 
1990's, \14\ his opposition to increasing the minimum wage for Federal 
contractors, \15\ and his legal work to defend large corporations from 
violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act and other anti-
discrimination laws, \16\ in addition, Scalia has strongly defended 
corporate union-busting, \17\ leading a strategy that created 
widespread, unprecedented attacks in the media and by elected officials 
against the National Labor Relations Board's General Counsel for trying 
to uphold working people's right to organize. \18\ As a private 
attorney, he even an attempt to blame the victim when a SeaWorld 
employee was killed by an orca. \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ See Maggie Haberman, et al., Trump to Nominate Eugene Scalia 
for Labor Secretary Job, N.Y. Times, July 18, 2019.
    \15\ See Eugene Scalia & Rachel Mondl, Obama's minimum-wage 
increase is on shaky legal ground, Wash. Post, Feb. 20, 2014.
    \16\ See Noam Scheiber, Trump's Labor Pick Has Defended 
Corporations, and One Killer Whale, N.Y. Times, July 19, 2019.
    \17\ See Haberman, et al., supra, note 9.
    \18\ See, e.g., Hardeep Dhillon, Fox Wildly Misrepresents 
Allegation That Boeing Engaged In Unlawful Union Busting, Media Matters 
for America, June 16, 2011, available at https://www.mediamatters.org/
lou-dobbs/fox-wildly misrepresents-allegation-boeing-engaged-unlawful-
union-busting; Adam Shah, Experts Say Allegations Against Boeing 
Represent ``Classic'' Case Of Labor Law Violations, Media Matters for 
America, May 13, 2011, available at https://www.mediamatters.org/
breitbart-news/experts-say-allegations-nlrb-complaint-against-boeing-
represent-classic-case-labor?redirect-source=/research/2011/05/14/
experts-say-allegations-in-nlrb-complaint-again/179638; Keving 
Bogardus, Dems defend NLRB Against GOP pushback on Boeing suit, The 
Hill, June 10, 2011.
    \19\ See Scheiber, supra, note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Conclusion
    For the reasons discussed above, Jobs With Justice opposes the 
nomination of Eugene Scalia to be Secretary of Labor and asks all 
Senators to stand with working people and vote against his nomination.

            Sincerely,
                          Erica Smiley, Executive Director,
                                                  Jobs With Justice
                                 ______
                                 
                                     MomsRising.Org
 Leading Moms Group Urges U.S. Senate to Reject Eugene Scalia to Serve 
 as U.S. Secretary of Labor, Calling His Record on Sexual Harassment, 
            Worker and Consumer Protections `Disqualifying'

    Statement from Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, executive director and CEO 
of MomsRising, an online and on-the-ground organization of more than 
one million mothers and their families, on the nomination of Eugene 
Scalia to serve as U.S. Secretary of Labor:

    ``President Trump demonstrated contempt for the health and safety 
of America's workers by nominating Eugene Scalia to serve as U.S. 
Secretary of Labor. Confirming Scalia would be akin to positioning a 
fox to guard a henhouse. Scalia's life's work has been to undermine the 
U.S. Department of Labor's mission to `foster, promote, and develop the 
well-being of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United 
States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for 
profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights.' 
His record as an advocate for big businesses that trample on the rights 
and safety of working people is, quite simply, disqualifying.

    ``Eugene Scalia has spent his career defending corporations that 
undermine the health, safety and rights of working people. A vote to 
confirm him would be a vote to give those who experience sexual 
harassment and discrimination no recourse, to subject many more people 
to on-the-job hazards, to deny consumers the protections they need and 
deserve, to turn the Federal agency charged with protecting workers' 
rights into an agency that works to undermine them. It would be a vote 
to intensify the Trump administration's assault on the rights of 
working people--a vote to make our country less fair.

    ``Scalia's record is very clear. When he represented a bank, HSBC, 
that was charged with retaliating against an employee who reported that 
a manager was sexually harassing co-workers, Scalia's questioning of a 
victim was aggressive and insensitive. He represented casinos that 
forced workers to share their tips with supervisors, denying them the 
right to sue for their wages. Scalia convinced an appeals court to 
reverse class certification for United Parcel Service workers who were 
denied reasonable accommodations for their disabilities, which were 
caused by on-the-job injuries. For the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Scalia 
led a fight against regulations that experts estimated would prevent 
some 600,000 injuries caused by unsafe workplace design each year. He 
led the legal work that blocked the Labor Department's fiduciary rule, 
which would have protected consumers from investment advisors who put 
their personal profits ahead of their client's best interests. And 
Scalia helped Walmart and other big businesses strike down a Maryland 
law that required employers to make minimum contributions to their 
workers' health insurance coverage.

    ``The U.S. Senate must reject Eugene Scalia to serve as our 
country's Secretary of Labor.''
                                 ______
                                 
                National Domestic Workers Alliance,
                   1301 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, DC,
                                                September 18, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray:

    Thank you for the opportunity to offer our organizational statement 
regarding Eugene Scalia, President Donald Trump's nominee for the 
position of Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor.

    The National Domestic Workers Alliance represents domestic 
workers--the hard-working house cleaners, nannies and homecare workers 
who provide crucial assistance in millions of homes across the U.S. 
every day. Our members do the work that makes all other work possible--
ensuring the safety and independence of seniors and people with 
disabilities; caring for children; and keeping homes clean and healthy. 
Domestic workers are mostly women, women of color and immigrants. 
Domestic workers are especially vulnerable to wage theft; harassment 
and injury on the job; severe labor exploitation and labor trafficking.

    The U.S. Department of Labor (``U.S. DOL'') has the responsibility 
to administer and enforce more than 180 Federal laws, covering many 
workplace activities for about 10 million employers and 125 million 
workers. The U.S. DOL's mission is to foster, promote, and develop the 
welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United 
States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for 
profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights. For 
domestic workers, robust enforcement of these worker protections is 
crucial to ensure worker safety and economic well-being.

    As Secretary, Mr. Scalia would be responsible for guiding the U.S. 
DOL toward success in this mission. Mr. Scalia is unfit for this role. 
He has represented corporations, financial institutions and business 
interests to the detriment of workers. Going directly against the U.S. 
DOL's mission, he has fought worker protections such as health and 
safety regulations, retirement security, wage security, and collective 
bargaining rights. Mr. Scalia has suggested that the government should 
not have a main role in ensuring occupational safety and health 
standards or compliance of other labor laws.

    The Department of Labor needs a bold leader at the helm of 
innovation, standing strongly on the side of workers, and working to 
solve the problem of dangerous and exploitative conditions. We need 
someone who will harness the potential of care work, which makes up one 
of the fastest growing industries in the country. Without investing in 
care work, our Nation will continue to face dire consequences which 
impact both domestic workers and the communities that they serve.

    For all these reasons, we oppose the appointment of Eugene Scalia 
to the position of Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor.

            Thank you for your consideration of this statement,
                          Mariana Viturro, Deputy Director,
                                 National Domestic Workers Alliance
                                 ______
                                 
     The National Partnership for Women & Families,
                1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC,
                                                September 17, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray:

    The National Partnership for Women & Families writes to register 
our opposition to the confirmation of Mr. Eugene Scalia as the next 
Secretary of Labor. As an organization dedicated to promoting policies 
that achieve fairness in the workplace, we find Mr. Scalia's background 
working to extend corporate and employer power as being in conflict 
with the mission of the Department of Labor and problematic for 
millions of American workers.

    The National Partnership for Women & Families is a non-profit, non-
partisan advocacy organization with nearly 50 years of experience 
promoting fairness in the workplace, reproductive health and rights, 
access to quality and affordable health care and policies that help 
women and men meet the demands of their jobs and families. Since our 
founding as the Women's Legal Defense Fund in 1971, we have fought for 
every major Federal policy advance that has helped women and families, 
including having a leading role in the passage of the Pregnancy 
Discrimination Act of 1978 and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 
1993.

    Throughout his career, Mr. Scalia has shown repeatedly that he is 
not interested in protecting workers but in putting corporations and 
employers first. Mr. Scalia has a long record of putting corporate 
interests above workers' rights and undermining worker protections for 
the benefit of his corporate clients and their profits. He has opposed 
past efforts to raise the minimum wage for Federal contract workers and 
defended employers who fired their workers for taking leave under the 
Family and Medical Leave Act. He has argued that the government does 
not have a role in furthering the occupational safety and health for 
workers and defended employers who allegedly denied women equal access 
to overtime shifts and denied workers overtime wages. Mr. Scalia has 
also expressed seriously concerning views on workplace sexual 
harassment, stating in a 1998 article written for the Harvard Journal 
of Law & Public Policy that ``quid pro quo'' sexual harassment should 
not be categorized as a separate form of discrimination and that in 
instances where a supervisor repeatedly gropes his assistant during a 
business trip, employers should not be liable. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Eugene Scalia, ``Article: The Strange Career of Quid Pro Quo 
Sexual Harassment,'' Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 307, 
Spring 1998.

