U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

54–646 PDF 2010

STRENGTHENING THE ECONOMY AND 

IMPROVING THE LIVES OF AMERICAN WORKERS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND LABOR 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 3, 2010 

Serial No. 111–44 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 

GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Chairman 

Donald M. Payne, New Jersey 

Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Lynn C. Woolsey, California 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio 

David Wu, Oregon 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Mazie Hirono, Hawaii 

Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania 

Phil Hare, Illinois 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Paul Tonko, New York 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Dina Titus, Nevada 

Judy Chu, California 

John Kline, Minnesota, 

Senior Republican Member 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Peter Hoekstra, Michigan 

Michael N. Castle, Delaware 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan 

Judy Biggert, Illinois 

Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

Tom McClintock, California 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director 

Barrett Karr, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 3, 2010 ......................................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Hinojosa, Hon. Reube ́n, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, tri-caucus letter dated January 27, 2010 .................................... 40 

Kline, Hon. John, Senior Republican Member, Committee on Education 

and Labor ...................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6 

Statement of the Associated Builders and Contractors ......................... 44 

Miller, Hon. George, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor ......... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Solis, Hon. Hilda L., Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor .......................... 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13 

Responses to questions submitted ........................................................... 48 

(1) 

STRENGTHENING THE ECONOMY 

AND IMPROVING THE LIVES 

OF AMERICAN WORKERS 

Wednesday, February 3, 2010 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Miller, Kildee, Payne, Scott, Woolsey, 

Hinojosa, McCarthy, Tierney, Kucinich, Wu, Grijalva, Sestak, 

Hirono, Altmire, Hare, Clarke, Shea-Porter, Fudge, Polis, Tonko, 

Pierluisi, Sablan, Titus, Chu, Kline, Petri, Castle, Ehlers, Biggert, 

Wilson, McMorris Rodgers, Price, Guthrie, Cassidy, McClintock, 

Roe, and Thompson. 

Staff present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease Alli, 

Hearing Clerk; Andra Belknap, Press Assistant; Jody Calemine, 

General Counsel; Lynn Dondis, Labor Counsel, Subcommittee on 

Workforce Protections; Carlos Fenwick, Policy Advisor, Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions; Patrick 

Findlay, Investigative Counsel; Denise Forte, Director of Education 

Policy; David Hartzler, Systems Administrator; Ryan Holden, Senior Investigator; Broderick Johnson, Staff Assistant; Gordon Lafer, 

Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Therese Leung, Labor Policy Advisor; 

Sadie Marshall, Chief Clerk; Ricardo Martinez, Policy Advisor, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness; Celine McNicholas, Associate Labor Counsel; Richard 

Miller, Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Megan O’Reilly, Labor Counsel; Rachel Racusen, Communications Director; Meredith Regine, Junior Legislative Associate, 

Labor; James Schroll, Junior Legislative Associate, Labor; Michele 

Varnhagen, Labor Policy Director; Michael Zola, Chief Investigative Counsel; Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director; Kirk Boyle, Minority General Counsel; Casey Buboltz, Minority Coalitions and Member Services Coordinator; Allison Dembeck, Minority Professional 

Staff Member; Ed Gilroy, Minority Director of Workforce Policy; 

Rob Gregg, Minority Senior Legislative Assistant; Richard Hoar, 

Minority Professional Staff Member; Barrett Karr, Minority Staff 

Director; Alexa Marrero, Minority Communications Director; Ryan 

Murphy, Minority Press Secretary; Jim Paretti, Minority Workforce 

Policy Counsel; Molly McLaughlin Salmi, Minority Deputy Director 
2 

of Workforce Policy; Linda Stevens, Minority Chief Clerk/Assistant 

to the General Counsel; and Loren Sweatt, Minority Professional 

Staff Member. 

Chairman MILLER [presiding]. A quorum being present, the committee will come to order for the purposes of conducting the hearing with the Secretary of Labor. 

I am honored today to welcome our former colleague and current 

Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, before our committee to share the 

administration’s priorities for the upcoming year. 

Secretary Solis joins us at a very trying time for America’s workers and families. Our most important job is to get Americans back 

to work and to rebuild our economy. And Secretary Solis has been 

in the forefront of this effort not only to put people back to work, 

but to help train and retrain and develop new career paths for our 

workers and their families. 

The financial scandals have put more than seven million people 

out of work and left millions more wondering whether they will be 

next. In just 1 month, the same month that President Obama was 

inaugurated, 741,000 workers were laid off. This Congress worked 

immediately with President Obama to create a recovery plan to 

save our economy from total devastation and reduced the numbers 

laid off by the end of the year by almost 90 percent. 

The impact of the Recovery Act has been undeniable. Without decisive action, we would have been dealing with greater deficits, at 

least one million more jobs lost, and an economy on the brink. 

Economists from left and right agree on this. 

Since the Recovery Act, we have stemmed the tide of deep layoffs 

and even posted the first positive month of job growth in more than 

2 years. And on Friday we got the news that the economy grew by 

its fastest rate in more than 6 years. 

While this is encouraging, much more work needs to be done. We 

will not rest until millions of Americans still out of work find a job. 

And in an especially difficult economy, a responsive Department of 

Labor is essential to assisting and standing up for workers. 

Long before this crisis, America’s middle class was already feeling squeezed by a decade-long wage stagnation and benefit cuts. 

The sad fact is that the average worker makes less today than they 

did in the 1970s. At the same time, Americans saw the cost of 

housing, education, health care and energy skyrocket. This path is 

unsustainable for our middle class. 

A vibrant and growing middle-class is crucial to our future competitiveness. Thanks to Secretary Solis, the Department of Labor 

is playing a central role in our nation’s economic recovery and laying the groundwork for a stronger middle class. The Obama administration has laid out an ambitious agenda to rebuild the middle 

class, to help create good jobs, to train our workers for careers in 

the future, to protect those workers while on the job, and to improve our nation’s retirement security. 

Madam Secretary, thank you for your leadership in moving the 

president’s agenda. 

This agenda must be ambitious for two simple reasons. First is 

the need for a sustainable recovery. The early evidence is that it 

is becoming apparent that we are moving toward better economic 

news and a growing economy. 
3 

The second reason is to revamp the Department of Labor after 

years of neglect. One critical mission of the department is to protect the health and safety of our nation’s workers. For too long 

OSHA failed to respond to the real dangers that have put American workers in needless peril. Recent enforcement actions by the 

new administration have been a breath of fresh air. Instead of looking the other way, this administration is holding reckless employers accountable for putting their workers in danger. 

The new department also has made strides to protect families’ 

paychecks from unscrupulous employers. The Recovery Act helped 

to fund an additional 250 investigators to ensure compliance with 

our nation’s wage laws and our child labor laws. 

The GAO identified several issues that resulted in the Wage and 

Hour Division in failing to address the serious allegations of wage 

theft that left thousands of victims of wage theft from nowhere to 

turn. In fact, what we saw were employees at the department lying 

to the American public about their ability to recover their wages 

and whether or not employers were still available for that recovery. 

Especially in this economy, every dollar that an employer steals 

from a worker is a dollar a family loses to pay for basic necessities. 

I am eager to hear from Secretary Solis about how she is reinvigorating the wage and hour enforcement. 

The Department of Labor also has been working to unwind a 

number of past initiatives that have diminished workers’ retirement security. The department took its first steps by beginning to 

scrap the special-interest rule that threw the door wide open for financial service companies to provide investment advice to employees where they had a financial interest. The department is tasked 

to safeguard workers’ retirement, not to push policies that pad 

Wall Street’s bottom line. 

By statute the Department of Labor is tasked to foster, promote, 

and to develop the welfare of wage earners of the United States, 

to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment. I see real progress in restoring 

this mission. This is partially the result of having a secretary who 

understands what it means to work for a living. 

Madam Secretary, your department has been very busy this year, 

and the new budget signals more hard work to come. From implementing the Recovery Act to creating good jobs for workers to enhancing the department’s enforcement efforts to improving transparency, you certainly have your work cut out for you, and we look 

forward to hearing your remarks. 

At this point I would like to recognize the senior Republican on 

our committee, Mr. Kline. 

[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Chairman, 

Committee on Education and Labor 

I am honored to welcome a former colleague and current Secretary of Labor Hilda 

Solis today to share the administration’s priorities for the upcoming year. 

Secretary Solis joins us at a very trying time for America’s workers and families. 

Our most important job is to get Americans back to work and rebuild our economy. 

And Secretary Solis has been at the forefront in this effort. 

The financial collapse has put more than seven million Americans out of work and 

left millions more wondering if they will be next. 
4 

In just one month, the same month that President Obama was inaugurated, 

741,000 workers were laid off. 

That was one heck of a welcome gift. 

This Congress worked immediately with President Obama to create a recovery 

plan to save our economy from total devastation. 

The impact of the Recovery Act has been undeniable: without decisive action, we 

would be dealing with greater deficits, at least one million more jobs lost and an 

economy on the brink. 

Economists from left to right agree on this. 

Since the Recovery Act, we have stemmed the tide of deep layoffs and even posted 

the first positive month of job growth in more than two years. 

And on Friday, we got news that the economy grew by its fastest rate in more 

than six years. 

While this is encouraging, much more work remains. We will not rest until the 

millions of Americans still out of work find a job. In an especially difficult economy, 

a responsive Department of Labor is essential in assisting and standing up for 

workers. 

Long before this crisis, America’s middle class was already feeling squeezed by 

decades-long wage stagnation and benefit cuts. The sad fact is that the average 

worker makes less today than they did in the 1970s. At the same time, Americans 

saw the cost of housing, education, health care and energy skyrocket. This path is 

unsustainable. A vibrant and growing middle class is crucial for our future competitiveness. Thanks to Secretary Solis, the Department of Labor is playing a central 

role in our nation’s economic recovery and laying the groundwork for a stronger 

middle class. The Obama administration has laid out an ambitious agenda to rebuild the middle class—to help create good jobs, train our workers for the careers 

of the future, protect those workers while on the job, and improve our nation’s retirement security. Their agenda must be this ambitious for two simple reasons. First 

is the need for a sustainable recovery. And second is the necessity to revamp the 

department after years of neglect. For instance, one critical mission of the Department is to protect the health and safety of our nation’s workers. 

For too long, OSHA failed to respond to real dangers and put American workers 

in needless peril. Recent enforcement actions by the new administration have been 

a breath of fresh air. Instead of looking the other way, this administration is holding 

reckless employers accountable for putting their workers in danger. The new department has also made strides to protect families’ paychecks from unscrupulous employers. 

The Recovery Act helped to fund an additional 250 investigators to ensure compliance with our nation’s wage and child labor laws. 

The GAO identified several issues that resulted in the Wage and Hour Division 

in failing to address serious allegations of wage theft that left thousands of victims 

of wage theft with nowhere to turn. 

Especially in this economy, every dollar an employer steals from a worker is a 

dollar a family loses to pay for basic necessities. 

I am eager to hear from Secretary Solis about how she is reinvigorating wage and 

hour enforcement. 

The Department of Labor also has been working to unwind a number of past initiatives that diminished workers’ retirement security. 

The department took a first step by beginning to scrap a special-interest rule 

threw the door wide open for financial services companies to provide investment advice to employees where they had a financial interest. 

The Department is tasked to safeguard workers’ retirement, not to push policies 

that pad Wall Street’s bottom line. 

By statute, the Department of Labor is tasked to ‘‘foster, promote, and develop 

the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment.’’ 

I see real progress in restoring this mission. This is partially the result of having 

a secretary who understands what it means to work for a living. 

Madame Secretary, your department has had a very busy year and the new budget signals more hard work to come. 

From implementing the Recovery Act and creating good jobs for workers, to enhancing the department’s enforcement efforts and improving transparency, you certainly have your work cut out for you. 

The committee looks forward to your testimony. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. 
5 

I want to welcome Secretary Solis to the committee for her first 

appearance since being sworn in as the United States Secretary of 

Labor a little less than a year ago. 

With our nation facing ongoing job losses and widespread workplace uncertainty, your presence is certainly welcome here today, 

Madam Secretary. 

Last week President Obama was quite clear in declaring his administration’s commitment to American workers and policies that 

will address their economic concerns. I applaud him for this focus 

on jobs and economic security. As policymakers, these other priorities to which we should all be dedicated. Yet, while I appreciate 

the president’s recognition of the economic peril space in our nation, I cannot help but question many of his proposed policies that 

seem to run contrary to the goal of job creation and economic security. 

This morning I look forward to an honest assessment of the 

Obama administration’s labor agenda. The American people want 

to know who are these policies designed to benefit? Who are these 

policies designed to harm? And above all else, how will these policies create and sustain jobs? 

For example, Secretary Solis recently reaffirmed her support for 

the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act. We know this policy is 

designed to benefit labor unions, and we know it will harm small 

family businesses, employers struggling to stay afloat in a weak 

economy. But the question remains how will Card Check create 

and sustain jobs? 

Likewise, the administration recently struck a deal with organized labor to exempt union health care plans from a new excise 

tax to pay for the government takeover of health care. We know 

this policy is designed to benefit labor unions, and we know a majority of American workers, those who are not members of organized labor, will be harmed by the disproportionate treatment. 

But again, we are left to ask how will special benefits for unions 

create and sustain jobs? 

This culture of union favoritism is not limited to legislation. 

Within the last year the Labor Department has undertaken a series of regulatory changes that include rolling back certain worker 

protections while setting the stage for broad new regulatory 

schemes. 

For example, shortly after President Obama took office, the 

Labor Department rescinded new guidelines designed to increase 

transparency in union finances. In other words, they made it more 

difficult for rank-and-file union workers to see how their dues are 

being spent. 

Not long after, the department withdrew a plan to give workers 

access to high-quality investment advice for their 401(k) plans, 

making it more difficult for workers to navigate these tumultuous 

financial waters. 

How will leaving workers in the dark create and sustain jobs? 

The administration has bogged down federal projects with union 

favoring project labor agreements, driving up costs for taxpayers 

and shutting out small construction firms. At the same time, major 

initiatives in the so-called stimulus package, including the weath-
6 

erization program, have been delayed because of flawed DavisBacon wage requirements. 

How will limiting opportunities for small employers while driving 

up costs for taxpayers create and sustain jobs? 

The Labor Department is revisiting the regulatory path that led 

to scientifically dubious ergonomics regulations in the previous decade. At the same time, the administration continues to call for 

massive investment in, ‘‘green jobs’’ while limiting participation in 

these programs to union affiliates and shutting out the vast majority of the construction industry. 

How will cumbersome and confusing new federal mandates and 

exclusionary policies create and sustain jobs? 

Mr. Chairman, the issues I outlined here are just the tip of the 

iceberg when it comes to the job-killing policies embraced by this 

administration and, frankly, the majority party in Congress. 

One week ago today President Obama told the American people, 

‘‘Jobs must be our number one focus in 2010.’’ He is right. And that 

is why Republicans will not allow a single workplace policy to escape our scrutiny. We will put these policies to the test, because 

any proposal that does not contribute to an environment for creating and sustaining jobs ought to be abandoned. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you once again, Madam Secretary, for being here at 

this critical time. Although my colleagues and I had hoped to hear 

from you much sooner, we are nevertheless glad to have you here 

today. 

I yield back. 

[The statement of Mr. Kline follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Senior Republican Member, 

Committee on Education and Labor 

Thank you Chairman Miller, and good morning. I want to welcome Secretary Solis 

to the committee for her first appearance since being sworn in as the U.S. Secretary 

of Labor a little less than a year ago. With our nation facing ongoing job losses and 

widespread workplace uncertainty, your presence is certainly timely, Madam Secretary. 

Last week, President Obama was quite clear in declaring his Administration’s 

commitment to American workers and policies that will address their economic concerns. I applaud him for this focus on jobs and economic security; as policymakers, 

these are the priorities to which we should all be dedicated. Yet while I appreciate 

the President’s recognition—belated though it may be—of the economic perils facing 

our nation, I cannot help but question many of his proposed policies that seem to 

run contrary to the goal of job creation and economic certainty. 

This morning I look forward to an honest assessment of the Obama Administration’s labor agenda. The American people want to know: Who are these policies designed to benefit? Who are these policies designed to harm? And above all else, how 

will these policies create and sustain jobs? 

For example, Secretary Solis recently reaffirmed her support for the misnamed 

Employee Free Choice Act. We know this policy is designed to benefit labor unions, 

and we know it will harm small family businesses and employers struggling to stay 

afloat in a weak economy. But the question remains: how will ‘‘card check’’ create 

and sustain jobs? 

Likewise, the Administration recently struck a deal with organized labor to exempt union health care plans from a new excise tax to pay for the government takeover of health care. We know this policy is designed to benefit labor unions, and 

we know a majority of American workers—those who are not members of organized 

labor—will be harmed by the disproportionate treatment. But again, we’re left to 

ask: how will special benefits for unions create and sustain jobs? 

This culture of union favoritism is not limited to legislation. Within the last year, 

the Labor Department has undertaken a series of regulatory changes that include 
7 

rolling back certain worker protections while setting the stage for broad new regulatory schemes. 

For example, shortly after President Obama took office the Labor Department rescinded new guidelines designed to increase transparency in union finances—in 

other words, they made it more difficult for rank-and-file workers to see how their 

dues are being spent. Not long after, the Department withdrew a plan to give workers access to high-quality investment advice for their 401(k) plans, making it more 

difficult for workers to navigate these tumultuous financial waters. 

How will leaving workers in the dark create and sustain jobs? 

The Administration has bogged down federal projects with union-favoring Project 

Labor Agreements, driving up costs for taxpayers and shutting out small construction firms. At the same time, major initiatives in the so-called stimulus package— 

including the weatherization program—have been delayed because of flawed DavisBacon wage requirements. 

How will limiting opportunities for small employers while driving up costs for taxpayers create and sustain jobs? 

The Labor Department is revisiting the regulatory path that led to scientifically 

dubious ergonomics regulations in the previous decade. At the same time, the Administration continues to call for massive investments in ‘‘green jobs’’ while limiting 

participation in these programs to union affiliates and shutting out the vast majority of the construction industry. 

How will cumbersome and confusing new federal mandates and exclusionary policies create and sustain jobs? 

Mr. Chairman, the issues I outlined are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes 

to the job-killing policies embraced by the Obama Administration and the majority 

party in Congress. 

One week ago today, President Obama told the American people ‘‘jobs must be 

our number one focus in 2010.’’ He’s right, and that’s why Republicans will not 

allow a single workplace policy to escape our scrutiny. We will put these policies 

to the test, because any proposal that does not contribute to an environment for creating and sustaining jobs ought to be abandoned. 

Thank you Chairman Miller, and thank you once again Madam Secretary for 

being here at this critical time. Although my colleagues and I had hoped to hear 

from you much sooner, we are hopeful today’s hearing will be the first of many. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Chairman MILLER. The gentleman yields back his time. 

Madam Secretary, welcome to the committee. It is an honor for 

us to have you before the committee. In my opening statement I 

cited all of the various ventures that you are engaged in and working with the Recovery Act, with the administration, with our economy to improve that economy and to improve the opportunities for 

workers either to stay on the job they now have by improving the 

economy or training and retraining them for a different job or an 

improvement in their situation and also to expanding the opportunities for jobs for the future. 

It is something that you were interested in when you were here 

in the Congress and that, of course, is green jobs, where we now 

see thousands of skilled workers learning new skills for the opportunities that are available around renewable and alternative energy sources. So thank you for all that work. 

I would say to the members who are not familiar with Secretary 

Solis that she was first elected to public office in 1985 as a member 

of the Rio Honda Community College board of trustees, and served 

both the California State Assembly and the Senate, and made history as the first Latina elected to the California State Senate. 

Secretary Solis worked in the Carter White House Office of Hispanic Affairs and was later appointed to the Civil Rights Division 

in the Office of Management and Budget. And she was a member 

of this committee, our colleague in the Congress. 
8 

And you make us very proud. As you know the rules here—you 

have sat in on many of these hearings—Madam Secretary, proceed 

in the manner in which you are most comfortable. We will give you 

a little bit of extended time here, but at some point we will put on 

the orange light, and you can think about wrapping up your testimony. But we want you to be able to present your full testimony 

as you see fit. Thank you. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HILDA SOLIS, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Secretary SOLIS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman Miller and 

Ranking Member Kline. It is a real privilege and honor for me to 

be here before this committee. It wasn’t that long ago that I sat 

here also with many of you that are still currently serving on this 

committee. 

At that time we were in the minority, but we continue to see the 

success and progress of what this particular committee has been 

able to accomplish. So I am very proud this day to be here representing the Obama administration as the Cabinet member representing the Labor Department. 

It is wonderful to see so many good friends that are here, and 

I know that we have had time to share with some of you that have 

come by or called our offices for assistance. We want to continue 

to let you know that our open door policy is made available to everyone. And I truly mean that. 

We are about trying to provide the best assistance that we can 

to restore faith and respect and dignity in the Department of 

Labor. And it is a pleasure to be able to talk to you about some 

of the things that we have been doing. 

And yes, Ranking Member Kline, I agree with you wholeheartedly, as our president has said in his State of the Union message and even long before I was on board as a Cabinet member, 

jobs, Recovery Act of funding to help restore jobs and try to provide 

a stimulus for our economy to spur growth for our economy is 

something that is very, very keenfully a part of our everyday agenda. That is something that I think about every single day. 

And while the president and the Congress answered that urgent 

call last year, beginning in February with the passage of the American Reinvestment Recovery Act, I do have to say that it has made 

a difference. And I can tell you that, because personally in my travels across this country, I have been able to see how that money has 

been implemented, where it has hit, and where we continue to see 

some positive outcomes. 

While we know that this recovery is one that has hit so many 

people, it is something that I think many of us have not seen in 

our lifetime. We know that we will not lose our focus on making 

sure that our first priority is getting people back to work. 

In my community where I was a recent member in the House 3 

years before the official recovery, we saw downsizing of jobs. We 

saw tremendous unemployment increases in community of color, 

and we could tell that there was something amiss in our communities. And I knew that that was something that had to be addressed at that time. However, it took a while for us to get here 

now. 
9 

And I just want to tell you that when we look at what has happened over the course of this last year, when the president took office in January, we were losing well over 700,000 jobs, 700,000 to 

600,000 every month thereafter. 

But I can tell you now each and every month part of my responsibility is to report on those unemployment figures. While I am not 

happy and satisfied that we continue to see job loss, I will tell you 

that I, quite frankly, am pleased to see that we have been able at 

least to stabilize that job loss. So last month in December our report was a job loss of 85,000 jobs. 

