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


                       EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND
                 PRIORITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

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

                                HEARING

                               Before The

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

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________



              HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 7, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-12

                               __________

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


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

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
55-498 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
       
        
                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

               VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman

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

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

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on June 7, 2023.....................................     1

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

    Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Committee on Education and 
      the Workforce..............................................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     5
    Scott, Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on 
      Education and the Workforce................................     8
        Prepared statement of....................................    10

                               WITNESSES

    Su, Julie, Acting Secretary of Labor.........................    12
        Prepared statement of....................................    14

                         ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

    Chairwoman Foxx:
        Comments dated December 13, 2022 from Flex...............   124
        Comments dated December 13, 2022 from Lyft...............   163
    Scott, Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on 
      Education and the Workforce:
        Letter of support dated April 7, 2023 for Julie Su from 
          Small Buiness Majority.................................    94
        Letter of support dated April 3, 2023 for Julie Su from 
          Society for Human Resources Management.................    96
        Letter of support dated April 19, 2023 for Julie Su from 
          The Port of Los Angeles................................    97
        Letter to Chairwoman Foxx dated June 6, 2023 requesting a 
          child labor hearing....................................   121
    Banks, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Indiana:
        Article dated April 17, 2023 from The New York Times.....    35
        Staff Memorandum dated July 7, 2017 from Julie Su........    38
    Takano, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of California:
        Congressional letter to President Biden dated February 
          17, 2023 endorsing Julie Su............................    48
        Tri-Caucus letter to Senate leadership dated June 7, 2023 
          endorsing Julie Su.....................................    54
        Statement dated March 9, 2023 from Los Angeles Chamber of 
          Commerce endorsing Julie Su............................    63
        Press release dated December 14, 2022 from the 
          International Franchise Association....................    67
        Lyft blog dated October 11, 2022 on the Department of 
          Labor's proposed rule..................................    72

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Response to question submitted for the record by:
        Acting Secretary Julie Su................................   167

 
                       EXAMINING THE POLICIES AND
                 PRIORITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, June 7, 2023

                  House of Representatives,
          Committee on Education and The Workforce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m., House 
Rayburn Office Building, Room 2175, Hon. Virginia Foxx, 
[Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Foxx, Wilson, Walberg, Grothman, 
Allen, Banks, Smucker, Owens, Good, McClain, Miller, Steel, 
Letlow, Kiley, Bean, Burlison, Moran, James, Williams, Houchin, 
Scott, Courtney, Sablan, Bonamici, Takano, Adams, DeSaulnier, 
Norcross, Jayapal, Wild, McBath, Hayes, Stevens, Leger 
Fernandez, Manning, Mrvan, and Bowman.
    Staff present: Cyrus Artz, Staff Director; Nick Barley, 
Deputy Communications Director; Mindy Barry, General Counsel; 
Michael Davis, Legislative Assistant; Cate Dillon, Director of 
Operations; Isabel Foster, Press Assistant; Daniel Fuenzalida, 
Staff Assistant; Sheila Havenner, Director of Information 
Taylor Hittle, Professional Staff Member; Claire Houchin, 
Intern; Technology; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and 
Human Resources Policy; Alex Knorr, Legislative Assistant; Trey 
Kovacs, Professional Staff Member; Andrew Kuzy, Press 
Assistant; Marek Laco, Professional Staff Member; John Martin, 
Deputy Director of Workforce Policy/Counsel; Hannah Matesic, 
Director of Member Services and Coalitions; Audra McGeorge, 
Communications Director; Rebecca Powell, Staff Assistant; Seth 
Waugh, Director of Workforce Policy; Joe Wheeler, Professional 
Staff Member; Jeanne Wilson, Retirement Counsel; Banyon Vassar, 
Minority IT Administrator; Bob Shull, Minority Senior Labor 
Policy Counsel; Brittany Alston, Minority Operations Assistant; 
Daniel Foster, Minority Senior Health and Labor Counsel; 
Dhrtvan Sherman, Minority Staff Assistant; Ilana Brunner, 
Minority General Counsel; Jessica Schieder, Minority Economic 
Policy Advisor; Kyle deCant, Minority Senior Labor Policy 
Counsel; Scott Estrada, Minority Professional Staff; Stephanie 
Lalle, Minority Communications Director; Veronique Pluviose, 
Minority Staff Director; Kevin McDermott, Minority Director of 
Labor Policy; Angela Lopez-Albarran, Minority Fellow; Gerardo 
Gutierrez, Kristion Jackson, and Theresa Thompson, Minority 
Professional Staff.
    Chairwoman Foxx. The Committee on Education and the 
Workforce will come to order. I note that a quorum is present. 
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to call a recess at 
any time. Good morning, everyone and welcome to today's 
hearing.
    Acting Secretary Su, I would like to start by saying you 
have been a hard witness to schedule. The Committee began 
working with the Department to secure your in-person testimony 
beginning in March. When you would not appear in May we honored 
your request to appear in June, using a day, June 7, that was 
offered by your staff and to which you agreed.
    We have been more than accommodating to establish a mutual 
date for this hearing. Why is it that on late Friday evening 
following the Committee's public posting of the hearing a week 
ago, your staff told us that you were ``no longer able to make 
June 7th work.''
    What was so important that you were willing to stop the 
work of a congressional Committee, upend the schedule of 45 
Members of Congress and leave the American people's concerns 
unanswered? The hearing is not about you, or your pending 
nomination.
    It is about assessing the budget proposal for the 
Department of Labor, and the Department's performance, and an 
adherence to its statutory mandate. However, your effort to 
evade transparency at the 11th hour calls into question your 
ability to fulfill your duty as a potential Secretary of Labor.
    Acting Secretary Su, you are sitting here today only 
because I informed you that I would issue a subpoena to compel 
your attendance at this previously agreed to hearing and you 
reconsidered your cancellation. I am glad that you reconsidered 
that lapse in judgment. I am unaware of this Committee ever 
needing to consider such an action for Departments' annual 
hearing until now.
    You cannot run from this responsibility. Congress and the 
American people have questions about how you have been running 
the Department. Overall, Biden's Fiscal Year 202024 budget 
calls for 1.5 billion more in discretionary spending for the 
Department of Labor than it received last year.
    Considering your continued unwillingness to provide fully 
responsive answers to Committee oversight requests, this budget 
increase can only be seen as a tacit nod of approval by the 
President that the Department can continue skirting 
accountability to taxpayers.
    If enacted, the budget would add 2,000 new Federal 
bureaucrats. If the current 17,000 cannot sufficiently respond 
to a single Committee request, I do not think adding 2,000 more 
will help the Department's bureaucratic sclerosis. If anything, 
more bureaucrats will mean more mountains of paperwork and more 
red tape under which to bury our oversight request.
    Worse, this paperwork and red tape will bury workers and 
businesses trying to make a living. We should be shrinking, not 
expanding the size of the Federal Government. Nevertheless, 
after years of conducting oversight, I found that no amount of 
bureaucratic red tape can obfuscate an objectively poor record. 
When the record speaks for itself, its inherent contradictions, 
its complications, and its confusions on naturally resolve to 
clarity.
    We are here to talk about your Department's record, Acting 
Secretary Su, and it does not hold up well. The Department's 
rap sheet is long. It includes over 100 planned rulemakings and 
long-term actions. From his first day in office, Biden reversed 
many Trump administration policies that would have promoted 
hiring and employment opportunities.
    He began pursuing radical policies that would expand the 
size and scope of government and pay back big labor. The Biden 
administration has amassed a troubling record of big labor bias 
at the expense of American workers. This culture of union 
favoritism undermines workers' rights.
    Washington should not be in the business of picking winners 
and losers in our economy. That is exactly what the Biden 
administration is doing. Whether it be through attempting to 
overturn every right to work law in the country, eliminating 
independent contracting, jeopardizing franchise businesses, or 
rewarding union bosses with unchecked power by acquiescing to 
every item on their wish list.
    The Pro Act is but one example of the administration's 
union favoritism. It is championed by the AFLCIO, big labor 
groups, socialist Bernie Sanders, and now the Department of 
Labor. Due to legislative gridlock the Department is trying to 
bypass congressional authority by implementing the Pro Act's 
key features in pieces through regulation.
    If enacted, it would destroy the livelihoods of millions of 
workers, including independent contractors who overwhelmingly 
prefer their current worker status. President Biden's anti-
worker agenda is hurting our economy. We watched its impact on 
our workforce during COVID.
    Acting Secretary Su, while you were Deputy Secretary, the 
Department imposed a tyrannical, illegal, vaccine mandate on 
employers. The rule applied to nearly 84 million in our 
workforce. Not only was the Department wrong on the science of 
COVID, but it also compromised our economic supply chain 
because of its sweeping dictates.
    America needs a Department of Labor aligned with its 
priorities, like filling the more than 10 million open jobs in 
the United States. At every action the Department takes does 
one of two things. At best, it pushes a misguided union agenda. 
At worst, it subverts our economic stability and prosperity to 
do so. As I reviewed the Fiscal Year 202024 budget request I 
saw more of the same.
    In it the administration requested 81 million dollars more 
for the Wage and Hour Division, WHD. This is currently a 310-
million-dollar Federal office responsible for enforcing several 
important workforce laws, and the American people would be 
incensed if they knew just how badly it is run.
    Under your supervision the number of workers receiving back 
wages is the lowest on record for WHD. Down by more than 51 
percent from 4 years ago. Over those 4 years the WHD has 
received a 10 percent bump in funding, yet it has achieved half 
the results.
    The taxpayers are not giving a blank check for the 
Department's ineptitude, and WHD does not deserve a dollar 
more. Acting Secretary Su, I could spend all day going line by 
line through this budget. There are places where we agree, like 
expanding apprenticeship programs, but even here I think the 
Department comes up short.
    Instead of making the workforce system more responsive to 
employer needs, the Biden administration has doubled down on 
burdensome registered apprenticeships, while shuttering the 
industry recognized apprenticeship program. It is hard to think 
of a worse response to our worker shortage.
    At heart, we disagree on guiding principles and how we 
envision the government's role in our workforce. The government 
itself is not a job creator. The administration and the near 
100 planned workforce rules do not foster economic growth. The 
proper role of the Department is certainly not to enforce 
universal unionization.
    Rather, we should promote job creation by removing the 
government as much as possible from the equation. Yes, that 
means subtracting from, and not adding billions to your budget. 
With that, I look forward to the hearing today, and yield to 
the Ranking Member for an opening statement.
    [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Foxx follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Dr. Foxx, and Acting Secretary Su. 
Good morning, and thank you for being with us. You are here 
with us now, and we have had problems getting previous 
administration officials to the committee but thank you for 
being with us today. We have an opportunity to discuss the work 
of President Biden and Acting Secretary Su, and what they have 
done for workers, businesses and our economy, as well as 
investments we must continue to make.
    Committee Democrats and I strongly support Ms. Su's 
nomination to be Secretary of Labor because she represents the 
best of America. She is the daughter of immigrants who owned a 
small laundromat and a franchise pizza restaurant, and became 
the first in her family to attend law school, but we support 
Acting Secretary Su's nomination, not just because of who she 
is, but for what she has done.
    Throughout her service as California Labor Commissioner, 
Secretary of the California Labor and Workforce Development 
Agency, Deputy Secretary of Labor, she is a committed public 
servant who has dedicated her career to supporting workers and 
families. Thanks to her and President Biden's leadership, and 
the responsible actions taken by Democrats in the last 
Congress, unemployment rates remain near historic lows.
    Our job market is continuing to grow, and workers are 
seeing higher wages. Since taking office, the Biden 
administration has created more than 13 million jobs. That is 
more jobs created in 28 months than any previous President has 
created in a single 48-month term.
    According to the White House, the last time we had such a 
long stretch of low unemployment was in the 1960's. The share 
of working age Americans in the workforce is at its highest 
level in 16 years, and that is the record.
    I want to remind my colleagues that every Democratic 
administration since the Kennedy administration has left for 
their Republican successors a better deficit situation than the 
one they inherited. In every Republican administration since 
Nixon has left for their Democratic successors, a worse deficit 
situation than the one they inherited without exception, and 
President Biden is continuing this trend as he creates record 
numbers of jobs.
    The evidence is clear that President Biden's economic 
agenda is working. This means that my Republican colleagues 
have had to resort to baseless claims and desperate attacks to 
oppose Ms. Su's nomination. There is an old saying amongst 
lawyers that if you have the law on your side, pound the law. 
If not, but you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
    If you have neither the law, nor the facts, pound the 
table. Julie Su is an impeccably qualified candidate to serve 
as Secretary of Labor, and she has been integral to our 
sustained economic recovery, so get ready for people to be 
pounding the table.
    Committee Republicans may talk about unemployment insurance 
fraud in California. This is not Ms. Su's doing. In fact, under 
her leadership, California implemented additional safeguards 
that helped prevent UI fraud, and stopped an estimated tens of 
billions of dollars in fraudulent payments.
    They may talk about independent contractors and the Labor 
Department's proposed rule, but do not be confused by 
Republican attempts to conflate California State law with 
Federal regulation. The proposed regulation does not implement 
California's AB5, which adopts what is known as the ABC test. 
In fact, the Biden administration clearly noted that it is 
legally constrained from adopting the ABC test, so this line of 
attack on Ms. Su does not hold up either.
    Committee Republicans may talk about child labor. Ms. Su is 
certainly not among the Republican State legislators who are 
working to roll back child labor protections. Unfortunately, we 
can expect Republicans on the committee to pound the table this 
morning since they have no substantive criticism of Ms. Su's 
record in the Department of Labor.
    In contrast, committee Democrats remain focused on concrete 
solutions, putting money back into workers' pockets, keep 
workers healthy and safe on the job, and ensure that all 
workers can enjoy a dignified retirement. I hope my Republican 
colleagues will put politics aside and work with us to deliver 
on these priorities.
    Thank you, Ms. Su, for your leadership and for joining us 
today. I hope we remain focused on what is most important, 
improving the lives of workers and their families. Thank you, 
Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Ranking Member Scott follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Pursuant to 
Committee Rule 8(c), all members who wish to insert written 
statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the 
Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5 
p.m., 14 days after the date of this hearing, which is June 21, 
2023.
    Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 
14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material 
referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the official 
hearing record.
    I now turn to the introduction of our distinguished witness 
and thank her for being here. We have before us today Hon. 
Julie A. Su, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor.

STATEMENT OF JULIE A. SU, ACTING SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
                             LABOR