    Workers deserve a labor secretary who will uphold the Department's 
mission ``to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage 
earners, job seekers and retirees of the United States; improve working 
conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure 
work-related benefits and rights.'' Mr. Scalia's background does 
nothing to suggest that he will champion wage earners or uphold 
protections for workers. As such, we urge the Committee to reject Mr. 
Scalia's nomination as the next Secretary of Labor and stand with 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
working people.

    We thank you for the opportunity to submit this letter. If you have 
any questions, please contact Alex Baptiste, Workplace Policy Counsel.

            Sincerely,
      The National Partnership for Women & Families
                                 ______
                                 
                    National Education Association,
                          1201 16th St., NW Washington, DC,
                                                September 18, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray:

    On behalf of the 3 million members of the NEA who teach and support 
students in 14,000 communities across the Nation, we appreciate the 
opportunity to provide comments for the Committee's hearing on the 
nomination of Eugene Scalia as Secretary of the Department of Labor.

    The Department of Labor's mission is to ``foster, promote, and 
develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of 
the United States; to improve working conditions; advance opportunities 
for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and 
rights.'' Eugene Scalia, however, has devoted his entire career to 
undercutting workers' rights, protecting corporations at the expense of 
employees and consumers, and threatening workers' retirement security.

    Workers' rights. Mr. Scalia has:

          Represented businesses that threatened employees for 
        attempting to organize a union, and, specifically, defended 
        Boeing after it retaliated against employees for past strike 
        activity by placing a manufacturing operation at a non-union 
        facility;

          Opposed card check and the Employee Free Choice Act;

          Defended companies that have fired or in other ways 
        retaliated against corporate whistleblowers.

    Worker safety and OSHA protections. Mr. Scalia has:

          Opposed regulations intended to protect workers from 
        repetitive stress injuries;

          Opposed what he calls ``intrusive safety 
        regulations,'' including those protecting workers against 
        dangerous exposures to beryllium, a cause of disabling or fatal 
        lung disease;

          Sought to narrow workers' protections under the 
        Americans with Disabilities Act; and

          Sought to protect businesses from exposure to sexual 
        harassment and sexual discrimination lawsuits.

    Retirement security and consumer protection. Mr. Scalia has:

          Defended employers when retirement plan participants 
        have been required to pay excessive administrative and 
        recordkeeping fees, violating ERISA requirements of reasonable 
        fees; and

          Defended overturning an Obama administration rule 
        that required financial advisers to put their clients' 
        interests ahead of their own in making recommendations.

    Recently, Mr. Scalia has even represented the e-cigarette industry 
in its efforts to market products to teenagers and argued against 
additional regulation of the vaping industry. His work directly 
conflicts with the administration's announced plan to crack down on 
teenage vaping, and is a threat to students' health. Studies have shown 
that young people are uniquely at risk from using e-cigarettes, which 
expose their developing brains to nicotine levels that can cause 
addiction, mood disorders, and affect concentration.

    In addition, Mr. Scalia is a board member of several organizations 
that wish to reduce the role of teachers in determining how best to 
teach and support students in public schools, even though educators 
have the experience and expertise to make such recommendations. He is 
also a member of the board for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which 
exists to reduce the role of the Federal Government in society--yet Mr. 
Scalia is the nominee to lead a Federal agency.

    We must protect workers' right to organize, which is essential to 
educators' ability to advocate for their students. We must also protect 
retirement security, an important factor in recruiting and retaining 
the committed educators students deserve. Last, America deserves a 
Labor Secretary who will put the health and well-being of consumers--
especially vulnerable youth, the workforce of the future--first. For 
these reasons, we strongly urge you to oppose this nomination. Do not 
provide Eugene Scalia with the opportunity to inflict his anti-worker, 
anti-union, anti-public sector agenda on our Nation.

            Sincerely,
               Marc Egan, Director of Government Relations,
                                     National Education Association
                                 ______
                                 
                   National Employment Law Project,
                  1350 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC,
                                                September 17, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray:

    On behalf of the National Employment Law Project, a non-profit law 
and policy organization with 50 years of experience advocating for the 
employment and labor rights of our Nation's workers, I write to 
register our opposition to the confirmation of Eugene Scalia as the 
next Secretary of Labor. Mr. Scalia has spent virtually his entire 
legal career working to expand corporate and employer power, and narrow 
protections for workers. He is, quite simply, not someone who is 
suitable to serve as this country's chief advocate for working people.

    The mission of the Department of Labor is to ``foster, promote and 
develop the well-being of wage earners, job seekers and retirees of the 
United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for 
profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights.'' 
We do not believe that Mr. Scalia, whose greatest accomplishments have 
included defeating rules that would have protected millions of workers 
from musculoskeletal disorders and required that retirement investment 
advisors put a client's financial interests ahead of their own, will be 
able to fulfill this critical mission.

    If confirmed, Mr. Scalia will be among the most conflicted Labor 
Secretaries in the agency's history. His list of potential recusals is 
extensive, undescoring that he consistently engages in work that is at 
odds with what is in the best interest of our Nation's workforce.

    His views about sexual harassment are also far outside the 
mainstream of both law and public consensus. In a controversial 1998 
article written for the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Mr. 
Scalia argued that ``quid pro quo'' sexual harassment on the job should 
not be categorized as a separate form of discrimination.

    Further examples of his overly zealous championing of big business 
include the following:

          Leading the opposition to an OSHA rule that would 
        have regulated workplace conditions to prevent musculoskeletal 
        disorders (MSDs)--repetitive motion injuries that can be 
        crippling. Although the rule would have protected an estimated 
        one million workers, Scalia led the fight against the rule, 
        writing numerous articles and public comments dismissing years 
        of science-based data on the effects of ergonomics as 
        ``quackery'' and ``junk science.'' He also argued that 
        employers should not be responsible for MSD prevention.

          Defending Walmart when the State of Maryland 
        attempted to establish a law that would make it mandatory for 
        companies to either pay a portion of their payroll on 
        healthcare or contribute to Medicaid.

          Defending Wynn Las Vegas Casino when it fought for 
        the ``right'' to steal dealers' tips so that it could 
        redistribute them to other workers, rather than paying those 
        workers decent wages in the first place.

          Defending SeaWorld when the Occupational Safety 
        Health Administration (OSHA) cited the theme park after a 
        trainer was killed by an orca whale at one of their facilities.

          Defending the Boeing corporation when it tried to 
        relocate jobs from Washington State in order to avoid 
        recognizing a union duly elected by its workers.

    These are but a few examples of the kinds of interests and 
employers uniformly represented by Mr. Scalia. While as a private 
citizen he has every right to pursue the type of legal career he 
chooses, his choices prove beyond any doubt that his sympathies lie 
strictly within the interests of corporations and employers, not 
workers. A Labor Secretary who has built his career on the backs of 
everyday working people is the wrong choice to lead the Department of 
Labor. I urge you to reject Eugene Scalia's nomination as the next 
Secretary of Labor as an act of solidarity with working people.

            Respectfully,
                        Christine Owens, Executive Director
                                 ______
                                 
                       National Women's Law Center,
                       11 Dupont Circle, NW Washington, DC,
                                                September 18, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray:

    The National Women's Law Center (the Center), an organization that 
has advocated on behalf of women and girls for more than 45 years, 
writes to express its strong opposition to the nomination of Eugene 
Scalia to be Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor.

    The Secretary of Labor is the Nation's most senior official tasked 
with ensuring the well-being and rights of working people and advancing 
their employment opportunities. The Secretary of Labor directs the 
Department of Labor's interpretation and enforcement of a number of 
laws vital to women's economic security and right to be free from 
workplace discrimination, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act; the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act; the Family and Medical Leave Act; 
the Affordable Care Act's requirement of break time for nursing 
mothers; the executive orders prohibiting sex discrimination and other 
forms of discrimination by Federal contractors; and a range of 
executive orders setting labor standards for Federal contractors' 
employees, including a $10.60 minimum wage and a right to earn paid 
sick days, in addition to overseeing a range of workforce training 
initiatives. These policies are essential to closing the gender wage 
gap: they remove barriers to women's employment opportunity, including 
sex discrimination; raise women's wages; allow women to meet caregiving 
responsibilities without sacrificing their employment; and ensure 
women's health and safety so they can continue to support their 
families. Women and their families deserve a Secretary of Labor devoted 
to advancing the rights of workers and committed to robust enforcement 
of the laws that protect them.