That is still not good enough. The president and I strongly believe that we have to continue to put forward every single effort 

that we can to make sure that we work diligently to provide a safety net for those people who continue to lose their jobs and those 

people that are running out of their current benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, COBRA benefits, that we continue to provide that extension. 

First and foremost, the Recovery Act was to provide a safety, security for those people who lost their jobs, so that immediately had 

to take place with the Recovery Act. And I want to thank all of the 

members that supported an affirmation of that plan that the president had to provide that funding. 

The bulk of that money went through the Department of Labor, 

and perhaps your communities may not have taken as much note, 

because people were applying for their unemployment insurance 

benefits. In fact, they even got an additional $25 in that plan as 

well. And you may ask yourself, $25 may not sound like a lot, but 

to people in areas where that means a difference between paying 

for electricity bill and rent and food on the table in these days, that 

says a whole lot. 

That money stays in the community, and it does have an impact 

after it is released back into the neighborhood. I would say that it 

was a very good decision on the part of the Congress to be able to 

move that agenda forward to make sure that we had those security 

systems in place. 

The president went a little bit further, though. He also provided 

assistance for those people who lost their jobs and lost their health 

benefits. So COBRA—an extension was put into place. So 65 percent of the cost of health care was also provided for those people 

that lost their health care. That in many ways has come to, I think, 

be very significant for people who have lost their jobs. And we 

know that that is something that continues to be a strong priority 

for this administration. 

Talking about green jobs, yes, that is something that I worked 

on as a House member here and something that the president and 

many members of the House and the Senate strongly believe in, 

that job creation and growth really means a reinvestment and retooling of our manufacturing and industrial base. 

And it really means looking at new opportunities, retraining 

those workers who lost their jobs in the automobile industry, electrical workers, plumbers, pipefitters that may now need to take a 

different approach in terms of what other job careers are available. 

And potentially, my understanding through the reports and facts 

that I have seen, these jobs will provide anywhere from 10 to 20 
10 

percent more in terms of wages. And, of course, we want good paying jobs. We want secure jobs that are also going to provide safety 

and protection in the workplace. 

So along with our whole effort to try to create new job opportunities and to build up our workforce, I think that we are going a step 

further in our enforcement practices to make sure that the department actually focuses in on the safety and protection of workers. 

And, Chairman Miller, you said very pointedly that in previous 

years the Department of Labor would not take serious many of the 

calls that came into our department regarding wage and hour 

theft. That is a big priority for this administration. 

The president and I strongly believe that one way of combating 

that is by making sure that we have more troops on the ground, 

that we have investigators that are going to comply and know what 

those rules are and answer those questions and reply and do the 

best preparation we can to service the public. That is what our job 

should be. 

I want to also touch on something else that we are focusing in 

on. We talk about job creation. I don’t want to just focus in on 

green jobs, because that is where, yes, a bulk of the funds have 

gone for job creation and in different pathways. One is targeting 

partnerships with apprenticeship programs, with community colleges, and with small businesses. And, of course, every opportunity 

that is made available to provide grants will always be to include 

small businesses. 

We can’t create jobs without the input at the local ground level 

in terms of what the local businesses aspire for us to focus in on, 

so we basically look from the bottom up in terms of what those 

locales and regions are looking for. That is what I have asked my 

new administration, my leadership in the employment training program to do, to focus in on making sure that we are really addressing the needs of the local people that really have a better sense of 

how these programs should be funded. 

I also want to mention that in the coming weeks we will also be 

awarding $220 million of grants in health care careers and also in 

IT and broadband expansion. And what I would like to say there 

is we know from evidence in the last year that one job creator that 

we know is sure to continue is going to be in the health care arena. 

That number of jobs that has grown over the past year is well 

above 600,000. And it is going to continue to grow. And as the 

president moves forward in his efforts to reform health care, there 

is going to be more capacity to grow in these different job areas. 

So I see the demand continuing to grow. 

As we move into IT, that is another big issue where I think that 

all of us can share in, that we need to make sure that we have a 

very competitive workforce, that we are training for the right skills, 

and that we make the most opportunities available for everyone. 

What I am really happy to report is that for so many people, dislocated workers, for also unemployed youth, for high school dropouts, for individuals of different communities and areas suffering 

from high unemployment, and autoworkers have been the target of 

much of the grants that we have been awarding in the past 3 and 

4 weeks. 
11 

And I have to tell you that the kinds of coalitions that I see occurring, and one example I want to share with you is in Florida. 

Broward County Minority Builders Coalition partnered with the 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 729, to extend green job training opportunities. 

And I can go on and on and on about what I have seen in terms 

of people on the ground actually getting enrolled in these programs, changing careers, even, because they felt the career that 

they had was at a dead end. And now they see a potential of getting into a whole new, perhaps a green job or even one in the 

health care arena that provides them with a career path, not just 

a job that is short-term, but a potential to actually move up the 

ladder. 

So we are really looking here at investments that are not just 

about getting out of the recovery, but making a systemic change in 

our entire infrastructure. And it is about creating good paying jobs, 

middle-class jobs that will put people back in that position that we 

have lost over the last decade. 

I also want to mention that we have also provided grants in Minnesota. Honeywell and two Chamber of Commerces joined with the 

United Steelworkers to train workers there. 

We also provided assistance for women, women in nontraditional 

roles in Long Beach, California. Through the Women’s Bureau, we 

provided a grant for women in nontraditional roles, in green curriculum and also in pre-apprenticeship program. This is an area 

that we have to continually focus in on. 

While we believe that more women are participating in the workforce, their earning capacity has not kept at the same rate or 

equivalent to their male counterparts. And that is something that 

we have to address. We can do it by working together by providing 

women with those tools that are necessary. 

Also, I would like to say that we can’t lose sight of the enormous 

contributions that our veterans have made, in particular those that 

are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, many young men and 

women, who perhaps their first job was signing up for the military 

and may not have the appropriate skill and training sets that 

might make them marketable right away. 

We are doing everything we can through our vets department to 

help provide assistance, to make sure that we can give them counseling, identifying any job opportunities and assistance for those 

that may need it, and their families. We are also talking about 

homeless veterans and women homeless veterans. That is one area 

that I know in the past has not been addressed adequately, and we 

are looking to see a more proactive agency now. 

And I am very delighted that all of my assistant secretaries in 

these different divisions that are now taking up the mantle to see 

that we really dig deep into our programs, cut out inefficiencies 

and fat, and make sure that we make these dollars extend in every 

way that we possibly can. 

And I want to just turn very quickly to something that the president said and he made clear in his State of the Union address. And 

again, he did underscore job creation—jobs, jobs, jobs. And when he 

talks about jobs, I talk about good jobs, secure jobs, jobs that put 

people back in the middle-class. 
12 

He is talking about asking the Congress to pass a jobs bill that 

will include investments in small businesses, that include tax credits to hire new workers and raise their wages, investments in our 

infrastructure, in road, bridge, rail and port projects. 

I just happened to be last week in Ohio, where we issued a $400 

million grant for high-speed rail that will create a tremendous 

number of jobs for the next couple of years. And you can see where 

other states are joining in efforts collectively to see how there can 

be a seamless system of transportation for different regions in our 

country. So I was delighted to be a part of that, even though that 

funding doesn’t come directly out of my budget. 

But again, we are concerned about the workforce and who is adequately trained for those jobs, that they have the best qualified employees and that we have every opportunity to make sure that 

businesses are partners in that job creation. 

The last thing I would like to say to you is one of the most important things that we can do is focus in on our enforcement of our 

laws, our current laws that are on the books and, as was said by 

our chairman here, having someone who takes serious the enforcement of our laws in Wage and Hour and OSHA, providing for assistance for those individuals that are robbed because of their 

wages or not paid overtime or not given appropriate attention. 

Everyone deserves to have someone fighting for them. If they 

have put in a hard day’s work, if they go into work, they should 

be able to come home safe at night. I am very troubled with many 

of the things that I have seen occur in the past few years with respect to miners, the fact that we do have some issue areas that we 

have to address. And that is the problem that I want to work with 

you. 

If any of you here have proposed legislation and have interest 

there because of the districts that you represent, it is something 

that I take very seriously. Job safety and protection for those workers and their families is equally important to me. 

I want to tell you that in OSHA so far we have been able to conduct 2,000 inspections in the workplace when we received our Recovery Act money. That allowed me to build up our staff to provide 

more investigators in the field, and I can tell you that we are turning things around the Department of Labor. 

Things are slow, as the president has said before to me and 

many members of his cabinet. It is like moving a giant—how could 

I say—Navy fleet. To get them to turn a corner takes a tremendous 

amount of energy and focus. And I can tell you that we are moving 

every single day. Our rudders are on, and we would like to see 

progress as badly as we know that the public wants to see more 

job creation and recovery of our economy. I feel very confident that 

we are going to be able to see this through. 

One last item. I know that many of you here are very focused 

on the WIA, the reauthorization of the WIA Act. That is something 

that from day one when I got to the Department of Labor, I made 

it a point to underscore with my staff that we would be engaged 

in every way we can. 

So far we have made ourselves available to the Senate committees that have jurisdiction. We are there to provide technical assist-
13 

1OASP calculations of CES establishment survey data. 

ance. We want to do that with members that are here in the House 

that are also going to be engaging in the reauthorization. 

The president wants to let you know that what we are looking 

for in the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act will include streamlining of service delivery, one-stop shopping for highquality services, engaging employers on a regional and sectoral 

basis, improving accountability, and promoting innovation. These 

are all the major goals that we will strive to include as we go 

through the reauthorization of WIA. 

With that, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I am happy to 

answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The statement of Secretary Solis follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Hilda L. Solis, Secretary, 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Kline, and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for inviting me to testify today. I would also like to thank my good friend 

George Miller and many other friends on this Committee for all of your support over 

the years. As a former member of this Committee, I know very well all the hard 

work you and your colleagues do to assist working families across America. 

I am pleased to be the 25th Secretary of Labor because I believe in the Department of Labor’s mission—to foster and promote the welfare of job seekers, wage 

earners, and retirees through a variety of means. I came to lead the Department 

at a time when working families were struggling, and I came to make a difference. 

Workers were struggling to feed their families, pay bills, and plan for retirement 

as unemployment levels were reaching highs that we had not seen in decades. 

Working people across America desperately needed help, and I knew the Department would be instrumental in advocating for their needs. I am proud that the Department of Labor quickly acted to implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). While working families continue to struggle in 

these tough economic times, the Department of Labor is working incredibly hard to 

help. We are assisting individuals who need unemployment insurance benefits, 

workers who lost their jobs but need continuing health coverage for themselves and 

for their families, young adults who need help getting a summer job, and people who 

want job training for a new career or other employment-related services. In a labor 

market where jobs are difficult to find and workers are glad to have the jobs they 

hold, it is too easy for workers to be exploited. We are strengthening our efforts to 

be vigilant in protecting the rights and safety of workers by hiring additional enforcement personnel and reviewing and improving our regulatory efforts. 

While we have accomplished a great deal, I know that we can and must do more. 

My vision for the Department is ‘‘Good Jobs for Everyone,’’ and that means that we 

as a country need to work together to create new and better jobs for the 21st Century economy. 

The Economy in Early 2009 and the Need for Action by the Department of Labor 

When I walked into the Department of Labor for the first time, I knew that I had 

to act quickly to assist workers and their families who were trying to make ends 

meet in light of devastating job losses. 

As of January 2009, an astounding 3.8 million jobs had been lost since the start 

of the recession. Job losses were large and widespread across nearly all major industry sectors. Just in the fourth quarter of 2008 alone, almost 1.7 million jobs were 

lost. To put this number in perspective, this is about 100,000 more than the number 

of jobs lost between March and November 2001, the official time period of the previous recession. 

People in the manufacturing sector faced especially difficult times. By January 

2009, 1.1 million manufacturing jobs had been lost since the beginning of the recession. These losses represented almost 30 percent of total payroll jobs lost and made 

up the largest share of job losses among the major industry sectors. To make matters worse, the manufacturing sector was already struggling. Manufacturing employment was at a 63-year low. From January 2001 to January 2009, 4.5 million 

manufacturing jobs had been lost.1 Over the previous 20 years, manufacturing em-
14 

2Quarterly CPS household survey data for the national unemployment, available at http:// 

www.bls.gov/web/cpseed8.pdf. 3Quarterly CPS household survey data, available at http://www.bls.gov/cps/tables.htm#quarterly. 4http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/z1r-4.pdf, p. 64. 

ployment had steadily declined. This decline greatly accelerated between January 

2001 to January 2009, to a rate of negative 3.7 percent per year. 

These numbers are large, and they represent real people. Our brothers, sisters, 

friends, and neighbors are represented in these numbers. By the end of my first 

quarter as Secretary of Labor in 2009, the national unemployment rated climbed to 

8.6 percent.2 Communities of color experienced even higher rates of unemployment. 

In early 2009, Latinos were unemployed at a rate of 10.8 percent and African Americans were unemployed at a rate of 13.3 percent. Young people also faced high rates 

of unemployment; 21.6 percent of teenagers were jobless.3 The number of unemployed persons continued to reach record levels month after month. 

The difficulties in the labor market are exacerbated by other problems. The depth 

and severity of the recession worsened states’ fiscal problems, especially since increasing unemployment levels reduced states’ income taxes and increased demand 

for services. States’ budget woes then challenged their abilities to serve the public. 

While the numbers of individuals filing for unemployment insurance were rapidly 

increasing, state unemployment insurance trust fund balances were deteriorating. 

Trust fund balances fell from $38.2 billion in 2007 to $20.6 billion in the first quarter of 2009—a 46 percent decline. In January 2009, initial UI claims (not seasonally 

adjusted) reached nearly 957,000, a level not seen in a generation. In March 2009, 

the number of people requesting regular UI benefits (continued claims, not seasonally adjusted) reached a series high of 6.5 million. The huge volume of demand in 

2009, coupled with aging technology, resulted in three states experiencing crashes 

to their mainframe system for UI. 

People who expected to be in their peak earning years were struggling to find employment and maintain retirement savings. Individual households faced mounting 

financial threats due to the instability of their retirement accounts. Despite workers’ 

needs for retirement security, according to the Federal Reserve Board, in March 

2009 assets in retirement accounts were $4.3 trillion, down 33% from a peak of $6.4 

trillion at the end of 2007. According to data from the Federal Reserve, pension fund 

reserves held by households and non-profit organizations fell 26 percent from $13.4 

trillion at the end of 2007 to $9.9 trillion in the first quarter of 2009.4

In light of these overwhelming challenges, I am proud that the Department quickly came to the aid of workers, and I describe some of our actions below. 

DOL’s Achievements in 2009 and Under the Recovery Act 

After working closely with Congress, President Obama signed the Recovery Act 

into law to rescue and rebuild the American economy. I know that the Recovery Act 

has put people back to work and has saved jobs. I have visited numerous Recovery 

Act-funded projects in communities across the country. As of December 31, 2009, the 

Department has spent $59.7 billion for Recovery Act programs. Over $55 billion has 

been provided to states to support and expand Unemployment Insurance, and more 

than $3 billion has been issued in grants to states to provide training and employment services to adults, dislocated workers and youth. We acted quickly to protect 

workers who lost their jobs and provide new training opportunities for them and for 

people looking to upgrade their skills or change careers. 

We worked with states to make changes to eligibility requirements for UI benefits, giving more jobless workers access to benefits, and extended the period of eligibility for workers who lost their jobs. We also quickly increased the amount of unemployment benefits that people received by $25 a week. An extra $100 a month 

can go a long way towards paying for groceries or helping with rent, and I am proud 

that DOL’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) was able to quickly assist the American public. 

As I mentioned earlier, States’ budgets were, and still are hurting, and this has 

impacted their ability to get UI benefits into the hands of workers. The Department 

rapidly made $7 billion available for states that chose to modernize their UI system. 

So far, the Department has distributed $2.8 billion to 32 states for modernization 

incentive payments, which together with the extended and emergency benefits programs, has resulted in increasing the share of unemployed workers receiving benefits to its highest level in over 30 years. 

ETA also quickly distributed funds to states to serve more than 2.3 million workers through state employment-related services. An estimated 170,000 workers who 

were adversely affected by foreign trade have received Trade Adjustment Assistance 
15 

benefits and assistance. We have also released over $60 million in Recovery Actfunded National Emergency Grants (NEGs) to help an estimated 29,500 dislocated 

workers. In Calendar Year 2009, we released more than $82 million in NEGs funded 

by our appropriations, and this funding is expected to help more than 17,000 dislocated workers. Our efforts have helped Americans get back to work. For example, 

a North Carolina worker, who was laid off in March 2009 after working three years 

as a rigger/welder earning $15.00 per hour, began training in May in the construction pre-pipe and pipe welding field with funds provided by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Dislocated Worker program. He was quickly hired before his training was completed by a construction company as a pipe welder. Today, he is working 

at a site in Savannah, Georgia earning $17.00 per hour plus a daily stipend of 

$55.00. We know that there are and will continue to be many more success stories 

like this one across the country. 

The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) also quickly assisted 

workers who lost their jobs but needed continued health coverage. Under the Recovery Act, individuals may apply for premium reductions for continuation of health 

benefits provided under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 

(COBRA). Eligible individuals pay only 35% of the cost of their COBRA premium, 

enabling many American workers and their families to maintain health coverage 

they otherwise could not afford. In the weeks after the Recovery Act became law, 

EBSA published model notices and created an appeals process for individuals whose 

subsidy applications were denied. The Department worked to provide fact sheets, 

FAQs, posters, and additional information to help educate workers about their 

rights, conducted numerous outreach activities, and launched a dedicated website 

that has hosted over 2.3 million visitors. I am proud to say that EBSA has responded to over 170,000 COBRA inquiries and handled more than 14,000 appeals 

since the inception of the subsidy. In fact, more than 99 percent of the appeals received were decided within the 15 day statutory deadline provided by Congress. 

When the COBRA premium subsidy was extended as part of the 2010 Department 

of Defense Appropriations Act, EBSA again acted quickly to update existing guidance and issue new materials to make sure this critical program continues without 

disruption in FY 2010. For many of these individuals, access to affordable health 

coverage is a matter of life or death. 

The Recovery Act also bolstered one of the Department’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 

budget priorities—to begin to restore the capacity of our programs that protect 

workers’ safety and health, pay, and benefits. The Department worked to enforce 

worker protection laws under Recovery Act-funded projects. For instance, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) conducted over 1,900 inspections 

of workplaces receiving Recovery Act funding to assure that workers involved in 

these projects were adequately protected from safety and health hazards. The Wage 

and Hour Division (WHD) issued prevailing wage determinations and guidance for 

Recovery Act-funded weatherization projects and is actively engaged in ensuring 

that workers on those projects receive the wages to which they are legally entitled. 

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) completed 59 compliance evaluations. One case of compensation discrimination against an African-American male resulted in $24,894 in back pay being awarded. 

In order to restore our economy, we must create jobs and make sure that workers 

benefit from the protections to which they are entitled. We have made significant 

progress in restoring worker protection programs to their FY 2001 staffing levels. 

Approximately 710 enforcement personnel have been hired in the Wage and Hour 

Division, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Office of Federal 

Contract Compliance Programs, the Mine Safety and Health Administration 

(MSHA), and the Employee Benefits Security Administration. We have seen significant results from our hiring efforts. Our work helped return money to workers who 

rightfully earned it. OFCCP entered into more than 96 Conciliation Agreements on 

behalf of more than 21,000 affected workers in calendar year 2009. Their work resulted in back pay awards of more than $9 million and more than 2,000 potential 

job offers to provide relief for affected American workers who were discriminated 

against under laws enforced by OFCCP. WHD has recovered more than $172.6 million in back wages for approximately 220,000 workers. In FY 2009, EBSA’s work 

on retirement and welfare benefit plan security achieved $1.3 billion in total monetary results. Our worker protection efforts touch the lives of nearly every worker, 

and we will continue to ensure that workers are protected by the law. 

DOL is also looking for innovative ways to promote economic recovery. For example, employment training services are divided by geographic boundaries even though 

regional economies cross city and state lines. That is why we created a new type 

of NEG, called Regional Economic Impact NEGs. These new NEGs allow for a regional approach to workforce services in response to layoffs and economic events 
16 

across a region. We have seen several states impacted by automotive layoffs, such 

as Michigan, apply for and receive funding through this mechanism. In late September 2009, the Department provided a NEG of $18.6 million to assist over 1,000 

workers affected by layoffs in Southeast Michigan, which includes several counties 

and the Detroit Metropolitan Area. This grant will also allow the state to serve 

workers within this regional economy affected by layoffs occurring over the next 

year. By Michigan’s estimates, this could total approximately 7,200 workers. 

How the Department of Labor is Making a Difference for Workers 

In the December 2009 Employment Situation report, the Department’s BLS reported that the economy lost 85,000 jobs and that the unemployment rate remained 

unchanged at 10.0 percent. We received encouraging news of very modest gains in 

payroll employment in November 2009, which was the first month showing an increase in jobs since December 2007. While any job lost is one job too many, our economy was losing close to 700,000 jobs a month one year ago. 

Although the rate of job loss has slowed dramatically in recent months, hiring has 

not increased broadly. As a result, the ranks of the long-term unemployed have 

grown. About 40 percent of the jobless have been looking for work for over six 

months. Studies have pointed to the challenges that arise for people who have been 

out of the labor market for substantial periods of time. That’s why we need reemployment and training programs that will get them back to work. 

The Administration has worked aggressively to minimize job losses, stimulate the 

economy and address the special needs of persons who have been out of work for 

extended periods of time. I will continue to do my best to see that America’s workers 

have the tools they need to succeed. 

The Department is looking to train the workers of the future. During my travels 

throughout the country, I have met people who have gone back to school and 

changed careers to prepare themselves for 21st Century jobs. Jobs continue to grow 

in the clean energy and health care sectors. Green jobs play an important role in 

our economic recovery, and like so many other jobs in the construction trades, they 

tend to pay above average wages. I believe that they are also the jobs of the future. 

The Recovery Act provided the Department with $750 million for worker training 

and placement grants to prepare workers for careers in high growth and emerging 

industries, including $500 million for research, labor exchange, and job training 

projects in the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries. Four of the grant 

competitions are designed to serve workers in need of training through various national, state and community outlets: Energy Training Partnership Grants; Pathways 

Out of Poverty Grants; State Energy Sector Partnership and Training Grants; and 

Green Capacity Building Grants. The fifth competition, for State Labor Market Improvement Grants, will providing funding for state workforce agencies to collect, 

analyze and disseminate labor market information and develop labor exchange infrastructure to direct individuals to careers in green industries. 