    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking 
Member Scott, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the 
invitation to testify today. I am pleased to appear before this 
Committee to highlight the Department of Labor's Fiscal Year 
2024 budget request.
    An investment in the Department of Labor is an investment 
in our workers, and the future of our country. Through this 
budget we can build an economy from the bottom up, and the 
middle out. I recognize that Congress will be working under 
statutory budget caps for Fiscal Year 202024. I look forward to 
working with you to ensure that these priorities are reflected 
in the final bill.
    The American dream, that if you work hard you can make it, 
has always been premised on having a good job. That is why this 
budget is fundamentally about investments in people about what 
a good job does for an individual, a family and a community. No 
worker should be injured or killed at work.
    The budget request will allow the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration, or OSHA, to improve workplace safety and 
health, and be better able to help employers comply with the 
law. The budget request for the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration includes an increase to enable MSHA to 
strengthen its efforts to reduce accidents, illnesses and 
fatalities.
    The Department's request includes funding for the 
Employment and Training Administration to build on the 
progress, restoring and growing the economy following the 
pandemic. These resources will create pathways into the high-
quality jobs created by the landmark bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law, Chips in Science Act, and Inflation Reduction Act, and 
other historic investments in our Nation's infrastructure, 
energy sectors, and manufacturing.
    Investments in evidence-based workforce development models 
will help states and local areas meet the workforce needs of 
their communities, and the needs of industries across the 
country. Specifically, the budget continues support for the 
registered apprenticeship program in line with the President's 
goal to serve at least 1 million apprentices annually within 10 
years.
    The budget request proposes a sectoral employment through 
career training for occupational readiness program to support 
the development and expansion of partnerships between 
employers, education and workforce development providers, and 
community-based groups.
    The Department proposes additional resources for the 
Veterans' Employment and Training Service to support a 
legislative proposal that expands anti-discrimination, and 
reemployment protections to military spouses. Military spouses 
sacrifice daily to support their families and our country.
    The administration is proposing we do more to ensure that 
they are able to enjoy the economic security that they deserve. 
Protecting workers' hard-earned pensions and health benefits is 
a priority for the Department. The budget request for the 
Employee Benefits Security Administration includes an increase 
to continue its important work, expanding access to care for 
mental health and substance use disorders at a time when so 
many Americans are living with these conditions.
    The agency's request includes an increase for the missing 
participants program as well as the establishment of a 
retirement savings lost and found required by the recently 
enacted secure 2.0 to help reconnect retirees with the benefits 
they have earned. These investments will make a real difference 
for retired and elderly people.
    Working together we can create an economy built around the 
dignity and value of all work and workers. I thank you for the 
opportunity to testify. I look forward to discussing the 
Departments Fiscal Year 2024 budget request with you, and all 
members of the Committee, and I am happy to respond to any 
questions that you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Julie A. Su follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much, Ms. Su. I will 
recognize myself for 5 minutes. Ms. Su, I take my duty to 
conduct oversight very seriously. Unfortunately, Secretary 
Walsh did not take his obligation to respond to oversight 
seriously. During your short tenure, your track record appears 
to be about the same as his.
    At least until you attempted to cancel your appearance at 
the last minute and are here today only because my threat to 
issue a subpoena caused you to reconsider appearing. In most 
cases you have responded to Committee's inquiries with a vague 
letter providing none of the requested documents, thereby 
technically responding to the inquiry, but not in fact, coming 
close.
    Will you commit to providing fully responsive answers to 
the Committee's request? Yes, or no?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you so much Chairwoman Foxx. I 
am very happy to be here today to testify. I understand that 
our teams worked together to find the day.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Ms. Su, I just need a yes or no answer, 
and I appreciate your being here, and you do not have to say 
thank you very much for the question, that just takes up time.
    Acting Secretary Su. I appreciate that. Chairwoman Foxx, I 
want to say that I take the oversight role of this Committee 
and of Congress very seriously.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Then you will be saying yes to my 
question? Yes, you will answer our requests completely. Is that 
right?
    Acting Secretary Su. Chairwoman Foxx, my team understands 
that it is our job, and it is my request that we respond to 
oversight requests, and work with your team to make sure you 
get what you need.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Okay. Do you understand that failure to 
provide complete responses can result in the Committee taking 
compulsory measures?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Good, you know that word. Ms. Su, in March 
my staff requested performance information on DOL's workforce 
development grant programs. The Department's had over 2 months, 
yet the information that has been provided to date is 
incomplete and lacks employment and earnings outcomes for a 
significant number of grantees.
    How can your Department effectively manage discretionary 
grant programs if you are not tracking grantee performances?
    Secretary Su. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. It is very 
important, as you say, to track outcomes to make sure that we 
are good stewards of Federal moneys.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Okay. Then my request should be very 
simple. Just hit click and send what you have got. Can you 
commit to providing performance information on all of ETA's 
discretionary grants by the end of the week?
    Acting Secretary Su. Chairwoman Foxx, it is my 
understanding that we have been responsive to requests from 
you, and from this Committee. If that is not the case, yes, I 
commit.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Okay. Well, let me just tell you directly 
your Department has not been responsive. Please review our 
request, and respond appropriately. Going forward, will you 
commit to posting the employment and earnings outcomes for 
grant programs on the Department's website?
    Acting Secretary Su. Chairwoman Foxx, I am not clear 
specifically on the details of what you request, but we have 
worked to be transparent about our grants, and also about 
outcomes, and I agree with you that it is very important to 
make sure that what we are funding works.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Okay. If the letters are not clear here, I 
read those letters very, very carefully, as do our staff 
members, to make sure they are clear. If you would simply send 
a response back and tell us what is not clear, we will 
certainly clarify it, but we do think the letters are very 
clear, and that the information we need is very specific.
    Let me switch to the Wage and Hour Division briefly. 
Despite the Wage and Hour's Division nearly 10 percent increase 
in funding over the last 4 years, it collected the least amount 
of back wages for workers since Fiscal Year 202010, down by 
nearly 33 percent from 4 years ago.
    The number of workers receiving back wages is the lowest on 
record for WHD. As I said, down by more than 51 percent from 4 
years ago. These results are not due to a resource issue, and 
COVID is no longer a legitimate excuse. These failures reflect 
the management problem. What are you doing as a manager to fix 
this poor performance?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much Chairwoman Foxx. 
As the Deputy Secretary of Labor over the last 2 years, I had 
responsibility for management of the Department, and worked 
closely with the Wage and Hour Division to make sure that we 
were performing our mission.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Yes, We already know that. We already know 
that. What is the solution?
    Acting Secretary Su. One of the things that when we came 
in, in January 2021, the Department, their enforcement 
resources had been cut dramatically in the prior administration 
about 14 percent. We have, in the time that we have been here, 
worked to rebuild the division, to train staff, and to make 
sure that we are investigating not all workplaces, right. It 
makes sense to be targeted, and to be smart, and to identify 
which employers are actually engaged in violations, and which 
are not. The vast majority of employers are compliant with the 
law.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Ms. Su, you have effectively taken up a 
lot of my time without answering questions, so I will now yield 
back my time. I now recognize Mr. Courtney for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, 
Secretary Su for your diligent work to really have to address 
as you were just alluding, really the wreckage that took place 
in the prior administration, and we have seen this on this 
committee unfortunately, not just from the Department of Labor, 
but also in the Department of Education.
    I would like to just begin my 5 minutes by again noting the 
fact that the Biden economy defied all the predictions of 
pundits and economists on both the right and the left last 
Friday when the U.S. economy added 339,000 jobs. Again, the 
unemployment rate stays below 4 percent. Even more 
significantly, the report indicated that the number of job 
openings also increased by 358,000, so we are now at a moment 
where there's 10.1 million job openings in the economy.
    At the same time, we have again, record low unemployment. 
This is really a moment for the Department of Labor to really 
shine because the WIOA system, which has a dual customer 
approach where the two customers are both job seekers and 
employers, really can help close the skills gap that we know 
from talking to employers and frankly every member on both the 
Republican side and Democratic side. If you put them on truth 
serum, they would say that that is the No. 1 concern that we 
are hearing from employers out there is trying to find 
qualified workers.
    In my district, again, the employer engagement has really 
worked very successfully for manufacturing a spike that is 
taking place in the Navy ship building sector. Again, we 
developed a curriculum back in 2015 under prior Secretary of 
Labor Tom Perez, and that has generated 3,000 job placements, 
again using qualified instructors with the right curriculum on 
an accelerated basis, transforming people's lives.
    Can you talk about your own sort of thoughts about engaging 
with employers in that fashion, and really kind of sizing this 
success in Eastern Connecticut across the Nation.
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Thank you so much, Congressman. 
Thank you for highlighting an example of when workforce 
development programs work at their best, they help meet the 
needs of employers for a skilled workforce. They help meet the 
desire for individuals, desire of individuals for good jobs, 
and they help to build local, regional and the national 
economy.
    It is true that in this moment I think the work of the 
Department of Labor really takes on an outsized importance. 
When we have, due to the really good work of this body in 
partnership with the President, really historic levels of 
investment in manufacturing, in infrastructure, in clean 
energy, in bringing jobs back to the United States.
    The ability to meet, to align the needs of employers with 
the desire at workers, job seekers, through effective training 
programs has never been more important. That, of course, starts 
with employers. It starts with understanding employer needs, it 
starts with knowing the where, when, and how of the jobs that 
they are creating.
    Making sure that the rest of the system, right, that we 
have partners at the table, community colleges, 4 year 
colleges, even K through 12 educational system, workforce 
training boards, community based organizations, unions, all of 
the players in the economy working together to set up effective 
training programs.
    Registered apprenticeships are a very, very important part 
of that. I know that the Chairwoman mentioned that as well. The 
Department of Labor is laser focused on making sure that our 
investments, our technical assistance, our support, our 
programs, are building on the needs that employers have in this 
moment.
    Mr. Courtney. Later this week, President Biden is going to 
the Chairwoman's State, North Carolina, to roll out the Career-
Connected Program at the Department of Education, which 
Secretary Cardona was actively engaged with Secretary Walsh. 
This is an all-hands-on-deck situation right now, in terms of 
getting trade schools and comprehensive high schools, you know, 
working hard to help again to close that skills gap, and to 
address these job openings.
    Again, can you talk about your willingness, to again, make 
this again a larger than DOL, but also an education initiative?
    Acting Secretary Su. 100 percent. This is, as you say, an 
all hands-on deck. We talked about a whole government approach. 
I actually have spoken to Secretary Cardona because aligning 
the educational system with the workforce system is absolutely 
critical at this moment.
    Especially because a lot of the jobs that we are talking 
about now, for example in manufacturing, are going to be jobs 
that do not require a 4-year degree. How do we make sure that a 
young person from the time that they are thinking about what 
they are going to do, after high school, whether to go to a 
community college, whether to go to a trade school, whether to 
do directly into an apprenticeship program.
    We have to make sure that we align those systems, so that 
people do not have to figure those out. We can help them to do 
that. It is so, so important, and that is reflected in our 
budget requests, it is reflected in the work of the Department 
over the last 2 years, and I certainly pledge to continue the 
work that Secretary Walsh and I did together over the last 2 
years to continue to meet that need.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Madam.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Walberg, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Acting 
Secretary Su, for being here. I also want to take a note to 
express appreciation for my friend and colleague from 
Connecticut, highlighting the continuing success of the Tax Cut 
and Jobs Act, in impacting the economy and the growth of jobs.
    On May 25th, Madam Secretary, I, along with Chairwoman Foxx 
and Representative Chavez Dreamer, sent you a letter asking for 
specific information about migrant children who are being 
trafficked and working illegally in the United States. On June 
2d the Department responded with a letter that was generally 
unresponsive and made no attempt to provide any of the 
documents or communications that we requested.
    This lack of response, and with all due respect, and 
without pounding the table, I frankly want to ask for your 
continued help in working with your staff to make sure these 
issues that we request are made. The issues raised in my letter 
are important to the Committee's understanding of how DOL is 
assisting HHS and DHS from keeping migrant children out of 
harm's way.
    I would ask you if you would commit to providing the 
Committee with the documents we requested in that letter on May 
25th, within 48 hours of the conclusion of this hearing.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much Congressman. I 
will direct my staff to work with your staff to ensure that we 
are responsive to your requests.
    Mr. Walberg. Within 48 hours?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. 
Moving forward into the Department's regulatory agenda. I 
understand that DOL is preparing a proposed rulemaking altering 
the overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 
However, I am concerned that changes at this time with recent 
significant increases in inflation, lingering supply chain 
problems, worker shortages across the country, and a potential 
recession on the horizon, may be devastating to our economic 
recovery.
    Many industries are still trying to get back to pre-
pandemic employment but are struggling. Considering the 
potential consequences of change in the regulations, and the 
fact that the agency last updated the overtime regulations only 
3 years ago, can you explain why DOL is pursuing these changes?
    Secretary Su. Thank you very much for that question, 
Congressman. We take a very deliberative approach to any 
rulemaking that we do at the Department. You are correct that 
there is an overtime rule on our reg agenda, and one thing that 
we have been doing is conducting listening sessions. We have 
conducted actually 27 virtual listening sessions that have 
involved more than 2,000 participants because it is important 
to understand, exactly as you are saying, the impact of any 
rule that we would make on everyone who could be affected by 
it.
    At the same time, the Wage and Hour Division has conducted 
listening sessions in person, small business stakeholders 
working with the Small Business Administration to make sure 
that anything that we do we have been thoughtful. We have 
listened. We understand all the impacts and that we get it 
right.
    Mr. Walberg. Along that same line, what about the fiduciary 
rule?
    Acting Secretary Su. Same answer on the fiduciary rule. It 
is on our agenda, but we will be certain to be listening to all 
stakeholders, all parties, and if we are not doing enough to do 
outreach, to let people know that we are having listening 
sessions, and we want to make sure that your constituents, that 
people are heard, I am definitely committed to working with you 
to make sure that we are doing that outreach.
    Mr. Walberg. That is the concern that many people will lose 
access to common sense financial counseling at a level that 
they can afford, and they can pay for.
    Acting Secretary Su. Right.
    Mr. Walberg. We thought we had achieved that, so that is a 
concern that we are going back again into areas that frankly 
seem to be working.
    Acting Secretary Su. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Walberg. Let me move on to one because my time is about 
out here. Acting Secretary, for decades Michigan has had the 
flexibility to deliver Wagner-Peyser Act employment services 
through local staffing models, which has enhanced integration 
of workforce services at the local level. Last year DOL 
proposed a rule that will strip Michigan, and other states of 
this flexibility, and force workforce staff and service 
reductions.
    With 10 million unfilled jobs, why would we do this?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congressman. I can 
definitely have my staff get back to you with more detail about 
that particular issue, but as I have said, and as I commit, we 
are committed to and anxious to work with you, and with 
everybody in this body to make sure that we are meeting those 
needs, for the open jobs that are there, for the individuals 
who want those jobs, including those who have been left out of 
the economy in prior--in the past, and so, to the extent that 
those concerns.
    Mr. Walberg. Well, I appreciate that. It is working at the 
local level, State level, getting people employed, getting them 
trained. Let it happen. That is my request, but thank you, and 
I will look forward to that information. Thank you and I yield 
back.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much, Congressman.
    Congresswoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Walberg. Mr. Sablan, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, and 
welcome Madam Secretary. I want to first comment that you know, 
many of the work the Biden administration, through your 
department, the Chairman noted, I mean the Ranking Member 
noted, the record-breaking employment. Added to that is the 
recent increase in real wages for workers, and those things are 
notable.
    Madam Secretary, the two jurisdictions in the United States 
where the Wagner-Peyser Act does not apply is in my district, 
the Northern Marianas, and the American Samoa, so I have been 
working on that for a while trying to get joined by my 
colleague from American Samoa. Hopefully we will try and get it 
out this year, but we continue to welcome your department's 
support.
    My other issues are what related to the common worker 
issues, which is a unique visa again to the Northern Mariana 
Islands, and so for that, may I ask for some commitment that we 
would have your office work with my office in getting some of 
these answers, or getting some of these issues resolved in some 
way?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Congressman, thank you so much. I 
certainly believe that every worker should be treated with 
dignity and respect, and employers should receive assistance in 
meeting their workforce needs, including those on the Mariana 
Islands. Obviously, the question of whether CNMI is covered 
under specific Federal programs is a question for Congress, but 
I am committed to ensuring that CNMI receives the support and 
funding for which it is eligible.
    I understand your issue of the CW 1, and you do have my 
commitment to work with you to make sure that we are doing 
everything we can there, and as you know, we have Federal 
investments in apprenticeship programs. On the island we have 
had funding from the Rescue Plan helping to shore up the 
unemployment insurance system, and I certainly commit to 
continue to work with you on all of those things.
    Mr. Sablan. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I have got to have 
a lot of time passed. Is there an issue that you would like to 
bring up, just to inform the committee about some of the things 
that, you know, that the department is really trying to 
achieve?
    I think if your plans, the Biden administration work plan 
works, this is creating the next greatest generation of 
Americans that, those that ran our plans are growing up, and 
were mayors that had no degrees, and no high school diplomas, 
and they run communities well. Please, use the time. Thank you.
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Thank you so much. I agree with 
that. That is something that every one of us would agree on, 
which is the opportunity to create good jobs in every single 
community is one that we simply cannot pass up. We are in a 
moment where, as an economy we have--we have seen record job 
growth. We have seen, as the Ranking Member mentioned, 
historically low levels of unemployment.
    I think this is, you know, the President has talked about 
what does it look like to build an industrial policy in which 
we really build a strong economy on good jobs that we do by 
creating good roads and new bridges, and also make sure there 
is good drinking water, and there is affordable, reliable, 
broadband access in every single community, in rural 
communities, in urban communities, in big cities, in small 
towns.
    These are also opportunities to create good jobs in those 
very same communities. The Department of Labor's work has been 
very laser focused on meeting those needs, on aligning those 
systems, on working with employers, with unions, with workers, 
with community-based organizations, with industry based 
associations to make sure that we meet this moment, and you 
know, the President said that we implement and finish the job 
that has been started.
    Mr. Sablan. Well, again thank you for everything that you 
and your department does now, and with Mr. Walsh in the 
previous, and best of luck on your new assignment, new 
endeavor. Thank you. Madam Chair, I yield.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you so much, Congressman.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Sablan. Mr. Grothman, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. First question I have is there 
have been some publications talking about the huge number of 
people crossing our southern border who you could even say may 
be crossing on southern border on false asylum claims. A lot of 
these people, rafts, are being taken advantage of. What is your 
office doing to prevent people who are not in this country 
legally from A. maybe taking jobs away from American workers, 
and B. making sure that their employers are obeying all the 
laws, particularly regarding to age?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much for that question, 
Congressman. I think one of the things you might be referring 
to is recently our wage and hour division found a large number 
of children working in exploitative child labor conditions. 
This was a company that had hired over 100 children, ages 13 to 
17, doing sanitation work, cleaning work, in a meat processing 
facility.
    Mr. Grothman. Can I give you a followup because I only have 
5 minutes.
    Acting Secretary Su. Of course.
    Mr. Grothman. How many of these children were living with 
their parents?
    Acting Secretary Su. I do not have a specific number on 
that, but many of these children were migrant children, and as 
a result of us----
    Mr. Grothman. Do you look for that? I mean when you find 
somebody like that you look for the parents?
    Acting Secretary Su. We look for child labor violations in 
every case that we have had.
    Mr. Grothman. Right. If somebody is being taken advantage 
of, I would assume one of the things you do is you would call 
the parents. Do you call the parents? Do you look into where 
the parents are?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, in this case what happened was, 
I mean again, some of the kids were 13 years old, and they were 
working the night shift.
    Mr. Grothman. Right, right, right. If I found a 13-year-old 
working a night shift, I would be wanting to call their parents 
pretty quickly. Do you look for the parents?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, what we did here is the White 
House actually started an interagency task force that the 
Department of Labor leads that does include some of our sister 
agencies, but some of the questions that you are asking----
    Mr. Grothman. Right, right, the question is if you find a 
13-year-old working the night shift illegally, the first thing 
I would do is contact the parents and find out what is going 
on. There has been some concern in this town about in the last 
administration children being separated from their parents, 
albeit relatively small compared to this sea of people 
apparently working illegally.
    Do you look for the parents? Do you even check it off, or 
see whether they have parents?
    Acting Secretary Su. Right. That is what I was--some of 
that work involves the work of other agencies in the Federal 
Government, but we do work together. This is not an answer if 
we are not paying attention. The interagency task force does 
include the Department of Homeland Security.
    Mr. Grothman. Right. Does this include whether the kids are 
here with their parents, or whether they have been sent north 
by the drug cartels, or what is going on?
    Acting Secretary Su. Right. All important and relevant to 
the issue at hand, for the Department of Labor our work was to 
make sure that----
    Mr. Grothman. Okay. You do not really consider that a 
concern. Okay. Next question. In 2005 you wrote that we live in 
a society built on white privilege and systemic racial 
subordination. When I look at the statistics, people come here 
from all around the globe, people who are not of European 
descent, and quite frankly, people whose ancestors lived in 
China, India, Cuba, all doing better than the native born.
    When you look at all these groups, not of European 
ancestry, at least if we define doing well as financially well, 
it looks like again, and again, and again we see people coming 
to this country from all across the globe doing better than the 
native born. Now, you made that comment in 2005. ``We live in a 