    When Mr. Scalia was nominated by President George W. Bush as 
Solicitor of the Labor Department in 2001, the Center raised ``serious 
concerns'' about his nomination. His career over the almost 20 years 
that have followed has only affirmed and deepened those concerns. Mr. 
Scalia's record is marked by a consistent focus on weakening worker 
protections and avoiding corporate accountability. This record of 
hostility to labor and employment rights renders him unfit to lead the 
Department of Labor.

    For decades, Eugene Scalia has worked to enable employers to escape 
responsibility for, and to limit the recourse available to working 
people subject to, workplace discrimination-including sexual 
harassment, race discrimination, and disability discrimination.
                           Sexual Harassment
    Mr. Scalia has advanced troubling views on employer liability for 
supervisor sexual harassment that would insulate employers from 
liability for workplace sexual harassment in almost all circumstances.

    In 1998, Mr. Scalia authored a law review article in which he 
argued that courts should abandon the quid pro quo theory of sexual 
harassment, asserting the category to be ``redundant and ambiguous in 
theory, and cumbersome and confusing in practice.'' \1\ Quid pro quo 
harassment occurs when a person's submission to or rejection of sexual 
advances is used as the basis for employment decisions or is made a 
condition of employment. In his article, Mr. Scalia asserted that 
employers should not be liable for certain types of supervisor 
harassment--including instances where a supervisor repeatedly gropes a 
subordinate on a business trip, or a supervisor threatens to fire a 
subordinate if she doesn't submit to his advances--unless the employer 
``endorsed the conduct.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Eugene Scalia, The Strange Career of Quid Pro Quo Sexual 
Harassment, 21 HARV. J. L. & PUB. POL'Y 307 (1997-1998).

    Mr. Scalia's proposal would represent a significant narrowing of 
the current legal standard of employer liability for sexual harassment. 
Under the test set forth by the Supreme Court in Burlington Indus., 
Inc. v. Ellerth \2\ and Faragher v. city of Boca Raton, \3\ an employer 
is vicariously liable for harassment by a supervisor with authority 
over the employee. If the supervisor takes a ``tangible employment 
action'' against the employee, such as firing her because she does not 
sleep with him, the employer is strictly liable. If no ``tangible 
employment action'' is taken against the employee, the employer can 
mount an affirmative defense by showing that it has taken steps to 
address harassment and an employee has unreasonably failed to avail 
herself of the process available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 524 U.S. 742 (1998).
    \3\ 524 U.S. 775 (1998).

    In neither situation is an employer insulated from liability 
because it did not specifically endorse the harassment. Such a rule 
would radically re-envision sexual harassment law and create a system 
in which employers are almost never accountable for harassment enabled 
by the authority vested in supervisors. This would facilitate serial 
harassers and leave countless victims of workplace sexual assault and 
other forms of harassment without recourse. Mr. Scalia's alarming views 
on employer liability are incompatible with the position of Secretary 
of Labor given the Department's obligation to enforce prohibitions 
against workplace harassment by Federal contractors. This is 
particularly so in the context of the current national reckoning with 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
sexual harassment engendered by #MeToo.

    In his private practice, Mr. Scalia has represented corporate 
defendants in high profile sexual harassment lawsuits involving 
egregious facts. For instance, until the announcement of his pending 
nomination, Mr. Scalia defended Ford Motor Company in a lawsuit in 
which numerous plaintiffs allege sex and race discrimination in 
violation of Title VII, including widespread sexual harassment and 
assault by Ford managers, supervisors and employees, such as groping, 
forced sexual contact and sexual assault, unwelcome requests for 
grotesque sexual acts, regular use of expletives to refer to female 
employees, and retaliation. \4\ In 2004, Mr. Scalia successfully 
represented DaimlerChrysler in an appeal of a Michigan case involving 
the largest jury award to an individual sexual harassment plaintiff. 
\5\ The plaintiff, the plant's first female millwright (a person who 
maintains industrial machinery), alleged her male coworkers displayed 
explicit photos and left notes and urine in her work area, and that 
management failed to take sufficient action when she reported the 
harassment; the jury awarded her $21 million. When Mr. Scalia joined as 
defense counsel during the appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court 
subsequently reversed the verdict and remanded the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Van v. Ford Motor Co., No. 14-CV-8708, 2016 WL 1182001 (N.D. 
Ill. Mar. 28, 2016).
    \5\ Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Co., 685 N.W.2d 391 (Mich. 2004).

                          Race Discrimination
    Mr. Scalia defended a corporation in a Title VII race 
discrimination case involving an issue of growing national prominence: 
the disproportionate impact of dress and grooming policies on people of 
color. In 2016 Mr. Scalia successfully represented Catastrophe 
Management Solutions, an insurance claims company, against the EEOC's 
allegation that the company's policy prohibiting ``excessive'' 
hairstyles was racially discriminatory. A Black job applicant's 
employment offer was rescinded when she refused the company's request 
to cut off her locs. The Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of the 
company, holding that the EEOC failed to show that locs are an 
``immutable trait'' of Black individuals and that the EEOC erroneously 
conflated the disparate treatment and disparate impact theories. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Catastrophe Mgm't Solutions, 
852 F.3d 1018 (11th Cir. 2016).

    However, states and cities increasingly recognize, \7\ and the 
Center's research has shown, \8\ that certain dress or grooming 
policies have a disproportionate negative effect on Black people, 
reflect gender and racial stereotypes, and are a vehicle for race and 
sex discrimination. For example, California recently passed a law that 
explicitly protects workers from discrimination based on their natural 
hair, and prohibits enforcement of grooming policies that 
disproportionately affect Black people, including bans on locs. \9\ New 
York State passed a similar law in July 2019, \10\ and New York City 
has updated guidance for its Human Rights Law to explicitly protect the 
right of all New Yorkers to maintain natural hair closely associated 
with racial and other identities, including specifically providing 
Black people the right to maintain locs. \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ See, e.g., Janelle Griffith, New York Is Second State to Ban 
Discrimination Based on Natural Hairstyles, NBC NEWS (Jul. 15, 2019), 
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/new-york-second-state-ban-
discrimination-based-natural-hairstyles-n1029931.
    \8\ See NAT'L WOMEN'S LAW CTR., DRESS CODED: Black Girls, Bodies, 
and Bias in D.C. Schools (Apr. 2018), https://nwlc.org/resources/
dresscoded/, and NAT'L WOMEN'S LAW CTR., DRESS CODED II: Protest, 
Progress, and Power in D.C. Schools (Sept. 2019), https://nwlc.org/
resources/dresscoded-ii/.
    \9\ See Phil Willon and Alexa D!az, California Becomes First State 
to Ban Discrimination Based on One's Natural Hair, L.A. TIMES (July 3, 
2019), https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-pol-ca-natural-hair-
discrimination-bill-20190703-story.html.
    \10\ See Janelle Griffith, New York is Second State to Ban 
Discrimination Based on Natural Hairstyles, NBC NEWS (July 15, 2019), 
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/new-york-second-state-ban-
discrimination-based-natural-hairstyles-n1029931.
    \11\ See NYC Comm'n on Human Rights, Legal Enforcement Guidance on 
Race Discrimination on the Basis of Hair (Feb. 2019), https://
www..nyc.gov/assets/cchr/downloads/pdf/Hair-Guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Disability Discrimination
    Mr. Scalia was part of legal teams defending corporations in 
several cases that sought to deny employees accommodations under the 
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), to narrow the legal definition 
of disability, and to weaken workers' ability to come together as a 
class to challenge disability discrimination. For example, in 2014, Mr. 
Scalia successfully defended Ford Motor Company in a lawsuit brought by 
the EEOC alleging Ford discriminated against an employee with irritable 
bowel syndrome by refusing to allow her to telecommute as an 
accommodation, and retaliating against her for going to the EEOC. \12\ 
Although Ford allowed telecommuting, including for the employee's 
position, they asserted that she needed to be at work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Ford Motor Co., 752 F.3d 634 
(6th Cir. 2014), reh'g en banc, opinion vacated, 782 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 
2015).