Much of this funding has already been awarded. I am proud to report that the 

Department made it a priority to award grants to applicants who serve low-income 

workers, unemployed youth and adults, high school dropouts, communities of color, 

areas of high poverty, and other underserved sectors and vulnerable members of the 

workforce. We also set aside funding to serve workers who were hardest hit by restructuring of the automotive industry. 

We received a record number of grant applications for these green jobs training 

grants. For example, the Pathways out of Poverty competition brought in over 450 

applications for $150 million in grants, and we could fund only 38 grants. For the 

Energy Training Partnership competition, we received over 180 applications, but 

were only able to fund 25 grants. We believe that this level of interest represents 

the need for resources that focus on training, particularly in green jobs, which complements job creation efforts. We also believe this interest represents the need for 

assisting people who are already working, but who may be underemployed, to gain 

skills that will help them move into better, higher-paying jobs in emerging sectors. 

The spectrum of activities supported by these grants is exciting. In Ohio, the nonprofit organization Improved Solutions for Urban Systems, Inc., working with its 

partners, is developing a competency-based curriculum for green job training in energy efficiency and renewable energy careers. The project will train YouthBuild participants and Construction and Manufacturing Institute students in one or more 

green industry areas leading to industry-recognized certifications and credentials. 

The project will also assist students in attaining high school diplomas and place 

high school graduates in employment and continuing education. 

Another grant will have useful applications in both residential and commercial 

buildings right here in Washington, D.C. ARCH Training, Inc. (ARCH) will develop 

and adapt curricula focusing on the energy conservation and solar industries to pre-
17 

pare trainees for national and industry-recognized certification exams. A ‘Green 

Jobs’ job preparation guide will be prepared for graduates entering the workforce, 

and an employer guide will be developed to help businesses determine the skill sets 

of applicants. It is projected that the number of individuals trained will increase by 

35 percent as a result of this grant. In addition, the Women’s Bureau is doing its 

part by holding Green Jobs Roundtables throughout the country and by preparing 

a Green Jobs Guide. 

As you know, with the aging of our population and other factors, the demand for 

health care workers continues to grow rapidly. The health care sector has continued 

to grow throughout the recession despite steep job losses in nearly all other major 

industries. For example, hospitals and other ambulatory care settings, such as longterm care facilities, added approximately 25,000 new jobs in February 2009 even 

though 681,000 jobs across the nation were eliminated that month. BLS projects 

that health care and social assistance employers will generate four million new jobs 

between 2008 and 2018. To help meet this demand, the Department competed $220 

million in Recovery Act grants to assist workers pursue careers in health care and 

other high growth and emerging industry sectors. High growth and emerging industries often differ in specific regions. Fields like information technology, advanced 

manufacturing, wireless and broadband deployment, transportation and 

warehousing, and biotechnology may be high growth and emerging industries in 

specific regional economies. In our grant solicitation, we asked applicants to define 

local high growth or emerging industries based on specific criteria, such as expected 

job growth. We expect to award these grants soon. 

In preparing workers for jobs of the future, the Department realizes that multiple 

stakeholders will need to work together to achieve the desired outcomes. In creating 

the criteria for many of the grants discussed above, we required applicants to include partners made up of a diverse set of stakeholders, including labor organizations, public or private employers, and the local workforce system. We also gave special consideration for partnerships that included community-based organizations. In 

bringing together the expertise of these diverse stakeholders, I hope that grantees 

will develop effective programs that are responsive to the needs of both workers and 

employers. For example, in Minnesota, Honeywell and two chambers of commerce 

have joined the United Steelworkers (USW) to train workers. Also in Florida, the 

Broward County Minority Builders Coalition partnered with the International 

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 729 to extend green jobs training 

opportunities. 

The workers of the future are a diverse group. This is why we encouraged applicants who serve communities of color, women, veterans, and people with disabilities. 

Many Recovery Act grantees will train workers from these communities. In our efforts to train workers, we have created new partnerships with other departments, 

such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, so that we connect residents in public housing with green jobs. In a joint letter, Secretary Donovan 

and I encouraged local Workforce Investment Boards and Public Housing Agencies 

to work together to bolster pathways to training and employment for residents of 

HUD housing. 

We know returning veterans can contribute greatly to our economy. The Veterans’ 

Employment and Training Service (VETS) is actively working to provide services to 

homeless veterans, with an increased emphasis on assisting homeless women veterans, whose numbers have increased. VETS also is vigilant in assuring veterans’ 

rights to reemployment after returning from a deployment to fight for our country 

are protected. VETS will continue to provide veterans and transitioning service 

members with the resources and services to succeed. 

We are also making real investments in the lives of our future generations and 

seniors. Using Recovery Act dollars, we have been able to expand programs that 

serve disadvantaged youth. For example, the Department funded an additional 75 

YouthBuild projects in 2009, which is a 69 percent increase compared to the previous year. YouthBuild projects can make a real difference in young people’s lives 

by providing job training and educational opportunities for low-income or at-risk, 

out-of-school youth ages 16 to 24. We also invested over $200 million in more than 

600 construction projects to improve Job Corps facilities. Job Corps is the nation’s 

oldest and largest federally-funded job training and education program for economically disadvantaged youth ages 16 through 24. Students receive hands-on training 

in more than 100 occupational areas. These areas include some of the fastest growing job sectors such as health care, information technology and renewable energy. 

During my visits to Job Corps centers, I have seen firsthand how young people are 

given the opportunity to develop the education and skills they need to succeed in 

the new economy. 
18 

The Recovery Act also provided funding to local areas to support programs that 

employed 317,584 youth this past summer. With extraordinary efforts, these local 

areas worked hard to provide quality work experiences. Recovery Act funding supported real work opportunities for our nation’s youth in a variety of industries including green and other high growth and emerging industries. I know that our 

young people have been hit hard by this economy, and this program created real 

employment opportunities for them. These jobs also provide a critical early labor 

market experience for youth, an experience which will increase their long-run labor 

market success. 

Our nation’s seniors also benefited from an additional $118 million in Recovery 

Act dollars for the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP). 

SCSEP provides community service opportunities for unemployed, low-income seniors with poor employment prospects—especially in this challenging economy. Recovery Act funding has expanded the number of SCSEP participants. The FY 2010 appropriation provided more than $825 million for this program, including a one-time 

appropriation of $225 million to be spent immediately. DOL expects to enroll more 

than 100,000 seniors in part-time, minimum wage community service positions. 

In addition to investments in these important programs, the Department will continue to protect workers in the new economy. We want to contribute to a sustainable 

economy where workers’ earnings rise with productivity and allow employment, consumption and savings to rise. The Department will continue to fight to recoup those 

wages to which workers are legally entitled and improve worker safety. 

I take the failure to pay workers the wages that they have earned very seriously, 

and I am committed to enforcing all employment laws—particularly those related 

to payment of the minimum wage and overtime. Workers deserve this money and 

it will bring money to low-income households where most of it will be spent and help 

invigorate local communities. As I noted earlier, we have already increased staffing 

of enforcement officials. The improved staffing levels have helped secure millions of 

dollars in back wages for thousands of workers. As these new investigators grow 

into their jobs, they will be an even stronger force for securing compliance with 

these basic labor standards protections. 

In the jobs of the future, I will work to ensure that workers’ rights will be protected. In order to rebuild the middle class, we need to level the playing field and 

restore fair play for all working people. The growing inequality in wages and benefits is partially due to the increasing obstacles workers face in forming unions and 

engaging in collective bargaining. We need to restore their freedom to do so. This 

is why the President and I support the Employee Free Choice Act. I know from personal experience that union jobs are good jobs, pay higher wages than non-union 

jobs, and provide flexibility and benefits like paid leave, child care, education assistance, and retirement security. This legislation can help give workers a voice in the 

workplace. 

In the jobs of the future as well as in jobs of the present, workers should be safe 

at their workplaces. I am proud that OSHA is restoring its capacity to strongly enforce statutory protections, provide technical support to small businesses, promulgate safety and health standards, strengthen the accuracy of safety and health statistics, and ensure that workers know about the hazards they face and their rights 

under the law. OSHA diligently inspects workplaces where millions of people are 

employed and is constantly working to ensure that employers are providing safe 

working conditions for their employees. In 2009, the Department issued the largest 

proposed penalty against an employer in the history of OSHA. OSHA also issued 

nine ‘‘egregious’’ workplace health and safety citations involving flagrant violations 

for employers who knowingly exposed workers to deadly hazards. OSHA is also focusing its efforts on ensuring that hard-to-reach workers know about their rights 

and the hazards they face. For example, in April 2010, OSHA will hold a safety and 

health summit to ensure that Latino workers in Texas have the tools they need to 

ensure their safety. Latino workers often work in high hazard industries and are 

more likely to get injured or killed on the job. We are also making sure that green 

jobs are safe jobs. OSHA is focusing on preventing injuries and illnesses among 

workers who do renovation, weatherization, and work on potentially hazardous machinery. 

To improve worker safety, MSHA has announced a comprehensive strategy to end 

new cases of black lung among the nation’s coal miners. The goal of MSHA’s initiative is to curb debilitating and potentially fatal diseases caused by coal mine dust. 

MSHA is celebrating 40 years of legislation aimed at improving working conditions 

for America’s workers, and last year, MSHA celebrated the safest year in mining 

in U.S. history. For its part, WHD is increasing its focus on those workers who are 

most vulnerable: young workers, farm workers, and those who toil in labor intensive 

industries at the lowest levels of compensation. In 2010, WHD will launch a multi- 
19 

lingual public awareness campaign titled ‘‘We Can Help’’ to reach these vulnerable 

workers who are so often reluctant to report violations and fearful of exercising 

their rights to a minimum wage and overtime pay. All workers have a right to a 

safe and fair workplace, and we will work hard to achieve this goal. 

The Department of Labor’s Goals for 2010 

In the beginning of my testimony, I said that my vision for the Department of 

Labor is ‘‘Good Jobs for Everyone.’’ Everyone throughout the Department knows of 

my vision and knows that the work they do everyday helps make this vision a reality. And here are some of the ways that I define a good job. 

A good job can support a family by increasing incomes, narrowing the wage gap 

(for example, wage gaps between men and women and gaps experienced by communities of color), and allowing workplace flexibility. 

A good job is safe and secure and gives people a voice in the workplace. 

A good job is sustainable and innovative, for example a green job. 

A good job will help rebuild a strong middle class. 

A good job provides access to a secure retirement and to adequate and affordable 

health coverage. 

I want to emphasize that my goal is for any individual, regardless of race/ethnicity, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability 

status, age, or veteran status, to have access to a good job. Many of the Recovery 

Act grants we released target underserved groups such as people of color, ex-offenders, women, and veterans. In creating jobs of the future, I will work to ensure that 

all people from all communities are included. 

The Department has laid out 5 high-priority goals in working with the Office of 

Management and Budget to help us focus our resources and ensure Good Jobs for 

Everyone. These goals are: 

(1) Significantly reduce fatalities resulting from the most common causes by 

OSHA-covered workplaces and mining sites. 

(2) Reduce the number of repeat violators of minimum wage, overtime, and workplace safety laws. 

(3) Improve worker rights and livelihoods for vulnerable populations in developing 

country trading partners. 

(4) Create a program to help workers injured on the job return to work so that 

they can continue to be productive members of America’s workforce. 

(5) Increase opportunities for America’s workers to acquire the skills and knowledge to succeed in a knowledge-based economy. 

All of these high priority goals are outlined in greater detail in the Department 

of Labor’s FY2011 budget which was released on Monday, February 1. The challenges facing America’s workers are many. The Department has outlined these highpriority goals to focus our agencies on the most critical needs affecting the safety, 

health, and economic security of workers. They are of course guided by our broader 

‘‘Good Jobs for Everyone’’ vision. In addition these high-priority goals, we have other 

key initiatives that I know are important to the Committee. 

The reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) presents a unique opportunity to promote innovation in the public workforce system, build on its 

strengths, and address challenges. We can help workers who are unemployed or in 

low-wage jobs find a path to middle class jobs, providing them with the skills and 

knowledge they need to succeed in the knowledge economy. We can also help businesses seeking to hire skilled workers and better position them to take advantage 

of a recovering economy. And we will work closely with our colleagues in the Department of Education to make sure the WIA programs work more seamlessly together to help participants. 

Our goals for the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) include: 

(1) Streamlining service delivery—providing easy access and clear information to 

individuals and employers in need of service; 

(2) One-stop shopping for high quality services—one-stop centers should provide 

access to comprehensive employment and training services across different programs and better utilize technology to improve customer service; 

(3) Engaging employers on a regional and sectoral basis—Training programs are 

often most effective when they are developed on a regional basis reflecting the labor 

market or on a sectoral basis focusing on a particular industry of the economy; 

(4) Improving accountability—Performance measures must be designed to hold 

programs accountable for better results, without creating incentives to deny services 

to those most in need of assistance, and results should be made available in a transparent way to all; and 
20 

(5) Promoting innovation—WIA should promote the funding of new and creative 

practices and support the replication of those practices that are successful throughout the workforce system. 

We look forward to continuing to work with Congress to reauthorize WIA to improve the workforce system for all. 

I have also charged the Department with making our work more transparent to 

the public. Through our innovative Open Government initiatives, we have made information available to everyone. For example, our FY 2010 proposed budget was 

made public using innovative web media tools, which allowed for live ‘‘web chats’’ 

and a question and answer session with me. We released the Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda using a similar format. My Assistant Secretaries and I were able to 

engage in live ‘‘web chats’’ with the public regarding DOL’s planned regulatory 

agenda. Approximately 6,000 members of the public participated in or watched the 

web chats. In addition, agencies are making their work and the data we collect more 

transparent. For the first time ever, OSHA is systematically publishing employerspecific information about occupational fatalities on its Web site and making these 

data available for easy download. It is my goal that the public will be able to access 

and understand the work we are doing to assist America’s workers. 

In the coming year, I am also making a concentrated effort to reach out to diverse 

audiences. I have met and will continue to meet with leaders of labor unions. At 

the same time, I am also reaching out to employers, because I know they are the 

ones who will hire our future workers. Last year, I was the first person from the 

Administration to speak at the National Association of Manufacturers’ Manufacturing Summit, and I also met with the Black Enterprise 100, a group of the largest 

companies in the United States owned by African Americans. I, along with Veterans 

Affairs Secretary Shinseki, addressed the National Chamber Foundation to discuss 

the employment of veterans. I will continue to reach out to Chambers of Commerce, 

community-based organizations, and other stakeholders. I am pleased to see that we 

have already begun to work together. I have seen partnerships among diverse stakeholders in some of the grants we recently released. For example, in Pennsylvania, 

UAW Local 544 is partnering with Carnegie Mellon University, Veterans Leadership Program of Western Pennsylvania, Thermal Transfer Corporation, and U.S. 

Steel Corporation to train workers. The Department will continue to support and 

encourage public-private partnerships, as we all have a role to play in the future 

of our workers. 

Job Creation in 2010 

The President and the Administration have renewed our focus on creating jobs. 

Late last year, I took part in a jobs forum at the White House that brought together 

small business owners, CEOs, unions, economists, non-profits, and state and local 

officials to talk about job creation. We are working closely with our partners in the 

private sector so that we can better generate jobs, growth, and innovation. In moving forward, we know that we need to help small businesses, invest in our country’s 

infrastructure, and promote growth in our clean energy economy. 

In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama outlined the steps 

that we will be taking together to create more jobs. Specifically, we are calling on 

Congress to pass a jobs bill with: 

Investments in small businesses including a tax credit to hire new workers or 

raise wages; 

Investments in road, bridge, rail and port projects; and 

Investments in clean energy, which develop a clean energy economy and a skilled 

workforce. 

Too many Americans are ready, willing and able to work, but cannot find a job. 

These critical programs will spur private sector job creation. We know that small 

businesses are often the driver of economic expansion that communities across the 

country desperately need and the President’s new Small Business Jobs and Wages 

Tax Credit will reward job creation and the good jobs that pay more. I especially 

look forward to working with the President and you on new green jobs and high 

growth industry job training to be sure American workers are ready for these new 

jobs. 

Conclusion 

While I came to lead the Department of Labor at a tumultuous and challenging 

time, I know that we have already made a real difference in the lives of America’s 

workers and their families. We successfully implemented the Recovery Act and have 

seen how these investments have saved and created jobs in communities across the 

country. I look forward to working with you and your colleagues to ensure that there 

are ‘‘Good Jobs for Everyone’’ and to create new and better jobs for the 21st Century 
21 

economy. I thank you for your time and am happy to respond to any questions you 

might have. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you very much. That is a lot. Thank 

you. Thank you so much for your testimony. And I think we all recognize that with the election and with the inauguration of this 

president and your becoming Secretary of Labor, there is a difference in philosophy in this department, and I think it is important. 

I personally believe that the department over the last several 

years prior to your coming to the department was way off course 

and was failing in its duty to protect workers. 

Yes, there is a difference on this committee and in the Congress 

and probably in the country about the Employee Free Choice Act, 

but the fact is that 60 percent of the workers that asked if they 

could have a union now would take it now. But they know that if 

they ask for a union, they risk being fired, intimidated, followed, 

losing their overtime, their shift work and all of the rest of that. 

We will continue that discussion and that debate. 

The idea that when the unions went to discuss the impact of the 

excise tax on their members that they were only talking for their 

members, no. The fact is that this tax that weighs very heavily on 

middle-class individuals in this country—I disagree with it. I think 

the Senate went in the wrong direction. 

But the fact is they got vision care and dental care exempted 

from that for all families, as the unions always do. It is never bargaining about themselves. They bargain for all families, just like 

when they support the minimum wage. Most of their members 

don’t work at the minimum wage. They do it for the rest of the 

economy. 

They also got the thresholds raised so fewer middle-class families 

would be impacted in that. And they asked for something that almost every corporation asks for any time we deal with the tax laws 

of this country. They ask for a transition rule. Could they just take 

their agreements to 2017 and have a transition, and then have it 

apply to them so that they can honor their collective bargaining 

agreements? 

The idea that you would now tell those people who have a conflict of interest and a vested interest in investment advice that the 

idea the only good advice we can give to people is people who have 

a financial interest in the outcome of that advice, and what have 

we found in the investigations in this committee? What have we 

found in investigations on Wall Street? 

It is that very often those people with the interest in the advice 

they are giving are steering investors toward plans that aren’t as 

they are labeled in case of lifecycle funds or plans that are the 

worst performing, the highest cost. But the entity that they represent, one of the largest mutual funds, wants to move those funds, 

because nobody else will invest in them if they do their own investigation. 

So I think you are quite right. Representing investors when they 

are making these decisions about their 401(k)s, the complaints we 

have come from are from the advisors to small businesses, who tell 
22 

it they can’t decipher that information. That legislation will hopefully move out of the Ways and Means Committee soon. 

And also there is disagreement here about project labor agreements. In my area of the country, after votes, city councils and others have endorsed project labor agreements for various projects. 

The refineries in my district have project labor agreements, and 

most of those agreements, those projects are on time and in many 

instances under cost. 

And I think that they have delivered the kind of workforce that 

people need to get those jobs right. So there is that disagreement. 

That is what elections are about, and that is what different political ideologies are about. 

But I think the administration is on the right track in terms of 

protecting individuals in their health care, in their investments, 

and in their workplace. 

You mentioned the president’s interest and your interest in WIA. 

I am excited that he has asked for competitive grants on innovation, because I really have believed and one of the reasons I haven’t 

moved as quickly on the reauthorization is because I really think 

we need a new iteration of WIA. 

We keep talking about one-stop shopping. We have been talking 

about it for 30 years. And I think it has to be better, and I think 

we need to try to get those who are in the field to really think outside the box, come forward with competitive innovation, and see 

what we can learn from what is going on on the ground. And people who have worked with the system, engaged the system, may be 

happy or unhappy, but let us see what they propose for us. 

Finally, Madam Secretary, before I run out of time here, I want 

to thank you again on the OSHA work that you have done. This 

is an area that was neglected. We turned it over to voluntary compliance. We had the tragedy of Texas City, where 15 workers lost 

their life in the explosion of the British Petroleum refinery, and the 

fact was that that was covered up. 

It went all the way to the boardroom in London, where they 

made a decision in their most profitable year that they couldn’t 

make the minor adjustments to the process that were necessary to 

safeguard those workers, and that tragedy happened, and now they 

have paid $87 million in fines for that behavior. That will not replace those 15 workers. 

Again, mine safety—we had a series of tragedies over the last 

several years. This committee for a long time refused to even hold 

hearings on those tragedies to hear from the families. And now I 

see that we have just completed with much more diligence and inspection, that we have just had an all-time low in mine fatalities 

in that area of occupation. And I certainly would hope that that 

that will continue. 

And again, I think the rewriting of regulations to make sure that 

guest worker programs are not taking jobs away from American 

workers, especially in this very bad economy. A lot of people are 

finding out that they may take jobs that they would not otherwise 

take, but they need them to sustain their families. And those jobs 

should not be taken away through the guest worker program. And 

I think due diligence there by your department will hopefully pay 

off for the welfare of those families. 
23 

So again, thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your 

work. And thank you for the adjustment in terms of having the Department of Labor carry out its mandate on behalf of workers in 

this country and their families. 

And with that, I will yield back the balance of my time and recognize Mr. Kline. 

Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And again, thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here and for 

your testimony. 

It is always tempting, when the Chairman speaks, for me to be 

sucked into reopening the debate on Card Check and PLAs and 

Davis-Bacon. And I am fighting that temptation. I suspect perhaps 

other members of the committee are looking forward to having a 

discussion with the secretary about the impact of some of those 

policies. 

I, however—and by the way, I do want to thank you and the administration’s—thank you for your interest in WIA. We have been 

looking forward to that for some time. 

Madam Secretary, I was interested to hear you say that you are 

putting more troops on the ground. And I hope that some of those 

troops on the ground go into the Office of Labor Management 

Standards. I was pleased to see—not as pleased as I would like to 

have been—but I was pleased to see that in the budget the president has asked to be put back four of the $6 million that had been 

slashed out of that little tiny body, that little tiny agency in your 

department whose job it is to enforce laws. 

You said that was an important thing that we have to do. It was 

an important part of the department’s business was enforcement of 

laws. And that little office, the Office of Labor Management Standards, is the office whose job it is to make sure that rank-and-file 

union workers are protected from abuses by union bosses. 

And we know there are cases across the country of embezzlement. Money has literally been stolen from the accounts, and certainly there have been some cases of abuse in internal union elections. And that office is very important in enforcing the laws. 