society built on white privilege and systemic racial 
subordination.''
    Given the successes of people of, I think Indian right now, 
of Indian ancestry are the most successful in this country 
right now, but India, China, Philippines, Cuba, historically I 
do not know if it is still true, but second generation from the 
Caribbean. Do you still stand by this idea running down America 
that we're a society built on white privilege?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congressman. The other 
thing I said, and said much more recently, is that we are a 
nation where the American dream was available to certainly my 
family, right, it is not just abstract.
    Mr. Grothman. Do you regret saying that? It is kind of an 
inflammatory thing to say about our country. Do you still 
believe, would you recant that statement?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, I will certainly say that in all 
the things that we have talked about today, and the work that I 
have done in my record over the last 2 years as Deputy 
Secretary, but also the decades before, I do believe in equal 
opportunity for all communities and----
    Mr. Grothman. Yes, I know. You made an inflammatory 
statement saying that our society is built on white privilege. 
Well people here are from all around the globe do financially 
better than people of European heritage. India, China, Cuba, 
Philippines, wherever you look they are doing better.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Grothman, I need you to wrap up. Just 
try to get an answer.
    Mr. Grothman. Okay. Yep. Could you comment on that, or do 
you regret saying this?
    Acting Secretary Su. I think what you are noting is that 
this is a nation of opportunity, and that is I believe that. I 
am a product of that. I am grateful for that. I also believe 
that the work of the Department of Labor is to make sure that 
there are opportunities for everybody who is looking for a good 
job. It does not matter, you know, where you live, or where you 
are from.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Su. Ms. 
Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Bonamici. Acting Secretary Su, thank you for being 
here. I want to start by extending my gratitude to you for your 
capable and steadfast leadership of the Department of Labor. 
Your qualifications to serve in this role, and your strong 
record as a champion for workers and for businesses, those are 
clear, and I share the sentiments of many of my colleagues on 
this committee in urging the Senate to quickly move forward 
with your confirmation.
    I want to say, I find your personal story very inspiring. 
It is my understanding that your parents had a small business, 
a pizza franchise, and with that they were able to send you and 
your sister to college and look how far you have come. It is a 
very, very inspiring story.
    I have longtime been a proponent of high-quality 
apprenticeship programs because we know they work. I serve as 
Cochair of the bipartisan congressional Apprenticeship Caucus, 
and I understand that apprenticeships are effective in building 
a pipeline of diverse and skilled workers with a pathway to a 
good paying job, and they help businesses thrive and succeed.
    I am excited about some of the work that is happening in 
the district I represent in Northwest Oregon to expand the 
opportunities. Century High School, for example, in Hillsboro, 
Oregon, operates the Hillsboro Advanced Manufacturing 
Apprenticeship.
    This is located in what is sometimes known as the Silicon 
Forest in Oregon. It is the first industry supported youth 
apprenticeship program in our State, and it is a 2-year program 
that provides a pathway for high school students between the 
ages of 16 and 18 to get hands-on, paid training that prepares 
them for a career in advanced manufacturing.
    The program provides employers with skilled diverse 
workforce to help our Nation's competitive edge, and your 
leadership will make more programs like this available to more 
people across the country. I am also grateful for your work 
with the Women's Bureau, leading to an increase in labor 
participation among women workers.
    I had the pleasure recently of meeting with Oregon 
Tradeswomen, which is an amazing trailblazing organization in 
Oregon that opens up pathways to women with careers in 
construction, manufacturing, mechanical, utilities trades, and 
I know the Department of Labor supports the Department of 
Commerce and the Department of Energy in the implementation of 
these historic investments that we have made to grow domestic 
manufacturing.
    I appreciate your leadership in making these pathways 
available to more women, getting more women in the workforce. 
As this committee considers reauthorizing the Workforce 
Innovation and Opportunity Act, I want to highlight the 
potential of sector strategies and partnerships, particularly 
those that link employers with community colleges, and other 
institutions of higher education.
    I have another example from Oregon, the Oregon 
Manufacturing Innovation Center. It is a very innovative 
partnership between industries, universities, Portland 
Community College, where the university, researchers, and 
students work on industry developed research problems, and then 
they provide students with hands on experience to get the 
skills they need to become skilled workers.
    Also, Portland Community College has the Willow Creek 
Campus, it has forged lasting relationships with Oregon-based 
advanced manufacturing and semiconductor companies, so there is 
lots of great work being done at the State level that we could 
replicate, and I want to ask you, Madam Acting Secretary, the 
Department of Labor has emphasized sector strategies, as an 
evidence-based approach to effective training in many of its 
competitive grants.
    The reason sector strategies are so effective is that they 
encourage important partnerships between community colleges, 
training providers, and other relevant stakeholders, much like 
what we have seen in Oregon. We know that employers are vital 
in developing these programs, but they could use some 
assistance in creating and maintaining the partnerships.
    What are sector strategies? Why are they so effective, and 
what is the Department of Labor doing and continuing to do to 
apply this evidence-based approach in its grants and its work?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congresswoman, thank you so much. I do 
not think I could more effectively describe the benefits of 
training programs and workforce partnerships that really work, 
than you have just done, so I really, really appreciate that. 
As you have said, I think that partnerships are really critical 
to delivering on the really important need and opportunity we 
have right now to connect people, including people who have 
been left out of good jobs in the past, right?
    You mentioned to the extent that there are jobs in which 
women have been underrepresented but could do them. I have met 
with women across the country who when given a chance to lay 
pipe 30 feet underground, or work in the construction trades, 
not only do an amazing job, but find their own pathway to the 
middle class, and lift up their entire families.
    All of these things I think need to happen in partnership, 
and I do believe the Department of Labor's role is to help to 
solidify those partnerships, to bring people together. That is 
partly why our funding, specifically our sector-based funding, 
is about that.
    You talk about apprenticeships. Apprenticeships are one key 
tool within those partnerships also, and as you have said, 
apprenticeships are a proven, tried and true model. The average 
starting wage after completing a registered apprenticeship is 
$77,000.00, and people who finish registered apprenticeship 
programs earn an average of $300,000.00 more over their career 
compared to their peers who do not, so this is not just a job, 
it is actually a life changing opportunity.
    Ms. Bonamici. I hope you get an opportunity, if you have 
not already, to meet with Oregon Tradeswomen. It is very 
inspiring.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, and I will try.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Allen, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you Madam 
Acting Secretary for being here this morning. The first 
question, you do not need to answer that in writing to the 
Committee, but we had Chairman Powell come and talk about the 
situation with interest rates and the economy.
    He said their responsibility is full employment, and 
obviously inflation below 2 percent. He says we are at full 
employment. Then I said well sir, do you know that the current 
work participation rate is about 62 percent, which is the 
lowest it has been in some 20 something years, and he said well 
that is not my job, that is your job.
    As Members of Congress, we have got to figure out what is 
going on in the workforce out there, because right now we had a 
high in 2002 of almost 70 percent worker participation. If you 
do the math, that is about 10 million people. We cannot figure 
out where they are. Could your department do a study and find 
out where these people are, and why they are not working, or 
given the opportunity to work, so that we can train those folks 
up, and give them that great dignity and respect they deserve, 
and a good job, so that they can live the American dream?
    Second, moving on to environmental social governance 
factors when making investment decisions, your department had a 
rule, and that is precisely why Congressman Barr in our last 
Congress introduced the Ensuring Sound Guidance Act, that 
ensured retirement account managers consider only monetary 
factors in return when making decisions on behalf of their 
clients unless otherwise authorized.
    We are currently in the process of reintroducing a version 
of that bill this Congress. Yes or no, should maximizing assets 
for retirement be a pension plan's top priority? Do you agree.
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, thank you very much. I do 
agree that after a worker has worked a lifetime and saved for 
retirement, they should expect to be able to maximize those 
savings.
    Mr. Allen. Okay. Well, then can you deal with that rule? 
Before the Department published the final ESG rule last year, 
the Employment Benefits Security Administration stated in March 
2021 that the Department's rationale for undertaking a new rule 
was based on private meetings in which unnamed parties 
expressed perceived confusion about the 2020 rules, and how to 
interpret them. This means the Department based its decision to 
rescind and revise ESG rules behind closed doors.
    Why were these meetings held in private and not in public? 
Why were the attendee names and dates of these meetings not 
disclosed?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you for that question, 
Congressman. I am not actually aware of private meetings that 
were undisclosed. I said earlier that----
    Mr. Allen. Okay. Can you get back with me on that, and can 
you investigate that and have someone in your organization look 
into it and get back to me on why exactly that happened?
    Acting Secretary Su. I will, sir.
    Mr. Allen. For the benefit of the Committee. Will you 
commit to providing the Committee with a list of all attendee 
names and dates of all the meetings regarding the November 2022 
ESG rulemaking process within 30 days of this hearing?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much, Congressman.
    Mr. Allen. Yes, or no? Will you do that?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, I will certainly, I mean what I 
said earlier about our rules----
    Mr. Allen. Okay. Send me a letter on why you cannot do 
that, and then we will deal with it.
    Acting Secretary Su. Okay. I just wanted to be clear, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Allen. We all know that keeping retirement plan costs 
low is an important part of ensuring that as many Americans as 
possible can achieve a secure retirement. However, instead of 
bolstering retirement accounts for Americans, your recent 
proposed amendments to the long-standing exemption for 
qualified professional asset managers would impose significant 
new costs on our retirement system, and by extension American 
workers and retirees.
    In fact, I have heard many concerns from stakeholders that 
the Department's amendments to this 4 year policy will have 
negative impacts on workers, retirees, plan sponsors, unions, 
and financial institutions. Has the Department done, or will 
you commit to doing, a detailed and realistic cost benefit 
analysis of these proposed amendments that reflect input from 
stakeholders? Will you do this?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, our ESG rule did not 
require financial advisers to do anything in particular. What 
it did was give them flexibility.
    Mr. Allen. You do not do cost benefit analysis?
    Acting Secretary Su. No. What it does is allow financial 
advisers----
    Mr. Allen. Do you know what cost benefit analysis is?
    Acting Secretary Su. I do.
    Mr. Allen. Uh-huh.
    Acting Secretary Su. I guess I am clarifying what the 
rule--actually it was not a requirement, it was basically 
allowing financial advisors to take into account whatever 
factors in order to do what you said, which I agree with, which 
is that we should maximize retirement savings.
    Mr. Allen. Yes. Get back with me on that too. I am out of 
time. Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Ms. McBath, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to Acting 
Secretary Su. Thank you so much for taking the time to be with 
us here today, and for your strong history of fighting to 
ensure that every American has access to good paying jobs, and 
to support themselves and their families.
    One of the things I hear most about when folks are coming 
up to DC, or when I am back home in Georgia, is about workforce 
shortages. I hear that again, and again, and again, and again. 
And whether you are building a hospital, or trying to find the 
nurses and support staff to take care of the patients who will 
be treated there, there is a serious disconnect between the 
good careers that are available in today's economy, and the 
skills that are needed to perform these jobs.
    Courses like the inside wireman telecommunications and 
construction electrician programs offered at the Atlanta JATC 
Electrical Training Center, and Peachtree Corners, which is my 
district in Georgia, they actually pay their students to learn, 
instead of being forced to take out thousands of dollars in 
loans to better themselves through education, they are being 
paid a decent wage, and given room to grow while they obtain 
the skills necessary to move their families and our country 
forward.
    Secretary Su, it is clear that we need to be doing more to 
get Americans into these careers, so that we can see the full 
benefit of our bipartisan investments through the 
infrastructure package, and the CHIPS and the Science Act, that 
were signed into law by President Biden.
    What has the DOL done under your leadership to support and 
encourage workforce development programs? You have spoken most 
candidly about that. I want to give you more time to expand 
upon that, and are there particular programs that you would 
like to highlight for us at this time?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much, Congresswoman, 
for that question, and also for highlighting other examples of 
how the workforce system at its best does its work. I think one 
of the things that your example highlights too, and this 
relates to a question that was asked from the other side of the 
dias, which is you know, how are we lifting up the ideas, the 
innovation of local communities, right?
    Much of workforce development works best when it is place 
based, when it is meeting specific needs in communities, and we 
have seen our job at the Department of Labor as helping to 
support those kinds of innovations on the ground, our sector-
based investments are very much about that. It is about 
supporting employers and coming together in their communities 
with other workforce partners to design training programs that 
are going to meet their needs.
    It is about working with employers to signal and forecast 
what the jobs that they are creating are going to be. That is 
the best and most effective way to activate the rest of the 
system, right? To get community colleges, to make sure that 
their curriculum, and their offerings are responsive to actual 
jobs that people can get after they complete any kind of 
program.
    I think that we build credibility in the system also, when 
we say at the outset, you know, this program is going to lead 
to an actual job at the end of your training. We have invested 
in sector-based partnerships. We have also been working to meet 
needs that are well documents now in certain industries. Many 
of them were devastated by the pandemic, so nursing, for 
example, right?
    I think in every community there is a need to build our 
nursing workforce. They did heroic work, and we need to invest 
back in them. The Department of Labor has an 80 million dollar 
funding announcement for nurses. We also know this is where, 
you know, really understanding what the problem is to address 
it is important, that the issue is not just having enough 
nurses. It is also having enough clinical instructors, so that 
nurses can get the clinical hours that they need before they go 
to work.
    Our funding announcement is meant to incentivize both of 
those paths.
    Mrs. McBath. Thank you. I have one more question to ask 
you, though.
    Acting Secretary Su. Please, please.
    Mrs. McBath. Registered apprenticeships are a key component 
of workforce development, and they provide a clear path to good 
paying jobs. We know that.
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes.
    Mrs. McBath. We know this has worked. What has the 
department done to encourage registered apprenticeships, and so 
we are clear, registered apprenticeships are not just 
restricted to union jobs. Am I correct?
    Acting Secretary Su. That is 100 percent correct, 
Congresswoman. In fact, the majority of apprenticeships that we 
have supported that the Department of Labor registered 
apprenticeships in the last year have not been with union 
employers, but we have been doing work for example in 
cybersecurity, right? That is a growing industry of good jobs, 
and one of the things that we did is in a 4-month period we 
were able to begin and support enough programs to put 16,000 
new apprentices in the cybersecurity industry.
    Again, many of those--all of them private sector, and many 
of them nonunion jobs. We also--in trucking, right, everyone 
has talked about the supply chain challenges. Truck is one of 
them. In the 3-month period, we have worked with over 700 
employers and industry associations to set up trucking 
apprenticeships. What we have seen in doing that, is that we 
can again both solve supply chain sector jobs.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I think you 
can submit those things in writing.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Banks, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Banks. Acting Secretary, a New York Times story on 
April 17, 2023, headline says, ``As migrant children were put 
to work, the U.S. ignored warnings. The White House and Federal 
agencies were reportedly alerted to signs of children at risk. 
The warnings were ignored or missed.''
    It goes on. It says, ``Thousands of children have ended up 
in punishing jobs across the country, working overnight in 
slaughterhouses, replacing roofs, operating machinery in 
factories all in violation of child labor laws, a recent New 
York Times investigation showed.''
    I think you know by now reportedly hundreds of thousands of 
illegal children have entered our workforce and dangerous jobs, 
and this story says that you and this administration have 
completely ignored what I believe is another example of the 
biggest humanitarian crisis in American history. What the heck 
are you doing about it?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congressman, for that. You 
are right, that we are talking about children doing jobs that 
are highly dangerous. That it is illegal for children to be 
working. We are not talking about a young person trying to get 
their first experience working at the local convenience store, 
right? Learning how to show up on time and manage a budget.
    Mr. Banks. Acting Secretary, this story says you ignored 
this issue. I know you just said I am right, but why is your 
Department ignoring hundreds of thousands of children illegally 
in the workplace, working in unsafe conditions? What are you 
doing about it?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congressman, for that. You 
are right. Let me be pointed about this. I do not believe the 
story said that the Department of Labor was not doing what we 
need to do. In fact, I believe the stories came out because the 
Department of Labor was doing our job.
    We investigated a case that involved over 100 young people, 
as young as 13, working exactly in the conditions that you've 
talked about.
    Mr. Banks. Ma'am, the policies of this administration 
opening the border wide open, has resulted in hundreds of 
thousands of migrant children entering the workforce in America 
in unsafe conditions.
    In fact, one lawyer, Linda Branmiller, said that there were 
so many opportunities for the Biden administration to connect 
these dots that no one ever did. I mean the question is why did 
you not you do anything about it? You are coming before this 
Committee today and tell me that you agree with me, but what 
are you doing about it?
    What is the all hands on deck moment in your Department to 
take care of this issue?
    Acting Secretary Su. I agree that the work, that children 
doing that work is horrific. This is also related to our budget 
request, which is to make sure that the Department of Labor has 
the resources to investigate all the cases. The reason that 
those cases are in the news----
    Mr. Banks. Well, let me stop you. The Trump administration 
was night and day different on this than your administration. 
In fact, since the Biden administration started, we have seen a 
69 percent increase in child labor violations because of the 
open border policies that have flooded this country, in this 
case with reportedly over 250,000 kids coming into our country, 
entering unsafe conditions.
    I am glad you are here to tell us that you agree with me, 
but I do not think the New York Times even says that you are 
ignoring it. In fact, let me go on because you know, this is 
really incredible. Secretary Mayorkas, in April was asked 
before the Homeland Security Committee in the Senate about this 
catastrophe.
    You know what he said? He shifted the blame, and he said it 
is your fault. He said this problem is your fault. The 
Department of Labor's fault. Is he right about that?
    Acting Secretary Su. Sir, I agree that children should not 
be doing these kinds of jobs. I agree that we should do 
everything we can within our responsibilities as the Department 
of Labor to crack down on child labor by doing investigations, 
and making sure that employers who profit from this kind of 
labor are held accountable.
    That is what we did in the case. The PSSI case is probably 
the one that is in that news article, because that is the case 
that helped to bring this issue to light, and I think it is a 
positive thing that we are talking about this issue and trying 
to crack down.
    Mr. Banks. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to enter this New 
York Times story for the record.
    Acting Secretary Su. The other thing, Congressman, just 
so----
    Mr. Banks. Madam Chair, I would like to----
    Acting Secretary Su. Oh sorry.
    Mr. Banks [continuing]. Enter the New York Times story for 
the record.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
    [The information of Mr. Banks follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Banks. My last question for you, Acting Secretary. How 
close do you work with ICE on issues like this?
    Acting Secretary Su. There is an interagency task force now 
that is being created that the Department of Labor leads 
because of our leadership in investigating these cases. It does 
not include the Department of Homeland Security. It includes 
our partners at the Health and Human Services.
    Mr. Banks. Is there a role here for ICE working with the 
Department of Labor to enforce child labor laws?
    Acting Secretary Su. I am sorry, Congressman?
    Mr. Banks. Is there a role between your Department and ICE 
to----
    Acting Secretary Su. This task force is meant to make sure 
that we have an all hands on deck approach, so that children 
are not working in such horrific conditions.
    Mr. Banks. My time has expired. Madam Chair, I would like 
to also enter for the record a memo that the Acting Secretary 
drafted July 7, 2017, instructing in her previous role in the 
State of California, for her employees to obstruct the law, and 
not work with ICE. There is no reason for us to believe that 
today, that she would work with ICE in her current role.
    This is a catastrophe unlike anything that we have seen, a 
humanitarian catastrophe unlike anything we have ever seen in 
American history because of this administration, and I yield 
back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection, that will be entered 
into the record.
    [The memo of Mr. Banks follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairwoman Foxx. Dr. Adams, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Secretary, thank 
you, Acting Secretary, thank you for being here to discuss the 
Fiscal Year 2024 budget. It is good to see you again. According 
to one study by RAND for every dollar spent on re-entry 
programs, taxpayers recoup four to five dollars in just 3 years 
after program completion.
    These savings come from the reduction in recidivism and 
increased participation in the job market, which leads to 
higher income and sales tax revenue. Can you tell me a little 
bit about DOL's work in retraining programs?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much for that, 
Congresswoman. You are absolutely right that investments in 
individuals who have great promise and talent are really 
important to make sure that they can contribute to that, and 
help to fill the labor needs that we have.
    Our employment and training administration, or ETA that 
administers workforce grants, has made this a priority under my 
leadership, and that of then Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh, 
and we will continue to do so, to ensure that when we talk 
about building this economy from the bottom up and the middle 
out, and leave no one behind, that includes communities who are 
re-entering.
    Ms. Adams. Great. Thank you. I am sure that you are just as 
devastated as I am about the recent reports regarding 
exploiting child labor, and the apparent drastic increase in 
child labor violations. Corporations should not be making 
profits off the backs of children, and children do not belong 
in factories, or working during hours where they should be 
studying, spending time with their families, or just simply 
being children.
    The FLSA provides critical protections for minors to ensure 
that they are working in safe and appropriate environments. The 
case that the Department of Labor brought against Packers 
Sanitation Services, which results in PSSI paying the maximum 
fines available for employing at least 102 children in 
hazardous conditions.
    It is a vivid illustration of just how seriously DOL takes 
this issue. Can you please describe the steps that you have 
taken to combat child labor?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. 
Yes, we take combatting exploitive child labor very seriously. 
In all of the cases that we have, we look to make sure that 
there is not exploitive child labor happening again. To be 
clear, we are not talking about a young person getting their 
first summer job, right, trying to earn some money, and learn 
what it means to be in the workplace.
    We are talking about workers working with toxic chemicals, 
and heavy machinery, and going to work at night after going to 
school during the day. We look for cases. We cite employers who 
engage in child labor, and as you mentioned in that case, which 
was the subject of the New York Times, and other reports, we 
issued the maximum penalty.
    Now the maximum penalty is set in law under the Fair Labor 
Standards Act by Congress, but we also appreciate the attention 
of this body to looking at whether those penalties need to be 
increased, and we have been happy to partner with you to 
provide technical assistance on that.
    We currently have over 500 child labor investigations 