    Mr. Scalia also successfully defended UPS against a class action 
brought by UPS workers who were returning to work following medical 
leave for on-the-job injuries. \13\ The workers alleged that the 
company had illegally failed to provide reasonable accommodations for 
their disabilities, and successfully won certification of a national 
class of similarly situated workers to pursue their claims. Mr. Scalia, 
on behalf of UPS, obtained a reversal of class certification on appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Hohider v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 574 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 
2009).

    Throughout his career, Eugene Scalia has shown persistent hostility 
to the worker and consumer protections the Department of Labor is 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
charged with upholding.

    Mr. Scalia has spent a significant portion of his career opposing 
and undermining workplace safety and health rules--largely overseen by 
the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) within the 
Department of Labor--and defending employers alleged to have violated 
these regulations. For example, Mr. Scalia led the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce's challenge to the Labor Department's 1999 ergonomics 
regulations to prevent injuries among workers who perform repetitive 
tasks. Despite a robust body of evidence supporting the need for the 
regulations, Mr. Scalia characterized ergonomics as ``questionable 
science.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ See Eugene Scalia, OSHA's Ergonomics Litigation Record: Three 
Strikes and It's Out, CATO INST. (June 7, 2000), https://www.cato.org/
publications/commentary/oshas-ergonomics-litigation-record-three-
strikes-its-out.

    Mr. Scalia's regulatory and litigation efforts have focused on 
absolving employers of responsibility to provide a safe workplace. For 
instance, he co-authored comments on behalf of UPS opposing a rule 
proposed by OSHA in 1999 to clarify that employers, and not individual 
workers, are required to pay for personal protective equipment to be 
used on the job, such as hard hats, goggles, and chemical protective 
equipment. Those comments said that there was no safety and health 
rationale to require employers to pay for such equipment--a view that 
OSHA rejected in the final rule issued in 2007, which affirmed that 
requiring employers to pay for this equipment ``is directly related to 
protecting the safety and health of employees and will result in 
substantial safety benefits.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ U.S. Dep't of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Admin., 
Employer Payment for Personal Protective Equipment, Final Rule, 72 Fed. 
Reg. 64342, 64380 (Nov. 15, 2007) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. pts. 
1910, 1915, 1917 at al.).

    In 2014, Mr. Scalia defended SeaWorld in its unsuccessful attempt 
to challenge an OSHA citation in a workplace safety case. After a whale 
trainer was killed by an orca during a live show, SeaWorld fought 
OSHA's citations in a lawsuit. The majority of the D.C. Circuit panel 
denied SeaWorld's petition for review, holding that SeaWorld could 
reasonably be required to take measures to abate the hazards created by 
work with orcas. The majority rejected Mr. Scalia's argument that 
SeaWorld's trainers accepted and controlled their exposure to risk and 
that the job therefore fell outside the reach of OSHA, stating that 
such an argument fundamentally ``contravenes Congress's decision to 
place the duty to ensure a safe and healthy workplace on the employer, 
not the employee.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ SeaWorld of Florida LLC v. Perez, 748 F.3d 1202, 1211 (D.C. 
Cir. 2014).

    Mr. Scalia also published an article in Harvard Law Review in 2001 
which argued that unionized workplaces should be exempt from Federal 
workplace laws, specifically the Occupational Safety and Health Act and 
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and also potentially Title VII. This 
policy change would substantially burden unions by forcing them to 
bargain for basic rights which all other workers already have, would 
leave unionized workers without recourse in the courts, and would 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
likely have the effect of depressing union membership.

    In addition to fighting workplace safety and health laws and 
regulations, Mr. Scalia has advanced efforts to limit workers' access 
to justice. He has defended corporations' use of forced arbitration 
agreements that include workers' waiver of the ability to proceed as a 
group or as a class to challenge violations of workplace rights. For 
example, Mr. Scalia represented UBS in a 2018 case in which laid-off 
workers were forced to release claims against the company in order to 
receive deferred compensation and incentives, which allegedly 
disproportionately affected older workers. UBS's attempt to dismiss or 
force arbitration of the proposed class claims was rejected by a 
Federal district court. \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Zoller v. UBS Sec. LLC, No. 16-CV-11277, 2018 WL 1378340, 
(N.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2018).

    Mr. Scalia not only opposed the Obama administration's effort to 
mandate a $10.10 minimum wage for Federal contract workers, \18\ he 
also successfully argued in support of Wynn Casino's policy forcing 
casino dealers making minimum wage to share their tips with floor 
supervisors who were making four to five times as much money each year. 
\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Eugene Scalia and Rachel Mondi, Obama's minimum-wage increase 
is on shaky legal ground, WASH. POST (Feb. 20, 2014), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-minimum-wage-increase-is-on-
shaky-legal-ground/2014/02/20/16509b42-09999c-0911e3-b931-0204122c514b-
story.html?noredirect=on.
    \19\ Brief for Petitioner at 5, Wynn v. Baldonado, 311 P.3d 1179 
(Nev. 2013) (No. A-10-622879-J).

    Finally, Mr. Scalia is largely responsible for overturning the 
Labor Department's 2016 fiduciary rule, which merely sought to require 
investment brokers to provide advice in the best interest of their 
clients--and to prevent the estimated $17 billion that retirement 
savers lose each year as a result of receiving conflicted advice. \20\ 
Scalia represented business interests, including the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce and the Financial Services Roundtable, in a lawsuit in which 
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the regulation. \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ See, e.g., Heidi Shierholz & Ben Zipperer, ECON. POL'Y INST., 
Here Is What's at Stake with the Conflict of Interest (``Fiduciary'') 
Rule (May 2017), https://www.epi.org/files/pdf/129541.pdf.
    \21\ Chamber of Commerce of United States v. United States Dep't of 
Labor, 885 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2018).

    As Secretary of Labor, Eugene Scalia will be charged with 
protecting working people--and in his career he has shown no 
propensity, sympathy or even interest in upholding, much less 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
advancing, their rights.

    Mr. Scalia's litigation and regulatory efforts on behalf of his 
corporate clients, as well as his public statements and publications, 
demonstrate that as Secretary of Labor he would seek to undermine 
critical workplace protections to the detriment of working people. As a 
leader in the fight for workplace rights for women, the Center strongly 
opposes the confirmation of Eugene Scalia as Secretary of Labor and 
urges the Committee to reject his nomination.

            Sincerely,
    Emily Martin, Vice President for Education & Workplace 
                                                    Justice
                                 ______
                                 
                                    Public Citizen,
                           1600 20th St. NW Washington, DC,
                                                September 19, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray:

    Public Citizen, a public interest organization with more than 
500,000 members and supporters, strongly opposes the nomination of 
Eugene Scalia as Secretary of Labor. Mr. Scalia has spent his career in 
private practice, representing the interests of big business at the 
expense of workers and investors. He is a partner at Gibson, Dunn & 
Crutcher, where he has cashed in on representing the Chamber of 
Commerce and other high-profile corporate clients since 2003. Last year 
he earned over $6.2 million from the firm. \1\ Disturbingly, he is one 
of the most conflicted Labor Secretary nominees in recent history. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Dan Packel, Labor Appointee Eugene Scalia Earned $6.2M as 
Gibson Dunn Partner, LAW.COM (Aug. 30, 2019), https://bit.ly/2kGHkde.
    \2\ Eugene Scalia's Corporate Client List Makes Him the Most 
Conflicted Labor Secretary in Recent History, Allied Progress (Aug. 8, 
2019), https://bit.ly/2kU1VL5.

    After his nomination, the AP News reported, ``Scalia's record drew 
unqualified praise from the chamber.'' \3\ Glenn Spencer, the Chamber's 
senior vice president for employment policy, said Mr. Scalia is ``an 
excellent choice precisely because he has the skills to issue 
regulations that will stand up to court challenge.'' \4\ Based on his 
``successful'' track-record rolling back fundamental worker and 
investor protections, the public should be alarmed about the power he 
could wield over regulations as Secretary and his inherent conflict of 
interest in several matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Mark Sherman, et al.., Labor nominee Scalia has long record of 
opposing regulations, AP (Jul. 19, 2019), https://bit.ly/2klSYK8.
    \4\ Mark Bocchetti, Scalia, Skilled at Upending Rules, May Soon 
Write Them at the Department of Labor, ROLL CALL (Aug. 5, 2019), 
https://bit.ly/2mnDOF0.

    The following are a sampling of cases in which Mr. Scalia has 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
represented the Chamber:

        I. Anti-Retaliation Provision of Electronic Recordkeeping Rule

        Purpose of Rule: OSHA's rule to ``Improve Tracking of Workplace 
        Injuries and Illnesses'', also known as the ``electronic 
        recordkeeping rule'' prohibits employers from discouraging 
        workers from reporting an injury or illness, and it requires 
        education around and enforcement of anti-retaliation rights. 
        The rule's anti-retaliation provisions went into effect in 
        2016.