I have been very upset that the majority party here in Congress 

slashed money out of the last administration’s budget for that, and 

I am pleased to see that you have put some of that money back in. 

I hope we are going to put troops on the ground there and take 

care of that business of enforcing, as well as the others that you 

mentioned. 

Madam Secretary, the president has made it a point on a number of occasions to talk about this administration wanting to be the 

most transparent and open administration in our nation’s history. 

I am glad to hear that sort of approach. I have some concerns 

about it, however. 

I want to specifically talk about an issue of transparency on 

union finances. Last year the department—your department—rescinded the final regulations concerning union financial reporting 

on Form LM-2. As I understand it, the rescinded rule would have 

increased the information provided by large unions on the Form 

LM-2 that they are required to file about parties buying or selling 

union assets and the compensation of union officers and employees 
24 

and would have required more detail and itemization in these categories than under the old 2003 rule. 

I don’t see how that adds to transparency. And clearly, there is 

less information available now to rank-and-file union members 

about what their leaders are doing and how their dues are being 

spent. Can you tell me why the department took that step and explain to me how that has made this more transparent? 

Secretary SOLIS. Right. You have some very good questions there, 

Congressman Kline. I do want to mention to you, too, that with respect to WIA we do want to work on a bipartisan basis, as we have 

already started on the Senate side. 

With respect to disclosure and transparency, I will say that, yes, 

we have taken a look at the LM-30 provisions there, and we know 

that that has been in effect since 1963. We believe that what we 

are looking for is to make sure that we are not overburdening a 

system where information that was previously asked for may not 

be of that much importance or significance. 

So what we are trying to do, I would say to you, is to provide 

transparency, but also if there is a need to provide any information, that we will be happy to disclose that information. 

I agree with you that we have to strongly enforce our laws, that 

nobody should be allowed to get away with taking advantage, for 

example, of their union membership. In fact, I am very happy and 

delighted that we have been able to see actually an increase in our 

investigations. 

While you report that we have seen a decrease overall in this 

particular agency, OLMF, we have also seen, I think, more forthrightness on the part of our staff. So we are working leaner, maybe 

a little bit more efficient and actually investigating more cases that 

may not have been looked at as seriously. 

And I would say to you that what we will try to do in every way 

we can is to make sure that we follow the rules of law and that 

we also make sure that we treat these two entities equally, so that 

we aren’t just going after business, but that we are also looking at 

those unions that are bad actors. 

We want to root wherever there is fraud and embezzlement going 

on out system. And I think that that is what you are going to see 

coming forward in our new revision of this particular program. So 

I am very happy about that. 

With respect to see T-1 form, I would say that what we are doing 

there is looking at obtaining that information, but placing it in a 

form that we already require people to fill out. So it is not as 

though we are abrogating or trying to decrease or de-emphasize information. I think what we are doing is making it easier for people 

to report this information. 

Mr. KLINE. Well, I certainly hope that we are going to exercise 

that part of the responsibility out of OLMS, and I would argue that 

the change rescinding the LM-2 rules has deprived us of information and the rank-and-file union workers of information they really 

ought to have access to. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman MILLER [continuing]. Stay within their time limits—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KLINE. I am with you. 
25 

Chairman MILLER [continuing]. Because we have the secretary 

until right around 11:30. So I don’t know if there is going to be 

votes or not, but if we can do that, we will alternate back and 

forth. 

Mr. Kildee? 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, you know, when you were sworn in, you inherited a 14-month recession. You were having 690,000 jobs being lost 

per month. And I am glad it was someone with your intelligence 

and compassion that has taken over a very, very important Cabinet 

post in our country. 

My city of Flint, Michigan, used to have 80,000 General Motors 

employees. My dad worked there beginning in 1916. Now it has 

8,000—from 80,000 to 8,000. The one good thing that has happened 

in the auto industry is the Auto Task Force, the so-called auto bailout. 

Right now, they are building a new engine plant in Flint. That 

is great news. They are adding a new truck line. We are still down, 

way down from where we were. My point is it is very important 

that the various agencies of government interface with one another. 

The Department of Labor, I am sure—and maybe as I finish here, 

you can answer that—how close a relationship do you have with 

the Auto Task Force, which came up with this? 

We could not have built that engine plant. We could not have 

added a truck line in Flint, Michigan, and add some new jobs without that. So I encourage that the various Cabinet officials, the various department heads and officials, deal with one another. 

You know, what we have in Flint right now are people who are 

unemployed. They lack health insurance. They are defaulting on 

their mortgages. This is the same person beset with all these problems. They find it difficult to get further education. They are really 

economic basket cases, and they need, really, almost a package of 

help from the federal government to get this economy going, not 

only for them individually, but for the entire economy of the country. 

So I am happy that you work closely with the Auto Task Force, 

because that has created jobs in a city that has close to 20 percent 

unemployment, with more houses being torn down each year than 

are being built. So I encourage you, and maybe you can tell us how 

you interface with the agency like the Auto Task Force, which has 

saved General Motors, probably Chrysler—and by the way the accelerators work well on those cars. [Laughter.] 

Secretary SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. It is good to see you. 

And having served with you on this committee, I know how deeply 

concerned you are about trying to provide assistance for those in 

your district, but in your state and the entire automobile industry 

that has just gone through a devastating process. 

And I am delighted that the president stepped forward to create 

this automobile industry task force that really takes a different approach, and one a model that has been used very effectively when 

I know we looked at the Defense Department closures of bases. We 

are using that—what they call a BRAC approach, so to speak— 

where we involve other agencies like the Environmental Protection 

Agency, the Department of Energy, Commerce, SBA, Treasury, and 
26 

other entities that are now meeting on a regular basis through the 

auspices of Dr. Ed Montgomery, who is leading that particular task 

force. 

He is housed in the Department of Labor, and we have assigned 

staff to work with him. He has spent, I would say, I want to say 

anywhere from 15 to 20, maybe more meetings on a regular basis 

where he is out in the field in Ohio, in Michigan, in Indiana and 

other places that have been hard-hit by the devastating job loss. 

One of the—— 

Mr. KILDEE. Give him my personal thanks, because he has done 

a wondrous job in Flint, and I really appreciate—— 

Secretary SOLIS. And I want to tell you that in the Recovery Act 

funding through our competitive grant process, of the $500 million 

that we were able to obtain through your good work and your assistance, $50 million have been set aside for the automobile industry regions that are hardest hit. So we have been rolling some of 

that out. 

But more importantly, we are really trying to connect the dots 

here. So if Department of Energy has a grant that potentially can 

provide for investments in, say, lithium, the creation of lithium 

batteries, which was just released, then we want to see that we are 

making those connections in the right region, so that those displaced autoworkers might be able to then be drawn back, immediately identified, skilled up to be ready for these orders that are 

going to be coming in. 

I was happy to be with you and other members of the Michigan 

delegation at the auto convention that went on just a few weeks 

ago, and I was delighted to see how many of our American automakers are now looking at long-term investments and very pleased 

that the Recovery Act moneys have been made available so that 

more infusion of dollars can go in so that they can start beginning 

to identify where those high technological areas are and make sure 

on our part that the Department of Labor is following suit, that we 

have the right training workforce there. 

The biggest threat I think we have is if we do not do something 

now. And we will lose that very core group of very well trained individuals, who are highly skilled, that can be trained, and those 

skills can be transferred into new technologies, into hybrid vehicles, into hydrogen vehicles, into different types of sources that will 

help reduce our dependency on foreign oil, make us more competitive, and have those cars built, sold and designed here by our 

American work force. 

So that is something that is of great concern on the part of our 

department, as well as this administration. 

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, referring back to the stimulus bill or the Recovery Act, we know that there are a lot of questions about the 

counting of jobs. And both the CBO and the General Accounting 

Office have raised some issues about that. But I have another question about the accounting for the jobs. 

As I understand what has happened with the money from that 

bill so far, a lot of it has gone to the various states to help with 

programs all the way from Medicaid to other programs. And a lot 
27 

of that has gone for various projects, almost a capital bond to build 

type thing, roads and things of that nature. 

Regardless of the count, whether it is accurate or not, is anyone 

looking at how many of these jobs are permanent? 

My impression from talking to people is that when the funding 

for the states or local jurisdictions is over for the particular time 

period, which is about expiring in the case of most governments at 

this time, there will not be money to keep those employees on, and 

a lot of the work that was created, let us say putting in an extra 

lane on a highway or something of that nature, was something that 

was done for 3 months, and then there is no record of whether 

those employees stayed on at that point, and they go back into the 

unemployment. 

My point is I don’t know if this has really created many permanent jobs. And I was wondering if anyone is tracking those jobs. 

After the reporting is done and that there are so many jobs created, is anyone tracking to see if those same jobs exist a month, 

2 months, 3 months, 6 months later? 

Secretary SOLIS. Congressman Castle, that is a very good question, and I think that it is almost twofold, because I have seen 

where there have been projects that have a certain time completion 

date, so if you build a bridge or road, there will be a certain length 

of time for that project to be completed. 

Thereafter, if there are other projects or incentives, I would say 

that that certainly would be something that we would want to consider. But in some cases, you are right. There may be short-term 

employment. 

But at the same time, the project that I visited, for example, last 

week in Ohio, the $400 million to go into a high-speed rail is going 

to be something that is going to be extended over the course of, obviously, a longer time than the ARRA funds are made available. So 

I know that, for example, the planning that is going into that rail 

system will go on for years. 

And then when you think about the other investments that the 

locales, the local cities, are making to help provide for that extension of the rail passenger system as well as freight, that means 

more opportunities for businesses to be attracted in these hub 

areas. 

They are trying to look at designing, for example, building up 

smart growth areas so that you have a combination of metro centers where people can easily get around to colleges, universities, 

convention centers, and then all of the subsidiary businesses that 

will offshoot because of the clients and people that will be attracted 

to those places. 

So in a way I understand what your point is, but I think this is 

something that I will certainly bring back to the Middle Class Task 

Force that is now headed by the vice president, because it is a valid 

point. But I also know that there are some very positive outcomes 

that are coming from these investments that we are making right 

now in infrastructure in particular. There is probably a little bit 

more apparent than some of these other areas that you might have 

mentioned. 

Mr. CASTLE. I wish you hadn’t mentioned the high-speed rail, 

since I am very concerned about the Northeast corridor, which is 
28 

virtually ignored by the high-speed rail funding. It is something 

that I still haven’t figured out why, since it is the most populous 

part of the country. But that is another discussion for another day, 

and I won’t ask you questions about that. 

I do want to ask a question, though, about—and there may not 

be exact correlation on these dates—but I know that at the end of 

last year, there were economic gains, apparently, in our country. I 

think it was around 5 percent. I don’t know if it was quarterly or 

just December. And I also know that we have continued to lose 

jobs, but at a lesser rate than we did before. 

That is sort of a surprise to me. It would seem to me if we have 

economic gains, you would start to see a greater turnaround in 

terms of jobs being created. Is anyone looking at the connection of 

those two economic reporting aspects to see why, when there is economic gain, the jobs aren’t necessarily coming back? And what 

should we be doing as the Congress or as executive branch or government to try to make sure that the jobs are being supplied as 

well? 

Secretary SOLIS. Good question, Congressman. I also think that 

a part of the recovery effort was to look at helping to stabilize that 

job loss and making some very, very strategic decisions on where 

we need to go in terms of helping to restructure our manufacturing 

base. 

We have really lost hold in the manufacturing arena. That has 

been happening for the last decade. And I think making investments in new technologies, in green energy, biofuels, creation of 

better and more high-speed systems of transportation is going to 

help us in the long run. But we have to be competitive and make 

sure that we have an appropriate workforce to deal with that. 

What I see happening every month—and I have to report on the 

unemployment figures—is that we have seen a drop-off in construction and manufacturing. There is no doubt about that. Those have 

been the hardest hit areas. 

But I do continue to see because of the stimulus program and the 

incentives that are being made available, that some businesses now 

are going back and looking and reassessing their inventory and actually restocking. So that is where you saw the growth this last 

month, the 5.7 percent in GDP. 

So there still is somewhat a reluctance on some businesses to 

move ahead and hire, to go the full step in hiring more people. But 

I will tell you that the figures I have to report on, there is a higher 

number of temporary workers that have come back into the system. 

But it is no longer the temporary worker that most people would 

think about. It is a consultant. It is an architect. It is someone who 

is dealing in IT and someone who has a much vaster range of experiences that are being brought back on board. 

I think once confidences is regained and the business community 

feels that there is going to be more credit available and more of 

these investments being made in the energy technology and the 

whole proposal about renewable energy, that they start to see these 

practical efforts on our part, then businesses will make those investments. 

And every time I travel, I see that people are asking when is the 

federal government going to move on cap and trade, and moving so 
29 

that we have the right signals to make those investments for 5 and 

10 years down the line. No businessperson is going to want to 

make an investment for 2 years based on just a Recovery Act program. They are going to want to see what their return is going to 

be in the next 10 and 20 years. 

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

I yield back. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

It is really great to see you again. And let me thank you for inviting members of this committee over to your office several 

months ago. I think it was the first time that I have ever had that 

extended to me. And secondly, I think it was so important that you 

had Job Corps young folks there who prepared the food. I think 

that you have done an outstanding job with opening your office, 

and it is great to have you here. 

I would like also to thank the Department of Labor. In my congressional district, we received a $5 million grant for Union County 

College in my district that created—it is for the creation of green 

jobs. And it has made a great big difference there for young people 

who are seeking alternative jobs. And I would like to thank you for 

that. 

And also the Summer Youth Employment—we had over 4,000 

young people from New Jersey worked this summer, and I just 

wondered quickly do you expect to have Summer Youth Employment this year in your budget so that we could at least duplicate 

last year or even expand it? Will there be Summer Youth Employment in your budget? 

Secretary SOLIS. Thank you, Congressman Payne. Yes, we are 

looking at proposing an increase in the Summer Youth Employment program. We actually, through the ARRA funds, projected 

that we would see about 150,000 youngsters in that program actually receive this benefit and this training experience. We were very 

surprised that we had well over 317,000 participants. 

The need is so great, I have to tell you. Governors and mayors 

have done an outstanding job in their own way to help expand 

these programs. And certainly, that has been one of the more successful parts of the ARRA funding that I can be able to say proudly 

that has really worked on the ground. 

I visited Puerto Rico recently a couple of months ago and actually saw young people, 14, 16 years of age, that were hired to do 

conservation along the coast of Puerto Rico in some very nice 

areas,—pristine, but students were getting information on biology, 

looking at other dynamics in terms of how to keep that ecosystem 

alive. 

And, of course, it is a big tourist industry there, so making sure 

that preserving and conserving property and the value that that 

means I think helps to instill in many of these young people, who 

may not even have an opportunity to get a job—the unemployment 

rate in Puerto Rico is well up above 40 and 50 percent, and even 

higher for young people—but just as an aside, the summer youth 

program itself has really helped, I think, to not just help that student continue to feel a sense of discipline and respect because they 

earn a paycheck, but many in this hard economic time have shared 
30 

with us that that check goes straight to their parents to pay for 

that utility bill, to pay for additional rent, or for maybe a little bit 

more clothing to go to school. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. I couldn’t agree with you more, and I 

think the ARRA program has, you know, created or saved over two 

million jobs. The House just passed, you know, the second jobs bill 

that would certainly help teachers and firefighters and policemen 

and create health jobs, and so I would like to really also commend 

the president, who has laid out, you know, an aggressive job creating agenda. 

I would hope that we could finally get support, you know, from 

some of the members on the other side, you know, as we move forward. We recall there was attempt to even years ago block the minimum wage increase, which hadn’t been increased in 10 years, and, 

of course, the opposition to the free union organizing bills and, of 

course, the exodus of jobs overseas. We have not seen anything in 

those years to try to prevent that from happening. But hopefully, 

those days are over. 

I do have a question about the wage theft. There is a Sodexo 

company I am not sure if you are familiar with, but there have 

been some serious allegations about their practices that have disallowed a number of issues. And I would just like to bring that to 

your attention, and hopefully your office can look into that. I will 

give you some very specifics, but I would be happy to share that 

with some of the information I received from SEIU. It is a food 

service company, and there are some very bad allegations. 

Let me ask the last question about—before my time expires—the 

Job Corps program. Is there a way to go out to recruit more at Job 

Corps people? I know you are going to help, you know, to deal with 

the facilities, but I understand the Job Corps is not totally up to 

the number of slots that are available. Are you doing anything aggressively to try to increase the number of recruits? 

Chairman MILLER. Answer this quickly. 

Secretary SOLIS. That is a lot of good questions, but I will be 

happy to work with you personally and your staff. 

With respect to Job Corps, yes, there was a reduction, but what 

I think I am being tested to do now is to evaluate, to really look 

at those programs that are effective, come up with some innovation 

there as well. 

And we are looking now to identify our director for Job Corps. 

We put it back in the secretary’s level in our ETA administration, 

so it no longer stands out by itself, so we can integrate the other 

services, the core services that we offer through our other agencies. 

And that is really important, because we can draw on more expertise and more resources to help Job Corps. 

It is a very important program, one that the president feels very 

strongly about, and I do. And we want to work with this committee 

and, of course, our appropriators on seeing how we can fix any 

problems. 

Chairman MILLER. Mrs. Biggert? 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, it is great to see you here in your new role. 

You know, many of my constituents have lost their jobs during this 

recession, and they found new positions that don’t really fit their 
31 

skill set or pay significantly less than their previous job. And I 

think this is happening all over the country. In fact, the national 

underemployment rate is 17.3 percent, nearly a fifth of the adult 

population. 

So what is the president and what are you doing to help the underemployed find secure, good paying jobs? And some of them just 

have never found a job at all, and they are kind of off the record. 

Secretary SOLIS. Congresswoman, as I have traveled throughout 

the country, I have heard from many individuals who have advanced degrees, people who worked in the financial industry who 

lost their jobs, people who are very high skilled. And because our 

market has shrunk, because there has been a restructuring in that 

particular area, we know that we are going to be tested to see 

about coming up with more creative opportunities in partnership 

with our community colleges, with our 4-year universities, and 

again, looking at where we could see potential growth. 

So, for example, health careers—I mentioned that earlier as a potential area for people to kind of—I don’t want to say reinvent 

themselves, but as a potential area of job growth and something 

that actually can help provide them with better pay and more stability. 

That is something that is going to keep growing out, as well as 

in the medical field in terms of IT and other things that have been 

brought forward by the Congress that will actually provide more 

opportunities. 

But you are right. We have to do a better job in WIA. We have 

to have more focus on diagnosing what the job skills of that particular individual is. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Do expect that the president is committed to pass 

the WIA bill this year? 

Secretary SOLIS. Absolutely. And as I outlined, we want to do 

this on a bipartisan level. Our staff has already begun work with 

the Senate committee on a bipartisan level, and we also want to— 

when asked appropriately by this committee, to also do likewise. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. You know, one of my community—or universities, 

I should say, just has a new proposal to have a woman empowerment and training for them so that they can, you know, be at the 

top of their skill set. The problem, though, is, you know, it costs 

money, and somebody that is really out of a job doesn’t have the 

wherewithal to, you know, to pay for the education. And if they 

have a job with a lower skill level, they are working all the time 

and don’t have the opportunity to do that. It just seems like it is 

a catch-22. 

And one of the things that is another thing that has happened 

in my community—I went to visit a business. And they just received as a subcontractor a wonderful, you know, proposal or purchase order, if they can fulfill it. And this company has, you know, 

gone through what most of the companies are doing. They laid off 

60 of their employees, who they could bring back on this. 

The problem is that they need to upgrade a couple of their machines at a high cost. And because of the economic downturn, they, 

you know, they don’t have the funds to do that right now, but they 

could bring the people back. If they could just get these machines, 
32 

it is all ready for them. And they go to the bank, you know, the 

credit is not there. 

And what are we going to do when they—you know, the corporate taxes that they pay, and they can’t get the bank loans, and 

it is really it is the businesses that create the jobs. And so many 

of them don’t have the ability to do that. And what we should be 

doing is providing tools, but what can we do in that kind of a situation? 

Secretary SOLIS. I think you describe something that I have confronted out in the field as well, the fact that people that are unemployed are challenged, because they are looking for a job, or if they 

have a job that underpays them, they can’t really take time off to 

go fit into a job training program. 

But for those people that are unemployed, I would encourage 

them to contact our one-stop centers and find out what job training 

opportunities are available, most of which are free. 

This new incentive to provide Pell grants for people that have 

lost their jobs while they are collecting unemployment insurance is 

also another extension, a kind of another lift-up to get more of the 

more advanced training that they may need short-term. And those 

are transferable, obviously, for a 4-year and a 2-year community 

college. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Well, what can employers do? Are you thinking of 

the corporate tax structure? Is that going to change, help with 

making sure that they can get credit? 

Secretary SOLIS. I think that the president looking, and I know 

the House has some proposals, and the Senate is now going 

through theirs, to see how we could readily make available more 

tax credits and to incentivize small businesses in particular to go 

that extra step to keep someone on longer hours, given that tax 

break, but also to bring more people on. 

So that is a big priority—and using also some sources of funding 

to get through our commercial banks, who tend to have, I think, 

a better record of providing those loans to businesses. So I think 

opening up different opportunities in that way can certainly help. 

But we have a long ways to go, and look forward to working with 

yourself and others who have ideas to do that. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. 

Yield back. 

Chairman MILLER. Just reiterate what Mrs. Biggert said. I think 

all of us in our communities find the access to credit. I hope this 

new proposal by the president to put $30 billion in front of the 

banks will help the banks loan, but it has been a dry season on 

lending for small businesses. 

Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, historically it has been the case that whatever 

we do, good or bad, eventually we are going to recover from the recession. So our challenge is to try to put people to work as soon 

as possible so that the recession will be as short as possible and 

as painless as possible. 

One of the challenges we have as we go through this is—as quick 

as we can stimulate the economy on one side. State budgets have 

been cut, I understand, about $300 billion after we invested about 
33 

$140 billion in state governments. So the first $450 billion worth 

of recovery just went to offset what the states were cutting off. 

My question is in just whatever kind of jobs, temporary or otherwise, and all construction jobs are temporary—I mean, if you build 

a bridge, you complete the bridge; it is over. Build a school. When 

the school is complete, the job is over. You go on to the next job. 

Do you have any idea how much it would just cost to hire back 

many of the people that have been laid off? I understand it is up 

to about seven million have lost their jobs so far. How much would 

it cost to get three million of them back to work short-term? 