underway in addition to that one. We continue to field 
complaints, and initiate investigations. In the last fiscal 
year, the Department found 835 companies that it had 
investigated had employed children in violation of labor laws.
    This is a real issue; we are paying close attention to it. 
That is one reason why there is growing attention to it, and I 
am hopeful that between our work and our budget request, and 
the public attention that it is getting, that we might be able 
to make real strides in stopping this scourge that is very 
harmful, not just to young people, but also to employers who 
actually play by the rules.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you for that question. Let me ask you 
something about the workforce development, and how WIOA funding 
has positively impacted workforce development, and what has 
been the impact of the WIOA on people of color in this country.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you for that question, 
Congresswoman. WIOA, which I think is something that enjoys 
bipartisan support, the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act, 
does fund workforce programs. Many of the programs that we have 
talked about are avenues for advancing equity, for making sure 
that every single community has the opportunity to participate 
in training programs, and to get the good jobs that are being 
created.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I 
yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Dr. Adams. Mr. Owens, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you. I would like to extend my time to Mr. 
Kiley.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Kiley, you are recognized.
    Mr. Kiley. Good morning, Acting--over here, Acting 
Secretary Su. Good to have you here. Just to make sure I have 
your background correct, you were the Secretary of the Labor 
and Workforce Development Agency in California from 2019 to 
2021?
    Acting Secretary Su. Correct.
    Mr. Kiley. You were the California Labor Commissioner from 
2011 to 2018?
    Acting Secretary Su. Correct.
    Mr. Kiley. In your Senate testimony in April, you touted 
President Biden's economic record. You said the results speak 
for themselves. You specifically cited the unemployment rate. 
You said it has been less than 4 percent for more than a year, 
which is close to the lowest it has been in 50 years. Do you 
happen to know how your home State of California is doing when 
it comes to the unemployment rate there, versus other states?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much, Congressman. I do 
not know what the current unemployment rate in California is.
    Mr. Kiley. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
California currently has the second highest unemployment rate 
in the Nation. Does that sound right?
    Acting Secretary Su. I do not know. I trust that you have 
that correct.
    Mr. Kiley. If a low unemployment rate by your own testimony 
is a sign of a good economic stewardship, what does it tell us 
about California, that it has the Nation's second highest 
unemployment rate?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much for that question, 
Congressman. You are correct that we share a home State, and 
that I was the Labor Secretary from 2019 to 2021, and prior to 
that the Labor Commissioner, where my job was to enforce wage 
and hour laws in work.
    Mr. Kiley. Right. We have established that. The question 
about the unemployment rate, which, by the way, was similar 
during your tenure, 2020-2021, California was first, second or 
third highest unemployment rate in the country, so you yourself 
said a low unemployment rate says we are doing a good job. What 
does it mean that California has a high unemployment rate?
    Acting Secretary Su. I think Congressman, we would likely 
agree that there are lots of measures of what makes a strong 
economy, and there is lots of ways to look at, obviously it 
makes sense for us to try to address high unemployment because 
having people who are looking for jobs, be able to do jobs, and 
having people who are in jobs, people to upskill, and get to 
better jobs----
    Mr. Kiley. Sure.
    Acting Secretary Su [continuing]. Is a goal that I know we 
share. I do not think it is----
    Mr. Kiley. Let us talk about a couple other measures. You 
said in your testimony in April too many people still work 
full-time year-round and live in poverty. According to the 
latest Census Bureau data, the supplemental poverty measure, do 
you happen to know which State has the highest real poverty 
rate in the country?
    Acting Secretary Su. I do not know that, sir.
    Mr. Kiley. It actually happens to be California. Do you 
happen to know according to a recent report from the U.S. 
Bureau of Economic Analysis where California ranks when it came 
to net earnings growth this last year?
    Acting Secretary Su. I do not know that off the top of my 
head.
    Mr. Kiley. California was 50th out of 50. If our goals are 
to reduce unemployment, reduce poverty, and increase wages, is 
California really the best model given that it is the absolute 
worst in the country of the 50 states by all of these measures?
    Acting Secretary Su. Again, Congressman, I think that there 
are lots of measures for how well an economy is doing. My 
understanding, and I have not worked in California now for 2 
years, but is that by some measures, including recovery from 
the pandemic, including decrease in poverty over the last few 
years recovering since the pandemic, that California has 
exceeded----
    Mr. Kiley. Okay. I just want to reiterate though these were 
the very measures that you yourself cited in your own 
testimony. Your State of California, where you led the Labor 
Department is doing the worst in the country. Let us move on to 
AB5, which is a law that you were charged with enforcing in 
California.
    Were you involved--and I know you were not in the 
legislature, but were you involved in the drafting of AB5, 
including any conversations with the author or the interest 
groups that help draft it?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congressman. As I think it 
has been established, and as you know, I was never part of the 
California legislature.
    Mr. Kiley. Right, as I just said, but were you involved in 
any way in the drafting of AB5?
    Acting Secretary Su. I did not draft AB5.
    Mr. Kiley. Were you involved in any way in the drafting of 
it?
    Acting Secretary Su. No, sir.
    Mr. Kiley. Did you support the law?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, my job as Labor Secretary was to 
enforce the laws that were passed by the legislature. It is the 
same role I have here.
    Mr. Kiley. I understand that but did you ever express 
support for AB5?
    Acting Secretary Su. I expressed the need to enforce laws 
that are passed by the legislature, and that is the same thing 
we have done.
    Mr. Kiley. Sure, but my question was did you express 
support specifically for AB5 at any time?
    Acting Secretary Su. I may have, sir. I know we are talking 
a lot about what I did in California.
    Mr. Kiley. You may have? Do you think that was a good law, 
AB5?
    Acting Secretary Su. Do I think AB5 was a good law? I think 
that it is both my job now as the Acting Secretary of Labor, 
and the job that I had in California as the Labor Secretary and 
the Labor Commissioner, to enforce laws that are passed.
    Mr. Kiley. Right, but that is not what I asked. What I 
asked was do you think AB5 is a good law?
    Acting Secretary Su. I do not know what, I mean, I do not 
know. Tell me what, give me a little bit more of what you mean 
by that.
    Mr. Kiley. Do you think it was a good law for the state? Is 
it good that it passed?
    Acting Secretary Su. I think that when AB5 was first 
signed, one of the things that I did in my role as Labor 
Secretary in California, was create a--we reached out to 
employers and worked with the Chamber.
    Mr. Kiley. My time is running out. I just want to give you 
one last chance, Acting Secretary Su, is AB5 a good law, yes, 
or no?
    Acting Secretary Su. I think it is an important role of the 
government to help employers to comply with laws that are 
passed by the legislature.
    Mr. Kiley. Yes or no, is AB5 a good law?
    Acting Secretary Su. Also, it is important to enforce laws 
that are passed.
    Mr. Kiley. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. I do not think, Mr. Kiley, that you are 
going to get the witness to answer truthfully. I now recognize 
Mr. Takano for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Takano. Well, thank you Madam Chair. Acting Secretary 
Su, welcome. It is great to see you again. I am proud to be 
among the Members of the congressional Asian Pacific American 
Caucus who sent a letter to President Biden in February, urging 
him to nominate you as Labor Secretary. I ask unanimous consent 
to enter that letter into the record, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
    [The letter of Mr. Takano follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Takano. I would also like to highlight a letter that 
was sent this very morning led by the chairs of the 
congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, the congressional 
Black Caucus, the congressional Hispanic Caucus, and Democratic 
Women's Caucus urging Senate leadership to swiftly confirm Ms. 
Su, the letter ended up with--71 signers. I ask unanimous 
consent to enter this letter into the record, Madam Chair. 
Madam Chair?
    Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
    [The letter of Mr. Takano follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Takano. Furthermore, the Los Angeles Area Chamber of 
Commerce has voiced their support for Ms. Su's nomination as 
Labor Secretary. I ask unanimous consent for this letter to be 
entered into the record, Madam Chair?
    Chairwoman Foxx. Yes.
    [The letter of Mr. Takano follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Takano. Thank you. Acting Secretary, as you know, we 
had a Workforce Protections Subcommittee hearing that addressed 
the Labor Department's proposed rule on the misclassification 
of workers as independent contractors. From what I understand, 
no one objected much to what was in the proposed rule, because 
it was so reasonable.
    Many business groups now expressing opposition to your 
nomination issued statements saying that your department was--
the direction that your department was taking with this rule 
was very reasonable. Now first, does the proposed rule from the 
Biden administration on misclassification adopt the ABC test?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much for that question, 
Congressman, and thank you for the support of KPAC. It has been 
very meaningful. No. The proposed independent contractor rule 
of the Department of Labor does not include the ABC test.
    Mr. Takano. Okay. Thank you. In fact, the proposed rule 
even says, does it not, on page 62,230 of the Federal Register 
notice, that ``the department continues to believe that legal 
limitations prevent the department from adopting the ABC rule, 
or the ABC test.'' Is that correct?
    Acting Secretary Su. It is correct, Congressman, that we 
were very explicit that we could not, as a Department of Labor, 
apply an ABC test that only Congress could do that.
    Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. Am I correct that the position 
of the Department is that you cannot adopt the ABC test unless 
Congress passes a law enabling you to do that?
    Acting Secretary Su. That is correct.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you. Do you believe that the 
Constitutional order of separation of powers means that the 
department may only implement rules that are consistent with 
the laws that Congress passes?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Takano. Is it true that instead of an ABC test, the 
proposed rule implements what is called the economic realities 
test. Is that right?
    Acting Secretary Su. That is correct, Congressman.
    Mr. Takano. This economic reality test is consistent with 
decades of Federal precedent under both Republican and 
Democratic administrations. Is that right?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes.
    Mr. Takano. Well, as previously noted, the DOL proposed 
rule is not the ABC test. Lyft, and the International Franchise 
Association, two of the largest entities most vocal in their 
opposition to the ABC test, even came out with their own 
statements when the proposed rule was released. Lyft 
unequivocally stated that the rule did not reclassify Lyft 
drivers as employees, and that their business model would not 
be forced to change.
    The International Franchise Association statement about 
DOL's proposed rule applied to the proposal, and expressed 
recognition that the ABC test does not apply to the FLSA. I ask 
unanimous consent for these statements to be entered into the 
record, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
    [The letter of Mr. Takano follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Takano. These very companies themselves, that were most 
vocal against the ABC test, are expressing praise for the DOL 
proposed rule. Democrats are not the only ones praising this 
rule. Now I have heard a lot of fear mongering from my 
colleagues, Republican colleagues, about your role with AB5 in 
California, after it was passed by the State legislature, and 
signed by the Governor.
    Acting Secretary Su, yes or no, did you serve in the 
California State Legislature?
    Acting Secretary Su. I did not, Congressman.
    Mr. Takano. Yes or no, was the California State Legislature 
the branch of the State government that passed AB5?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, it was.
    Mr. Takano. Where were you when the State law was passed?
    Acting Secretary Su. I was serving as the California Labor 
Secretary.
    Mr. Takano. Yes or no, were you legally required to 
implement this law as State Secretary of Labor once it was 
enacted?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, I was.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you, Acting Secretary Su. It is 
outrageous, and desperate that my Republican colleagues are 
firing baseless attacks on you, trying to get your opinion 
about the law, and was it a good law, or a bad law. They are 
failing in their attempt to try and mischaracterize you.
    Acting Secretary, you have spent your whole life fighting 
to improve the lives of working people. As the daughter of 
immigrants, you represent the best in us, and the story that 
your mother coming to the United States on a cargo ship because 
she could not afford a passenger ticket, and now her daughter 
is up for Senate confirmation truly represents the American 
dream.
    I am so proud of you. I appreciate your being with us 
today. I look forward to you being confirmed Secretary of 
Labor. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Takano. I am proud of you 
for getting the Secretary to be able to say the word yes, 
again. Mr. Smucker, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for this 
time, thank you for holding the hearing today, and Acting 
Secretary Su, thank you for being here today as well. You know, 
we have 10 million unfilled jobs in our economy today. Every 
business owner I talk to, it is a number--No. 1 issue. I am 
sure you are aware of that.
    I have supported, I believe we should be doing everything 
we can to connect people not participating in the workforce 
with the jobs that are available today. One policy that is 
particularly concerned by was the Department's fine rule in 
2022, ending the industry recognized apprenticeship program, 
which your Department justified by saying it no longer believes 
the skills gap to be a major challenge facing the labor market.
    Why that comment? Why would the Department be undermining 
the seriousness of the skills gap, and what employers have you 
spoken to that indicated the shortage of skilled workers is not 
a major challenge?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much for that question, 
Congressman. We have been working very closely with all 
stakeholders, but employers as well, to as you say, meet the 
need for skilled workers in the, you know, jobs are being 
created in every community, in manufacturing, in clean energy, 
in infrastructure and more.
    We are also very committed to outside of these big 
investments, that this body in working with the President has 
made possible, really committed to helping to rebuild the 
workforce like teachers, right, and healthcare workers, and I 
already mentioned truckers. In you know, other jobs that 
historically have not had apprenticeship programs like 
cybersecurity.
    That is all work that we have been laser focused on over 
the last 2 years when I served as Deputy Secretary, and we will 
continue to do that work.
    Mr. Smucker. Could you specifically address your opposition 
to the industry recognized apprenticeship programs?
    Acting Secretary Su. I think one of the things that we need 
to do, and have been doing, is to make it easier for employers 
who want to have a registered apprenticeship program to do so. 
We have done that. I have talked about trucking earlier, but it 
used to take months for an employer who wanted to do a trucking 
apprenticeship to do one. It is now a matter of days.
    We have expanded teacher apprenticeships that used to be in 
only two states in 2021, to now 17 states across the country. 
These are registered apprenticeships, which means that they 
have the quality, the wage progression, right, all the benefits 
that make apprenticeship programs so good for both employers, 
and for workers, and we need to make it easier for employers 
who want to do that to do it.
    Mr. Smucker. We should make it as easy as possible, and I 
think that was a model that could potentially have worked well 
with your support. I do want to get to another issue though. 
The President, President Biden, has said that he intends to be 
the most pro-union president in history, has pursued policies 
that benefit union workers, which is fine, except they are to 
the detriment of all other workers in some cases.
    For example, through regulations on Federal procurement, 
and provisions in federally assisted grant programs, the 
administration has promoted project labor agreements on 
construction projects. PLA's limit, the pool of qualified 
bidders, to unionize contractors and union labor, which 
increases costs, any time you are decreasing supply you're 
going to see higher costs.
    It also limits job opportunities for non-union construction 
workers. You, Acting Secretary, have an obligation to support 
all American workers, regardless of their labor affiliation. 
Will you commit to opposing these exclusionary policies that 
harm the 88.3 percent of construction workers who choose not to 
join a union?
    Acting Secretary Su. I certainly, Congressman, commit to 
supporting and serving workers regardless of their union 
affiliation.
    Mr. Smucker. Will you support not implementing project 
labor agreements on any Federal projects?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, I think that some of those 
project labor agreements are written into statute, into the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, that again, was passed by 
Congress. I see my job as having full fidelity to the law. The 
law as you, this body, passed them. The law, as courts 
interpret them.
    I think there is also studies that demonstrate that project 
labor agreements actually decrease costs over time because it 
ensures a reliable workforce that is trained, and that the 
outcome fewer disruptions that the outcomes are more reliable.
    Mr. Smucker. I think the studies show just the opposite, 
but we unfortunately are out of time, but you know, would love 
to have your support to ensure that all workers, whether they 
have chosen to be part of the union or not, can have access to 
these jobs that are available for Federal projects. I think it 
is important. It is certainly important in the area that I 
represent, where I have seen workers excluded through these 
agreements.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Smucker. Mr. DeSaulnier, 
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chair. Acting Secretary, 
it is really delightful to see you, and I just want to tell you 
how proud I am of you. Your dignity and grace today just 
reconfirms, if I can use that language, my history with you, 
your intelligence, your competency is on display here today.
    It would be a really sad State for this country and this 
Congress, if you are not confirmed, given your qualifications 
and your presence here today. There has been some talk about 
California. I was not in the legislature when AB5 was passed, 
but I was a former Chair of the Senate Labor Committee when we 
did much of the groundwork for that.
    We were trying to work with the private sector, and as 
somebody from the Bay Area, we wanted to work with the tech 
industry, and understand what the proper classification was, 
and not have people take advantage of that. I say this as a 
longtime 35-years California small business owner, who has made 
hundreds of payrolls and always respected my employees, that we 
were trying to get this right.
    I had to compete against people, employers who did not play 
by the rules, including hiring people illegally. We did work 
about that holding employers, who were flouting the laws, and 
you were part of that discussion, accountable for hiring people 
who were not, should not have been hired, who I had to compete 
with.
    The numbers about unemployment tell one part of the story, 
and the unemployment rate in California, there is a big spike 
because of the tech industry. I would argue they were taking 
advantage under the guise of innovation, and there is a 
correction right now.
    In the context of numbers, data from the U.S. Bureau of 
Economic Analysis shows that California has the highest GDP in 
the Nation, at around 3 and a half trillion dollars. Apart from 
the inevitable decline during the early days of COVID, 
California's economy only grew during your time as Secretary of 
California Labor and Workforce Development. Is that right?
    Acting Secretary Su. Again, Congressman, I am not familiar 
exactly with that, but I trust that you have your facts 
correct.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. It is right. We clearly did not coordinate 
these questions. In fact, during your tenure as Secretary of 
California from 2011 through 2020, total growth in employment 
outpaced national employment--total growth. Median household 
income, which is particularly important, given our inequality, 
increased faster over nearly 10 years than it did nationally.
    Real gross, domestic product in California rose by 30 
percent, to $2.7 trillion
    [in chained 2012 dollars], nearly double the amount by 
which national GDP rose during that same time period, which was 
16 and a half nationally. An analysis by Bloomberg News, 
``California's gross domestic product increased 21 percent 
during the past 5 years, dwarfing No. 2, New York, 14 percent. 
California 21 percent. New York at 14 percent, and No. 3, Texas 
at 12 percent.
    Among the five largest economies, California outperforms 
the United States, Japan, Germany, with a growth rate exceeded 
only by China.'' California, if it was a country, would be the 
fourth largest economy in the world. We far exceed every other 
State in patents and innovation.
    This economic success has followed you to the White House. 
Since you have been at the Department of Labor, the economy has 
added more jobs than during any other entire administration in 
recent memory, and we are not even halfway through the first 
term.
    What policies of the Biden administration have you led, 
that have helped lead to these levels of job creation, and our 
national unemployment rate hitting historic lows?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much, Congressman, for 
your question. As has been said here, the last 2 years under 
the Biden-Harris administration have seen record growth in 
multiple measures of a healthy economy, and defied multiple 
expectations.
    At the Department of Labor, our role is incredibly 
important in a moment where we both have job growth, and 
economic recovery on the one hand, and needing to connect 
people to good jobs, and employers to the workers they need, as 
well as to make sure that every worker works in a healthy and 
safe environment, and goes home safely at the end of the day, 
and gets the wages that they earned. Those are the fundamental 
responsibilities of the Department of Labor.
    Over the last 2 years as Deputy Secretary, working 
alongside Marty Walsh, we worked very hard to do all of those 
things, to fulfill our mission, to make sure that we were 
helping to rebuild the unemployment insurance system, coming 
out of the ashes of the pandemic, making sure that we are 
investing in innovative, place based, sector specific training 
programs that are going to meet employer needs, and meet worker 
needs.
    Expanding apprenticeships, as I have already mentioned, and 
working hand in hand with employers and workers to help to take 
advantage of these very historic investments that are being 
made to rebuild our economy.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. I am proud of you.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. DeSaulnier. Ms. McClain, 
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 
being here today. I have some pretty easy questions, I think. 
Real simply you are driving the bus, right? You are the Acting 
Secretary of Labor, right, so I think it is important for 
everyone to understand your thought process.
    Simply put, do you support the United States free market 
economy?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. I think in general, yes.
    Mrs. McClain. Perfect. Thank you. Yes. Do you believe an 
American entrepreneur should have the ability to pursue their 
dreams and ambitions?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes.
    Mrs. McClain. Wonderful. Good. So far, we are good. Do you 
believe it is the responsibility of the Department of Labor to 
make it easier or more difficult for entrepreneurs to flourish?
    Acting Secretary Su. I think that it makes sense for the 
Department of Labor to help support entrepreneurs, people who 
you know, who want to use their innovation.
    Mrs. McClain. We are three for three. I will take that as a 
yes, thank you ma'am. I want to highlight your record and try 
to understand then why President Biden thinks you are the best 
option as the next Secretary of Labor with yesses on my last 
three questions.
    As the Secretary of Labor in California, you oversaw the 
highly controversial AB5 that reclassified every independent 
contractor, very entrepreneurial in spirit, in the State, and 
effectively killed off the gig economy in California. If you 
are confirmed as Secretary of Labor, will you demand that 
Congress pass a similar bill to kill off independent 
contractors?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much for that question, 
Congresswoman. I would dispute that the gig economy has been 
killed off in California.
    Mrs. McClain. Let us get back to the, if you are confirmed 
as the Secretary of Labor, will you demand Congress pass a 
similar bill to kill off independent contractor and the 
independent contractor status?
    Acting Secretary Su. I will not do that.
    Mrs. McClain. Wonderful. We are on a roll. Do you believe 
the death of the gig economy is a positive, or negative to the 
economy? I think we might have a difference here.
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, so thank you, Congresswoman. I 
believe that we should support job growth, job creation, 
businesses who create jobs, and make sure that we are both 
paving a high road to an economy where everyone who wants to 
work has a good job, they can live a middle-class life----
    Mrs. McClain. Has the opportunity?
    Acting Secretary Su. Exactly, has opportunity.
    Mrs. McClain. Wonderful.
    Acting Secretary Su. I also believe, and you know, this is 
partly my job to make sure that we are enforcing labor laws, so 
that everybody competes on a level playing field, and that some 
of the things we have talked about today, that we do not have 
exploitive child labor.
    Mrs. McClain. Wonderful. Thank you. Last week, the U.S. 
Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1, on an 8 to 1 vote, that organized 
labor cannot damage employer property during work action, 8 to 
1. Do you agree that union members, or any employees, for that 
matter, have the right to damage the property of their 
employers?
    Acting Secretary Su. No. I do not think there is a right to 
damage. I do think that the Supreme Court----
    Mrs. McClain. Wonderful. Thank you. In your written 
testimony to the Senate HELP Committee in April, you 