        Actions Taken to Undermine Rule: The Chamber and other industry 
        groups filed a lawsuit against the Labor Department regarding 
        the electronic recordkeeping rule, citing regulatory overreach 
        and concerns over the anti-retaliation portion of the rule. In 
        June, Mr. Scalia served as counsel for amici curiae the 
        National Association of Manufacturers, Great American Insurance 
        Company, and Associated Builders and Contractors, in opposition 
        to the anti-retaliation provision of the rule. As grounds for 
        its opposition, the brief argued that it would ``allow OSHA to 
        micromanage how certain safety programs are structured'' and 
        cited in part, ``the costs to employers of having to modify 
        their programs to comply with OSHA's newly minted 
        restrictions.'' \5\ After he was nominated, Mr. Scalia filed a 
        Motion to Withdraw from his role as counsel on September 10, 
        2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Brief of Amici Curiae, The National Association of 
Manufacturers, Great American Insurance Company, And Associated 
Builders and Contractors in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary 
Judgment, No. CIV-17-0009-PRW (OK Western District Court, Jun. 12, 
2019).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        II. Fiduciary Rule

        Purpose of Rule: Under Obama, the Labor Department established 
        this rule to ensure that individuals are legally entitled to 
        retirement investment advice that serves their best interests. 
        Specifically, when dealing with accounts connected to the 
        Internal Revenue Service, it required all Wall Stress 
        specialists to prioritize client interests over their own 
        financial interests, charge reasonable fees, and refrain from 
        making misleading statements. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Press Statement, Bart Naylor, Public Citizen, Fiduciary Rule 
Would Stop Financial Advisors from Misleading Americans Saving for 
Retirement (Apr. 5, 2016), https://bit.ly/2kpnC5o.

        Actions Taken to Undermine Rule: On June 21, 2018, the U.S. 
        Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the rule in a 2-1 
        decision. With Mr. Scalia serving as Counsel, the Chamber and 
        leading trade associations brought the case, arguing that the 
        rule is ``arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and contrary to 
        law.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ U.S. Chamber of Commerce et al., v. U.S. Department of Labor, 
No. 17-10238 (5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Jul. 20, 2017), https://
bit.ly/2ksKLE8.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        III. Exchange Act Rule 14a-11

        Purpose of Rule: In 2010, the SEC adopted Rule 14a-11, which 
        mandated proxy access at all public companies, empowering 
        certain shareholders to have more power over the nomination of 
        the board of directors. Specifically, it required public 
        companies to provide shareholders with a mechanism to nominate 
        one or more nominees to stand for election as board director. 
        \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Business Roundtable and Chamber of Commerce v. Securities and 
Exchange Commission, No. 10-1305 (D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Jul. 
22, 2011), https://bit.ly/2kpLPbT.

        Actions Taken to Undermine Rule: In 2010, Mr. Scalia served as 
        counsel for The Business Roundtable and the Chamber in opposing 
        the rule. He argued that corporations' opposition to proxy 
        access has ``long been linked with the fact that the most 
        activist shareholders are union pension funds, government 
        pension funds, and other `institutional interests','' 
        notwithstanding the fact that structural aspects of the rule 
        made it very difficult, even illegal, for those any shareholder 
        to use this mechanism under fraudulent conditions. \9\ In 2011, 
        the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit vacated the rule 
        on the grounds that the cost benefit analysis was inadequate. 
        \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Business Roundtable and Chamber of Commerce v. Securities and 
Exchange Commission, No. 10-1305 (D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nov. 
30, 2011), https://bit.ly/2kIktxW.
    \10\ Business Roundtable and Chamber of Commerce v. Securities and 
Exchange Commission, No. 10-1305 (D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Jul. 
22, 2011), https://bit.ly/2kpLPbT.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        IV. SEC's Mutual Fund Governance Rule

        Purpose of Rule: In 2004, the SEC developed the Mutual Fund 
        Governance Rule to require mutual fund companies to put 
        independent overseers on their boards of directors. It was part 
        of a larger package of reforms to address abuses in the mutual 
        fund industry.

        Actions Taken to Undermine Rule: In 2005 and 2006, Mr. Scalia 
        represented the Chamber on two challenges to the rule. 
        Specifically, it challenged provisions that required the boards 
        of mutual fund companies to have an independent chair and 75 
        percent independent membership. It argued in part that the SEC 
        did not have the authority to regulate ``corporate governance'' 
        and that is did not undertake a rigorous review of the costs. 
        Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held in 
        2005 that the SEC had the authority to promulgate the rule, it 
        remanded the case to the SEC to seek additional public comments 
        on the rule's costs, and in 2006 the court vacated the rule. 
        \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ The Federalist Society, Eugene Scalia, https://bit.ly/2mk20rD; 
Chamber of Commerce v. SEC, 412 F.3d 133 (D.C. Cir. 2005), and Chamber 
of Commerce v. SEC, 443 F.3d 890 (D.C. Circuit, 2006), https://bit.ly/
2m3t7Hf.

        V. OSHA High Injury/Illness Rate Targeting and Cooperative 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Compliance Program

        Purpose of Rule: Established in 1997, the High Injury/Illness 
        Rate Targeting and Cooperative Compliance Program, established 
        by a directive, was aimed at reducing workplace injuries and 
        illnesses by focusing onsite-specific data. OSHA sought to 
        leverage its limited resources by focusing on establishments 
        with high illness and injury rates. Those employers that 
        adopted a comprehensive safety and health program would qualify 
        for placement on a lower priority inspection targeting list. 
        \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Instruction (Nov. 25, 1997), 
https://bit.ly/2kJhp4D.

        Actions Taken to Undermine Rule: In 1998, Mr. Scalia was part 
        of a legal team for the Chamber that challenged the rule under 
        the Administrative Procedure Act. Notwithstanding that an 
        employer's participation in the program was strictly voluntary, 
        the Chamber argued that OSHA should have conducted a notice and 
        comment rulemaking proceeding prior to issuing the directive. 
        In 1999 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit agreed and 
        vacated the directive. \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. U.S. Dep't Labor, 174 F.3d 206 
(D.C. Circuit, 1999), https://bit.ly/2kTah5E.

    These cases reflect Mr. Scalia's long track-record of putting 
corporate interests above worker and investor rights. Regrettably, his 
nomination is just the latest in the Trump administration's efforts to 
advance the Chamber's deregulatory agenda and systematically dismantle 
fundamental health and safety protections, and to undermine the very 
agency tasked with safeguarding America's workforce. Mr. Scalia cannot 
be trusted to lead the Labor Department, and we strongly urge your 
Committee to reject his nomination. If you have any questions about our 
position, please contact Shanna Devine, Worker Health and Safety 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocate for Public Citizen's Congress Watch Division.

            Sincerely,
                                             Public Citizen
                                 ______
                                 
             United Steelworkers (USW) District 12,
                         695 Jerry Street, Castle Rock, CO,
                                                September 17, 2019.
Hon. Lamar Alexander, Chairman,
Hon. Patty Murray, Ranking Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray:

    On behalf of the National Employment Law Project, a non-profit law 
and policy organization with 50 years of experience advocating for the 
employment and labor rights of our Nation's workers, I write to 
register our opposition to the confirmation of Eugene Scalia as the 
next Secretary of Labor. Mr. Scalia has spent virtually his entire 
legal career working to expand corporate and employer power, and narrow 
protections for workers. He is, quite simply, not someone who is 
suitable to serve as this country's chief advocate for working people.

    The mission of the Department of Labor is to ``foster, promote and 
develop the well-being of wage earners, job seekers and retirees of the 
United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for 
profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights.'' 
We do not believe that Mr. Scalia, whose greatest accomplishments have 
included defeating rules that would have protected millions of workers 
from musculoskeletal disorders and required that retirement investment 
advisors put a client's financial interests ahead of their own, will be 
able to fulfill this critical mission.

    If confirmed, Mr. Scalia will be among the most conflicted Labor 
Secretaries in the agency's history. His list of potential recusals is 
extensive, undescoring that he consistently engages in work that is at 
odds with what is in the best interest of our Nation's workforce.

    His views about sexual harassment are also far outside the 
mainstream of both law and public consensus. In a controversial 1998 
article written for the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Mr. 
Scalia argued that ``quid pro quo'' sexual harassment on the job should 
not be categorized as a separate form of discrimination.