Secretary SOLIS. Well, I don’t have an accurate figure, but I 

know that our council is in the White House, and our task force 

that is looking at jobs is looking at different proposals. 

And the president did outline that he knows that there is a great 

need to have a jobs bill package put on his desk as soon as possible, because we are seeing a continuing number of people that are 

now exhausting their unemployment benefits, but also more importantly, making sure that we can keep either people on the job, and 

part of it is through tax credits for small businesses to extend that 

time that they can stay on, and hopefully increase their wages. 

This is going to take a bipartisan effort and approach to get 

through. 

Mr. SCOTT. But just in terms of the cost, we understand from 

what our friends on the Transportation Infrastructure Committee 

have said, if we spend $40 billion in infrastructure, we can get a 

million people working. Is that accurate? 

Secretary SOLIS. You know, I would have to get back to you on 

the actual amount. 

Mr. SCOTT. And we have had a lot of other jobs that people are 

waiting for. I mean, in my district you have got infrastructure, you 

have got military ship repairs that are being deferred, research 

grants, summer jobs, youth programs—I mean, a lot of things that 

you can get somebody to work for a relatively small cost. Has your 

office gone through a list of opportunities where for the lowest cost 

we can get the most jobs? 

Secretary SOLIS. We are working, as I said, with the president’s 

Cabinet, those that are more involved directly with coming up with 

the job package proposal. And those discussions are ongoing now. 

That also is taking place while we see the Congress—you have 

already moved to put forward a jobs package, and we see the Senate also working to come up with something. And it is going to be 

a challenge to try to get all these forces working together to make 

these jobs more available and immediate, so—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Do you have an idea of what size in terms of money— 

what size package we need to get people back to work? 

Secretary SOLIS. Well, the president says that in his proposal he 

is looking at $100 billion to start with, and I am sure that as we 

work this through with your leadership and the Congress and in 

the Senate, that there will be other opportunities to hear new ideas 

and other programs that might work better. 

I know that there are several proposals that are being talked 

about. But I am probably not the only or the best person to respond 

to all of that, because much of it is happening internally with 

White House staff. 
34 

Mr. SCOTT. One of the long-term challenges we have is in health 

care to make sure that there is sufficient personnel in the health 

care industry, if we can ever get a health care bill passed so that 

everybody has access to the system. What is the Department of 

Labor doing to ensure that there will be sufficient personnel in the 

future to meet the health care needs of our nation? 

Secretary SOLIS. Well, this has been something of great concern 

to me in the last few years just overall, but our department is 

going to be issuing $220 million for job training in health careers. 

So that will be going out in a matter of weeks. And that is just, 

I think, a start, beginning of where we need to go. And I know that 

there is much, much concern. 

There has actually been an over subscription. We received hundreds—hundreds—of applications so that people could obtain these 

particular grants, partnerships that work with hospital associations, with clinics, with the community colleges and 4-year institutions. They are oversubscribed. We don’t have nearly enough 

money to make those all complete. I would hope that that is something that Congress and the Senate might entertain. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, welcome. 

Secretary SOLIS. How are you? 

Mr. PRICE. We know that you have a difficult job and remarkable 

challenges, and we look forward to working together positively to 

get to the root cause of the decrease in jobs and move forward. 

Our chairman talks about a celebration of a change in philosophy 

once this new administration came in. Many of us have concern, 

because we believe that that change in philosophy is to punish the 

job creators across this nation. And that gives us a great pause. 

The chairman also stated that the non-stimulus bill that passed, 

the success of it was ‘‘undeniable. Most Americans, I think, would 

would dispute that. And the question that they are asking is, 

‘‘Where are the jobs?’’ Where are the jobs? 

Before the $787 billion non-stimulus bill, the president said that 

if it wasn’t passed, then unemployment would go to 8 percent. And 

in fact, the 787 boondoggle was indeed passed, and now unemployment sits at 10 percent or more. And again, the American people 

want to know where are the jobs? Where are the jobs? 

If you look at the jobs that have been ‘‘created’’—these are from 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics itself—since January of 2009 

through December of 2009, total private employment, private-sector 

employment, down 3 percent, loss of 3.3 million jobs. Total federal 

government employment up 1.3 percent. 

I think it gets to one of the concerns that the gentleman from 

Delaware asked about whether or not these were permanent jobs 

at all and whether in fact they were jobs in the private sector. 

As you have stated, as the president has stated, as everybody 

knows, the small businesses of this land are the job engine, the job 

creation engine of our nation. So I would ask what do you believe— 

what does the department believe to be the single biggest important factor in allowing small businesses to create jobs? 

Secretary SOLIS. First of all, I do want to say that this last quarter there was a report that mentions that there were over 640,000 
35 

jobs that were either saved or were created through the Recovery 

Act. And we also know that we were able to preserve jobs for teachers and for law enforcement officers. Many states benefited from— 

both Republican and Democrat—well over 200,000 jobs in construction and clean energy, 300,000 jobs—— 

Mr. PRICE. Madam Secretary, if I may, and my time is very limited and the chairman won’t allow me to go over the red light, so 

the question is what do you believe is the most important factor in 

the creation of jobs in the small business arena? 

Secretary SOLIS. I think that the president’s proposal to provide 

I believe it is $30 billion for the small business lending fund to targeted communities and smaller banks will help provide what we 

have heard here discussed today, the fact that there isn’t enough 

credit made available for small businesses—— 

Mr. PRICE. So capital is the most—— 

Secretary SOLIS. That is part of it, but I also think that investments that we have already started through the Department of Energy, transportation infrastructure, new innovative technologies 

that will create better hybrid vehicles, for example, lithium batteries, solar panel industry—we can see that there has been an increase in job growth there. 

Mr. PRICE. Madam Secretary? 

Secretary SOLIS. I think that will help us put people back to 

work. 

Mr. PRICE. Many of us believe that the engine for job creation is 

on the private side, not on the public side, so that the answers that 

I continually hear, that we continually hear coming out of the administration and out of your department, it requires bigger and 

greater and stronger and more intervention of government to create jobs. 

And many of us just simply don’t believe that—in fact, believe 

that our nation’s history is, and the vibrancy of our history demonstrates, that it is indeed the private sector. 

When I talk to folks back home about what it is that creates jobs 

and why they aren’t being able to hire right now, one of the big 

concerns that I hear from them is the uncertainty because of the 

intervention or threat of intervention of the federal government. 

So in the area of health care, the reports that are out that dictate—and I know that you scoff at this—they have health care. If 

the health care bill were passed, 5.7 million jobs would be lost. If 

the cap and trade bill were passed, millions of American jobs would 

be lost. If the Card Check bill were passed, millions of jobs would 

be lost. 

And those are high-quality individuals, who look at our economy 

and try to determine what it would take to get the economy rolling 

again and get jobs created again. 

So I would hope that at a time when we we are currying favor 

with the union community and currying favor with those who believe that larger government, bigger government, greater intervention of government is the secret to job creation, that we also look 

at the true job creators across this land, which are the small businesses, and try to decrease the burden on them, whether it is 

through decreasing taxes—we have the second highest taxation in 

the world, industrialized world, for businesses—decreasing regula-
36 

tion that oppress the job creators, and making litigation an environment that is much more comfortable for folks to be able to start 

businesses. I thank you. 

Secretary SOLIS. I think the irony there, Congressman Price, is 

that many of the proposals that you talk about have not even been 

voted upon yet. So we don’t have a complete picture of what those 

proposals will be. 

But I do believe in the health care reform proposal that we do 

see, that there will be a reduction in costs. And that is really where 

I think the president has tried to move us along to realize that we 

need to drive down those costs. People are going bankrupt, businesses are going bankrupt, because they can’t keep up with those 

payments that continue to go up at a very higher rate than employment and wages. 

So I think that we have to tackle this problem in different ways. 

But certainly I know we want to work very closely with businesses. 

We don’t create jobs. Businesses create jobs. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Secretary SOLIS. So we need to work in a very whole school environment that respects both the worker and the employer. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Thank you for being here, Secretary Solis. It is wonderful to 

know how much you know. What a complement you are to your position. 

Wherever I go in my district, really, or around the country, and 

anybody is talking about jobs and about wages and anything that 

has to do with the workforce, which is what everybody is talking 

about—it is the most important thing in our country—I always 

hear something like, ‘‘Well, lucky us, we have a change in the Department of Labor, and they are doing a lot for us.’’ 

And I think that that feels really good, because people know the 

difference. They actually recognize that when Barack Obama was 

sworn in in January, the job losses per month were 741,000, and 

then in November of this year—too many, of course, and you said 

so—85,000. But what a difference. And people recognize that. 

But one more thing they recognize, and this is just I want you 

to know that. They always use your name when they say, ‘‘We have 

a different Department of Labor, and Hilda Solis is going to take 

care of us.’’ The workers in this country know you. They trust you. 

They respect you. And it is making a big difference in how they feel 

about what we—all of us—can do for them. 

So now I want to change the subject. I know I had to compliment 

you, because you are doing such a good job. 

In your testimony about reviewing the department’s commitments to workplace safety, I wanted to follow up on that, because 

the first priority of the Workforce Protection Subcommittee is securing passage of H.R. 2067, the Protecting America’s Worker Act, 

because we want to make the needed improvements in the Occupational Safety and Health to actually bring it into the 21st century. 

And we want to know how we can help you to do that. 

But in the meantime we want to let you know—I want you to 

know how impressed we are that you have done so much with the 
37 

October issuing of a fine of over $87 million to BP for the—that is 

the largest fine in the history of OSHA. It is about time. 

You have hired more than a hundred inspectors, as well as 25 

new investigators for the Department of Labor’s whistleblower program. And you have improved oversight over the 26 states that operate their own OSHA plans, which is very necessary. 

I would like you to, if you can, to tell us where the department 

is going to go from here. Highlight some of what the plans are for 

2010, 2011. And I would like to know whether that 2011 budget, 

the president’s budget, actually supports this positive momentum. 

Secretary SOLIS. Thank you, Congresswoman Woolsey, for your 

words of encouragement. And I also want to commend you for your 

hard work on this issue on protecting workers and creating a safer 

environment overall. I know you have been a great advocate, and 

I know that you have. Your priority is to continue to work with, 

I believe, us, with this administration, to see how we can really 

make these programs more effective—and to be honest, programs 

that are going to be more transparent. 

And I can tell you that back in 2009 when OSHA issued one of 

the largest fines in history, a penalty of more than $87 million that 

was discussed earlier by our chairman, I think, really helps to provide that kind of confidence and support that people out in the field 

need to know that we are taking our job very seriously. 

In the past I would say that OSHA probably was not as due diligent in terms of going out and really seeking and investigating and 

following suit. Thanks to your help and folks on this committee and 

other committees that help us increase the penalties to send a message. 

Of course, this is a small drop in the bucket for someone like BP, 

but it does send, I think, a message to the industry overall that we 

want to provide assistance. We also want to let them know that we 

are available to give them technical help so that we can prevent 

injuries and loss of life. Nobody should have to go into a workplace 

knowing that they may not be able to come home at night because 

of an injury or fatality. And it is something that our new OSHA 

brand is trying to bring to the table. 

And, of course, we want to work with all local groups on the 

ground. We also want to work with small businesses and provide 

continued support and assistance. I want to tell you this budget 

2011, we are not in my opinion going to see a dramatic decrease 

in our enforcement, because we are barely coming up to par where 

we should have been at 2001 levels. So we are trying to go back 

to where it should have been. 

But it is still not nearly enough. But I will say that it is enough 

at least to begin to at least look at those more egregious cases and 

hopefully work with industry so that we can prevent any of these 

injuries, because any injury is a cost for everyone, and unfortunately for families that lose loved ones, I think it is even more 

painful. 

And we have to do a better job of prevention and information. So 

we are doing outreach campaigns. We are going to be presenting 

a program in Houston, Texas, to look at injuries in the construction 

industry and service sector and really targeting these—for example, immigrant populations have the highest incidence of fatalities 
38 

on construction jobs—to help provide the tools with industry, working in partnership with other offices and local government to see 

how we can better prepare those businesses, industries, but also 

the employees so that they know what training has to take place 

to prevent any of these illnesses and injuries on the job. 

Chairman MILLER. You have been very generous with your time. 

If you will just bear with us a little bit longer, I would like to recognize two additional members on each side. But those members 

will be recognized for 3 minutes. Those members can decide if they 

want to talk for 3 minutes or ask a question or whatever they want 

to do. But that will allow at least four other members of the committee to have opportunity to put their remarks the record, if that 

is all right with you. So we will hold to the red light. 

So we are going to begin with Mr. Thompson. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary. 

Madam Secretary, in my home state of Pennsylvania this past 

summer, there were plans for a renovation project for the Rockview 

State Correctional Institution, and Benner Township granted the 

state project. And the Pennsylvania Department of General Services opened the project for bids this past June, but it made it subject to a project labor agreement. 

It turns out this kept a few hundred firms in the region from bidding on the project, and the bids ended up coming in so high that 

General Services and the governor were forced to scrap the solicitation. This project was subsequently put on the back burner, because the PLA could not be carried out. 

Similarly, last September the Department of Labor issued a solicitation for construction of a Job Corps Center in New Hampshire 

that the department declared is urgently needed. But then without 

explanation, the department attempted to impose a project labor 

agreement on the project, which would require all successful bidders to force their employees to work under a union contract, even 

though more than 90 percent of the workers in New Hampshire are 

non-union. And after a small local business filed a protest against 

the PLA, the department canceled the solicitation—again, without 

sufficient explanation. 

My question is simple. Why did the department cancel the entire 

solicitation of an urgently needed, as determined by the department, project in the face of the bid protest instead of simply removing the PLA? 

Secretary SOLIS. Thank you, Congressman. 

With respect to project labor agreements, I find that in many instances they have actually helped to reduce costs. And while they 

require collaboration on the part of the developer or a private entity and a union, I think that what this has at least given me evidence to feel that these are appropriate things that we should be 

looking for is to keep costs down—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well—— 

Secretary SOLIS [continuing]. To keep jobs locally to make sure 

that those jobs pay well and that those jobs benefit those individuals from that particular area. 
39 

Mr. THOMPSON. If I can reclaim my time, I appreciate that, but, 

you know, you know, I mean, it is job creation, though, union or 

not, you would agree that is really is what the goal is. 

Secretary SOLIS. I would say overall, making sure that we can 

keep costs down. The taxpayers’ costs, especially if they are funded 

by the government, is first and foremost very important. 

I think the chairman even mentioned that there are projects in 

our state in California where these project labor agreements have 

been very successful efforts to complete before the time that they 

were supposed to be completed, but also have managed to keep 

costs down. 

There is more predictability put in place when you have project 

labor agreements, when people could come to the table and understand ahead of time that labor disputes can be minimized, that 

there won’t be any work stoppages, and that people will be hired 

from the local area. 

Mr. THOMPSON. And I certainly support keeping costs down. The 

two situations—one is a state example, but the other is a federal 

issue—it seems like we have canceled those projects versus allowing local contractors, non through PLAs, which may be able to provide local jobs and keeping those costs down. 

And I am out of time, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Thompson, if you—if Mr. Thompson—— 

Secretary SOLIS. Yes, we would be happy to respond to you. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Secretary, I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Secretary SOLIS. Thank you. Thank you. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Hinojosa? 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Chairman Miller, thank you for inviting the distinguished Labor Secretary, Hilda Solis, to join us today. 

Madam Secretary, welcome. It is great to see you and to hear 

your enthusiasm and passion for the Department of Labor, as you 

fight every day to strengthen our nation’s economy and our workforce. 

In the past year you have given the Department of Labor a renewed vision and purpose so that American workers can acquire 

good jobs to feed and sustain their families. This is particularly 

true in the high-growth emerging sectors of our economy. And I 

commend you and President Obama for investing and supporting 

American workers and our economy. 

In Texas the Recovery Act of 2009 has created and saved thousands of jobs in many sectors, including teachers, firefighters, 

health care jobs, and many others, and provided much-needed 

training and employment services to adults, dislocated workers, 

and youth. 

We have very little time, so I ask that you please allow me to 

ask my two questions before you respond. 

We start—rather, we understand that your list of priorities for 

WIA includes the need to streamline our workforce investment 

boards as well as devote more of their resources to effect workforce 

training programs, particularly for workers who have been displaced, who are unemployed, or lack the basic literacy and workplace skills to access good jobs. 
40 

Recently, the caucus sent you a letter, which I have in my hand, 

underscoring the need to reauthorize WIA. What are your thoughts 

on these issues? 

And my second question is at the last congressional session we 

held a series of congressional hearings in Washington, D.C., and 

Michigan and Nevada on issues related to WIA in 2009. During 

these sessions, witnesses expressed the need for greater coordination and collaboration between the Department of Labor and Department of Education. 

Do you support the development of a stronger and more formal 

relationship between the two departments to facilitate the implementation of policies that strengthen our adult education and 

workforce training systems? 

Secretary SOLIS. Thank you, Congressman Hinojosa. You have 

been a leader on this issue, and I know we have had various discussions about the thoroughness of your sessions that you have 

held throughout the country. 

I want to tell you that one of the first things I did as a new Cabinet member was to call together my own internal task force to 

make sure that we make WIA reauthorization a priority. And it is 

a priority for this administration. 

We have held over 20 listening sessions, and many of the sessions that I have held in the Department of Labor have been with 

community colleges, have been with manufacturers, have been with 

secondary and post-secondary institutions, as well as nontraditional groups that also can be involved and a part of these partnerships. In fact, we were able to include some of those new entities 

in the grant-making that we just provided over the last few months 

in these new partnerships. 

And I am really going to be looking very strongly at evaluating 

these programs to see what we can learn from them and hopefully 

include them as part of our process in developing the WIA reauthorization language. As we have started in the Senate, this is a 

bipartisan effort. We want to do the same thing here. You have 

called upon me, Mr. Chairman, for assistance and for technical 

help. We will be happy to provide that. My assistant secretary is 

here with me today for ETA, Jane Oates, who I believe you met. 

We are ready to work with you. 

Secretary SOLIS. Yes. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I ask unanimous consent that the tri-caucus letter dated January 

27, 2010, be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

Chairman MILLER. Without objection. Hearing none, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

Washington, DC, January 27, 2010. 

Hon. HILDA SOLIS, Secretary, 

U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. 

SECRETARY HILDA SOLIS: Thank you for your leadership in fighting for the needs 

of our nation’s working men and women. As our nation works to rebuild our economy, create jobs, and increase global competitiveness, it is imperative that the 

Obama administration prioritize the reauthorization of the Workforce Investment 

Act (WIA) during this session of Congress. We want to underscore the urgency of 

debating this issue and passing legislation in both Houses early in this session. 

As you know, in some parts of the country, local jurisdictions are experiencing 

record unemployment levels. This is especially true in low-income neighborhoods. In 
41 

fact, minority and low-income communities were confronted with economic challenges long before this current crisis began. A reauthorization of WIA would allow 

us to strengthen our nation’s public workforce development and adult education system to better address the needs of workers, particularly those who have been displaced or lack the basic literacy or workplace skills to access jobs in emerging and 

high-growth sectors of our economy. As we look to prepare the workforce of the future, we rely on WIA as a framework to prepare these workers for living-wage jobs 

and career ladders to the middle class. 

A new vision for WIA can serve to increase collaborations among education, labor, 

business, and the nonprofit sector, improve and integrate education and workplace 

training, and ensure that our public workforce development and adult education 

system encourages career pathways that lead to family-sustaining wages. A new vision for WIA could create incentives to businesses to improve employee skills and 

stimulate economic growth. 

We look forward to working with you on this issue in the coming months. We cannot afford to neglect the millions of displaced, unemployed, or underemployed workers who are looking to the administration and Congress for leadership on this issue. 

Respectfully, 

BARBARA LEE, Chair, 

Congressional Black Caucus. 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, Chair, 

Congressional Hispanic Caucus. 

MIKE HONDA, Chair, 

Congressional Asian American Pacific Caucus. 

RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Chair, 

CHC Education Task Force. 

DALE E. KILDEE, Chair, 

Native American Caucus. 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Co-Chair, 

CBC Education Subcommittee. 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Chair, 

Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and Competitiveness. 

CHAKA FATTAH, Co-Chair, 

CBC Education Subcommittee. 

DAVID WU, Chair, 

CAPAC Education Task Force. 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Co-Chair, 

CBC Community Reinvestment Task Force 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Co-Chair, 

CBC Community Reinvestment Task Force. 

JUDY CHU, Chair, 

CAPAC Economic Development Taskforce. 

Chairman MILLER. Mr. Roe? 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Having been a small businessperson for over 30 years, I bring 

some experience to the table, having never worked. This is my only 

government job, is the one I have now here. Between 2000 and 

2009, we had a decade of no growth for private sector jobs, so the 

same of people employed now that were in 2000 except in the government sector, in which there are 1.7 more million people. 

You are hiring. You are going to hire more OSHA inspectors and 

so forth. But small businesses are not hiring. Why aren’t they hiring? Well, I am not every weekend that I am home talking to small 

business. It is real simple. It occurs across the country. 

Number one, they don’t know what the go forward costs are 

going to be. They don’t know what Card Check is going to cost 

them. They don’t know what that health care costs are going to be. 

They don’t know what those costs are, and the carbon tax. They 
42 

don’t know what their costs there are going to be. So if they had 

that knowledge, they might hire someone. 

Number two, the access to capital just isn’t there. I don’t care 

what people are saying on Main Street—I mean, on Wall Street— 

but down on Main Street, it isn’t happening. What is going on with 

the local community banks are the FDIC inspectors are coming in, 

looking at loans that are being paid right now—I mean, no problem, they are not behind—and they are re-evaluating that property, causing the capital requirements for those banks to go up, 

and they can’t make loans. 

And so no matter what the administration says, out in the real 

world they can’t borrow money. So without knowing those things, 

they are not going to hire people. I talk to business people every 

day that are struggling to keep the people working that they have 

right now. 

And I will give you an example of our bigger business. Eastman 

Chemical Company, which hires 9,500 people in my district, are extremely worried about their go forward costs in the carbon tax, so 

they are not hiring people. They are trying to keep their workers 

working. 

And on OSHA, I would just simply implore you to please not 

make them an organization that is going in with a boot on the 

neck. And let me give you a real quick example in my own office. 

We give our drugs the way at the end of the month to a clinic that 

is a homeless clinic. We put the drugs in a red bag instead of a 

clear bag, and that was an $1,800 fine from OSHA. No good deed 

goes unpunished. 