highlighted the fact that you were heavily involved with the 
negotiations between the rail employers and their unionized 
employees. Are you truly proud of the work that you did on 
that?
    Acting Secretary Su. I am, Congresswoman.
    Mrs. McClain. Let me remind you, Congress had to step in to 
prevent a national shutdown of the rail system. In conclusion, 
I am concerned with your past actions and the rhetoric, because 
we can say one thing, but our actions have to follow our words. 
That's what is important for the American people.
    I can see why there is a bipartisan group of Senators who 
really are opposed to your nomination because your actions do 
not match your words. Throughout your career you have shown a 
deep disdain for businesses and employers and let us not forget 
that it is the businesses and the employers that pay the taxes, 
and it is our economic systems that give us our social programs 
that we all so desperately need.
    In my opinion, if you truly cared about the workers, you 
would be supportive of the policies that actually grow 
business. See, we have to incentivize businesses. Small 
businesses. We have to incentivize entrepreneurs to be able to 
work and do their jobs, right? I want to talk about one other 
thing that we talk about. We continue to talk about job 
creation and job growth.
    If we started at 10, and then we lose jobs to a 2, and we 
grow from 2 to 5, we are still down. It is the bottom line that 
counts, provided we know how to count, and that is what we need 
to focus on, is we have to take a look at the total job growth 
of the economy because the people in my district are constantly 
talking about how regulations and the Department of Labor are 
stunting their growth.
    If you truly cared about workers you would be supportive of 
the policies that actually grow the business jobs in our 
economy. If I had to vote on your nomination, I got to be 
honest, I would give a no. I would vote no. Thank you, and I 
yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. Mr. Norcross, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Ms. Su, it is 
great to have you here today. I would like to talk a little bit 
about where we have been, and where we are going. I proudly 
talk about how I went from steel tips to wing tips, having gone 
to that other 4-year school, which is called an apprenticeship.
    The one that I went to is part of the system that is the 
most successful job training program in the history of the 
United States. It is called a registered apprenticeship 
program. I am sure you are well aware of that. It taught me 
those necessary skills, not only to be a successful 
electrician, but it also created an opportunity for a great 
career, and the ability to feed my family, take care of them.
    The construction industry is a great example of the most 
successful program, which takes little, if any, money for that 
training program. They take care of themselves. I heard a lot 
about the industry recognized apprenticeships. There is nothing 
that prevents any company from creating their own 
apprenticeship program, is it?
    They are allowed at any moment to create it. There is no 
stopping it. You can do it yourself, unless you want the 
government to pay you to do it, and that's the big difference 
is we want your money, but we do not want any kind of 
regulations on it, even though registered apprenticeship 
programs have been seen, and have been the experience of the 
most successful program.
    I believe that if private industry wants to create it, they 
can go do it. If you want the government to pay you to do it, 
there are certain conditions, which are something called checks 
and balances and oversight. Somebody that is been involved with 
that, not only in California, but when you were approved by the 
Senate for this seat that you used to as Deputy, which you were 
approved by the Senate, correct?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Norcross. Okay. Tell me about the registered programs. 
You asked for 135 million for these programs, why are they 
successful and what are you going to do with that money if it 
is approved?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much, Congressman. I 
think they are successful because they are built in 
partnership. As you mentioned, many of them are in 
construction, electricians, right? We are facing a growth in 
the need for electricians for lots of the investments that are 
being made right now.
    Having programs that are tried and true, that are based in 
skills that are really needed for the job, and have the ability 
to recruit participants so that we can meet the actual in 
demand needs that employers have is baked into how 
apprenticeship programs work, and that is why they are so 
successful, because they are built from in demand jobs.
    They are built on skills that are really needed. There is 
the guarantee of a job at the end of a training program, and so 
you know, that is why we spent so much time talking about it 
here, and why the Department of Labor is so invested in helping 
to expand them to meet the needs that we do hear that employers 
have, and that workers have, for good jobs and good workers.
    Mr. Norcross. The idea of a registered program, and for 
example, an electrician. The electricians in New Jersey work 
the same thing as they do in California. Registered programs 
create standards. Why is that so important? When storms hit 
Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and they ripped down 
all the power poles, there is something called storm break 
where line persons from all over the country come together to 
put it back together.
    The idea of having separate programs not only leads to 
problems in the construction, or the highest incidence of death 
on the job years ago, before the programs were brought 
together. This is something that we as a country do each and 
every day. The registered style of that program is absolutely 
imperative, and to do so otherwise would be risking people's 
lives.
    The idea of a program by an employer for a unique and new 
program that they might be doing, I do not think I have heard 
that is a bad idea. In fact, they are approved at a very high 
rate. Can you just talk about what it takes to get a registered 
program? We hear how hard it is, but quite frankly, when I 
talked to the employers, it is not a big deal.
    Acting Secretary Su. I am so happy to hear that, 
Congressman, because one of the things that we have been very 
focused on is working with employers to meet their needs to 
make sure that we are not only continuing to scale 
apprenticeship programs that we know already work, but to help 
build new ones for employers, which in doing so, and to cut the 
amount of time and the red tape that it takes to do that.
    Mr. Norcross. Yes. The electric car was not around back 
when I started my apprenticeship, and the idea of what it is 
going to take to assemble the new batteries, the new chemicals, 
is something that everybody is open to. The way we are going to 
do this is working together with employers, and they are an 
equal part of what we call employment. We need to be ready as a 
country, and we appreciate what you are doing for the next 
generation of the workforce, and for the most successful 
programs in the history of the United States. I yield back my 
time to Madam Chairwoman.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Mr. 
Norcross. You are over time. You are way over time.
    Mr. Norcross. Well, apparently a lot of people were. I do 
not want you to pick on me, just treat me fair.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Ms. Miller, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Miller. Thank you. Acting Secretary Su, do you think 
the Department of Labor has the power to impose a vaccine 
mandate on 84 million American workers?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you for that question, 
Congresswoman. Certainly, when this administration began in 
January 2021, we were still battling the COVID pandemic, and I 
think you are talking about a proposed rule that the Department 
of Labor did.
    This was work, to try to make sure that workplaces were 
safe and healthy.
    Mrs. Miller. Yes. It was that rule that you were an 
architect of, and that you signed off on. I want to know if you 
believe the Department of Labor has the power, and if you 
believe it was constitutional at the time to enforce this 
unprecedented, unheard of action on American workers.
    Acting Secretary Su. I appreciate that Congresswoman. I 
mean as I have said here today, I believe in full fidelity to 
the law, as passed by Congress, but also as interpreted by the 
courts. The courts did strike down that rule, and as a result 
we have not----
    Mrs. Miller. You think Biden was wrong, and the Department 
of Labor was wrong in imposing this emergency use vaccine 
mandate on 84 million workers?
    Acting Secretary Su. I think that during the height of the 
pandemic everyone, especially those of us in government, were 
trying to figure out the best we could do to keep workers safe 
in a situation in which there was not perfect information.
    Mrs. Miller. This was unprecedented in history, and we want 
to know today do you believe that the Department of Labor has 
the power to impose a vaccine mandate on workers.
    Acting Secretary Su. I again reiterate my full fidelity to 
the law, and to what the courts have said about that mandate.
    Mrs. Miller. Thankfully, the Supreme Court stepped in to 
stop you, but I want to know, what was your plan if millions of 
workers were forced to be vaccinated, and turn in their medical 
records, if they refused. What was your plan for all these 
millions of workers that were going to quit?
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean I think ,Congresswoman, one 
thing just looking back to that period, I think this 
administration is proud of the recovery that we have made since 
2021, by a whole host of measures.
    Mrs. Miller. Well, we are concerned about where you are on 
this issue because you know, you want to be Acting Secretary 
here, and we want to know what you think is within your power, 
the Department of Labor's power, to impose on American workers 
because this was unprecedented.
    You were an architect. You signed off on it, and this was 
damaging to American workers.
    Acting Secretary Su. I think Congresswoman, what my record 
demonstrates is that I am really focused on making sure that 
the Department of Labor fulfills its mission, including all of 
the things we have talked about today to get workers into jobs 
in which they have skills for them.
    Mrs. Miller. Yes. It would have caused millions of workers 
to be fired from their jobs, and I just want to say if Senator 
Manchin votes to confirm Acting Secretary Su, he is voting in 
support of the Biden COVID vaccine mandate. Acting Secretary Su 
was one of the architects of the vaccine mandate, which the 
Supreme Court ruled was illegal and unconstitutional.
    Acting Secretary Su tried to force 84 million Americans out 
of work with an illegal and unconstitutional vaccine mandate. 
She cannot be the Secretary of Labor. She believes the Federal 
Government in Washington, DC. should have massive power over 
the lives of the American people, and it took the Supreme Court 
to stop her. Thank you, and I yield back my time.
    Chairwoman Foxx. She yields to me. Acting Secretary Su, we 
have heard that the most successful job creation program in the 
country is the registered apprenticeship program. Is it true 
that only 43 percent of people graduate from the registered 
apprenticeship programs? Yes, or no?
    Acting Secretary Su. I do not know that datapoint.
    Chairwoman Foxx. You do not know. Well, it is 43 percent. I 
would never grade anything with 43 percent graduation rate as 
successful. Secretary, during your hearing for the Senate HELP 
Committee you confirmed the Department is not currently working 
on changes to the joint employer standard. Will you commit to 
us today that DOL will not pursue such changes during your 
tenure, leading the agency in either your current acting 
capacity, or if you are confirmed as Secretary? Yes, or no?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. We do not 
have anything about a joint employer rule on the regulatory 
agenda. As you know, the Department is required----
    Chairwoman Foxx. Okay. I am going to take that as a yes, 
you will not pursue such changes, and I yield back. Ms. 
Jayapal, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. Acting Secretary Su, 
it is an absolute delight to see you here as the nominee for 
Labor Secretary as well, and I say that also as an Asian 
American woman. Looking at somebody who is so skilled, so 
experienced, so qualified, such a record of success in your 
tenure, and a deep lived experience of people who do the work 
every day that this country desperately needs, making sure that 
you are standing up for all the things that America is great 
because of our commitment to our workers.
    I also want to particularly thank you for your leadership 
on apprenticeships, and making sure that workers have the 
skills that they need to fill the jobs created with the two 
trillion dollars in infrastructure investment that we were able 
to pass in--in the 117th Congress, and to just give the 
statistics.
    Since January 2021, when you came in, 584,000 new 
apprenticeships were created. In 2023 so far, 90,698 new 
apprenticeships were created. We know that under this 
President, under Democratic control of the House and Senate in 
the 117th, there were 13 million new jobs created since the 
President took office.
    The share of working Americans, working age Americans in 
the workforce, is at its highest level in 16 years, so 
congratulations on a tremendous record of accomplishment 
already. As the Representative of Seattle, which boasts a 
thriving business community, and a very strong economy, I know 
firsthand the value of engaging with employers to promote broad 
based economic prosperity.
    Acting Secretary Su, would you agree that businesses and 
employers are key stakeholders in the effort to build an 
economy that works for everyone?
    Acting Secretary Su. I absolutely agree with that, 
Congresswoman, and I think my record demonstrates that, yes.
    Ms. Jayapal. In fact, you have some history with your own 
family's experience running a franchise business. I wonder if 
you wanted to share that.
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Thank you very much, 
Congresswoman. For me, the idea that small businesses are the 
engines of our economy, and that they are, you know, job 
creators, and are important for us to support is not an 
abstract thing. It is something that I know from my life.
    My parents owned a laundromat and drycleaning business, and 
I have memories of being a small child sitting on the dryer 
while my parents worked. Then when I was in high school, they 
owned a pizza franchise, a Shakey's Pizza. I remember because 
my sister and I often got the pizzas that the customers had 
rejected that my dad would bring home at the end of the day.
    That was often what we brought in our lunch boxes the next 
day. What it means is that, around our kitchen table, I learned 
about what small businesses have to do. I learned about the 
struggles to hire and train, to maintain a payroll,
    My dad worked alongside workers, he worked the ovens, but 
when he was needed to take orders, he did that. When he needed 
to wipe down tables, he did that. I have great respect for the 
hard work, the investments, the risks, the challenges, and also 
the joy of what small business owners do because it is the 
reason I was able to go to college is that my parents had a 
small business.
    In my time as Deputy Secretary, but also in my time as 
Acting Secretary, and if confirmed the Secretary, I understand 
personally the importance of our role in supporting those small 
businesses.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. My colleagues across the aisle 
trying to portray you as somebody who does not care about 
business, or employers, but is it true that a number of 
business associations have endorsed your nomination to be Labor 
Secretary, including the Society for Human Resource Management, 
the LA Chamber of Commerce, the US Hispanic Chamber of 
Commerce, AAPI Business Leaders and Small Business Majority?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Congresswoman, thank you so much 
for that. I do think that for businesses and business 
associations, industry associations who have worked with me, I 
have earned their respect, and I am grateful for it.
    Ms. Jayapal. Your collaborative approach is also evident in 
your experience facilitating several high-profile contract 
negotiations. I find it remarkable, for example, that you have 
been endorsed by both the International Long Shore and 
Warehouse Union, and the Port of Los Angeles. How would you 
respond to critics who claim that you are not capable of being 
a neutral arbiter?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much for that question, 
Congresswoman. My record demonstrates that that would be false. 
I mean right now there are a number of high stakes negotiations 
that are going on, and I have the experience and the track 
record to demonstrate that having somebody in the role of Labor 
Secretary, to help make sure that parties stay at the table who 
understand the complexities of such negotiations, and who 
understand how important it is for parties to stay at the table 
is something that I bring to the job.
    Ms. Jayapal. All my colleagues need to do is look at the 
facts, and they will see that you are absolutely the best 
candidate to be our next Secretary of Labor, and I look forward 
to that day. Thank you so much for your dedication, and your 
commitment to this country, and to this work. Thank you, Acting 
Secretary.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Jayapal, thank you, Ms. 
Jayapal. Thank you, Ms. Jayapal. Ms. Steel you are recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Steel. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, for hosting this 
important hearing. Ms. Su, West Coast ports are the gateway to 
trade, and our supply chains as you know. The labor 
negotiations for the West Coast ports have gone now for almost 
a year, and an agreement has still not been reached. Recently 
West Coast ports and terminals were shut down after union 
employees walked off the job. Disruptions in the supply chain 
will damage our economy, and it is being done so because I saw 
a lot of ships.
    During the Covid time, you know, it was lined up on the 
shore in my district at that time. Former Secretary of Labor 
Walsh acknowledged this, when he successfully intervened in a 
rail strike that threatened the entire country.
    My question is, what is the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
telling you about the potential damage the West Coast ship 
shutdown might have on the economy and the labor market?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you so much, Congresswoman. I 
was very proud to work alongside then Secretary of Labor Marty 
Walsh on that rail negotiation, where we brought the parties in 
for 20 hours in our office and reached a tentative agreement.
    These negotiations can be complicated, they can be 
prolonged and there will be ups and downs. When it comes to the 
port, we are talking about 29 ports on the West Coast involving 
about 22,000 workers, ILWU workers, and the parties have been 
in conversation.
    Since I got involved a couple of months ago, they did reach 
a tentative about some of the complicated issues, but they are 
not finished yet. They are still bargaining. They are still at 
the table. What you noted about the ships that were lined up, 
that was--we all saw that, right? That is not the case today.
    That is no longer happening, and I think that part of that 
is a reflection of workers showing up every day, doing the hard 
work, the same work they did throughout the pandemic to keep 
our cargo moving and keep our economy running, and it is a 
tribute to the employers who are also working very hard to make 
sure that that critical lifeline, as you say, to trade, to 
goods stays, stays operational.
    That has been true in the last few months since I have been 
here, sitting in my seat as Acting Secretary, and I am 
committed to supporting the parties as they work through the 
issues that are on the table. I understand that they are 
continuing to do that.
    Mrs. Steel. Thank you. It seems like that negotiation will 
be done hopefully soon. My question was what West Coast port 
shutdown might have on the economy and the labor market. What's 
the potential damage was my question here.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congresswoman. Yes, I will 
have to get back to the exact figures about that. In general, 
you are correct that the West Coast ports play a really 
critical role. I believe at one point it was like 40 percent of 
all cargo moves through, moves through some of the West Coast 
ports.
    I can certainly see if we have more data. I think your 
general point that a resolution is important because so much of 
our economy relies on what happens in the West Coast ports is 
well taken.
    Mrs. Steel. You are--it is under negotiations right now and 
it is very much hurting our economy. What are you doing to 
prevent strikes and further work stoppages, because it seems 
like they just completely shut down after union employees 
walked off their jobs. I mean that is not really acceptable 
here. What are you doing to prevent it in the future?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congresswoman, the parties are 
definitely at the table. They are working through some 
difficult issues. There are lots of things for them to be 
talking about.
    Mrs. Steel. I hear that there are negotiations. How about 
the shutdown?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, I am not aware of a shutdown. I 
mean there has been--so there is--what is really going on, and 
there have been some media reports that are not actually 
accurate. There is not a shutdown. Cargo continues to move in 
the ports. There has been maybe like a decade-long trend of 
some decrease in cargo coming through the West Coast. That is 
not as a result of the talks that are going on.
    I do, I think I agree with your general point, that coming 
to a resolution and providing some certainty and clarity is 
good for everybody.
    Mrs. Steel. Let us go back to that. What kind of deal that 
?? how are you going to resolve this dispute, that what kind of 
negotiation is going on? You said there are really a lot of 
complications, and there are a lot of things on the table right 
now--how are we going to do it?
    Then what, almost a year, and then the negotiation was 
done. That really hurts the economy, that is what I have been 
talking about. What is on the table, how are you going to solve 
it, and how soon?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congresswoman. I do want to 
reState that cargo continues to move at the West Coast ports, 
and workers continue to show up and do their jobs even during 
negotiations, and the parties, the leadership of both parties 
are very hard at work trying to resolve the issues that they 
have.
    Mrs. Steel. This idea----
    Chairwoman Foxx. I think, if you would mind just submitting 
in writing to the Congresswoman the rest of your answer.
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, I could just close it really 
quickly, which is that this idea that these ideas are 
complicated is not unique to this particular issue, but we see 
time and time again that the collective bargaining process does 
work, and unions and employers reach agreements about things 
that help to assure----
    Chairwoman Foxx. You are a minute over. Ms. Manning, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Manning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Acting 
Secretary, I would like to apologize for the insulting way that 
you were welcomed at this hearing. The opening comments were 
appalling, unnecessary and mean-spirited, and they were an 
attempt to cover up the extraordinarily great work the 117th 
Congress and the Biden administration did to bring our country 
through the worst global pandemic in a century.
    Thanks to the American Rescue Plan, the Infrastructure Law, 
the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, we 
have the most robust economic recovery of any country in the 
world. We have the lowest unemployment rate in decades, and we 
have seen wage increases for workers who have not participated 
in the economic growth that benefited large corporations and 
the wealthy during the prior administration.
    I want to thank you for your service to our country and the 
American people you work to help every day. As you and I have 
discussed previously, I represent North Carolina's 6th 
congressional District, where we are enjoying the growth of 
advanced manufacturing, particularly in the clean energy, 
automotive, and aerospace industries.
    We welcome this growth, but I hear from employers in my 
district that they are struggling to find skilled workers to 
fill these good-paying jobs. Can you tell us more about the 
Department of Labor's work to expand training opportunities to 
help workers gain the skills they need, and how Congress can 
help with these efforts?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you so much for that question, 
Congresswoman. We are really laser-focused on this exact issue 
of meeting the need for skilled workers in specific jobs and 
industries that are growing as a result of the important work 
of this body, in partnership with the President, to make 
historic investments.
    What we are also seeing, and this is a tribute to good 
policy and how important it is, when the Federal Government 
engages in policy that helps to expand the economy and build 
jobs, the private sector also contributes.
    We are seeing hundreds of billions of dollars now being 
invested in these exact same industries, especially in advanced 
manufacturing, in ways that I think are going to have historic 
impact on the economy going forward, building a strong, 
resilient, and equitable economy.
    Our role at the Department of Labor is to help make sure 
that training programs are actually meeting employer needs and 
recruiting from workers who--and it is important to say it 
because I think it has been suggested otherwise that workers 
have come back into the labor market to pre-pandemic levels, 
especially in the prime age workforce of like 25 to 54.
    We are seeing, again, historic economic growth. What we 
need to do is finish that job. We need to make sure that those 
impacts are felt in every single community, that every worker 
who wants a good job can find the educational and training 
opportunities to get them and the employers, who I have also 
talked to many who say we need to skilled workers.
    It is our job to help support them, not to do it for them, 
right? The whole idea is that communities working together have 
solved lots of problems before. Our job is to help to support 
that and to bring all of the players in the workforce system in 
line to help do this.
    One of the things that I have not yet talked about, I have 
talked about a lot of the things that we are doing, but one is 
an $80 million grant that is specific to these particular 
sectors, infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, clean energy, 
to help build proven models for training and also to help scale 
them, right?
    It is not enough now, because of the historic vote that we 
are seeing, because of the jobs that are being created, because 
of the point that is been made, that there are lots of jobs out 
there right now that need workers. We need to be able to scale 
and to be able to move quickly to finish the job, and that is 
something that I look forward to doing and continuing to do 
with you and with this body.
    Mrs. Manning. Thank you so much. My district is also home 
to extraordinary universities and colleges such as North 
Carolina A&T, which recently got a $23.7 million grant to build 
a training program for workers, and Guilford Technical 
Community College, which has just received a $1.7 million 
Federal grant to expand its truck driver training programs.
    Should we be working more with our colleges and community 
colleges to help create workforce development programs?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, I see that my time is about to 
expire. 100 percent yes.
    Mrs. Manning. Thank you so much for your testimony today, 
and thanks for all your hard work.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Mr. Bean, you are recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bean. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good afternoon 