    Further examples of his overly zealous championing of big business 
include the following:

          Leading the opposition to an OSHA rule that would 
        have regulated workplace conditions to prevent musculoskeletal 
        disorders (MSDs)--repetitive motion injuries that can be 
        crippling. Although the rule would have protected an estimated 
        one million workers, Scalia led the fight against the rule, 
        writing numerous articles and public comments dismissing years 
        of science-based data on the effects of ergonomics as 
        ``quackery'' and ``junk science.'' He also argued that 
        employers should not be responsible for MSD prevention.

          Defending Walmart when the State of Maryland 
        attempted to establish a law that would make it mandatory for 
        companies to either pay a portion of their payroll on 
        healthcare or contribute to Medicaid.

          Defending Wynn Las Vegas Casino when it fought for 
        the ``right'' to steal dealers' tips so that it could 
        redistribute them to other workers, rather than paying those 
        workers decent wages in the first place.

          Defending SeaWorld when the Occupational Safety 
        Health Administration (OSHA) cited the theme park after a 
        trainer was killed by an orca whale at one of their facilities.

          Defending the Boeing corporation when it tried to 
        relocate jobs from Washington State in order to avoid 
        recognizing a union duly elected by its workers.

    These are but a few examples of the kinds of interests and 
employers uniformly represented by Mr. Scalia. While as a private 
citizen he has every right to pursue the type of legal career he 
chooses, his choices prove beyond any doubt that his sympathies lie 
strictly within the interests of corporations and employers, not 
workers. A Labor Secretary who has built his career on the backs of 
everyday working people is the wrong choice to lead the Department of 
Labor. I urge you to reject Eugene Scalia's nomination as the next 
Secretary of Labor as an act of solidarity with working people.

            Respectfully,
                                Robert LaVenture, Director,
                              United Steelworkers (USW) District 12
                                 ______
                                 

                         QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

   Response by Eugene Scalia to Questions of Senator Braun, Senator 
  Collins, Senator Enzi, Senator Murkowski, Senator Roberts, Senator 
  Scott, Senator Murray, Senator Sanders, Senator Casey Jr., Senator 
Baldwin, Senator Murphy, Senator Warren, Senator Kaine, Senator Hassan, 
            Senator Smith, Senator Jones and Senator Rosen.
                             senator braun
    Question 1. Joint-Employer Rule

    The last administration greatly altered the Fair Labor Standards 
Act by issuing a rule of a joint-employer that endangered business 
growth in the United States and reversed thirty years of precedent. I 
wanted to echo the remarks made by Senators Alexander and Isakson at 
your live hearing that I am pleased by the roll back of this rule by 
the Trump administration. However, it is troubling to me that 
uncertainty exists as administrations change.

    I joined Senators King and Cornyn when they introduced the 
Trademark Licensing Protection Act, which would clarify the joint 
employer rule to some degree to ensure the use of a trademark product 
or logo cannot be used to define a joint employer. Where else in U.S. 
Code can we work to ensure joint-employer is defined in a way that does 
not discourage business growth?

    Could you explain the disadvantages to productivity a company would 
face if the term joint employer is loosely defined and liberally 
applied?

    Answer 1. Your question addresses ongoing rulemaking. I understand 
the Department has obtained input from the public. Public comment is a 
valuable, essential component of the regulatory process. If confirmed, 
I look forward to carefully considering the points developed in the 
rulemaking comments and working with the Department's staff and the 
Committee, as appropriate, to decide on the course that best serves the 
public interest.

    Question 2. Apprenticeships and Workforce Development

    When I ran my distribution company, we consistently had openings 
for positions that required advanced training but not a four-year 
degree, including truck drivers. In fact, it has been estimated that 
the United States will reach a worker shortage of 11 million by 2020 if 
we do not do more to address the skills gap.

    My colleague from Indiana, Senator Young, has introduced the DRIVE-
Safe Act, which would allow for those under the age of 21 with a 
commercial drivers license to cross state lines to engage in commerce, 
addressing the massive truck driver shortage we have in the United 
States.

    I also introduced the Pell Flexibility Act of 2019 to create a 
pilot program for Pell money to be used for short-term programs.

    These bills address workforce development in the commerce and 
transportation and education spaces. How can we improve labor laws to 
close the skills gap? Multiple Senators at your live hearing, including 
Democratic Senator Rosen mentioned the need for flexible apprenticeship 
models for various industries, including construction. How do you plan 
to promote this flexibility through Industry Recognized Apprenticeship 
Programs (IRAPs)?

    Answer 2. I share your belief that high quality apprenticeship 
programs are a valuable and effective job training tool; expanding 
access to effective apprenticeship programs is an important element of 
positioning our workforce to meet the needs of a changing economy. 
Apprenticeships and other work-based learning models that offer workers 
the opportunity to earn while they learn are critical to training the 
American workforce. If confirmed, one of my priorities will be to 
ensure that apprenticeship programs are accessible in more communities 
and to displaced workers who need to transition to new and growing 
industries.

    With respect to IRAPs specifically, your question addresses ongoing 
rulemaking. I understand that the Department has obtained input from 
the public. Public comment is a valuable, essential component of the 
regulatory process. If confirmed, I look forward to carefully 
considering the points developed in the rulemaking comments and working 
with the Department's staff and the Committee, as appropriate, to 
decide on the course that best serves the public interest, in addition 
to assessing all ways in which the Department can contribute to closing 
the skills gap.
                            senator collins
    Question 1. Job Corps

    Job Corps has provided great opportunities for disadvantaged youth 
and employers in Maine. Maine's two Centers--Loring Job Corps Center 
and Penobscot Job Corps Center--serve more than 500 young adults and 
rank among the best in the Nation.

    Earlier this year, I congratulated Adais Viruet-Torres on earning a 
nursing degree with honors from Husson University. I first met Adais in 
2008, when she was enrolled in Job Corps. She had previously 
experienced homelessness, but ended up making her way to the Loring Job 
Corps Center. Because of Job Corps and her hard work, she is on the 
path to a truly rewarding career. Hers is one of the many amazing 
stories that Job Corps makes possible.

    If confirmed, what would be your vision for workforce development 
programs like Job Corps that are aimed at disadvantaged youth?

    Answer 1. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the 
Loring and Penobscot Job Corps centers in Maine as well as others. Job 
Corps has been and continues to be an important employment and training 
option for at-risk youth. My focus, if confirmed, will be on helping 
Job Corps centers better provide students the services and training 
central to their mission.

    Question 2. Older Americans at Work

    As our Nation's demographics shift, we are seeing many older 
Americans stay in the workforce. Adults age 65 and older are twice as 
likely to be working today compared with 1985. In the Aging Committee, 
which I chair, we have focused on the opportunities and challenges 
older workers face.

    Older Americans stay in the workforce for many reasons, but as they 
do so they can face challenges. Some older workers face discrimination. 
Workers who find themselves unemployed in their fifties may want to 
keep working, but can face an uphill climb in being hired for a new 
job.

    How can the Department help address these demographic realities, 
particularly in ensuring that older Americans can remain productive in 
the workforce?

    Answer 2. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the growth in 
our economy can be shared by American workers of all ages. I share your 
belief in the dignity of work, and your concern that older workers are 
often the targets of invidious discrimination. In fact, older workers 
possess the skills needed by countless employers across the country, 
and can make important contributions to closing the ``skills gap.'' For 
those older workers looking to go back into the workforce, the 
Department of Labor can help guide adult learning at community 
colleges, onsite training, and through apprenticeships. The Department 
can also help address discrimination against older workers through its 
Civil Rights Center's administration of the non-discrimination 
provisions of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014.

    Question 3. Retirement Security Work

    As Chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, I have heard about the 
challenges faced by older workers when their pensions are mismanaged. 
As Solicitor of Labor, you ensured that an independent party would 
manage the 401(k) and pensions plans for 40,000 Enron workers. At the 
time, you indicated that Enron executives could not be trusted to 
administer these plans.

    Can you please explain why you fought for this new oversight and 
how it protected retirees?