We didn’t have a letter in our file about a protecting needle on 

a needle we do amniocentesis with, which is to draw fluid from 

around the baby. That was a $1,700 fine. I am asking, do you have 

quotas that these people have to meet when they come by our offices and to our businesses? That didn’t protect anybody. 

Now, what BP did, absolutely. I think that probably did. But 

many small businesses have these onerous government regulations 

that they can’t meet that add to the cost of business. And I don’t 

know whether you see it where you are, but I see it every day. I 

have experienced it. So I will stop and let you answer. 

Secretary SOLIS. Thank you. You raise a very interesting point, 

because what we have seen also the Department of Labor is that 

we have not kept pace with the growth of businesses overall in 

terms of how we are supposed to be monitoring and helping to 

evaluate and provide assistance to small business. 

So in our attempt to hire up more investigators, I don’t want it 

to seem or appear that it is just punitive, because what we are also 

trying to do is get at the fact that many of our small businesses, 

many new upstart businesses, many immigrant-owned businesses 

that have also helped to restore our economy, need the additional 

tools and information provided to them so they know how to run 

their business appropriately without creating more injuries or 

fines, and working with them. 

So I think you are going to see a different attempt on our part, 

whether it is Wage and Hour or OSHA, to really work with our 

small businesses, to have partnerships with them and try to develop more of a—how could I say—communicative atmosphere. 
43 

That may not have been there in the past, the way that would 

include also the safety and protection of workers, because that is 

first and foremost one of our primary goals is. 

Small business, very important to anything that we do in terms 

of succeeding, providing tax credits to them to hire up more or to 

extend hours for workers, very important proposals, and also helping businesses keep their employees on board. When you lose an 

employee for 6 or 12 months, you lose a valuable training part of 

your potential business. It is hard to bring that back, so we know 

the importance of focusing in on efforts and programs that might 

be able to address that. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, is it possible that the secretary could come back 

because, obviously, we have a lot more to discuss? At some time, 

could she be invited back? 

Chairman MILLER. We will see what we can do. 

Mr. ROE. Thank you. 

Chairman MILLER. Mrs. McCarthy? 

Mrs. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank you, Secretary Solis, for being here. Number one, let me 

first say that I certainly as a New York representative appreciate 

the over $700 million that has come into New York State. We still 

have a long way to go. There are no two ways about it. 

But I don’t think anybody is talking about if we hadn’t done anything where would the state of the economy be today? How many 

more workers would be actually out of work today? And I think it 

would be something that we would all be trying to dig up for a 

much longer period of time. 

You had mentioned a number of times on health care—I happen 

to think that is certainly an area that is going to expand—we see 

that, you know, obviously, a lot of seniors now are starting to age 

out. We are starting to see constantly that a lot more patients want 

to stay home in their home instead of going to a nursing home, 

which basically ends up certainly being less expensive and better 

for the patient, in my opinion. 

Last week, January 29th, the New York Times ran an article 

that highlighted a Supreme Court case that just came through that 

a home health care aide was denied overtime and time-and-a-half 

for her work. Now, spending many years doing homecare also and 

working with nurses’ aides, you know, their title by law is a companion. These particular nurses’ aides are more than a companion. 

They are doing just about everything you would be doing in a hospital on the floor. And I am hoping that we can work together to 

really clear up that particular wording. 

As we are going to go forward and people will want to go into 

the health care, especially on entry-level, and hopefully they will 

go forward to nursing or other health care jobs, that we can work 

it out. It is just terrible that these people work 12, sometimes 16 

hours a day, and they are not even getting a federal wage. I think 

that is wrong. 

The other thing, too, that I knew—I want to bring this in—with 

the money that came into New York for the multiple clean energy 

grants, something we need to think about. The majority of schools 

in this country are old. They all have flat roofs. If you want to 
44 

bring jobs into clean energy into all of our areas and save taxpayers money, we need to think about putting solar panels, refitting, retooling our schools. I know the average cost of heating a 

school here in the Northeast is anywhere from $15,000 to $20,000 

a month. That is a big investment that we could put in. Thank you. 

Chairman MILLER. Madam Secretary, thank you so much for 

your time and responding to the members of the—— 

I am sorry. You have 10 seconds left. Did you want to respond 

to Mrs. McCarthy? 

Secretary SOLIS. Thank you, Congresswoman McCarthy. I know 

of your outstanding work in the area of the health field arena, and 

I just want to reiterate that we are now going to be releasing our 

$220 million for jobs in health careers, something that I know, like 

you, you understand this is going to be a growth area. 

But we need to talk about the protection and safety of the individuals who are now employed in this area and underemployed and 

need to make sure that we have protections in the workplace for 

them. So I would be happy to work with you, provide any technical 

assistance that my staff can provide to you on this matter. But it 

is front and center on my agenda. 

Chairman MILLER. Secretary, thank you again for your time and 

for responding to the questions of our members. I am sure there 

are members who will want to submit questions to you, as you 

know. If you would respond to those, we would appreciate it. Mr. 

Thompson had a specific couple of examples that he would ask that 

you address, and we would appreciate it if you would do that. 

Thank you to the members. I am sorry for those who did not get 

an opportunity, but I think we timed this about right, because I 

understand we are now going to have five votes, and the secretary 

has other commitments. 

So thank you. 

Mr. Kline, did you have anything? 

Mr. KLINE. Just to say thank you to the secretary for being here 

today and for addressing our concerns. And I want to add my voice 

to that of Dr. Roe. We would love to have you back, and I will keep 

appealing to the chairman to make sure that invitation is always 

extended. Thank you. 

Chairman MILLER. Thank you. 

Without objection, members will have 14 days to submit additional materials or questions for the hearing record. And the hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[The statement of Associated Builders and Contractors, submitted by Mr. Kline, follows:] 

Statement for the Record of Associated Builders and Contractors 

Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) appreciates the opportunity to submit 

the following statement for the official record. 

We would like to thank the Committee Chairman, George Miller and Ranking 

Member, John Kline, as well as the members of the House Committee on Education 

and Labor for holding today’s hearing ‘‘Strengthening the Economy and Improving 

the Lives of American Workers.’’ 

ABC is a national construction industry trade association representing more than 

25,000 merit shop contractors, subcontractors, materials suppliers and constructionrelated firms within a network of 77 chapters throughout the United States and 

Guam. ABC member contractors employ more than 2.5 million skilled construction 

workers, whose training, skills, and experience span all of the twenty-plus skilled 
45 

trades that comprise the construction industry. Moreover, the vast majority of our 

contractor members are classified as small businesses. Our diverse membership is 

bound by a shared commitment to the merit shop philosophy in the construction industry. This philosophy is based on the principles of full and open competition unfettered by the government, nondiscrimination based on labor affiliation, and the 

award of construction contracts to the lowest responsible bidder through open and 

competitive bidding. This process assures that taxpayers and consumers will receive 

the most for their construction dollar. 

We would like to take this opportunity to bring to the Committee’s attention several policies currently supported by the Administration that are stifling job growth 

in the construction industry and harming employees of the industry. 

Union-Only Project Labor Agreements 

President Obama’s Executive Order 13502, signed February 6, 2009, encourages 

federal agencies and recipients of federal assistance to attach union-only requirements, known as project labor agreements (PLAs), to all construction projects exceeding $25 million. The order also repealed the Bush Executive Order 13202, which 

protected hundreds of billions of federal and federally funded construction projects 

from being subject to government mandated union-only PLA requirements since 

2001. This Executive Order effectively forbids the over 85 percent of private construction who is not affiliated with organized labor from working on federal projects. 

Projects that are funded by their own tax dollars! 

Equal opportunity and open competition in federal contracting is a critical issue 

to consider as the federal government explores various solutions, including significant infrastructure spending, to stimulate our ailing economy. Congress must ensure federal and federally funded infrastructure projects paid for by taxpayers are 

procured in a manner that is free from favoritism and discrimination while efficiently spending federal tax dollars. These interests would not be served if the Federal government were to require union-only requirements, commonly known as 

union-only PLAs, on federal construction projects. 

A union-only PLA is a contract that requires a construction project to be awarded 

to contractors and subcontractors that agree to: recognize unions as the representatives of their employees on that jobsite; use the union hiring hall to obtain workers; 

pay union wages and benefits; obtain apprentices through union apprenticeship programs; and obey the union’s restrictive work rules, job classifications and arbitration procedures. 

Construction contracts subject to union-only PLAs almost always are awarded exclusively to unionized contractors and their all-union workforces. According to the 

most recent data from the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

only 14.5 percent of America’s construction workforce belongs to a union. This 

means union-only PLAs would discriminate against more than eight out of 10 construction workers who otherwise would be eligible to work on construction projects 

if not for a union-only PLA. 

This discrimination is particularly harmful to women and minority-owned construction businesses—whose workers traditionally have been under-represented in 

unions, mainly due to artificial and societal barriers in union membership and 

union apprenticeship and training programs. In fact, the National Black Chamber 

of Commerce, Women Construction Owners and Executives and National Association of Small Disadvantaged Businesses have all come out in opposition to mandating PLAs on federal projects. 

In addition, construction projects subject to union-only PLAs stifle competition 

from nonunion contractors and take away opportunity from their non-union employees unless they agree to the ‘‘union friendly’’ and inefficient terms and conditions 

of a typical PLA. A union-only PLA is a contract that requires a construction project 

to be awarded to contractors and subcontractors that agree to: recognize unions as 

the representatives of their employees on that jobsite; use the union hiring hall to 

obtain workers; obtain apprentices through union apprenticeship programs; and 

obey the union’s restrictive work rules. While non-union contractors are permitted 

to bid on PLA projects, the reality is the contracts subject to PLAs end up being 

awarded almost exclusively to unionized contractors and their all-union workforces. 

Moreover, several academic studies by the Beacon Hill Institute indicate PLAs increase the cost of school construction between 10 percent and 20 percent when compared to similar school construction projects not subject to a PLA. America can’t afford to waste in excess of $30 billion in construction spending contained in the stimulus bill to reward special interests. Why should we build four schools, bridges, hospitals and wind farms for the price of five? That money is better served rebuilding 

America’s crumbling infrastructure and putting all construction workers, not just 

union workers, back to work. 
46 

ABC fully supports the ‘‘Government Neutrality in Contracting Act,’’ (H.R. 983) 

introduced by Congressman John Sullivan which would protect taxpayers and ensure fair and open competition on government construction contracts by prohibiting 

government mandated union-only project labor agreements on federal and federally 

funded construction projects. ABC urges members of the Committee to add their 

names as cosponsors to this important piece of legislation. 

It is the duty of those elected to Congress to ensure taxpayer funded projects are 

cost-effective and administered without favoritism or discrimination. These interests 

will not be served under President Obama’s Executive Order 13502. 

Davis-Bacon Act Expansion 

Since the beginning of the110th Congress we have seen a dramatic increase in 

the expansion of the arcane Davis-Bacon Act into areas of law where it has never 

before been seen. The Davis-Bacon Act is a Depression-era wage subsidy law enacted in 1931. In the 21st Century, especially in the new competitive global economy, it is essential to allow the free market system to determine wages. 

Mandating Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements adversely affects small 

business access to construction performed under the program in which it is attached 

and inflates the costs of projects at the expense of the taxpayer. Moreover, reports 

consistently indicate Davis-Bacon wage rates are inaccurate and vulnerable to 

fraud. 

Davis-Bacon has a negative impact on equal access to work opportunities. It prevents many qualified small and nonunion businesses from even bidding on publicly 

funded projects, because the complexities and inefficiencies in the Act make it nearly impossible for them to compete. This has a disproportionate impact on minorityowned businesses, which tend to be smaller and nonunion companies. The toll is 

real: one study estimates Davis-Bacon reduces the number of minority workers in 

the construction industry by 25,000 each year. In fact, a recent study released by 

The Heritage Foundation reports that by suspending the Davis-Bacon Act 160,000 

new jobs would be created in the construction industry. 

In addition, Davis-Bacon’s flaws will cost taxpayers more to provide less. DavisBacon has been shown to increases public construction costs by anywhere from 5 

to 38 percent above what the project would have cost in the private sector. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Davis-Bacon Act already costs 

taxpayers more than $9.5 billion over the 2002 to 2011 period relative to the 2001 

appropriations and $10.5 billion relative to 2001 appropriations adjusted for inflation. A more recent estimate, from the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University 

in January, suggests Davis-Bacon costs taxpayers $8.6 billion per year. 

Finally, federal authorities have concluded that Davis-Bacon wage rates are inaccurate. A series of audits by outside agencies, as well as the Department of Labor’s 

(DOL) own Office of Inspector General (OIG), have revealed substantial inaccuracies 

in Davis-Bacon Act wage determinations and suggested that they are vulnerable to 

fraud. In fact, DOL’s OIG released three reports highly critical of the wage determination program, with one report from 2004 finding errors in nearly 100 percent 

of the wage surveys reviewed. Expanding a wage determination process that has 

been proven to be flawed is unfair to the American taxpayer and American businesses. 

Davis-Bacon’s wage determination flaws harm the very employees the law was intended to protect. Research from The Heritage Foundation found that if it were not 

market forces, Tampa Bay area electricians would be ‘‘underpaid’’ by 38 percent 

under DavisBacon’s system when compared to the more statistically sound wage determination method used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Recent academic 

research found that Davis-Bacon wages were substantially lower than BLS figures 

in 16 urban areas across the nation. 

Moreover, the ‘‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009’’ (ARRA) took 

the unprecedented step of requiring Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wages to be used 

on the entire project if $1 or more of ARRA funding is used on the project. The inclusion of this mandate has created serious confusion on projects funded fully or in 

part by stimulus monies. In fact, some shovel ready projects have become un-shovel 

ready due to the Davis-Bacon Act being mandated on the project. For example, if 

a project is bid and the work is set to begin as soon as funding is procured and 

$2,000 or more of project funding comes from the ARRA the entire project would 

have to be re-bid taking into account Davis-Bacon wage rates for that project. Thus, 

a shovel ready project would automatically become un-shovel ready because the entire bidding process would have to begin from scratch. This flies in the face of the 

intended purpose the ‘‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009’’, putting 

workers back to work immediately. Congress acted without taking into account the 

ramifications of mandating Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wages on stimulus funding. 
47 

ABC calls on Congress to reform the Davis-Bacon Act and immediately halt its 

expansion into areas of the law where it has never before been used. 

Green Jobs Training Funds 

ABC member companies have been leaders in green construction since before this 

terminology came into fashion. In fact, ABC has been at the forefront of the green 

building movement since its inception. ABC member SIGAL Construction was a 

founding member of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) as well as one of the 

authors of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system. ABC members continue leading the construction industry by utilizing sustainable construction methods and practices. According to Engineering News-Record in 

2008, 53 of the Top 100 Green Contractors were ABC members generating close to 

$15 billion in revenue with more than 2,800 LEED APs on staff. 

ABC chapters and member companies are actively engaged in training workers 

in a wide variety of skilled occupations and are constantly striving to keep pace with 

technology and innovation in order to make certain America has the skilled workforce it deserves, and that all American workers, regardless of union affiliation, 

enjoy equal opportunity of access to critical job training. However, the continued 

participation of open shop contractors, and the job opportunities for over 85 percent 

of the construction workforce they employ, in the booming green building market 

is threatened by the efforts of many in Washington, D.C. to exclude non-union companies and training providers from participating in new government funded green 

jobs training programs. 

The Green Jobs Act, enacted as part of the ‘‘Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007’’ which was signed into law in December 2007, establishes National Energy Training Partnership Grants to fund training programs targeted at creating an 

efficient energy and renewable energy skilled workforce. Specifically, the Green Jobs 

Act would require any entity applying for these grants to partner with organized 

labor. The reality is that this language would bar the numerous open shop training 

programs from receiving this grant funding. 

Organized labor makes up just 14.5 percent of the private construction workforce 

and likely represents a similar amount of work in the green building market. Given 

the desire to see a continued increase in the use of green building and green technology, it seems that limiting the ability to participate in green training to such a 

small percentage of the construction industry would make this growth difficult. If 

the green building market is going to continue to expand in the coming years as 

some groups predict, the participation of the open shop will be a crucial factor in 

ensuring there are enough skilled workers to meet the demand. 

To that end, ABC, along with many other construction and business groups, 

strongly supports the ‘‘Green Jobs Improvement Act’’ (H.R. 2026) introduced in the 

U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman John Kline which would amend the 

Workforce Investment Act to allow both union and open shop training providers access to the federally funded energy efficiency and renewable energy worker training 

programs. This bill would give all workers the opportunity to train in the ever increasing field of green construction and would not block certain training providers 

access simply because they choose not to be affiliated with organized labor. 

The advances in the technology and skill involved in green building, and the benefits of their use, is indeed a welcome trend for contractors, skilled workers and the 

end user. It is our view that the most efficient path to encouraging this continued 

growth of this sector is by giving all training providers, regardless of union affiliation, access to federal training programs so that the greatest numbers of workers 

can be trained in green jobs. In today’s tough economic times, especially in the construction industry, Members of Congress have a responsibility to provide all workers 

with training opportunities paid for by their tax dollars. 

ABC looks forward to your continued efforts to promote green building opportunities for all contractors. 

Employee Free Choice Act 

Passage of the misnamed ‘‘Employee Free Choice Act’’ would effectively rob American workers of their right to a private ballot election overseen by the National 

Labor Relations Board (NLRB) when deciding whether or not to join a union. It 

would replace the secret ballot with a scheme called ‘‘card check’’ where workers are 

forced to vote in public—inviting coercion, intimidation and abuse in the workplace. 

Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that secret ballot elections are the preferred 

method of ascertaining union support from employees. In a brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the NLRB stated, ‘‘Congress and the Supreme Court regard 

a secret ballot election conducted under the Board’s auspices as the preferred meth-
48 

od for resolving representational disputes in the manner that best ensures employees free and informed choice.’’ 

The bill also contains an unconstitutional infringement on a private employer’s 

right to contract. It provides that if an employer and a union engaged in their first 

collective bargaining agreement are unable to reach agreement within 90 days, then 

either party may refer the dispute to the federal government. The federal government would then have the authority to impose binding contract terms on the employer, the union and ultimately on the employees that would last two years, further 

denying the employees the right to vote to approve their contract. This two year 

binding contract sets economic terms such as wages, benefits, and work rules. 

The key provisions in this legislation represent egregious attempts to limit the 

rights of employees and employers and will severely diminish the ability of U.S. 

business to succeed in our globally competitive market. Particularly at a time of economic uncertainty, Congress should not enact measures that threaten our economic 

competitiveness. Furthermore, this legislation would have a particularly devastating 

impact on small employers who are the primary source for new jobs in our economy. 

The economic hardships facing our nation have acutely impacted the construction 

industry. Our industry has seen historic highs in job losses over the last year, with 

over 53,000 of the 85,000 jobs lost in December 2009 coming from our industry, and 

nearly 1 million jobs lost in 2009. The construction industry can not shoulder the 

additional burden this legislation would impose. 

A recent study by Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar, a highly regarded economist from the 

non-partisan firm LECG Consulting, titled ‘‘An Empirical Assessment of the Employee Free Choice Act: The Economic Implications,’’ finds that if this legislation 

were signed into law it would likely increase the unemployment rate and decrease 

job creation substantially. In fact, Dr. Layne-Farrar predicts that the ‘‘Employee 

Free Choice Act’’ being signed into law will cost the U.S. economy 600,000 lost jobs 

the year after it is enacted. This is not what the construction industry needs in this 

time of massive layoffs and economic unrest. 

As the unemployment rate is climbing and construction jobs are disappearing, the 

‘‘Employee Free Act Choice Act’’ will only further aggravate the economy and make 

these trying times worse. For all of these reasons, we urge Congress to oppose the 

misnamed ‘‘Employee Free Choice Act’’ in all forms. 

Defunding of the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) 

Established in 1959 to protect the rights of American union workers, it has been 

placed on the chopping block, despite its successful oversight of organized labor, 

which has led to a crackdown on unscrupulous union leaders. 

OLMS statistics speak volumes about how frequent and widespread union corruption has been in recent years. Since 2001 the agency has obtained more than 900 

convictions for union financial improprieties and recovered more than $91.5 million 

in restitution. 

Despite the agency’s successes, in May 2009, Secretary of Labor Solis unveiled 

drastic cuts to the annual budget for OLMS. The Department’s allocation for OLMS 

will total $40,557,000—a reduction of 10 percent (down $4,381,000) from the 2009 

level. The $40.5 million allocated for OLMS reduces the agency’s budget to the lowest level in six years. 

At a time when the public and Congress are calling for greater transparency and 

accountability for all institutions, including corporations, lobbyists and members of 

Congress, cutting the budget of OLMS will only serve to benefit union bosses at the 

expense of hard-working, dues-paying union members. 

Again, thank you for holding today’s hearing and we hope that by raising these 

concerns your Committee will work to alleviate the issues outlined above so that the 

construction industry can continue building America. 

[Members’ questions submitted and the responses follow:] 

Questions Submitted and Their Responses From Secretary Solis 

Rep. Joe Sestak 

1. Madam Secretary, last October I introduced H.R. 3930 which extended COBRA 

Premium Subsidy from the Economic Stimulus bill to June of 2010. As you know, 

Congress followed by passing a two month extension of the COBRA Premium Subsidy. As your Department is responsible for dispersing the funds for that program, 

can you please update me on how disbursement is proceeding—especially for those 

Americans who temporarily saw their premium subsidy lapse in December? We 

have had serious difficulty locating raw data on the total number of beneficiaries 
49 

from the extended program. Specifically, how many Americans have received premium assistance under the extended program that would not have received assistance if we had allowed the premium to expire at the end of December? Also, does 

your Department have projections on the anticipated number of beneficiaries that 

would receive premium assistance if extended COBRA premiums assistance was extended 6 months as my legislation proposes and the House Jobs bill proposes? 

Answer: The Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration 

(EBSA) is proud of our role in implementing the ARRA COBRA premium subsidy 

program. Our specific responsibilities are discussed below. The COBRA subsidy 

itself is distributed through a tax credit, which is administered by the Department 

of Treasury/IRS. The only public information regarding the numbers of Americans 

taking advantage of the program is provided by the IRS. GAO published a report 

in early February 2010, which states that, ‘‘as of December 26, 2009, IRS had received approximately 192,000 returns from employers claiming about $803 million 

in COBRA credits.’’ (GAO-10-349: Recovery Act: IRS Quickly Implemented Tax Provisions, but Reporting and Enforcement Improvements Are Needed, Appendix IV, 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10349.pdf). As discussed in the report, these numbers are not final yet, and also the number of beneficiaries is not yet available. 