to you, good afternoon, Committee. I would like to yield to the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley.
    Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Mr. Bean. We have heard some comments 
from the other side, as well as from the witness herself, to 
the effect of what does California's AB5 have to do with any of 
this? President Biden has himself said, and this is a quote, 
that he wants ``a Federal standard modeled on California's ABC 
test for all labor, employment and tax laws.''
    Ms. Su, you are the Acting Secretary of Labor. You are 
President Biden's chosen nominee to be Secretary of Labor. I 
think it is fair to ask, did you agree or disagree with the 
President, that AB5 is a good model for the nation?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, thank you. Let me be as 
clear as I can about this. AB5 is not Federal law. It would 
only be Federal law if Congress decides that it should be. I 
have not called for that on the Federal level.
    In fact, I have explicitly during my tenure as Deputy 
Secretary of Labor, when we created the proposed rule about 
independent contractors, explicitly said that we do not adopt 
an ABC test, and in fact we cannot adopt an ABC test.
    Mr. Kiley. Sure, and I understand that. However, there is 
quite a bit of leeway in that rule, and it says that the--and 
it is clearly designed to mimic the ABC test in many respects. 
The disposition of the enforcer is centrally important to our 
oversight role as Congress.
    I did not get an answer. I would like just an answer yes or 
no, agree/disagree, with the President's statement that the ABC 
test of California's AB5 is a good model for the nation?
    Acting Secretary Su. I just, I mean I have to say again, 
because the question seems to ignore that I--we cannot, it is 
strictly in the purview of Congress to decide whether AB5, the 
ABC test, would become the test for independent contractor 
versus employee status on the Federal level.
    Mr. Kiley. Earlier you were saying, you said that you might 
have expressed support for AB5 before. Just to refresh your 
recollection, shortly after it was signed, you went on the 
record of CalMatters and said not only were you going to be 
adjudicating claims that came to you, but you said we will be 
doing investigations and audits, so that those who want to 
comply with the need to reclassify can do so, and those who do 
not, will understand--these are your words--that is not the 
kind of economy we want in California.
    You celebrated its passage. Now, will you at least 
recognize, Acting Secretary Su, that people in California have 
lost their careers, their livelihoods, their ability to work 
because of AB5?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, I want to also say that I 
have heard from people who have said that, and I think that 
that is--it is important to acknowledge them. I have had direct 
conversations with them as recently as, I do not know, a few 
weeks ago, where we do not want, I do not want ever, our 
policies to result in people losing their livelihoods or having 
to----
    Mr. Kiley. Did AB5 do that? Did it cause people to lose 
their livelihoods?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, I am saying that I have heard 
people who said that. I have heard people who have said 
something different too. I think the important----
    Mr. Kiley. You have heard people say that they lost their 
livelihoods because of AB5?
    Acting Secretary Su. I have had people tell me that but----
    Mr. Kiley. Do you not believe them, or because you say they 
said it?
    Acting Secretary Su. I guess, Congressman, even to the 
quote that you just read, it feels like that quote is exactly 
what, in my role as the enforcer of laws would say, which is 
that we are going to enforce the law as it is written and we 
want to make sure that we have, you know, I mean an economy in 
which people, everybody plays by the rules.
    Mr. Kiley. This is a book of stories shortly after the law 
passed, from people who said, as you would put it, they lost 
their livelihoods because of AB5. A couple of examples. Jody 
said ``I worked years to gain my skills as an American Sign 
Language interpreter. It was my goal since I was 9 years old. 
``After AB5, I lost all three of my agencies, the dream I 
worked for is lost. I can't provide for my family and thousands 
of California deaf won't be serviced.'' Is your message to Jody 
that that is just not the kind of economy that we want in 
California?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, my message to her would be that 
bona fide independent contractors will always have a place in 
our economy. They play an important role.
    Mr. Kiley. Not her. She is not a bona fide independent 
contractor.
    Acting Secretary Su. I have not had a conversation with 
her. I would, I do think that it is very important to reiterate 
that the policies at the United States are the policies--at the 
Federal level--are the policies that would be within the 
purview of the Labor Department to enforce.
    Mr. Kiley. While you were California Labor Secretary, did 
you meet with any of the folks who lost their livelihoods from 
AB5?
    Acting Secretary Su. I did. I heard from many people on all 
sides about the impact, the impact of AB5.
    Mr. Kiley. You did, Okay.
    Acting Secretary Su. After it was passed, and as I said 
earlier, I spent a lot of time talking to employers about how 
implementation could support them, right? Sometimes people had 
an idea about what it would do, and it was not true.
    Mr. Kiley. That is good, and as you know, California voters 
have also weighed in with Prop 22, which said we do not want 
AB5 to apply to contractors. How did you vote on that on Prop 
22?
    Acting Secretary Su. How did I vote on Prop 22? I do not 
remember how I voted on that.
    Mr. Kiley. You do not remember on Prop 22, the one applying 
to Uber, Lyft, Door Dash drivers, saying that AB5 is not going 
to apply to them? You do not remember how you voted?
    Acting Secretary Su. Right. I mean I think----
    Mr. Kiley. Well, you can--I will give you a second to think 
about it. Do you remember how you voted on Prop 22?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, I want to say very 
clearly here that I pledge, and I think my record demonstrates, 
absolute fidelity to the laws as passed by this body, as 
interpreted by the courts, and as delegated to the Department 
of Labor to enforce.
    Mr. Kiley. I appreciate that, but now you have had a second 
to think, do you remember how you voted on Prop 22?
    Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Kiley and Mr. Bean, your time is up. 
Mr. Bowman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and thank you 
Acting Secretary Su for joining us here today. It is clear from 
your long, outstanding record of your work as Deputy Secretary 
and now Acting Secretary, and testimony and answers here today, 
that you are extremely committed to our country, our workers, 
and our economy, and thank you so much for your love of our 
country and for your service to this country.
    My background is in education. I spent two decades working 
in schools in the Bronx before coming to Congress. I really 
believe that effective partnerships between schools, both 
secondary and higher education, local businesses, local 
workforce development agencies are key to creating successful 
pathways to good paying jobs.
    I have seen how important these partnerships can be up 
close, and I just want to followup on Ms. Manning's, 
Representative Manning's previous question. Can you please 
discuss the steps the Department is taking to encourage that 
collaboration, especially to support pathways into sectors like 
STEM, the STEM workforce, that are becoming increasingly 
critical to our economy? Can you talk about that?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Thank you so much for that 
question, Congressman. In many of the workforce development 
programs that we--that we are supporting and for which we are 
providing technical assistance, community colleges and 
educational institutions in general play a very, very important 
role.
    We have an opportunity now for millions of people 
throughout the United States who do not have college degrees, 
to actually get good-paying jobs in advanced manufacturing, in 
clean energy, in infrastructure, in a whole host of industries 
that are going to allow them to build their way to the middle 
class.
    Having multiple pathways to that is very, very important. 
Working at the high school level, so that young people can 
think about what opportunities are going to be available for 
them, not saying there is only one path, right, to success.
    Community colleges play such an important role, and that is 
a space in which the Department of Labor has done more work 
because of the role that community colleges play in workforce 
systems.
    In providing, for example, pre-apprenticeship programs, 
right. For a young person to go to a community college and gain 
the skills to learn, you know, math that will help them get a 
job in construction is really key for them to then connect to 
the apprenticeship program in construction, that then puts them 
into a job, a really good-paying, secure job.
    We have a community college grant program that I think is 
now in its third round, in which we have invested $135 million 
in community colleges to this end. I think the partnerships, 
our job is to align the various parts of the system so that 
they work as seamlessly as possible for employers and for job 
seekers, and for workers in the system who are seeking to 
upscale, right?
    All of these are really important. I have also, since I 
have been in this position, spoken to Secretary Cardona about 
collaboration between our agencies, to make sure that this 
happens.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much for that answer, and you 
mentioned interagency collaboration, and that is obviously very 
important to the work that you do, or we should all be doing 
here on the Capitol. How are your agencies working together on 
workforce development? Can you dive a little bit deeper into 
that?
    Acting Secretary Su. I have one very concrete example to 
share on that, which is teacher apprenticeships, recognizing 
that teachers worked throughout the pandemic. They got us 
through. I have two children who relied on their teachers in 
times where they had to adjust and find new ways of teaching 
and were doing hybrid teaching.
    We have now in this country a need to build the teaching 
workforce, and it is our turn to reinvest in that workforce 
that gave, that has given always, but that gave us so much. We 
have worked with the Department of Education to expand teacher 
apprenticeships from in January 2021 there were two states that 
had them. Now there are 17 states, and we are not finished with 
that work.
    That is one concrete way. Another is to what we just talked 
about, is really looking at how to better align, how to move 
systems, how to get the local workforce boards, how to get 
State workforce systems, and Department of Labor spends a lot 
of time.
    We just had a conference where over 400 workforce leaders 
came to hear about our vision for how we meet the workforce 
needs of the jobs that are being created. Secretary Cardona is 
very committed to making sure that the educational system 
fulfills their role.
    We are talking about all kinds of other collaborations that 
would help to make this system work for the things that we have 
been talking about here today.
    Mr. Bowman. Thank you so much, and I yield back, Madam 
Chair.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Bowman. Ms. Houchin, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you, Ms. 
Su, for testifying before us today as our Committee begins 
consideration of WIOA reauthorization in this Congress. I am 
grateful that we are able to process some of the progress that 
has been made or lack thereof over the past few years.
    As you know, 40 percent of able-bodied adults are not 
engaged in the workforce. Every time I am in the district, I 
hear more and more from employers that they are looking for 
workers. They are looking for employees.
    You more than anyone else have had a front row seat in the 
failures of the administration to reach our full workforce 
potential. I am going to need you to answer some of those 
problems for me and my constituents back home. There are 
accountability provisions under the WIOA, Workforce Innovation 
and Opportunity Act that have not been implemented as Congress 
intended.
    Under the Department's regulations, a State can miss its 
agreed-upon performance by 50 percent and still be considered a 
success. To put this in context with the State of California's 
agreed-upon level of performance, if just 39 percent of WIOA 
participants are employed in the second quarter after exiting 
the program, DOL would consider that a performance success. 
What grade would 39 percent be in school?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much, Congresswoman, 
for that question. I do believe that we have to support 
training programs, but also hold them accountable, right, make 
sure that, for example, they are actually providing training 
for individuals----
    Ms. Houchin. Ms. Su, what grade is 39 percent?
    Acting Secretary Su. I am sure----
    Ms. Houchin. The letter grade for 39 percent would be an F. 
Are we setting the bar too low when we say that 39 percent 
performance is considered a success, yes or no? Is that setting 
the bar too low?
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean, Congresswoman, I am not 
familiar with the exact metric that you are talking about or 
how it is set. For example, if you are telling me that we are 
not in our implementation of WIOA complying with what Congress 
says, that is something that I would take very seriously. I 
pledged full fidelity to the law. I think that is very 
important----
    Ms. Houchin. Thank you. In October 2022, the WHD published 
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking rescinding and replacing 
Trump's independent contractor rule. We have heard some about 
that today.
    In its place, they proposed--DOL proposed a six factor 
economic realities test to determine whether a worker is 
``economically dependent on a company under a totality of the 
circumstances,'' in essence saying that if they are 
economically dependent, they have to be employees and not under 
a 1099.
    Should the American people have the freedom and the 
opportunity to decide what work environment is best for them?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much for that question, 
Congresswoman. The proposed rule by the Department of Labor 
does adopt a multi-factor test. It is not just----
    Ms. Houchin. Ms. Su, I do not have much time. I understand 
it is a multi-factor test. Let me give you a real-life example. 
I was a stay-at-home mom for 5 years, and during that time I 
was an independent contractor under a 1099, and I was only 
operating under a 1099 model with one entity. Under these 
definitions, I would have been qualified as economically 
dependent and under the rule proposed by DOL, unable to 
participate in the workforce under that model.
    That does not seem very American to me under our terms of 
freedom to decide for ourselves what is best for us and our 
families, and in fact that--if the DOL rule had been in place 
when I was a stay-at-home mom, I would have chosen not to 
engage in the workforce as an employee.
    Will you commit to protecting the independent contractor 
rule for people like me?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congresswoman, I certainly want to 
reState that bona fide independent contractors will always have 
a place in our economy, should have a place in the economy, and 
play a very, very important role.
    Ms. Houchin. Will you turn away from the proposed rule?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, our proposed rule is 
consistent--it is not six factors that we invented. It is 
factors that are based on decades of Federal----
    Ms. Houchin. Do you support the Trump administration era 
rule?
    Acting Secretary Su. We rescinded that rule as being 
inconsistent with----
    Ms. Houchin. I would encourage you--I would encourage you 
to continue to turn away from efforts to undermine the 
independent contractor opportunities for American citizens. One 
other thing I want to ask you within the limited time I have 
now is you have said repeatedly as passed by this body; you 
want to do only what this body intends you to do.
    We have not ever passed a bill yet taking away 
opportunities for independent contractors, yet your agency is 
implementing such a provision by rule; is that correct?
    Acting Secretary Su. Our rule is not intended to take away 
livelihoods at all, Congresswoman----
    Ms. Houchin. Did Congress pass a bill on that?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, so----
    Ms. Houchin. No, they did not.
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, it is our job to enforce the 
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the rules that--the rule that we 
have proposed is consistent with decades of Federal case law 
interpreting----
    Ms. Houchin. It was overturned; correct?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, our rule is a notice. It is not 
a final rule yet, so it has not been challenged. It has not 
been overturned. It is a rule that in the stage when we noticed 
it, it was consistent with Federal case law.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Ms. Su, I would ask that you answer 
Congresswoman Houchin's question in writing. Thank you very 
much. Ms. Wild.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I would like to 
introduce some letters of support from businesses that were 
referred to by my colleague, Representative Jayapal.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
    [The letters of Ms. Wild follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Wild. Thank you. Secretary Su, I would like to 
apologize for the tone and tenor of this hearing. I worry that 
we lose many great candidates for public office who simply see 
this kind of thing on television and are not willing to put 
their name up this kind of questioning.
    I truly believe that Americans want to see more civility 
and decency from their elected officials, but unfortunately, I 
do not think we have seen a whole lot of that here today. I do 
want to step back a moment and talk a little bit about this 
joint employer or independent contractor rule. There has been a 
lot of questioning without a lot of opportunity for you to 
complete an answer.
    Am I correct, first of all, that much of the case law that 
you refer to arose from the fact that the independent 
contractor classification was often being abused by employers, 
either to avoid payroll taxes, benefits or other things?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Thank you so much for that 
question, Congresswoman. Thank you also for reminding us that 
the reason there is a rule is that misclassification, now this 
is not about ending bona fide independent contracting, it is 
about making sure that everybody plays by the same set of 
rules, and that when someone should be an employee and 
therefore enjoys a century's worth of labor law protections, 
basic minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance safety 
net, worker's compensation, that they do get that.
    To your--that is a long way of saying yes, that there was--
there has been litigation about this, and that has created a 
body of case law about what the right test should be.
    Ms. Wild. In fact, when there is abuse of the independent 
contractor classification, it is actually to the detriment of 
American workers, employees or people who should be treated as 
employees, entitled to the benefits of that classification; 
correct?
    Acting Secretary Su. That is absolutely correct.
    Ms. Wild. Okay. There was reference made to the fact that 
your family owned a franchise business, a pizza franchise when 
you were growing up, so I assume from that that you have 
respect for the franchise model as a way for people to get 
started in business.
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Again, this is not an abstract 
issue for me, but it is also a way and I have heard directly 
from franchisors about this, that it is a way that individuals, 
immigrant communities get a toehold into the middle class, and 
that is the story of my family.
    Ms. Wild. Okay, thank you. With regard to joint employer-
related issues, there seems to be some confusion, at least 
among the questioners today, about who created that rule that 
is being objected to, and am I correct that it was a rule, a 
proposed rule put forth by the NLRB?
    Acting Secretary Su. Oh yes, yes. There is another entire 
separate set of laws and rules that fall under the National 
Labor Relations Board.
    Ms. Wild. The NLRB is a separate and independent agency 
from the Department of Labor; is that correct?
    Acting Secretary Su. Absolutely, yes.
    Ms. Wild. Okay. This joint employer rule is not something 
that is on the Department of Labor's regulatory agenda?
    Acting Secretary Su. That is correct.
    Ms. Wild. As such, would not be something that falls under 
your jurisdiction as Secretary of Labor; is that correct?
    Acting Secretary Su. That is correct.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you, and is it true that the only reason 
that the Department of Labor had to take action to rescind the 
rule was because a higher court instructed it to do so?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, thank you very much, 
Congresswoman. There were two different things, right? One 
conversation we were having about the independent contractor 
rule, we have noticed a rule on that. The other thing that you 
are talking about is there was a joint employer rule of the 
prior administration that we had to rescind because a court 
found that that was out of step with the law.
    Ms. Wild. When you say, ``the prior administration,'' you 
mean the Trump administration?
    Acting Secretary Su. Correct.
    Ms. Wild. Created a rule that a Federal court determined 
was not a valid rule; is that correct?
    Acting Secretary Su. That is correct.
    Ms. Wild. Instructed the Department of Labor to rescind 
that?
    Acting Secretary Su. I do not remember if it was a specific 
instruction, but we would not keep a rule in place that was not 
in compliance with Federal law.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you very much. With that, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Wild. You win the gold 
prize for today. Mr. Burlison, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for coming. 
Earlier, you said that you had no hand in the writing of the 
AB5 rule in California: Correct?
    Acting Secretary Su. Correct, Congressman.
    Mr. Burlison. No input, no advice?
    Acting Secretary Su. I do not remember specifically about 
that particular rule, but I will say that in my role in State 
government and the executive branch, as an appointee of the 
Governor in California, we would sometimes be asked for 
technical assistance on implementation, how would this be 
implemented, could this be implemented? It is the same thing 
that I have seen here at the Federal level.
    Mr. Burlison. Yes, and then you said also--but I will just 
say this. Like I found it remarkable to hear that, and to hear 
this as well because where I come from, the State of Missouri, 
our directors, our department heads, our every agency head is 
actively involved in any legislative process that their 
department is going to have to deal with.
    To not provide counsel, to not provide input would be 
negligent for that department head.
    Acting Secretary Su. Right. I think, Congressman, if you 
are referring to technical assistance, right, how would you 
implement this. I think the question that was asked was whether 
I helped to write the law and I do fully----
    Mr. Burlison. You did have technical assistance in writing 
the law?
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean we generally were asked for 
technical assistance about laws that we would be in charge of 
enforcing.
    Mr. Burlison. Okay. Let us jump to this question. You said 
that you would not endorse or support taking that law 
nationwide; is that correct?
    Acting Secretary Su. Would I--I have not----
    Mr. Burlison. Would you support the rules of AB5 or 
something similar going from a California law to a nationwide 
law?
    Acting Secretary Su. I certainly have not done that, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Burlison. You will not do that.
    Acting Secretary Su. When given, you know. When putting 
together a rule about independent contractor versus employee 
status, the Department of Labor under my leadership and that of 
former Secretary Marty Walsh, we were explicit because we are 
governed by what the law allows, that we could not do that.
    Mr. Burlison. Okay, let me move on, because I think people 
in my State want to know as well. We have a very well-
functioning system for workers compensation on the State level. 
There is a credible fear that there will be rules changed from 
your Department that might impact states and their ability to 
handle workers compensation insurance, or to possibly 
nationalize it.
    Can you say today that you will not make rule changes to 
workers compensation or try to nationalize it?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much for that question, 
Congressman, and for the opportunity to talk a little bit about 
it. We have, under the Department of Labor, an Office of 
Workers Compensation Programs. It administers Federal workers 
compensation programs.
    We do collaborate with the states at various times. One of 
the things that I said when I came in was instead of having 
individuals who both would be covered by a State workers 
compensation and Federal workers compensation, and kind of 
navigate those systems, we should do our best to work with 
State systems to make the provisions----
    Mr. Burlison. Yes. It is my hope that you leave the states 
alone and let them do what they do better. Let me say this. I 
am really glad to hear that AB5 is not going to go nationwide, 
and the reason is that it is--it was clearly disastrous for the 
State of California.
    I say that as someone--in the State of Missouri, we 
received a lot of employees and workers as a result of that 
disastrous law, and I want to point one out to you. This is an 
individual. Her name is Theldorine ``Dee'' Sova. She owns and 
operates a trucking company, did in California.
    Managed her own time, all of her own benefits, everything 
was her decision and she, apparently according to that rule, 
was not smart enough to know what is good for her and at the 
end of the day she had a choice: give up her company or go work 
for somebody else, right, as a W-2 employee.
    She chose to leave California and move to God's country, 
Missouri, and I am glad to have her as a citizen. It is the 
gentleman from California's loss, and with that, I will turn 
the remainder of my time over to him.
    Mr. Kiley. With just the few seconds we have here, Acting 
Secretary Su, I wanted to give you a chance to revisit your 
testimony from our last exchange about Prop 22, which was 
passed by almost 60 percent of California voters, to say that 
we want Uber drivers, Lyft drivers, Door Dash, app-based 
drivers, to be able to be independent workers.
    Now you were Secretary of Labor at the time this passed in 
2020, and your testimony was that you do not remember how you 
voted. Do you want to make any corrections to that testimony?
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean Congressman, as you have noted, 
there are a lot of important issues in California. I am no 
longer in the government there, but certainly as the Acting 
Secretary of Labor, it is my job to work with all states. I 
would be very----
    Mr. Kiley. You stand by your statement that you do not 
remember how you voted on that proposition?
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean, what I am saying is I am very 
eager to work with you on addressing the many issues that you 
have raised.
    Mr. Kiley. I am glad about that, but I did not ask you 
that. Do you remember?
    Acting Secretary Su [continuing]. In California, as well as 
across the country.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you.
    Mr. Kiley. Thank you very much.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Burlison. Ms. Hayes, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hayes. Thank you. Thank you, Acting Secretary Su, for 
your testimony before this Committee today. I hear from 
constituents in every sector of the economy about impending 
workforce shortages. We need more teachers, farm workers, 
nurses, and engineers. I also want to thank you for your 