    Answer 3. Protecting retirement savings and worker health benefits 
is among the Department of Labor's most important responsibilities. 
When I served as Solicitor of Labor, the Department career staff and I 
determined that the fiduciaries to Enron's pension plans could no 
longer be trusted with oversight of the plans, given their failure to 
protect retirees' investments in company stock from the company's 
collapse. We therefore sought, obtained, and enforced Enron's agreement 
to have the company's pension plans controlled by an independent 
fiduciary (State Street Bank and Trust Company) that had no connection 
to the company or to its officers or directors. I personally worked 
with my staff to obtain and enforce this agreement, and later worked 
with the staff to prepare an influential amicus brief that successfully 
opposed attempts to dismiss the fiduciary breach litigation that Enron 
workers brought against the company and plan fiduciaries. If I am 
confirmed as Secretary of Labor, I would continue to forcefully protect 
America's workers and retirees.
                              senator enzi
    Question 1. Voluntary Protection Program (VPP)/Safety and Health 
Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP)

    As a former small business owner, I understand both the importance 
of maintaining a safe workplace as well as the burdens that can be 
imposed by Federal regulations. During our meeting in my office, I 
discussed that one of my priority programs is the Voluntary Protection 
Program or VPP that is administered by OSHA. The program helps reduce 
OSHA's inspection burden on workplaces that have a proven commitment to 
safety and a record of compliance with OSHA standards. I also discussed 
my desire to have a similar program for small businesses.

    I understand that OSHA's Safety and Health Achievement Recognition 
Program (SHARP) is similar to VPP, but for small and medium-sized 
businesses. However, it was brought to my attention that SHARP is 
underutilized due to the lack of trust among small and medium-sized 
businesses to engage with OSHA.

    They fear being cited for violations. Neither of these programs are 
enacted into law, but were created by OSHA. I have introduced 
legislation to codify the VPP to create a statutory framework to 
maintain the program. I may do the same for SHARP.

          What are your ideas and priorities for these 
        programs? How can OSHA and the DOL instill more trust in these 
        programs for better relationships with small and medium-sized 
        businesses?

          How can OSHA and the DOLimprove these programs?

          How does OSHA promote and market these programs or 
        rather, how can we better promote these programs, particularly 
        to small and medium-sized businesses, to ensure that they are 
        aware of them, and that these programs are more readily 
        utilized?

          As I mentioned, these are priority programs for me 
        and I would like to have legislation enacted by the end of this 
        Congress to codify and make improvements to them for their 
        long-term stability. I look forward to having the opportunity 
        to work with you on these issues.

    Answer 1. For employers working to exceed the minimum standards of 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Voluntary Protection 
Program (VPP) and Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program 
(SHARP) are excellent ways to increase safety in the workplace. 
According to OSHA's website, the average VPP worksite has a ``Days Away 
Restricted or Transferred'' case rate of 52 percent below the average 
for its industry. VPP work sites must engage workers and labor, where 
representation exists, to create a safety and health management plan to 
identify hazards and means to prevent them. SHARP is similarly valuable 
for small businesses working to improve safety in the workplace.

    If confirmed, I would welcome the opportunity to work with you on 
these issues, and to identify ways to increase participation by small 
and medium-sized businesses.

    Question 2. Association Health Plans

    It can be a real struggle for small business owners to afford to 
offer their employees comprehensive health insurance plans because they 
have limited ability to pool risk and lack leverage in the market. I've 
long thought that one family shoe store might not be able to get an 
insurance company to play ball, but one thousand family shoe stores 
probably could. Last year, the Trump administration issued a new rule 
that made it easier for small businesses to band together like that for 
the purposes of offering an Association Health Plan, subject to the 
same consumer protection requirements that apply to large employers 
offering similar coverage. It did not disrupt state authority, which is 
important, so we don't need to build another Washington bureaucracy and 
consumers can be assured of better help if they need it.

    I know that rule is the subject of continued litigation, but can 
you talk a little bit about your thoughts on Association Health Plans 
in general and what DOL can continue to do to promote this option for 
comprehensive and affordable health insurance coverage?

    Answer 2. I did not participate in adoption or implementation of 
the Association Health Plan regulation, which represents an innovative 
attempt to expand employer-provided health coverage by facilitating 
small employers' ability to band together to pool risk and reduce 
costs. I understand there is a legal challenge to the regulation 
currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about 
Association Health Plans in addition to exploring other options for 
comprehensive and affordable health insurance coverage within the 
purview of the Department of Labor.
                           senator murkowski
    Question 1.

    Based on your long and detailed experience with Federal labor laws 
and regulations, are there any regulations that you would, if 
confirmed, particularly like to rescind or re-write or any statutes you 
would particularly like to see amended and why?

    Answer 1. The Department periodically publishes its regulatory 
agenda, which highlights the priorities of the Department and its 
agencies. If confirmed, I plan to thoroughly review the agenda and work 
with Department leadership to determine if there are additional 
regulatory actions that would serve the public interest. Additionally, 
I plan to review and consider regulatory recommendations from Congress, 
the administration, and Departmental stakeholders.

    Question 2.

    Secretary Acosta committed to me and to Alaskan union leaders 
during his visit that he would get Wage and Hour investigators to 
Fairbanks and Anchorage. This commitment has been difficult to 
completely fulfill. Will you pledge to continue to keep working to 
fulfill this commitment?

    Answer 2. I understand there has been some increase in Wage-Hour 
staffing in Alaska since your discussion with Secretary Acosta, and if 
confirmed, I look forward to learning more about this issue and steps 
that may be taken. I am committed to the mission of the Wage and Hour 
Division to promote and achieve compliance with labor standards to 
protect and enhance the welfare of the Nation's workforce.

    Question 3.

    Secretary Acosta visited the Job Corps center in Palmer when he 
came to Alaska. He noted that it was one of the most successful Job 
Corps centers in the Nation in terms of outcomes, but noted that in 
measuring the effectiveness of Job Corps, the Department did not place 
as much weight on outcomes as on inputs. Outcomes like placing students 
in jobs they were trained for, where they were making good wages. He 
planned to change that. He was also interested in closing Job Corps 
centers with poor outcomes and poor safety records. Do you agree with 
those positions?

    Answer 3. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the 
Alaska Job Corps Center in Palmer as well as others. Job Corps has been 
and continues to be an important employment and training option for at-
risk youth. I agree that assessment of program outcomes is important, 
and my focus will be on helping Job Corps centers better provide 
students the services and training that are central to their mission.

    Question 4.

    During your tenure at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, you represented the 
financial industry's lawsuit that resulted in the 5th Circuit vacating 
the Obama administration's fiduciary rule. At the time, you were quoted 
in one interview as saying, ``This is a matter that ought to be 
addressed by the SEC; Dodd-Frank made clear that the question of a 
uniform fiduciary standard is under the SEC's purview.'' The 
Department's regulatory agenda notes the plan to propose a revised 
fiduciary rule by the end of this year. Apart from your representation 
of your clients' position, what are your views on the fiduciary rule 
and how would you guide the Department? Or, would you recuse yourself 
from this issue?

    Answer 4. As an attorney in private practice, I had a professional 
obligation to serve as a zealous advocate for my clients. If confirmed, 
I will have new clients, new responsibilities, and a public trust. I am 
acutely mindful of the Labor Department's central role in protecting 
employee retirement savings.

    I am encouraged that the SEC has undertaken steps of its own to 
address broker-dealers' servicing of retirement accounts. At this time, 
I have not examined the details of those steps, and as a nominee, I am 
not familiar with the status of the Department's plan to propose a 
revised fiduciary rule. If confirmed, I would consult with the 
Department's ethics officials regarding whether I should recuse myself 
from various matters, including deliberations over the new fiduciary 
rule. I deeply appreciate the vital importance of promoting retirement 
security for Americans, and if it is appropriate for me to take an 
active role in the Department's future efforts concerning the fiduciary 
rule, I would look forward to working with the Department's staff to 
understand those efforts and facilitate efficient and effective 
policies that serve the interests of retirement savers.
                            senator roberts
    Question 1.

    Mr. Scalia, in Kansas, we have 34 organizations employing 2,200 
workers with severe disabilities thanks to section 14 (c) of Fair Labor 
Standards Act, the provision which allows qualified employers to pay 
sub-minimumwage. Will you commit to maintaining employment 
opportunities, like those offered under 14 (c), for workers with severe 
disabilities?

    Answer 1. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the 
Fair Labor Standards Act Section 14(c) exemption. I recognize that this 
exemption is statutory, and is an area of interest and concern for many 
Members of Congress. While I would need to thoroughly review any 
particular program before committing to support or oppose it, I do 
support increasing the labor force participation rate of individuals 
with disabilities, and helping those individuals lead successful and 
self-sustaining lives.

    Question 2.

    H1B Visas is an important issue in Kansas for both landscapers and 
other summer camps. Do you see value in this program and will you 
commit to a better partnership with USCIS on the application process?