It should be noted that on June 3, 2010, the Secretary of the Treasury submitted 

to Congress an interim report detailing these numbers as required by ARRA section 

3001(a)(11), which also requires a final report. 

The Department of Labor’s responsibilities under the COBRA premium assistance 

program include providing an appeals procedure for workers whose claims for the 

subsidy have been denied by their former employer or who otherwise need assistance in obtaining the benefit, publishing model notices, publishing compliance guidance to assist employers, educating workers about the program, and conducting outreach activities. EBSA has: • Published model notices, publications, videos, fact sheets, posters and other 

guidance to educate employers and workers about the program, most of which are 

also available in Spanish. • Conducted compliance webcasts and seminars for plan sponsors and their service providers. • Launched a dedicated website that as of May 3, 2010 has hosted over 2.9 million visitors and has over 64,000 subscribers. This website contains educational materials for employers and participants (and their families) and provides participants 

the ability to submit their appeals electronically or print out a copy of the application. • As of May 3, 2010, closed over 18,000 appeals through the procedure it established for workers whose requests for the premium subsidy were denied. Over 99% 

of these determinations have been issued within 15 business days. • As of May 3, 2010, EBSA benefits advisors have responded to over 219,000 

COBRA subsidy inquiries. • From February 2009 through March 31, 2010, EBSA has conducted 1,017 outreach events to educate individuals on the COBRA Premium Subsidy that reached 

34,341 individuals. 

a. Following up on that question, Madam Secretary, would you support extending 

traditional COBRA coverage for involuntarily terminated workers from 18 to 24 

months, which was a provision I included in my bills H.R. 694 the COBRA Coverage 

Extension Act of 2009, and H.R. 3930 the Extended COBRA Continuation Protection 

Act of 2009? Would you support extending COBRA coverage until the implementation of the health insurance exchange, as proposed in the House-passed health care 

reform legislation and championed by my colleague Rep. Susan Davis? Would you 

support extending COBRA for those approaching Medicare eligibility? 

Answer: COBRA makes it possible for millions of unemployed workers and their 

families to keep their health benefit coverage. The Administration is focused on its 

efforts to help participants in processing claims and supports the extension of the 

COBRA premium subsidy program through the end of this calendar year. 

The Administration has no position on the other proposals to extend COBRA eligibility that you have mentioned. 

2. Madam Secretary, as you know, Americans 55 and over now make up 19 percent of our workforce, and in December 2009 the unemployment rate for men aged 

55 and over hit an all time high. What efforts are the Department undertaking to 

help older Americans find work during our economic recovery? 

Answer: While the unemployment rate is not as high as for some other demographic groups, older workers tend to remain unemployed longer and have more difficulty in securing reemployment. The Department of Labor recognizes the need to 

address issues related to helping older Americans secure employment. Through a 
50 

network of approximately 3,000 One-Stop Career Centers nationwide, Americans 55 

and older are served by One-Stop Career Center programs that provide employment, 

training, and other supportive services. While not all programs specifically target 

older workers, older workers may receive services through the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) Adult and Dislocated Worker programs, Wagner-Peyser, 

Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, Unemployment Insurance and other partner programs. 

The Senior Community Service and Employment Program (SCSEP) specifically 

targets Americans 55 and older. This program was established to provide income 

and training services to low-income seniors through part-time, community-service 

paid training opportunities at non-profits or government agencies. Participants are 

paid the highest of the Federal, state, or local minimum wage. To be eligible for 

SCSEP participation, an individual must be unemployed, 55 years of age or older, 

and have an income that is no more than 125 percent of the Federal poverty level. 

Note that 125 percent of the poverty guidelines for a family of one is currently calculated at $13,538. 

Congress appropriated this program an additional $225 million in FY 2010 to provide SCSEP services to thousands of additional unemployed low income seniors. The 

Department obligated this additional funding on January 29, 2010 to 40 states and 

17 national grantees. This infusion of funds is in addition to $120 million in Recovery Act funding awarded in February, 2009 and annual Appropriations for this program. The Department projects these resources will serve approximately 100,000 

seniors in Program Year (PY) 2009 (July 1, 2009—June 30, 2010), and approximately 120,000 in PY 2010 (July 1, 2010—June 30, 2011). 

As part of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, the Reemployment Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (RTAA) targets workers 50 and older. RTAA offers time-limited wage supplements equal to 50% of the difference between the current and prior 

wage rate, up to a $12,000 maximum over the two-year eligibility period. This approach encourages workers who may have a higher reservation wage to return to 

work and serves as a buffer period to help workers adjust to lower wages in new 

industries/jobs. As the economy recovers, these workers’ wage rates will likely increase. 

3. Madam Secretary, what adjustments will your Department pursue to make 

One-Stop Career Centers more responsive to older workers seeking services? Currently, these centers are evaluated based on their placement rate as well as the salary the newly placed worker receives as compared to their previous salary. As many 

older workers are looking for part-time work, which is likely to result in a lower 

salary, there is currently a disincentive for One-Stop Career Centers to help older 

Americans looking for work. 

Answer: The Department is committed to a public workforce system that is responsive to the needs of all job seekers, including older workers. Older workers 

workforce needs range considerably: many are employed in full-time jobs and many 

others prefer part-time employment. In 2004, the Department released a Protocol 

for Serving Older Workers that presented a set of action steps that key stakeholders 

continue to use in achieving the goal of connecting older workers to employment and 

trainings services. Since 2004, the number of older workers participating in the 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult program and in the WIA Dislocated Worker 

program has increased each year. In the most recent program year for which we 

have data (Program Year 2008), over 140,000 older workers were served by WIA 

Adult and Dislocated Worker programs, which is an increase from previous program 

years. As we move forward, we hope to further minimize the disincentives encountered by the workforce system in serving older workers and other hard to serve populations. 

One approach to minimizing disincentives is the use of regression-based methodology as an alternative to annual incremental increases. This method provides a systematic, transparent, and objective method to set and administer WIA performance 

targets. By adjusting or controlling for the characteristics of participants served at 

the state and local levels, the regression-adjusted targets encourage workforce system providers to more extensively serve populations with significant barriers to employment. ETA issued Training and Employment Notice No. 48-09 on June 14, 2010, 

entitled: Pilot and Implementation of a Regression-based Method for Performance 

Target Setting for the Public Workforce System, to inform the public workforce system about the pilot project to test a regression-based method for performance target 

setting at the national, state, and local Workforce Investment Board (WIBV) levels 

for WIA title I programs, which includes WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker programs. 
51 

Rep. Judy Chu 

1. As Chair of the California’s State Board of Equalization, I led a task force 

against the underground economy and I plan on continuing the work here on the 

federal level. A recent report was released called ‘‘Wage Theft and Workplace Violations in Los Angeles: The Failure of Employment and Labor Law for Low-Wage 

Workers.’’ It is a shocking report that lends credence to the work our task force was 

doing to help low-wage workers. 

Since you’ve come on board you’ve really put labor enforcement right on track by 

hiring over 250 new investigators after significant cuts during the Bush Administration. However, one of the public policy recommendations from the report suggests 

that the federal oversight move towards a proactive ‘‘investigation-driven’’ enforcement in low-wage industries rather than reacting to complaints. 

Rather than highly-publicized immigration raids, I’d like to see strategic, repeated 

and highly-publicized workplace inspections that would discourage employers from 

abusing their employees. 

It would help people like Rosa, who worked for a hotel in the San Fernando Val- ley as a room cleaner. She was paid $8.00 an hour for a forty-hour week, with a 

company check. No violations were apparent on her check stub, but in fact she was 

required to work much more than forty hours a week. She had to come in half an 

hour before her shift officially began to prepare her supply cart, and completing her 

assignments typically required more than eight hours of work. In addition, Rosa was 

a regular victim of tip stealing. 

Rose didn’t complain about the tip stealing, but she did ask her supervisor why 

she was not getting paid for all the hours she worked. First, they told her that she 

was not supposed to be paid for her meal breaks. But her unpaid time was much 

more than thirty minutes a day, so later she asked about it again. This time the 

supervisor told her, ‘‘Don’t worry, you don’t have to come in to work tomorrow.’’ 

Later she figured out she had been fired for daring to complain. 

a. Can you tell me if this type of ‘‘investigation-driven’’ enforcement is in your 

2011 agenda and if you have the resources to properly implement it? 

Answer: Over the last several years, as resources diminished, the Wage and 

Hour Division’s (WHD) ability to conduct ‘‘directed’’ or ‘‘targeted’’ investigations of 

employers also decreased. In 1992, over 30 percent of the investigations that WHD 

conducted were self-initiated, i.e., ‘‘directed,’’ by the agency. In 2008, that percentage 

had dropped to 24 percent as WHD offices struggled to deal with increasing complaint backlogs. ‘‘Directed’’ investigations are agency-initiated investigations typically of employers in industries in which the data suggest employees are subject to 

minimum wage and overtime violations and are reluctant to complain when their 

rights are violated. The industries include many of those cited in the ‘‘Wage Theft 

and Workplace Violations in Los Angeles: The Failure of Employment and Labor 

Law for Low-Wage Workers’’—e.g., garment manufacturing, residential construction, 

janitorial, and the car wash industries. Industries with higher risk of violations will 

vary by region. Consequently, in addition to a national focus on the janitorial and 

construction industries, WHD regional and district offices will develop similar ‘‘investigation-driven’’ enforcement plans in 2011, as they did in 2010, to address such 

industries within their geographic jurisdictions. 

With the additional resources provided in the agency’s FY 2009 and FY 2010 appropriations, WHD has increased its enforcement staff by over 250 new investigators, bringing the agency back to levels comparable to those in the late 1990s. With 

these resources, WHD expects to conduct more ‘‘directed’’ investigations in FY 2011 

while still maintaining the important function of responding to workers who seek 

our assistance in resolving their complaints of wage violations. These directed investigations will be full investigations of employers’ compliance with all the applicable 

labor standards laws for which WHD has responsibility, so that we can both detect 

and deter violations while in the employers’ workplaces. 

b. What type of professional development training can you give to your current 

investigators to move in this direction? 

Answer: New WHD investigators complete a Basic I Investigator Training, which 

is an intensive three-week training on the investigative process and the application 

of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Prior to this Basic I classroom training, these new 

investigators undergo a comprehensive 12-week pre-training curriculum and put in 

a minimum of three months of on-the-job training. Approximately one year after 

they complete Basic I training, new investigators undergo Basic II Investigator 

Training to develop their skills and knowledge base in some of the more complex 

wage and hour issues and statutes. 

As WHD undertakes initiatives in various low-wage industries, investigators will 

be retrained to identify and address the most common types of violations. WHD has 
52 

already begun retraining its existing field staff in the compliance principles of certain statutory programs that were infrequently investigated during the last several 

years, including the Davis-Bacon and related Act, the Service Contract Act, and Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. WHD has also begun training investigators to enforce its newly delegated responsibility for the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) H-2B program. Investigators are also receiving training in the new 

regulatory provisions of the INA’s H-2A program. With the wealth of independent 

research on the nature of violations that affect low-wage and vulnerable workers in 

certain industries, WHD investigators will be better trained than in the past to 

identify and remedy violations and to secure future compliance from employers 

found in violation. 

c. What efforts have you taken to target employers who operate in the ‘‘underground economy’’? 

Answer: In addition to a number of local enforcement initiatives in industries 

such as garment manufacturing and car washes, WHD has launched an unprecedented effort to ensure labor law compliance on Recovery Act funded projects. WHD 

is coupling these enforcement activities with a public outreach effort to directly 

reach workers in a wide range of occupations. 

In March 2010, the Department launched a national public awareness campaign 

entitled ‘‘We Can Help’’ to inform workers about their rights. The campaign, in multiple languages, targets worker populations and industries in which workers are reluctant to report violations, e.g., many of the workers in the ‘‘underground economy.’’ The goal of the campaign is to reduce the perceived risk of filing a complaint 

with WHD. WHD is using this comprehensive public awareness campaign to inform 

workers and the public at large that WHD is available to assist workers with workplace violations, that WHD enforces the applicable laws regardless of a worker’s immigration status, and that complaints are kept confidential to the fullest extent allowable under the law. Components of the campaign include the use of television 

and radio Public Service Announcements (PSAs) in English and Spanish; print publications, such as posters, banners, displays, booklets and bookmarks, billboards; 

and a workers’ rights video for continuous loop play in such places as consulate offices, day laborer drop-in centers, health clinics, English as a Second Language programs, and employment fairs. 

2. The Labor Budget highlights a new focus on individuals wrongly classified as 

independent contractors who are denied access to critical benefits and protections 

that they would be entitled to as a regular employee. It generates a substantial loss 

to the Treasury, Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance trust 

funds. To address this problem the FY 2011 Budget includes a joint Labor-Treasury 

initiative to strengthen and coordinate Federal and State efforts to enforce, identify 

and deter misclassification of employees as independent contractors. 

Example in report: In October 2008, a court-appointed official awarded more than 

200 Federal Express drivers in California $14.4 million in compensation for their 

illegal misclassification as ‘‘independent contractors.’’ Prior to their success in court, 

their lack of employee status meant that they had received no benefits, had been 

denied the protection of most employment and labor laws, and had been forced to 

pay out of pocket for job-related expenses such as fuel, vehicle maintenance, uniforms, and insurance. Critics argue that the new budget initiative could stifle an 

economic recovery by denying job opportunities to millions of self-employed workers, 

from bicycle messengers to freelance journalists to computer technical support. The 

use of independent contractors is pervasive in industries such as construction and 

homebuilding as well as increasingly among high-tech firms. 

a. I would like to applaud your efforts in the FY2011 Budget to include resources 

for a joint Labor-Treasury initiative to strengthen enforcement, identification and 

hopefully deter misclassification of employees as independent contractors. Why is 

misclassification so important to federal revenue? 

Answer: Employees misclassified as independent contractors do not receive the 

benefits and protections to which they are entitled, and employers may evade taxes 

otherwise due to the Treasury. A number of recent studies conducted by the Employment Training Administration (ETA), various States, and worker protection organizations suggest that independent contractor misclassification—while occurring 

in many industries—is prevalent in several high-risk industries. In an August 2009 

report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted that the precise extent 

of misclassification is unknown, but studies suggest that it may affect 10 to 30 percent of firms and result in significant tax avoidance. 

Moreover, classification of workers as either employees or independent contractors 

affects how various taxing authorities consider the worker’s compensation for tax 
53 

purposes. The impact to the Federal revenue stream is different for different tax 

programs—not every tax is affected equally. 

For example, when a worker is misclassified as an independent contractor, the net 

effect for Federal income tax results from that reliance on individual filing by independent contractors is less reliable than the tax withholding system. The independent contractor is required to pay income tax on his or her net income from the 

business, just as an employee pays income tax on his or her wages. Social Security 

and Medicare taxes are similarly impacted. Independent contractors are responsible 

for the entire Social Security tax, whereas employees have one-half of the tax withheld, with the employer paying the other one half. 

Misclassification has a significant impact on the Unemployment Insurance (UI) 

program. The revenues generated from Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) 

taxes and state unemployment taxes, both of which flow into the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund, are part of the Federal unified budget. When a worker is 

misclassified, both FUTA taxes and state unemployment taxes are not collected because the worker is considered self-employed and generally ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. 

For workers earning at least $7,000 per year, each misclassification costs the Federal government $56.00 in lost FUTA taxes annually. The impact on state UI revenues is more difficult to determine because states do not have uniform tax structures. However, we estimate that approximately $225 per worker is lost from state 

unemployment tax revenues that flow into the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund 

accounts. Therefore, for every one million workers misclassified as independent contractors, the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund loses $56,000,000 in FUTA taxes 

and an estimated $225,000,000 in state unemployment taxes, for a total of 

$281,000,000. 

The most important loss to the federal revenue stream, for all taxes, is when the 

worker is not reported at all. Such workers are typically paid in cash, with the employer failing to report the compensation, either as wages or as a payment for services to an independent contractor. These workers are vulnerable to abusive and 

predatory employment practices and the federal government receives no revenue for 

income tax, Social Security/Medicare taxes, or FUTA. 

b. In California, more than 200 FedEx drivers were misclassified as independent 

contractors. What kinds of worker protections were the FedEx drivers and others 

misclassified workers deprived of? 

Answer: Misclassified workers in general lose out on essential worker protections 

that include unemployment insurance and the rights afforded to employees under 

the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), such as receiving the minimum wage, overtime protections, and others. In addition, if the employer prevails in classifying their 

workers as independent contractors, the workers are no longer eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because their services are classified as self-employment, which is not covered under unemployment insurance laws. 

Beyond unemployment insurance and worker protections under FLSA, independent contractors are responsible for their own health insurance, retirement and 

workers’ compensation, in addition to paying the full 15.3% Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax and paying their estimated withholding taxes. Although 

independent contractors may not technically ‘‘lose’’ health insurance or retirement 

benefits, as a practical matter they are less likely to be able to afford to pay for 

them, depriving them of access to adequate health insurance or retirement plans. 

3. There are 650,000 farm workers in California who face death and illness from 

toiling in stifling summer heat. One such worker, Asuncion Valdivia, had been picking grapes in 110 degree heat during a 10-hour shift, when he collapsed and lost 

consciousness. After Asuncion regained consciousness his boss canceled the ambulance, instead leaving his son to drive him to the hospital. On the way, the son had 

to watch his father die at the age of 53 from a preventable heat illness. 

During my time at the California State Assembly, I authored and saw the Governor sign into law, the first and only heat safety regulations for farm workers in 

the nation. Now, in California, farms are required to provide water, access to shade 

and training for their employees to learn how to prevent heat illness. 

Yet since the law was implemented, at least 11 farm workers have died from 

heat-related illness; and this is in a state with mandatory regulations. There are 

hundreds of thousands more around the country in other states, who get no protection from the heat and who risk serious illness and even death every day they go 

to work in the summer. 

a. What initiatives are you spearheading to better protect farm workers from heat 

illness and other health risks on the job? 
54 

Answer: The agricultural industry is one of the most dangerous and difficult industries for workers—particularly those who harvest crops by hand. One of my key 

strategic priorities is to ensure that workplaces are safe and healthy, particularly 

in high-risk industries like agriculture. The most effective tool that we have to ensure that farmworkers are employed in safe and healthy environments is a targeted 

enforcement program and adequate regulatory protections. 

I am pleased that we successfully strengthened the protections for many farmworkers by finalizing new regulations that give the WHD more tools to enforce 

standards—not just on behalf of H-2A workers—but on behalf of U.S. workers who 

are employed in corresponding employment situations. These new rules: • Extend H-2A program benefits to workers in ‘‘corresponding employment’’ (i.e., 

other workers employed by an H-2A employer in any work included in the job order 

and any work performed by the H-2A workers) to ensure that similarly employed 

U.S. workers are not adversely impacted due to the use of foreign workers. • Reinstate the requirement that the State Workforce Agencies inspect and approve employer-provided housing before the Department issues an H-2A labor certification. • Require that all employer-provided transportation meet at a minimum, Federal 

standards for vehicle safety, vehicle insurance and driver licensure standards applied to other agricultural workers. 

Throughout 2010 and 2011, WHD will be conducting random investigations of H2A certified employers to ensure that they are in compliance with these new rules, 

as well as with all other agricultural worker standards that may apply, including 

those standards related to housing, transportation, and requirements regarding the 

provision of potable drinking water, toilets, and hand-washing facilities (in States 

in which WHD has enforcement authority under the Occupational Safety and 

Health Act)—all of which directly affect the safety and health of farmworkers. 

With respect to heat-related illnesses in particular, WHD will continue to work 

with States and other community organizations to distribute its heat stroke information materials as one step towards preventing the incidence of heat stroke in the 

fields. 

Additionally, the Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA) is actively involved in protecting workers from work-related heat induced 

illnesses or injuries. While enforcement of the standards for field sanitation and 

labor camps, including drinking water and ventilation requirements, has been delegated to the Wage Hour Division, OSHA offers several guidance resources related 

to heat stress that farm workers can access. 

In particular, OSHA has developed heat stress quick cards available in Spanish 

and English (OSHA Publication 3154), Fact Sheets (DSTM 9-2005), a publication titled, ‘‘Protecting Yourself from the Sun,’’ and additional outreach materials that can 

be found on OSHA’s web page at http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/heatstress/ 

index.html. OSHA has also focused on heat stress in its summer outreach to young 

workers who often work outdoors. 

OSHA also recently organized a conference on health and safety for Latino workers in Houston, TX. Over 1,000 workers, community organization representatives, 

labor union members, business leaders and OSHA staff attended the conference and 

learned about workers rights under OSHA, the hazards they face, training techniques and how to communicate with Latino workers. 

b. How can the federal government work more closely with farmers and states to 

ensure that no one else has to make the same sacrifice that Mr. Valdivia did just 

to bring home a paycheck? 

Answer: WHD has relationships with various agricultural associations, such as 

the Western Growers Association, through which the agency provides general compliance information. The agency also works closely with the State monitor advocates 

to promote compliance in the fields and address issues that affect farmworkers. 

These relationships and others, such as those with various Mexican Consulates, provide avenues for distributing safety-related compliance information. As WHD engages in stakeholder consultations on its strategic goals and priorities, it will seek 

recommendations for other ways in which the public’s awareness of these important 

issues can be heightened. 

Rep. Phil Hare 

1. Madam Secretary, I am grateful that the Obama Administration has prioritized 

‘‘job creation’’ efforts for 2010. Outside of providing/administering the critical safety 

nets of Unemployment Insurance and the COBRA benefit subsidy, what is your department doing specifically to spur job creation across this nation? 

a. Can you tell me what is being done throughout many of our hard-hit rural 

areas? 
55 

Answer: Creating jobs throughout the country is vital to our economic recovery, 

including jobs in rural areas. Although job training is not equivalent to job creation, 

it is a necessary component that helps ensure American workers have the skills and 

resources necessary to obtain new jobs in high growth and viable industries. This 

combination of job creation and job training promotes and sustains both immediate 

and long-term economic growth. To ensure sustainable job growth, the Department 

of Labor recognizes the importance of helping employers through the public workforce investment system access customized job training services and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit. 

As you know, February marked the one year anniversary of the passage of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment (Recovery Act). The Department of Labor has 

used Recovery Act resources to assist workers and their families during these challenging economic times and to allow the One-Stop system to provide career counseling, training, and other work related services to a record number of individuals. 