comments earlier about working with the Department of Education 
on teacher apprenticeships and the teaching workforce. There is 
a dire need in that area.
    In the 117th Congress, Democrats invested heavily in 
infrastructure, energy, and manufacturing to address supply 
chain issues. We still need to train workers to perform 
critical jobs in these sectors. There is a great need for a 
skilled workforce. In Connecticut, more than 100,000 skilled 
jobs remain unfilled.
    Resources like the American Jobs Centers, which deliver 
free employment and training services through one-on-one career 
counseling, job training and employment placements, are 
building the pipeline of workers. The 19 Connecticut American 
Jobs Centers, including four located in my district, serve 
90,000 people across the State and work with 3,000 employers to 
train workers, post jobs, and hire every year.
    However, there is more work to be done to close the 
workforce gap. It is estimated that the US spends about $500 
million a year on individual training accounts, serving about 
220,000 adults and dislocated workers nationwide. Partnering 
with employers is a key strategy to ensure that workforce 
training initiatives and American Jobs Centers match the needs 
of the region.
    Acting Secretary Su, how can Congress scale up our 
investments in WIOA training programs, such as career 
counseling, American Jobs Centers, and other employer programs, 
and additionally, what has the department done to foster more 
cooperation between employers and training programs?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you so much for that question, 
Congresswoman. As you know, WIOA is a very important Federal 
investment in creating a high functioning, reliable workforce 
development system that trains people in their communities for 
the jobs that are there.
    Because of the investments of this body and this 
administration, working in conjunction with the Biden-Harris 
administration, jobs that are actually coming. We take that 
obligation very seriously, to work with states, to work with 
cities. Some of the most effective training programs are local. 
They are developed by employers and their partners.
    They could be unions, they could be community-based 
organizations, they could be training centers, they could be 
educational institutions, so that people can get jobs in the 
communities. They do not have to leave their communities in 
order to find good work that gives them a pathway to the middle 
class.
    We have made investments specifically in industries where 
we see challenges recruiting and training a skilled workforce, 
and also in industries that are growing as a result of the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure law, the CHIPS and Science Act, 
Inflation Reduction Act and those kinds of investments.
    Ms. Hayes. Thank you. I am also very pleased to see that 
the department's budget includes robust funding for 
strengthening community college programs that build capacity in 
the workforce. People often overlook community colleges as part 
of workforce development.
    In my district, Naugatuck Valley Community College, where I 
am a graduate of, partners with Northwest Regional Workforce 
Investment Board in the greater Waterbury area to train 
qualified adults and dislocated workers in various programs, 
including manufacturing, childcare, paralegal services, 
horticulture.
    Can you talk about how the Department and Congress can 
partner to boost and strengthen community college programs as 
part of the workforce development pipeline?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman. 
Community colleges play an incredibly important role. They are 
partners in training partnerships, right?
    They are one of the partners that helps to provide, whether 
it is a pre-apprenticeship program that helps to prepare 
someone for the workforce, for an apprenticeship program in the 
community, whether it is somebody who has been in the workforce 
but wants to upskill and change jobs, change industries, 
improve their salary and wages.
    Coming through the community college is one way to do that, 
and that is why we do have the Strengthening Community Colleges 
grants, where we have put out about $135 million into various 
community colleges to allow them to play that role in ensuring 
that their programs are tied to in demand jobs in the 
communities where their students are from.
    Ms. Hayes. Well, thank you for that. I so appreciate that, 
because we all know that the pathway to success looks very 
different for everyone. For some people it is higher education; 
for others, it is workforce development. All of those are 
equally important, as important. Thank you for your commitment 
to those things, and also connecting people to work and doing 
that safely. I appreciate your testimony today. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Hayes. Mr. Kiley, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kiley. Thank you, Madam Chair. We are almost done. 
Acting Secretary Su, do you accept any responsibility for the 
$32 billion in unemployment fraud that occurred on your watch 
in California?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much for that, 
Congressman. I certainly know that I and many of my colleagues 
and others who sat in the same position that I did when--the 
pandemic hit, wish that we had had a system that was capable of 
meeting the need.
    That is why in the time that I have been deputy secretary, 
I have been really focused on helping to support states----
    Mr. Kiley. Okay, but I am sorry. I have just got to stop 
you because I--let us focus on the question as asked, Okay? Do 
you accept any responsibility for the unemployment fraud that 
occurred in California, yes or no?
    Acting Secretary Su. I think that an unemployment insurance 
system that truly delivers in times of crisis should be the 
goal of everybody, and California's system, like all the 
systems across the country----
    Mr. Kiley. Do you accept any responsibility for the 
unemployment fraud that occurred in California?
    Acting Secretary Su. Let me answer this this way 
Congressman, just so we are--we are clear about exactly what 
happened. Over 95 percent of the fraud that occurred in 
California, but this is consistent with the rest of the 
country, occurred in a program called Pandemic Unemployment 
Assistance.
    Mr. Kiley. I understand all that, and I will stipulate that 
there were things that were beyond your control. What I am 
asking you is do you accept any responsibility for the 
unemployment fraud that occurred in California?
    Acting Secretary Su. Let me just say what the State auditor 
said, right? The State auditor said that the reason for the 
fraud that occurred in that program was two things.
    One is the completely unprecedented spike in claims, and 
the second was that the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance 
program, in its design, did not have the same safeguards that 
unemployment insurance has, right? It was designed for a group 
of individuals who were not eligible for unemployment.
    Mr. Kiley. Okay. You are quoting the State audit report. I 
happen to have right here the State audit report. ``Despite 
repeated warnings, EDD did not bolster its fraud detection 
efforts until months into the pandemic.''
    Now you in your testimony in the Senate, you said that ``as 
soon as we knew that there was fraud happening, I shut the 
front door to that fraud.'' That is what you said. That was 
your testimony. ``As soon as we knew that there was fraud 
happening, I shut the front door to that fraud.''
    You said, ``I made changes to the program that would ensure 
people wouldn't get in the front door,'' and yet the very 
independent audit report that you just cited says exactly the 
opposite. How do you reconcile those two things?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congressman. I am not sure. 
There were two reports. What you said that--what you quoted me 
as saying, I was talking about one of the things that was built 
into the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance was automatic 
backdating. Meaning that whenever somebody applied----
    Mr. Kiley. I am aware that you made changes to automatic 
backdating. I am saying is this audit report wrong, that 
despite repeated warnings, EDD did not bolster its fraud 
detection efforts under your leadership.
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, so what I said that I shut the 
front door, it is because we stopped in California the 
automatic backdating that meant that somebody who applied in 
August----
    Mr. Kiley. I understand the automatic, but I am not asking 
about that.
    Acting Secretary Su. Okay.
    Mr. Kiley. We have another statement here from Cottie 
Petrie-Norris, who is the Democrat who chaired the Assembly 
Accountability and Administrative Review Committee.
    She said that there were simple and obvious steps that are 
implemented across the country that you did not implement, and 
she said that you in particular ``have not done a good job at 
running the Employment Development Department, and as a result 
has wasted billions of dollars and more importantly caused 
heartache for millions of Californians.''
    Was Democrat Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris wrong about 
that?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, to be clear Congressman, I did 
not run the EDD. I was the Labor Secretary in California. 
Several agencies fell under my purview, and I did take 
responsibility for our need. There were desperate Californians 
who were very hard-hit by closures, by the loss of their jobs, 
and relied on unemployment insurance but also on Pandemic 
Unemployment Assistance----
    Mr. Kiley. You do take some responsibility for the fraud?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, I----
    Mr. Kiley. You do. What would you have done differently if 
you could do it----
    Acting Secretary Su. I take responsibility for the fact 
that the system did not deliver in ways that we would have 
hoped that delivered. The fraud, as the auditor found, was a 
result of an unprecedented spike in claims and the design of 
the program.
    Now, I am not criticizing, actually. I do think that any 
kind of fraud, abuse, there is no place in the system for any 
of that. The fact that that occurred led to steps that we had 
to take to shut down fraud, which also caused delays in 
eligible individuals getting their claims. It was a perfect 
storm----
    Mr. Kiley. Yes. Is there anything that you might have done 
differently that would have prevented this fraud?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, that is why in the time that I 
have been in this role now, I have been very focused on trying 
to help create a system that is going to work in the next 
crisis.
    Mr. Kiley. I am glad to hear that. Looking back at what 
happened in California, $32 billion, a huge sum of money that 
we lost. We are still paying the price for that. Is there 
anything that you would have done differently as Secretary to 
stop that from happening?
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean, again, I do--the system needed 
to work when people needed it, right, and there were people who 
got the benefits they needed, and it helped them stay in their 
homes. It helped them keep food on the table. It helped to 
support the kind of economic recovery that we are seeing now. 
There were----
    Mr. Kiley. Madam Chair, I am out of time here, but I will 
yield back and just note that we have a nominee here who $32 
billion was lost. The State auditor found that was because of 
the performance of her department, and still cannot tell us one 
thing she would have done differently.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Kiley. Ms. Stevens, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stevens. Ms. Su, it is so great to see you, and I just 
wanted to clarify a couple of things briefly. Under your tenure 
at the Department of Labor as the Deputy Secretary, I am aware 
that 4,600 new registered apprenticeship programs with 11,000 
new employers partnering on or adopting regional 
apprenticeships have occurred.
    You worked with the former Labor Secretary, Marty Walsh, to 
help President Biden accomplish the fastest jobs recovery in 
nearly 40 years, a record 13.1 million jobs created since 
President Biden took office, including 800,000 manufacturing 
jobs.
    This is something in my home State of Michigan that we are 
feeling in our bones. We have got record low unemployment, and 
so Madam, I would like to salute you and thank you for your 
leadership of a very critical agency during an unbelievable, 
unprecedented time in our Nation's history.
    Now thinking about this unemployment issue, insurance fraud 
issue in California, the first is that the pandemic era fraud 
was obviously widespread. You can compare rates across a 
multitude of states, from Rhode Island, Nevada, New York, 
Tennessee, South Carolina, and Massachusetts.
    The second is that California is a huge State, right, and 
we can fit multiple states within California west of the 
Mississippi. We get how this country was created, and it 
processed one in five of all unemployment claims in the entire 
country, is that right Ms. Su?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Thank you so much for that, 
Congresswoman. We did have, because it is a large State, about 
one in five claims in the entire country. Even having that, the 
fraud rate in our system was less than that of about a dozen 
states. That is because of measures that we took to stop the 
fraud when we saw that it was happening.
    Ms. Stevens. Is it true that 95 to 98 percent of the fraud 
in California was not from the regular unemployment insurance 
program that you administered, but actually from the 
specifically created Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program, 
and that subsequent audits prove this to be the case?
    Acting Secretary Su. That is absolutely true, 
Congresswoman.
    Ms. Stevens. Is it true that the California State auditor 
did not find that any directives or decisions that you made 
contributed to the fraud that attacked California's 
unemployment system?
    Acting Secretary Su. That is true too, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Stevens. To be clear, Congress created that program. It 
was bipartisan for the new members in the room. The country was 
dealing with an unprecedented virus. It was unanimous consent. 
It was put forward by a president who is currently under 
indictment I believe, or soon to be, and so it was created by 
the CARES Act.
    He signed it, and Acting Secretary Su, is it also true that 
California, when measured by timely payment of benefits to 
eligible individuals, actually getting benefits to people who 
needed them and should have received them. A study by the 
Century Foundation found that California was second in the 
Nation in doing this.
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman. That is 
true.
    Ms. Stevens. Yes. Well just to clarify for the record 
because we lived through a whopper with COVID-19, and what has 
happened is that under President Biden, an Inflation Reduction 
Act, a CHIPS and Science law, an infrastructure law, people are 
back to work.
    We have spent some money. We have seen $400 billion of 
capital contributions coming as a result. We are training at 
record speed. I am from the State with the largest number of 
first robotic teams. I cannot wait to bring you, when you get 
confirmed, to see these robotics teams, because as the founder 
of the bipartisan Women in STEM Caucus, bipartisan, you know, 
leadership at the top matters.
    Julie Su's leadership matters. It is going to matter a lot 
to my district in Oakland County that is innovating, 
manufacturing and leading the way through a multitude of 
transformations in our automotive sector.
    I really want to thank you for being here today. I want to 
thank you for what you have already accomplished at the 
Department of Labor, and I cannot wait to see what is next. 
Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Kiley. Mr. Moran is recognized.
    Mr. Moran. Acting Secretary Su, you just heard one of my 
colleagues say that leadership matters. Accountability and 
transparency is a large part of leadership, would you agree 
with that?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes.
    Mr. Moran. As a leader in your organization, you have to 
meet with your subordinates and you have to meet with those 
that you oversee and supervise to ask tough questions 
sometimes, and to get direct answers, is that true?
    Acting Secretary Su. That is true.
    Mr. Moran. When you ask direct, hard questions of those 
that you oversee, do you expect to give, to get clear and 
precise answers in return?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes.
    Mr. Moran. There is benefit to that. When you ask those 
tough questions, you need to hear the answers to that, whether 
or not those answers are tough to give or not, is that true?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes.
    Mr. Moran. Would you agree with us--with me today that this 
Committee has oversight responsibility over the functions that 
you perform?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes.
    Mr. Moran. That we are acting on behalf of the citizens of 
America to ask those tough questions sometimes, is that true?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, Congressman, yes.
    Mr. Moran. I am curious. Why have you worked so hard today 
to avoid giving direct answers to the tough questions of this 
Committee?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, thank you Congressman. I am 
certainly not trying to avoid answering questions. I do think 
that both, when I ask questions of my staff and when you ask 
questions here, I expect people to give me a context so that I 
can understand with accuracy what the--what the answer is.
    Mr. Moran. Are you saying that Mr. Kiley's questions 
earlier were out of context or were not clear to you? I have 
heard a number of my colleagues ask a lot of questions today, 
and you have artfully avoided answering most of them on this 
side of the aisle?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, Congressman, I am sorry that it 
appears that way. I do think that you, your oversight role is 
important, and I think that answering questions is important. I 
am doing my very best to do that. I do not think every answer 
gives rise to a yes or no, or every question gives rise to a 
yes or no answer
    Mr. Moran. Do you commit even for the remainder of this 
hearing to give good, direct answers to tough questions? Do I 
hear you say that?
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean I have been trying to do that 
the whole time I have been sitting here, Congressman.
    Mr. Moran. Do you make that commitment?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, of course. I will continue to do 
that.
    Mr. Moran. All right. Then with that commitment, I am going 
to turn over the balance of my time to Mr. Kiley from 
California, and I expect that you are going to live up to that. 
Mr. Kiley.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, thank you.
    Mr. Kiley. Well, now that we have that commitment, maybe I 
will try again. Did you vote for Prop 22 in California, yes or 
no.
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, I am sitting here before 
you today to talk about the Department of Labor and our work at 
the Department of Labor. You are asking me about a vote I took 
at a time where we have secret ballot votes in this country. I 
am not trying to say that I, one way or the other.
    I am just saying we are here to talk about jobs. I offered 
a little while ago to say I am happy and eager to work with you 
on the many issues that you raise that you say Californians 
continue to face.
    Mr. Kiley. Well, excuse me, Acting Secretary Su.
    Acting Secretary Su. Okay.
    Mr. Kiley. This is an oversight hearing, so I think we can 
judge what issues are relevant to our oversight function, and 
you just committed to my colleague that you would give yes or 
no answers. Then you refused the clearest yes or no question 
you could possibly give an answer to. Do you want to try one 
more time?
    Acting Secretary Su. Wait. I just--I really am not trying 
to avoid it.
    Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, point of order. You have asked 
that question at least three to four times.
    Mr. Kiley. All right, I will move on.
    Acting Secretary Su. I also just want to clarify because I 
am a person my word. I did not say you would always get yes or 
no questions. What I said explicitly about that is not every 
question is a yes or no question. I am going to give you the 
most accurate answers that I can, and I have been endeavoring 
to do that for as long as we have been sitting here today----
    Mr. Kiley. Let us go back to the issue of the joint 
employer rule.
    Acting Secretary Su. Okay.
    Mr. Kiley. You said it is not on your agenda right now, 
right?
    Acting Secretary Su. That is correct.
    Mr. Kiley. Are you not planning on doing any changes of the 
joint employer rule during your tenure as Secretary of Labor?
    Acting Secretary Su. I pledge to follow all of the rules of 
the Department of Labor, of this body, of oversight. We will 
not do a rule that we--that we are not clear--and we have not 
followed the rules to do. I said at the very beginning we are 
deliberative when it comes to rulemaking. We engage 
stakeholders----
    Mr. Kiley. Okay, I did not ask about engagement with 
stakeholders or anything like that. What I asked were you 
planning to do any changes to the joint employer rule, yes or 
no?
    Acting Secretary Su. We do not have a plan to do that. It 
is not on our agenda.
    Mr. Kiley. Can you commit to not making any changes to the 
joint employer rule as Secretary of Labor?
    Acting Secretary Su. Well, this is why what I am saying is 
that I commit to following all of the rules of rulemaking. 
Everything that we are required to do, I pledge to you that we 
will do under my leadership, under my tenure at the Department 
of Labor. I cannot sit here at this moment and tell you with 
certainty everything that is going to happen, but I will follow 
every single process.
    Mr. Kiley. Sure, Okay. You were also asked by Mr. Banks 
about the child labor crisis that we are seeing, and at your 
confirmation hearing, Senator Romney brought this up as well, a 
70 percent increase. He asked you, was that communicated to the 
White House prior to this year? Is that something that you have 
communicated to them, that this is a major, major problem?
    Your answer was I do not know the answer to that question. 
You said you did not know whether that had been communicated to 
the White House, what a problem this child labor crisis was. Do 
you remember now whether you communicated that to the White 
House prior to this year?
    Acting Secretary Su. Did you say, ``prior to this year''?
    Mr. Kiley. Correct.
    Acting Secretary Su. I do not know. I do not know. I will 
say that we have--there is an interagency task force that the 
White House put together and put the Department of Labor in 
charge of. I am proud to play that role. It is a really 
important role. We are in conversations about how to address 
the scourge of exploitative child labor in this country.
    Mr. Kiley. Thank you. It just seems like something very 
important that you might have wanted to let the White House 
know about. Mister, sorry, Congresswoman Fernandez is 
recognized. Leger Fernandez, I am sorry.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so much, and you know, I 
really do want to emphasize this point of the manner in which 
President Biden, the Democratic Caucus, and even going back to 
the CARES Act, as you pointed out in a bipartisan manner, have 
worked so hard to create so many jobs.
    We are so proud of it, because in New Mexico, we have some 
of the lowest unemployment in history, and that is the case 
across the country.
    The other really important piece of it is not just have we 
created jobs, but have we stood with workers, because it has 
also the quality of those jobs and whether the workers are 
going to be able to receive the benefits, the overtime, and 
those things that are key, so that they can also prosper.
    There is a difference about when you stand with the wealthy 
or when you stand with the corporations, versus are you 
standing with the workers. In many ways, it sounds to me like 
when you are looking at the independent contractor issue, it is 
about who are you going to stand with, the workers or the 
corporations.
    In a situation where a worker, a single worker, is trying 
to make sure that their rights are protected, who has the power 
in that situation, Acting Secretary Su?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much for that question, 
Congresswoman. I view my role as the Acting Secretary of Labor 
and the Department of Labor's role to make sure that we are 
enforcing the labor laws that have been written and given to us 
to enforce.
    That means that we have to--that we investigate cases, that 
we try to make sure that workers feel safe reporting violations 
to us, so that we can learn about--learn about those 
violations.
    Where we find them, we will enforce the law, including 
issuing citations and penalties to employers where appropriate.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right. In some sense, the Department 
of Labor is there to serve as backstop, because individual 
workers who might be stiffed for their overtime, who might be 
placed in an independent contractor position, they need 
somebody to be on their side. In that sense, the Department of 
Labor should be on their side.
    There has been a lot of questions around AB5. Acting 
Secretary Su, yes or no, does the proposed rule try to 
implement California's ABC test as enacted in AB5?
    Acting Secretary Su. It does not, Congresswoman, and it 
explicitly says that we cannot, we will not. That is not the 
law of the land.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Right, because we are seeking to have 
you be Secretary of the United States Department of Labor. From 
what I understand though, the proposed rule was so reasonable 
that hardly anyone had much criticism about it, even groups 
that voiced concerns in the past. Acting Secretary Su, yes or 
no, is it true that the Department of Labor has already stated 
that it does not have the authority under the FLSA to implement 
the ABC test absent an act of Congress?
    Acting Secretary Su. That is true, Congresswoman, yes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Yes or no, do you believe in 
separation of powers and that the Department of Labor does not 
pass laws and instead only implements rules that are consistent 
with the laws Congress passed?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, Congresswoman. I have stated that 
here, and yes, I believe in separation of powers.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. You know, we have heard all of this 
fear-mongering about what you do and how you voted around AB5. 
What we are talking about here is the United States Department 
of Labor. What you did, you did live in California. Acting 
Secretary Su, did you serve in the California State 
Legislature?
    Acting Secretary Su. I did not, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Who actually passed AB5 in California?
    Acting Secretary Su. It was the California legislature.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Where were you when the State law was 
passed?
    Acting Secretary Su. I was the Secretary of Labor in 
California.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. As Secretary of Labor, what was your 
job and your requirement to do once the legislature passed that 
law?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. I 
oversaw agencies, including those that were charged with 
enforcing laws that were passed by the legislature. Our job, 
both as Labor Secretary in California and the agencies I 
oversaw was to enforce the law.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. We should be asking you now, and which 
I think you have already said, is similarly to the manner in 
which you honored your obligation and oath to the constitution 
in California to carry out the laws. Are you committed to carry 
out the laws and honor and obligation and oath to the 
Constitution, to carry out the United States laws regarding 
labor?
    Acting Secretary Su. 100 percent yes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you so very much for your 
dedication and your service. This is really an act of love, 
because it requires so much, and you have taken a lot, and been 
so gracious and diplomatic in answering the questions today. I 
thank you, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Good, 