    Answer 2. I agree that the H-2B program plays a vital role in our 
Nation's economy and directly employs a significant number of workers 
in the United States. I also recognize that obtaining a reliable 
workforce is critical to meeting the temporary and seasonal labor needs 
of Kansas employers. Through questions such as yours and discussions 
with you and your colleagues, I have come to better appreciate the 
depth of interest and some of the concerns with this program. If 
confirmed, I will continue the collaborative work of the Department 
with the Departments of Homeland Security and State and seek input from 
Congress and other stakeholders, as appropriate, to ensure the H-2B 
program is as accessible, transparent, and efficient as possible to 
enable Kansas employers to meet their temporary and seasonal workforce 
needs.

    Question 3.

    The administration's recent budgets have proposed ending the U.S. 
Forest Service-operated Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center program. 
In May, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced it would close some of 
these centers and turn others into demonstration projects or contract 
centers before rescinding that proposal. Is DOL continuing to explore 
the closure, piloting, or contracting out of any of the Job Corps 
Civilian Conservation Centers? If so, which centers?

    Answer 3. Given the USDA's intention to continue to operate Job 
Corps Civilian Conservation Centers, I expect that, if I am confirmed, 
the Department will work in collaboration with the USDA to help provide 
students vital services and training.

    Question 4.

    Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) provide an opportunity for 
workers to own a part of the companies for which they work, and these 
empowering arrangements drive economic growth, create jobs, and 
encourage employee savings. They have also been shown time and again to 
improve employee productivity, and help the company's bottom line. 
Congress has, on a bipartisan basis, gone to great lengths to encourage 
ESOPS. However, the Department of Labor (DOL) has never issued guidance 
on key issues such as valuation of stock that is bought or owned by the 
ESOP, which has created ambiguity and made it difficult for companies 
to make business decisions. The lack of guidance has additionally led 
to what many ESOP companies perceive as unfair enforcement activities 
by DOL against ESOPS. Do I have your commitment that you will work to 
issue official guidance on valuation rules and other key ESOP issues?

    Answer 4. Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) provide retirement 
benefits and give workers a direct stake in their companies. If 
confirmed, I will be committed to assuring meaningful retirement 
savings for participants in ESOPs, and to providing additional guidance 
to ESOP sponsors where it is practicable and appropriate to do so.
                             senator scott
    Question 1.

    Mr. Scalia, recognizing that you will understandably want to 
consult with staff, stakeholders, experts, and policymakers before 
coming to a definitive decision on any important policy matter before 
the Department, and that you have expressed support for the importance 
of the notice-and-comment rulemaking process, I will not ask that you 
commit to any particular course of action on the issues at hand. I 
will, however, ask that you fully and carefully consider the following 
areas, which I see as vitally important as we seek to bolster our 
economy, facilitate its growth, adapt to its changes, and continue to 
unleash the innovation at the core of our Nation's culture. Only then 
can we ensure that Americans from all walks of life can continue to 
pursue and achieve opportunity.

    Answer 1. If confirmed, I will consult with the Department staff 
and seek input from Congress and other stakeholders and agencies as 
appropriate on these important issues, in an effort to ensure that the 
Department can properly achieve its mission.

    Question 2. The Promise of the Gig Economy:

    The sharing, or ``gig,'' economy holds tremendous promise for 
American workers, who increasingly seek out independence, flexibility, 
and ownership in their work. Research by the McKinsey Global Institute, 
for instance, found that a sizable majority of so-called ``gig'' 
workers worked independently by choice, including nearly 70 percent of 
those who relied upon independent work for their primary income, along 
with more than 70 percent of those relying upon this type of work for 
supplemental income. Along the same lines, a survey of Uber driver-
partners found that while 91 percent reported driving to make more 
money for themselves and their families, as we might expect to see for 
any job, the next most common response, which captured 87 percent of 
respondents, reflected a desire ``to be my own boss and set my own 
schedule.''

    Unfortunately, flexible work arrangements like those leveraged by 
Uber, Lyft, and other consumer-friendly platforms are currently under 
attack in states like California, where a recently passed law, known as 
AB-5, would codify the unprecedented and ludicrously narrow ``A-B-C'' 
test for independent contractor status, forcibly reclassifying scores 
of workers and strangling the innovative models that have redefined a 
whole host of services. These types of laws will mean less independence 
and flexibility for American workers, less game-changing innovation, 
and less access to affordable goods and services for American 
consumers.

    For this reason, I plan to introduce legislation that would clarify 
the definition of ``employee'' under the Fair Labor Standards Act by 
harmonizing it with the common-law test currently enforced under the 
Internal Revenue Code. I am hopeful that bills like this one can 
generate bipartisan support and ensure certainty, clarity, and 
commonsense across the Nation, in contrast with the unworkable 
patchwork that laws like California's would seek to create. I hope that 
the Labor Department gives the dynamism of the sharing economy due 
consideration as it considers potential action on this front and 
others, particularly given the regulatory tripwires that firms often 
face as they seek to serve and assist the independent contractors with 
whom they partner.

    Answer 2. The Department has an important role in ensuring that 
employers receive clear guidance on their compliance obligations. If 
confirmed, I look forward to being briefed on matters pertaining to the 
classification of employees and will enforce the law fully and fairly. 
I also look forward to developing a deeper understanding of the 
opportunities, and challenges, presented by the ``gig'' economy.

    Question 3. Bridging the Skills Gap through Apprenticeships:

    In terms of bridging the skills gap, apprenticeships play a pivotal 
role. While some states have struggled to adapt registered 
apprenticeship programs to meet their workforce needs, South Carolina 
employers, educational institutions, and workers have harnessed this 
model to great effect. In 2007, when our state first launched 
Apprenticeship Carolina, only 90 companies in the Palmetto state had 
apprenticeship programs, and we had fewer than 800 apprentices.

    Twelve years later, the landscape has transformed. Since 2007, 
South Carolina has served more than 32,000 apprentices, more than 50 
percent higher than our initial goal for 2020. We have seen more than 
1,000 programs registered, across virtually every sector.

    Employers ranging from automakers like BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and 
Volvo to pharmaceutical companies like Nephron have embraced 
apprenticeship programs, and economic engines like Boeing have 
spearheaded promising efforts in the sphere of youth apprenticeships, 
just to name a few compelling examples.

    That being said, we hear from some employers that the registered 
model includes undue regulatory barriers, compliance burdens, and 
associated costs that constrain their ability to either utilize or 
expand apprenticeship programs. For that reason, I applaud the 
administration for pursuing a parallel track under the Industry-
Recognized Apprenticeship Program (IRAP) model, and I would encourage 
any final rulemaking along those lines to include the full spectrum of 
industries that might benefit from the flexibilities ideally offered by 
these programs. In the case of construction, for instance, despite the 
fact that we've seen success with the registered model, it's worth 
noting that even if the nearly 18,000 apprentices who completed 
registered apprenticeship programs in construction in fiscal year 2018 
all accepted jobs in the sector, they would only supply roughly 4 
percent of the nearly 450,000 additional workers that will likely be 
needed in 2019 alone to meet existing project backlogs. Denying 
construction a seat at the table for any industry-recognized model 
finalized would mark a missed opportunity.

    Along the same lines, the Department could greatly facilitate and 
expand existing industry-driven workforce training models by revisiting 
regulatory interpretations of components of Davis-Bacon that force 
contractors to treat non-registered apprentices as journeymen for 
compliance purposes, artificially inflating costs and deterring 
valuable training opportunities for aspiring workers.

    In terms of IRAP, I have also heard from some employers that 
additional regulatory flexibilities would ensure that these programs 
can serve as a useful tool and can truly embrace the ``industry-
recognized'' element at their core, rather than replicate some of the 
more burdensome components that we sometimes see in the registered 
model. I hope that any final rule on this issue can address additional 
flexibilities and ensure that diverse industries can approach this 
model in a manner that meets their particular strengths and needs.

    That said, even putting IRAP to the side, the registered 
apprenticeship model can work extremely well, as we have seen time and 
time again in South Carolina, but there are undoubtedly avenues for 
improvement through regulatory relief. I hope that, regardless of how 
any final IRAP rule emerges, the Department can engage with 
stakeholders and seek out enhancements that allow and encourage more 
employers to adopt apprenticeship programs, as well as to expand 
existing programs.

    With all of that being said, my question is simply, with regards to 
the above, can you commit to reviewing the issues at hand and carefully 
considering the best course of action, from the perspective of the 
Department of Labor?

    Answer 3. Yes, apprenticeships play an important and growing role 
in the American economy, and I commit to carefully consider issues such 
as you have raised.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 ______
                                 
    [Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                   [all]