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Good. Thank you, Madam, Chairman, and thank you Acting 
Secretary. Acting Secretary, do you think that employees should 
be able to exercise their religious freedoms at work?
    Acting Secretary Su. I do believe in religious freedoms, 
yes Congressman.
    Mr. Good. What--therefore, what limits would you place on 
their First Amendment right to exercise their religious freedom 
at work, employees?
    Acting Secretary Su. Okay. Congressman, you are asking me 
some things that are really outside my area of expertise. I do 
believe in religious freedom. I think that is an important----
    Mr. Good. You would not place any limits on employees' 
right to exercise their religious freedom at work, their First 
Amendment protected religious freedom at work?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, I do not know if you are 
asking about something specific the Department of Labor has 
done.
    Mr. Good. Well, I would like to know if you would put any 
limits on an employee's right to practice religious freedom at 
work as protected by the First Amendment.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congressman. I think if you 
are referring to a rule of our agency under the Office of 
Federal Contractor Compliance Programs, what we did there was--
--
    Mr. Good. Let me just pause you. Do you think that 
religious or faith-based organizations should be able to 
operate according to their sincerely held religious beliefs?
    Acting Secretary Su. Let me answer it this way, 
Congressman. The Department is committed to protecting 
religious freedom on behalf of all Americans, and no one should 
have to choose between earning a living and practicing their 
religious faith.
    Mr. Good. Good to hear that. What limits would you place on 
the rights of a faith-based organization to practice their 
First Amendment rights and religious freedom?
    Acting Secretary Su. Again, I think you are asking about 
OFCCP--and we----
    Mr. Good. Yes. Since you have referenced it, Department 
of--the new rule that came out that weakened the Trump 
administration's rule on protecting organization's rights as it 
applies to hiring in specific, is obviously what we are 
referencing to, as you are aware of.
    Do you think that employers' First Amendment rights to free 
exercise applies to the ability to hire for a faith-based 
organization?
    Acting Secretary Su. Right, thank you. Thank you, 
Congressman. The religious exemption is still in place. What we 
did in rescinding a rule of the prior administration was 
restore OFCCP's longstanding practice, which is related to the 
test for religious exemption from--for religious exemption.
    Mr. Good. Well, there is--excuse me. There is already law 
in place that prohibits discrimination obviously, legally 
prohibits discrimination. However, a faith-based organization 
should have the right to--or does have the right to go ahead 
and practice their faith-based, their sincerely held religious 
beliefs.
    What your rule has done is try to make it easier for them 
to be sued on the basis of hiring if the hiring would 
compromise their deeply held religious beliefs. Do you think 
that again, employers' First Amendment right to free exercise 
applies to the ability to hire?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congressman. The religious 
exemption is still in place. Our agency is charged with 
enforcing authority to protect workers from discrimination, and 
we will faithfully apply the law on both of those, in both of 
those areas.
    Mr. Good. All right. DOL recently, and I would say 
egregiously, rescinded a rule that impacts the ability of 
religious organizations to participate in Federal contracts, 
unless they are willing to violate those deeply held religious 
beliefs that again are protected.
    What assurances can you give that you will protect 
religious freedom, including again the First Amendment rights 
of religious organizations that bid on Federal contracts?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Thank you, yes. Our--the 
religious exemption is still in place. I want to be very clear 
about that.
    Mr. Good. Let us move on to something that you--you wrote 
an article in the Seattle Journal for Social Injustice in which 
you said, ``The very definition of a corporation is an entity 
that is created to permit maximum income and designed to 
insulate individuals who would profit from liability from the 
acts of that entity seems to promote and perpetuate economic 
injustice.''
    So essentially, you are saying that all the companies of 
which you have enforcement authority are instruments of 
economic injustice. Do you believe that?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much, Congressman. I 
think that--I think that was a transcript from a speech maybe 
and without broader context. I will say that I have and will 
continue to and have for many decades worked with corporations 
of all sizes----
    Mr. Good. Do you believe that companies are inherently 
unjust, corporations----
    Acting Secretary Su. No, I do not believe that.
    Mr. Good. Okay. How would you characterize your view of a 
corporation today then, if it is not unjust based on what you 
said or what you wrote?
    Acting Secretary Su. I think that corporations play an 
important role. I think that corporations to the extent--again, 
if you were to talk about what the Department of Labor does, 
they can be job creators, right? They can be small businesses; 
they can be large businesses and----
    Mr. Good. Let me stop you. I want to read something that 
you said. You said that ``Latino workers view Asians generally 
not as friends or even strangers but as enemies, the very 
source of their daily subjugation.'' What did you mean by that?
    Let me say it again. ``Latino workers view Asians generally 
not as friends or even strangers but as enemies, the very 
source of their daily subjugation.''
    Acting Secretary Su. There is a--so----
    Mr. Good. Do you think that Latino workers view Asians as 
their enemies and the source of their daily subjugation?
    Acting Secretary Su. I think, and I am going to do my best 
here with that Congressman, I think that was something from a 
while ago.
    Mr. Good. I would like to know if you believe that. Do you 
believe that Asians generally in quote, that ``Latino workers 
view Asians generally not as friends or even strangers but as 
enemies, the very source of their daily subjugation.'' Do you 
believe that Asians are subjugating Latino workers?
    Acting Secretary Su. I believe what I was talking about, 
Congressman, is when I was--this was long before I came into 
government. This was when I worked in a non-profit organization 
representing workers. I was describing the very real 
experience----
    Mr. Good. You do not believe that?
    Acting Secretary Su. I do not believe it as a general 
matter, but in the context of the experience I was talking 
about----
    Mr. Good. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you, Madam 
Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. I would encourage you to answer Mr. Good's 
question in writing. Thank you very much. Mr. Scott. Oh sorry. 
Mr. Mrvan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Mrvan. Thank you, Chairman, Chairwoman. Acting 
Secretary Su, how are you today?
    Acting Secretary Su. Good, good to see you.
    Mr. Mrvan. I want to thank you for coming to northwest 
Indiana to my district. That experience was where we were able 
to join the First Lady, Jill Biden, who came to a community 
college. It was because of the investment of the 
administration, specifically in infrastructure and renewable 
energies, that students were able to participate and be able to 
create a future for themselves.
    I wanted to give you an opportunity to talk to us about how 
the Department of Labor and the administration is investing in 
21st century jobs and again, thank you for joining us, and if 
you could share that with me, I would greatly appreciate it.
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, thank you so much, and 
thank you for your hospitality on that trip. We were there, as 
you said, with the First Lady visiting Ivy Tech Community 
College, which is one of the examples of how an effective 
workforce system combines the resources of a community to 
connect employers with jobs and the need for skilled workers to 
education institutions, to--these were, many of them union 
jobs, to an actual training program that pulls from the 
community, including in a very intentional way, people who are 
normally left out of good jobs if we do not think holistically 
about how we--who we recruit and who we train.
    That is a model for what we have been doing since I have 
been at the Department of Labor, and something that the 
Department of Labor would be committed to if I am confirmed as 
Secretary, which is to really align all the pieces of the 
system to meet employer needs and to meet the desire of 
jobseekers and people who are in the labor market seeking to 
upscale for these jobs.
    It was a fantastic demonstration also of how jobs in 
advanced manufacturing, like some of the new clean energy work 
that is being developed, is actually creating multiple 
opportunities, not just for the things, not just for 
semiconductor chips, not just for things that get created, but 
for actual people to find their way into the middle class.
    Mr. Mrvan. Okay, and I just want to take a minute and talk 
a little bit about, in the very beginning of the opening of the 
meeting, it was mentioned about the administration and unions. 
This is the strongest administration for union labor and the 
middle class, uplifting the middle class that we have seen in 
history. That is probably why it is being attacked.
    When we go forward, I think it is important for us to 
realize that union jobs and union wages lift up all wages 
throughout every community. In my district in northwest 
Indiana, it is vitally important. When the administration 
invests in the Infrastructure bill and the CHIPS and Science 
Act, and there are components to it that include union labor, 
that is lifting up America and the middle class.
    That is why I am here in Congress, and hopefully that is 
why the administration keeps fighting for those middle-class 
jobs and keeps fighting to make sure that we are providing a 
pathway for good wages, safe work environments, health 
insurance, and good pensions.
    If we continue to do that, I think America will be better 
for it. I know my district will be. I ask you to keep fighting 
for all workers, but to keep in mind that union labor lifts all 
wages and lifts all boats, and I truly believe that, and I 
thank you for your commitment.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you.
    Mr. Mrvan. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you very much. I now recognize Mr. 
James for 5 minutes.
    Mr. James. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Madam Acting 
Secretary, thank you for being here today. I am sure that these 
proceedings are a bit exhausting. I was a pilot in the Army, 
and I remember my oral examinations. I appreciate you being 
here.
    I have some very important questions from my district. 
Franchising is one of the surest ways for Americans to achieve 
the American dream. As a walking recipient and result of the 
American dream, my father came up from the Jim Crow South with 
a truck, a trailer, and no excuses.
    He was able to achieve something he did not even think was 
possible. He was able to pass a very profitable automotive 
logistics business to his family now, and through franchising. 
Many folks in my district and around the country are able to 
achieve a better future for themselves and for their families.
    There is growing concern that one of my new neighbors, 
among one of my new neighbors in Shelby Township, a franchise 
owner, based upon what she is hearing, it appears the joint 
employer policies coming from the DOL and the Biden 
administration as a whole will disrupt not just her business 
model, but the franchising business model, that pathway to 
prosperity for so many Americans will be disrupted.
    She asked me to tell you and relay to the Biden 
administration that she has the right to fully own and run her 
business. She has mortgaged and sacrificed for it, and she 
needs your help in protecting that American dream. Those 
policies run contrary to that.
    If these policies are enacted, specific to joint employer 
policies, she fears that her business will be shut down, or 
that she will cede her operational control to the Federal 
Government. We all understand exactly what ceding business and 
the modes of production to the Federal Government means.
    I would like to know, so I can tell her, why does it seem 
so often that the administration is adversarial to businesses, 
the DOL in particular, through policies that cast entrepreneurs 
aside?
    Acting Secretary Su. Congressman, thank you so much for 
that question. I think you can tell her that for me, my family 
also owned a franchisee business. My parents went from--my dad 
flipped burgers as a new immigrant. He exchanged coins in a 
casino when that was actually still a job to do, right, bills 
for coins. My mom worked temp jobs. My parents owned a 
franchisee business too, and just as you described, it helped 
them to move from insecurity to security.
    It was the reason why my parents were able to pay for both 
my sister and me to go to college. I believe in----
    Mr. James. That is wonderful. Given your background, your 
personal family experience, do you agree that franchise owners 
are small businesses?
    Acting Secretary Su. Absolutely, they can be. I mean many 
of them are, yes.
    Mr. James. Outstanding, and so given your personal 
experience, can you commit to not--no more additional 
rulemaking on joint employment?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you, Congressman. I also really 
appreciate the opportunity to have a discussion about these 
issues, because sometimes I think we talk past each other about 
things. I do not--there is no rule about joint employer on the 
Department of Labor's agenda at all.
    Mr. James. That is a commitment to no additional rulemaking 
on joint employment?
    Acting Secretary Su. There is nothing on our agenda to do a 
joint employer rule.
    Mr. James. Things change, things change.
    Acting Secretary Su. I sit----
    Mr. James. Can I have your commitment, given your family's 
background and your personal experience and the fact that small 
business owners are the pathway to the American dream, can I 
have your commitment today?
    Acting Secretary Su. You have my commitment to continue to 
work closely with small businesses, to make sure that what we 
are doing honors their struggle, honors their work. I am not 
answering that question directly, only because I think it is--
whatever we do, it is inappropriate for me to say with 
certainty. There are lots of things that----
    Mr. James. I think a commitment to the American dream is 
worthy of a direct answer, given your family's experience. Just 
the additional rulemaking. If I can take that back to her, a 
further commitment. You have already said that you are--it is 
not on the agenda.
    If we can continue that forward, that would be great for 
folks, entrepreneurs and franchisees, all over the country who 
are depending on this business model to succeed.
    Acting Secretary Su. I mean, Congressman, let me say it 
this way. I do not have plans to do that. If I did, I would 
have put it on the agenda. There is nothing on our agenda that 
would suggest that we are going to do a joint employer rule. 
What may be causing confusion and what I think has been 
clarified here, is that there are other agencies that are 
pursuing such rules that are not affiliated with----
    Mr. James. I think the fear comes is once you are 
confirmed, there have been very little that the Federal 
Government has done to engender trust amongst the America 
people. I was looking for a confirmation that you would at 
least leave that one alone, so we can have some sort of 
stability as folks try to achieve the American dream. It looks 
like we do not have that commitment, and we will have to circle 
back later. Thank you for your time, Madam Acting Secretary.
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. James. Ms. Letlow, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Letlow. Thank you, Chairwoman, and thank you Acting 
Secretary for taking the time to be before this Committee. It 
is important that Congress and this administration continue to 
invest in rural communities such as my district. I serve 24 
parishes and create opportunities to help these areas flourish 
and grow.
    Organizations in my district have benefited from the Labor 
Department programs like YouthBuild. Since 2001, Northshore 
Technical Community College in Bogalusa, Louisiana has hosted a 
highly successful YouthBuild Program in a rural impoverished 
area, and I am told that this program has an impressive degree 
or certificate completion rate of 96 percent.
    That is above the average post-program placement rate, with 
many students choosing to go on to attend Northshore Community 
College to further their education.
    Unfortunately, this Department did not award Bogalusa's 
program in the latest YouthBuild grant competition, and it is 
my understanding that this Department instead prioritized 
awarding grants to a number of new applicants, while many long-
standing, successful programs were shut out.
    I am extremely disappointed with this outcome, as are my 
constituents. Some of the feedback that the Department provided 
on Northshore's application is that it did not do enough to 
promote green jobs, ensure post-program employment, will allow 
students the opportunity to collectively bargain and form or 
join a union, and increase equity in apprenticeships for people 
of color and women.
    This is an odd conclusion because I am told that at least 
half of the Bogalusa program's participants are minorities and 
women. Acting Secretary, why did the Department start pushing 
its own agenda items over the original intent of the program, 
which is providing education, workforce development and life 
and leadership skills for out of school youth, and why did the 
Department not prioritize proven performance metrics of 
successful, long-standing programs just like the one in 
Bogalusa?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much for that question, 
Congresswoman. I will say that in general, the things that you 
said, they are consistent with how I view the need to--should 
support programs that actually prepare people in communities 
that--including rural communities--where they might not always 
enjoy the investments or, you know, understand that like 
government is there to also support them.
    I agree that we should use data-driven, proven models. I do 
not have the specifics on the specific--on the issue that you 
are asking about. I do know that we have workforce 
opportunities in rural communities grant, different from 
YouthBuild, but to invest in rural communities specifically, 
recognizing that there are specific needs that some of those 
needs have not always been met, and would be happy to make sure 
that you and your constituents are aware of other grant 
programs that we have.
    I am sorry. I do not have the details on exactly what, what 
the decision was in the program that you are talking about.
    Ms. Letlow. I would love to hear your details about it, 
because that was the feedback that we received, that it was 
about not being able to join a union or green initiatives. This 
YouthBuild program has been incredibly beneficial for my 
district since 2001. It is devastating that they were denied 
this year.
    I want to switch gears. The change in H-2A adverse effect 
wage rate methodology will tremendously increase the wage rate 
for H-2A workers in certain job classifications. I believe this 
is probably the most detrimental rule that has hit Louisiana 
agriculture in recent years and has created a firestorm 
throughout U.S. agriculture.
    For example, in Louisiana H-2A workers who drive sugar cane 
trucks from the field to the sugar mill will have the wage rate 
change from $13.67 to $22.60 per hour. That is almost a 9-hour 
increase in 1 year. The impact on Louisiana sugar cane harvest 
drivers alone will cost sugar cane farmers in my State an 
additional $37 million in additional wages.
    The impact is not specific to sugar. The impact is this 
severe to many other commodities in my district and across the 
Nation. I must insist, the estimated impact of the March 30th, 
2023, H-2A wage rule of 100 million has been grossly 
underestimated and will cause a severe hardship for the U.S. 
agriculture industry.
    Acting Secretary, can you tell me if the Department 
solicited meaningful input from the agriculture industry prior 
to promulgating the rule?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you so much for that question, 
Congresswoman. As you are referring to, right, the H2A program, 
one of its components is to make sure that there is not an 
adverse effect on U.S. workers by using the program, and that 
is what the adverse effect wage rate that you are talking about 
refers to.
    As I have said, as a Department we are very, very 
deliberative in the creation of any rules, and we do engage 
with stakeholders, with interested parties, to fully understand 
the impact of our rules, to make sure that we are taking 
account the multiple perspectives and impacts, and to make sure 
that we get it right.
    Ms. Letlow. Right. Your claim to have the industry input 
based off a survey, but every indication shows that there was 
low participation in the said survey. If you ask my 
constituents, you would have clearly known about these enormous 
increases in operating costs that are putting farmers out of 
business in Louisiana.
    Can you tell me how many agricultural producers in 
Louisiana's 5th congressional District answered this survey or 
provided feedback to you about this rule?
    Chairwoman Foxx. Ms. Letlow, we are going to have to let 
the Acting Secretary submit her answers to you in writing. All 
of us would like to know the answer to that question. Thank 
you. I recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ms. Su, your life 
story is an inspiration to some of us, apparently not all. At 
the announcement of your nomination, it was mentioned that your 
mother came from China on a cargo ship, because she could not 
afford the fare, and later in her life, she talked to the 
President of the United States, who said that her daughter was 
going to be nominated as the Secretary of the United States 
Department of Labor.
    I mean the career in between certainly is an inspiration, 
and you maintained your composure and decorum while many spent 
their time to explain what they would do as senators, which 
they are not, or challenge you on what you have done to hurt 
job production, even after the administration that you belong 
to, created more jobs in 28 months than any Presidential 
administration has been able to do in a 4-year term.
    They attacked your credit, they attacked your character, 
but not the record number of jobs you have created. Let me just 
say, get a word in about the independent contractor. A lot has 
been said about how it hurts independent contractors. I think 
you mentioned that if you are misclassified as an independent 
contractor rather than an employee, you miss out on 
unemployment compensation, worker's compensation.
    You miss out on minimum wage and overtime. You miss out on 
the employer contribution for Social Security, you miss out on 
health and pension benefits that other employees get. The 
employee has a lot of disadvantage in being misclassified, but 
the employer also benefits with the misclassification because 
they do not have to pay the Social Security tax, and they save 
a lot of money on the others, giving unfair competition to 
those that compete fairly and classify people fairly.
    You talked about the joint employment rule. The only thing 
that the franchisees have to--the franchisees are not hurt by 
any proposed joint employment rule. It is the franchisor, who 
may be held responsible for what they have done, that escape 
through lax joint employment rules.
    Although that is not on your agenda, I think that should be 
clarified. Could you say a word about why you need more money 
for OSHA inspections?
    Acting Secretary Su. Thank you very much for that question, 
Ranking Member Scott. Our OSHA does workplace investigations to 
ensure that workplaces are safe and healthy, and that every 
worker who goes to work at the beginning of the day returns 
home.
    In 2021, there were over 5,000 working people who lost 
their lives on the job, and at least two million who had work-
related non-fatal injuries. These are entirely preventable, and 
we should be doing everything we can to make sure that workers 
do not have to work under unsafe conditions, that a worker 
working on a roof----
    Mr. Scott. If you get your--if you get the allocation you 
have requested, you would be able to investigate--you would be 
able to visit each business what, once in every 100 years?
    Acting Secretary Su. Right. OSHA's----
    Mr. Scott. If you get the increased allocation, can you say 
a word about what you are doing for youth employment, 
particularly disconnected youth?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes, thank you so much for that 
question too, Ranking Member Scott. As we have talked about 
here today, young people have tremendous potential to benefit 
from the robust economic recovery that we have had, and the 
fact that a large number of jobs that are going to be created 
will not require a college degree.
    We have investments in youth across our workforce system, 
everything from apprenticeship programs and pre-apprenticeship 
programs to WIOAfunded youth programs, that are going to make 
sure that young people understand that in this historic moment, 
we want them also to be able to benefit.
    Mr. Scott. A comment was made about discrimination, 
religious discrimination in Federal employment. Some employers 
want to be able to discriminate and have a policy of not hiring 
people of certain religions, and still get a Federal contract. 
I would hope you do everything you could to avoid that, and 
could you say just a word about why it's important to increase 
sanctions for unfair labor practices?
    Acting Secretary Su. Yes. Thank you so much for that 
question, too. We have talked about child labor here today. 
What we are seeing in situations where you have really 
egregious exploitation of young people, that the penalties that 
we were able to assess in that particular case had over 100 
young people, 13 to 17 years old, was about $1.5 million.
    It was now widely considered not to have been enough to 
deter those violations, and so we are happy to be working with, 
you know, to respond to requests for technical assistance from 
Congress about, about what increased penalties might look like.
    Mr. Scott. Unfair labor practices in organizing?
    Acting Secretary Su. Right. That is within the purview of 
the National Labor Relations Board, which is a separate body 
from the Department of Labor. We do not have rules about that 
particular issue.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam, Chair, and thank you so much 
for your testimony. Madam Chair, can I introduce for the 
record, several comments have been made about the youth, the 
child labor, as you will note, we sent a letter to you a few 
days ago, to schedule a hearing on child labor abuses. I was 
delighted to see my colleague from Indiana mention this as an 
issue, so maybe we could work together to get a hearing on 
that.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Do you wish to enter the letter into the 
record?
    Mr. Scott. Yes. Again, yes.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Without objections, we will do that.
    [The letters follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    [Pause.]
    Chairwoman Foxx. I would like to again thank our witness 
for taking the time to testify before the Committee today. I 
made several comments asking that you respond to questions when 
people have run out of time, and way over time sometimes. I 
think your staff has probably taken notes, our staff has taken 
notes.
    I would appreciate it very much if we would get timely 
responses to those questions that have been asked, so that we 
do not--we will try to compile something. We appreciate the 
commitments that were made today, which we will certainly 
followup on.
    Without objection, there being no further business, the 
Committee stands adjourned.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [Whereupon at 1:51 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]