Across the country, participation levels in WIA Adult and Youth programs were up 

approximately 40 percent (1,907,300) and the WIA Dislocated Worker participation 

levels were up over 80 percent (436,500) for the four-quarter period ending March 

2010, over the four-quarter period ending March 2009. Under these programs alone, 

the public workforce system has served nearly 2 million more individuals this year 

compared to last year with funding from the Recovery Act and regular WIA formula 

funds, resulting in a total over 7 million participants being served by these programs. 

The number of WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker participants receiving training 

services has increased significantly. Comparing the four-quarter period ending 

March 2010 to the four-quarter period en ding March 2009, the number of WIA 

Adult participants that received training services increased from 209,580 to 325,609. 

This represents an increase of 55 percent. Similarly, the number of WIA Dislocated 

Worker participants that received training services increased from 124,243 to 

241,596 during the same time period, an increase of 94 percent. 

Within the $400 million provided for Wagner-Peyser Employment Services, the 

Recovery Act also provided $250 million in new Reemployment Service grants to 

states, which are used to reconnect Unemployment Insurance (UI) recipients to 

workforce and training opportunities. Leveraging these funds, the Department was 

able to serve nearly four million additional individuals. The Recovery Act also provided $120 million in SCSEP funding for the Department to serve additional unemployed low-income seniors. 

The Department of Labor is keenly aware of the particular needs of rural communities during these challenging economic times. Both formula funds and competitive 

grant opportunities, such as the $750 million Recovery Act-funded initiative to support training, recruitment, retention and career pathways in clean energy jobs, 

health care and other emerging industries training, are available to rural communities. Examples of how these funds are supporting rural areas can be found in the 

Department’s experiences with the Recovery Act-funded summer youth work experience program. 

The Department of Labor invested Recovery Act funds to provide subsidized work 

opportunities to nearly 320,000 low-income youth during the summer of 2009. These 

examples of innovative summer work experiences for youth in occupations such as 

forestry, weatherization, carpentry, health care, and water conservation in rural 

areas include: 

• Dunkirk, New York: Last summer 90 youth from rural Western New York were 

enrolled in Chautauqua County Area summer employment opportunities, which included two projects, focused on intergenerational learning opportunities. The Youth 

Adult Advancement Initiative Adult Day Care program provided youth the opportunity to work one-on-one with senior citizens and The Youth Adult Advancement 

Initiative East Side YMCA program allowed summer youth participants to be in 

charge, under the supervision of an adult supervisor, of 4-6 children up to the age 

of 13, participating in community center programs. 

• Merced County, California: The County provided green job opportunities for 

youth working with the County’s Water and Water Treatment Authority. Youth 

were involved in installation of water metering devices in rural residential areas 

and educated local residents on the importance of water conservation. Youth also 

gained work experience related to digging and installing meters as well as with 

computer systems related to water treatment processes. 

• Odessa, Texas: This rural area placed a total of 436 youth in project areas such 

as Youth Entrepreneurship, Medical and Allied Health Careers, Certified Nursing 

Assistant (CNA), building green and sustainable communities, in a ‘‘Youth Tutoring 

Youth’’ program, and leadership training. 
56 

• Southeastern, Oklahoma: The Southeast Oklahoma Summer Employment Opportunities had 225 youth working 40 hours per week. The local area piloted two 

programs that resulted in certificates in either CNA/HHA or Carpentry/Weatherization. 

Additionally, the Department has awarded National Emergency Grants (NEG) to 

regions that include dislocated workers in rural areas. A couple of examples include: 

• Illinois—A NEG was awarded to provide assistance to workers affected by permanent closures and mass layoffs that impacted 18 of the State’s 26 local workforce 

investment areas. The project serves dislocated workers from 31 companies including workers in rural Southern Illinois. 

• Kansas—A NEG was awarded to serve workers affected by layoffs from multiple companies in south central Kansas. This NEG is providing services to former 

employees of four aviation manufacturers; Boeing, Bombardier Aerospace, Cessna, 

and Hawker Beechcraft Corporation. Participants are from urban, suburban, and 

rural areas. 

2. I am of the understanding that the Obama Administration and the Department 

of Labor are in favor of seeing the Employee Free Choice Act become the law of the 

land. As you know, the House passed this bill in its current form in the 110th Congress and has the support to do it again. Can you tell me what you and DOL are 

doing to push our friends in the Senate to pass EFCA? 

Answer: As I stated in my testimony before the Committee, the Obama Administration and I continue to strongly support the Employee Free Choice Act. I am committed to working with the rest of the Administration to build support for it. Strong 

unions are a key to a strong economy. Union membership is the surest path to a 

secure middle class job. 

I know from personal experience that union jobs are good jobs, pay higher wages, 

and provide flexibility and benefits like paid leave, child care, education assistance, 

and retirement security. The Employee Free Choice Act would ensure that workers 

have a free and fair choice to have union representation if they want it, toughen 

penalties against employers that break the law and violate workers’ rights, and help 

workers and employers reach a first contract in a reasonable period of time and 

bring an end to costly and contentious delays. I look forward to working with the 

Committee and our colleagues in the Senate to pass this important legislation. 

3. As the ‘‘new Sheriff in town’’ what new powers and tools are you giving your 

deputies in OSHA and Wage & Hour Division to ramp up their enforcement efforts 

to deal with the widespread lawlessness practiced by some shameless employers? 

Answer: The vision of the Department of Labor is ‘‘Good Jobs for Everyone.’’ I 

am committed to refocusing the Department’s worker protection agencies, like the 

Wage and Hour Division and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

on stronger enforcement of our nation’s labor laws. 

With the additional resources provided in the agency’s FY 2009 and FY 2010 appropriations, WHD has increased its enforcement staff by over 250 new investigators, bringing the agency back to levels comparable to those in the late 1990s. The 

FY 2011 Presidents Budget request will allow the agency to hire 90 additional enforcement staff. This increase in WHD enforcement personnel will, in itself, provide 

the WHD with the ability to target for investigation those industries in which violations are most likely to occur. Directed investigations in low-wage industries—where 

the most vulnerable workers are employed—enable WHD to detect, to remedy, and 

to deter violations. 

The Department has also launched a national public awareness campaign entitled 

‘‘We Can Help’’ to inform workers about their rights. The campaign, in multiple languages, targets worker populations and industries in which workers are reluctant 

to report violations. The goal of the campaign is to reduce the perceived risk of filing 

a complaint with WHD. 

WHD will also begin evaluating compliance levels in industries and program 

areas by conducting baseline investigation-based compliance surveys. These surveys, 

in addition to providing measures of compliance, inform WHD on the likely causes 

of violations and point to strategies for addressing high violations rates on an industry-wide scale. 

Finally, new statutory and regulatory authority for imposing penalties, such as 

increased penalties for child labor violations that cause the death or serious injury 

of a child and WHD’s new independent debarment authority in the final H-2A regulations, will enable WHD to promote future compliance. While these and other new 

initiatives, tools, and authorities are important, the key to ensuring future compliance and deterring violations is the effective use of existing penalty and enforcement authorities. 
57 

During FY 2010, OSHA will be hiring over 100 new inspectors, adding staff to 

our whistleblower and standard development programs, and adding 20 FTE for 

standard setting. Our FY 2011 budget proposal builds upon these increases. 

Another tool that I have asked OSHA to look at is what can be done administratively to force employers to take the safety and health of their employees more seriously. For example, OSHA recently announced an initiative to implement long-overdue administrative modifications to its penalty formulas, which have not been adjusted for over two decades. These modifications will have the effect of raising 

OSHA penalties while maintaining the policy of reducing penalties for small employers and those acting in good faith. For too long, some unscrupulous employers 

have viewed paying OSHA’s low penalties as the cost of doing business and have 

done nothing to make their workplaces safer. 

Coupled with penalty restructuring, OSHA also plans to work with the Department of Justice to increase the effectiveness of the OSH Act’s criminal provisions. 

Currently we are cross-training agency personnel and looking closely at all cases 

that meet the criminal enforcement criteria. OSHA is exploring expanding these efforts. 

The Agency can only do so much within the constraints of the current Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). Therefore, the Department strongly supports the Protecting America’s Workers Act (PAWA), which would provide OSHA 

with the authority and tools to more aggressively protect workers. These statutory 

changes combined with OSHA’s administrative efforts will go a long way in dealing 

with the indifference to safety and health demonstrated by some employers. 

4. Outside of the new additional staff that you have taken on in an effort to ramp 

up the much needed enforcement powers of your agency—what new tools do you 

have at your disposal to overcome the lack of effective deterrence in the minds of 

so many employers who take their chances on either not getting caught or worse, 

simply paying little or no penalty if they are caught? 

Answer: There are several strategies by which WHD can affect compliance in industries and among employers. While these strategies may not necessarily be ‘‘new 

tools,’’ many have not been utilized to their greatest potential. For example, WHD 

is developing data on the prevalence of violations within industries and will use that 

data to heighten public awareness of those industries with high rates of violations 

and particularly egregious violation. I believe that kind of attention will help deter 

violations much as the attention to the garment industry in the 1990s helped regulators and other enforcement authorities address the compliance problems in that 

industry. Working with advocacy organizations and community groups will help 

WHD raise public awareness of violations that may be occurring within local communities. 

With additional enforcement resources, WHD will also be better able to pursue 

an enforcement strategy against employers and corporations that fail to take responsibility for compliance. The increased potential of litigation will add heft to the 

imposition of civil money penalties. 

Other underutilized tools at the agency’s disposal include the use of the ‘‘hot 

goods’’ provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the use of compliance agreements that establish specific steps for ensuring compliance, and the imposition of 

back wage liabilities to joint employers that may have avoided such responsibilities 

in the past. Finally, as WHD examines its regulatory agenda, it will have an opportunity to determine if additional authorities, similar to the recently added debarment authority in the H-2A program, will promote future compliance. 

The Administration supports the Protecting America’s Workers Act (PAWA), 

which would make meaningful and substantial statutory changes to OSHA’s penalty 

structure and enforcement program, providing the Agency with better tools to more 

aggressively go after recalcitrant employers. Additionally, in April, OSHA announced a new initiative to implement administrative modifications to the Agency’s 

penalty formulas, which will have the effect of raising OSHA penalties to ensure 

that employers view penalties as a greater deterrent against violating occupational 

safety and health standards and regulations. Revisions to OSHA’s penalty calculation system will serve to impose penalties that are more consistent with the seriousness of the violation and that also act as effective deterrents to the penalized employer and others. 

Also in April, OSHA announced the new Severe Violators Enforcement Program 

(SVEP), another critical tool that will help the Agency improve its ability to deter 

safety and health violations. The SVEP, which replaces OSHA’s existing Enhanced 

Enforcement Program (EEP), is intended to focus increased enforcement attention 

and resources on employers who have demonstrated indifference to their obligations 

under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act. In particular, the SVEP tar-
58 

gets the most egregious and persistent violators who have willful, repeated, or failure-to-abate violations in one or more of the following circumstances: (1) a fatality 

or catastrophe situation; (2) in industry operations or processes that expose employees to the most severe occupational hazards and those identified as ‘‘High-Emphasis 

Hazards’’; (3) exposing employees to hazards related to the potential release of a 

highly hazardous chemical; or (4) all egregious enforcement actions. 

Under OSHA’s definition, employers that behave in a way that indicates they may 

be indifferent to their legal obligations and thereby endanger their workers would 

become an SVEP case. The SVEP actions, consisting of more inspections, public notification, and other measures, are intended to increase attention on the correction 

of the hazards or recordkeeping deficiencies found in these workplaces and, where 

appropriate, in other worksites of the same employer where similar hazards and deficiencies are present. 

5. Some of these abusive employers are huge corporations, not small businesses. 

What extra efforts can you take to deal with these irresponsible and negligent labor 

law violators—especially when, in some cases, they are also the recipients of millions or billions of tax dollars as government contractors? 

Answer: Companies should not be allowed to enrich themselves through the government’s procurement practices when they regularly and consistently violate the 

most basic labor standards provisions. As part of its Recovery Act program, WHD 

is actively engaged in conducting investigations of employers performing government construction and service contracts. The agency will pursue debarment action 

against government contractors that meet the statutory and regulatory criteria for 

debarment. 

In addition, EBSA is actively investigating employers performing government construction and service contracts who fail to pay fringe benefits such as retirement 

and health benefits to employees, as required by law under the Davis Bacon and 

Service Contract Acts. 

OSHA continues to do everything within its statutory authority to deal with irresponsible employers. For example, OSHA is increasing the use of Corporate-Wide 

Settlement Agreements (CSAs), which address safety and/or health hazards that 

exist at more than one location of a given employer. The Directive implementing the 

use of CSAs is currently being revised. In revising its CSA Directive, OSHA will expand the use of this enforcement tool by proactively encouraging these settlements 

with smaller multi-site employers, and in lower penalty cases. Under existing policy, 

only an employer can propose establishing a settlement agreement on a corporatewide basis; under the new policy, OSHA will be permitted to initiate the use of 

these agreements. 

Additionally, the Protecting America’s Workers Act (PAWA), combined with 

OSHA’s administrative actions to adjust its penalty formulas would allow the 

issuance of higher penalties against these abusive employers, which we believe will 

have a greater deterrent effect. 

OFCCP has embarked on an initiative to return to 2001 staffing levels, which will 

allow OFCCP to broaden its enforcement efforts, focus on identifying and resolving 

both individual and systemic discrimination, and conduct ARRA-related compliance 

evaluations on federal contractors. OFCCP will focus its attention on a broad range 

of issues that arise in individual cases, including harassment, retaliation, termination, and failure to promote. Since federal contractors are obligated to self-audit 

and correct identified problems, OFCCP will step up monitoring of this element of 

contractor compliance. As part of OFCCP’s enforcement of Executive Order 11246, 

Equal Employment Opportunity, a renewed emphasis on conducting construction reviews is planned. 

In addition to increasing staff levels, OFCCP has an aggressive regulatory agenda 

that proposes to strengthen enforcement under Executive Order 11246; Section 503 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended. These authorities prohibit Federal 

contractors and subcontractors from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and protected veteran status. They also require 

Federal contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to ensure equal 

employment opportunity in their employment processes. 

Rep. John Kline 

1. Last month, you called for passage of H.R. 1409, the so-called ‘‘Employee Free 

Choice Act,’’ in response to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing 

that for the first time in history, more union members work for the federal, state, 

and local governments than in the private section. A detailed study by economist 

Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar concludes that were this bill to become law, every three percentage points gained in union membership through card check would result in a 
59 

one percentage point rise in the unemployment rate the following year. The study 

further concludes that the unionization of 1.5 million existing jobs under EFCA in 

its first year would lead to the loss of 600,000 jobs by the following year. 

Given these facts, how can the Obama Administration be supportive of a bill that 

has been shown to be a job-killer, and how can the Administration favor increasing 

unionization where that is shown to result in job loss? 

Answer: I do not agree with Dr. Layne-Farrar’s conclusion that passage of the 

Employee Free Choice Act would result in higher unemployment rates. Dr. LayneFarrar’s analysis ignores the fact that during the 1950’s when our country experienced very high union density, we also experienced low unemployment. Well-respected economists, such as Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, have questioned the validity of Dr. Layne-Farrar’s methodology and conclusions. 

The economic crisis is threatening the continued existence of the middle class in 

the American economy. Our national economy will fully recover only when the middle class is stable and strong. Strong unions are a key to a strong economy. Union 

membership is the surest path to a secure middle class job. Union jobs are good 

jobs. They pay higher wages and provide flexibility and benefits like paid leave, 

childcare, education assistance, and pension security. That’s why the Obama Administration and I support the Employee Free Choice Act. 

2. The Administration’s health care reform bill contains numerous provisions impacting the Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA), which provides 

the foundation for employer-sponsored health benefits covering more than 160 million people. Has the Department done any analysis of how the new mandates on 

ERISA-based plans contained in this legislation would affect existing ERISA-governed plans? 

Answer: While the Department has not conducted this analysis, according to the 

Congressional Budget Office, individuals who are covered by employer-sponsored 

health plans will likely see lower premiums under health reform. Reform will lower 

premiums by reducing administrative costs, increasing competition between insurance companies and creating a larger pool of insured Americans. The new protections and benefits provided by the market reforms included in health reform will 

strengthen coverage for participants. For example, information explaining plan benefits will be required to be simple and clear, and participants will not be subject 

to lifetime limits. 

On May 10, the Department of Labor, HHS and the Treasury issued the first set 

of regulations as a result of the health care bill’s enactment. These regulations implement the requirement that group health plans providing dependent coverage of 

children make such coverage available until age 26. This requirement applies to existing plans. In connection with these regulations, the Departments conducted an 

analysis of the economic impact of this requirement. As the Departments issue regulations on other provisions of the Affordable Care Act, they will include economic 

impact analyses. 

Has the Department done any analysis as to the number of individuals currently 

receiving health coverage under an ERISA-governed plan who may lose their existing coverage? 

Answer: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) will make available more high quality, 

affordable insurance options. We believe that more small employers in particular 

will be able to offer high quality insurance than would be the case absent reform. 

It also is possible that some employers and employees will choose to move from their 

current insurance arrangements to new arrangements that deliver better value. 

ACA will strengthen the entire system, including employment based insurance. 

3. There is little dispute that ERISA has helped tens of millions of employees and 

their families secure high quality, affordable coverage from employer-sponsored 

group health plans. The Administration’s health care reform proposal jeopardizes 

the viability of this structure by imposing new mandated benefits, administrative 

requirements, and taxes on these plans. Some have commented that under the Administration’s proposal, ERISA would be sufficiently weakened to permit state and 

local governments to enact their own health care reform plans, which could entail 

new taxes and mandates on ERISA-governed group health plans. 

In light of these facts, what is the Department’s position on proposals that would 

weaken ERISA preemption? If ERISA group health plans were required to comply 

with multiple state and local laws, would that not make coverage more expensive 

for beneficiaries and ultimately increase the number of uninsured workers? 
60 

Answer: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) does not weaken ERISA. Under ACA 

employers can continue to offer insurance under nationally uniform rules. ACA will 

dramatically reduce the number of uninsured Americans. 

4. The City of San Francisco adopted a law that taxes local businesses to help 

pay for its ‘‘Health Access Program’’ for uninsured residents. This law was challenged by the Golden Gate Restaurant Association on the basis that ERISA preempted the law. Although the District Court ruled that ERISA preempted the local 

law, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, and the case is currently on appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Department of Justice previously filed a 

brief in support of the Restaurant Association and supportive of ERISA preemption. 

Will the Department of Labor take a similar position and support the position of 

the Department of Justice in court, so as to protect the ERISA structure and provide 

certainty to those who provide and receive benefits under that structure? 

Answer: The Supreme Court requested the views of the United States on the 

issues presented by this case. On May 28, 2010, the government filed an amicus 

brief suggesting that, in light of the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the Court 

should not grant certiorari. In the brief, the government takes the view that there 

is little reason to believe that additional state and local governments will seek to 

create programs like San Francisco’s. 

5. Mental health parity legislation was enacted in October 2008 and in most 

cases, the law became effective on January 1, 2010. However, regulations for this 

important change in the law were only published this month in the Federal Register 

(14 months after the legislation was enacted), so most employers and health plan 

sponsors had to put their 2010 health plans in place without knowing how the provisions were going to be interpreted by the three federal agencies which have jurisdiction over these requirements. 

The preamble to new rules states that you will consider ‘‘good faith’’ efforts by 

employers and health plans to comply with the change in the law in the absence 

of your regulations. That is a helpful statement, but it will not prevent employers 

or health plans from being subject to litigation if a plan participant decides to bring 

an action against a plan alleging it has not complied with the new law. 

What steps is the Department taking to ensure that future regulations or guidance are provided much sooner than the effective date set by Congress? 

Answer: The Department shares your concerns regarding this very important 

issue and works very diligently to try to issue timely regulations and other interpretive guidance. In the health care field, the Department is looking to improve our 

effectiveness and that is why we have included in our budget request a modest but 

necessary increase in funding to support our Health Plan Standards Office in providing more timely regulations and guidance. The Department would greatly appreciate your support in this regard. 

6. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was enacted in May 

2008 and it directed the agencies of jurisdiction ((Department of Labor, Department 

of Health and Human Services and the Department of Treasury) to issue regulations by May 21, 2009. The agencies missed this deadline by five months. As a result, employers and insurers had to make decisions about their plan design without 

guidance interpreting the new statutory regime. When the agencies did issue interim final regulations, many plans’ plan year was already underway or they were 

in, or entering, fall annual open enrollment periods for their 2010 plan years. 

Given this timing, what are you views regarding providing a ‘‘good faith’’ enforcement policy for GINA compliance, similar to that included in the MHP regulations? 

Answer: This is another very important issue, and the Department appreciates 

your interest. As you know, the GINA regulations were issued jointly by the Departments of Labor, HHS, and the Treasury. Any enforcement policy guidance would 

need to be similarly coordinated among the three Departments. The Labor Department is aware of the compliance concerns you raise and will work with HHS and 

Treasury to explore possibilities on this issue. 

7. In early 2009, DOL announced it would add 250 new investigators to ‘‘refocus 

the agency on [wage and hour] enforcement responsibilities.’’ 

Are those investigators in place now? What effects have those additional investigators have had on the Wage and Hour Division’s enforcement statistics for 2009? 

According to your written testimony, the Wage and Hour Division has recovered 

more than $172.6 million in back wages for approximately 220,000 workers. How 

does that compare to the 2008 figure? 

Answer: The Wage and Hour Division began FY 2009 (in October 2009) with the 

lowest number of investigators since FY 1973. The authority to hire new investigators came with passage of the FY 2009 appropriation in March 2009—six months 
61 

into the fiscal year. In April, WHD undertook an ambitious and aggressive hiring 

plan to recruit and bring on-board 250 new investigators. By October 2009, most 

of the new investigators were on-board and reported to their respective offices. 

These new investigators must complete a comprehensive 12-week pre-training 

curriculum and put in a minimum of three months of on-the-job training prior to 

formal classroom training. On February 11, 2010, 107 new Wage and Hour investigators completed their Basic I Investigator Training. The graduates completed an 

intensive three-week training on the investigative process and application of the 

Fair Labor Standards Act. Approximately a year after they complete their Basic I 

training, these new investigators undergo Basic II Investigator Training to develop 

their skills and knowledge base in some of the more complex wage and hour issues 

and statutes. These new investigators will not become fully productive until about 

their third year on the job. WHD’s next Basic I class of over 100 investigators began 

the last week of February 2010. 

As one can readily determine, the newly hired investigators could not have contributed to WHD’s FY 2009 statistics. In fact, new investigators spend their first 

several months on the job shadowing senior investigators so that they can learn 

techniques for interviewing employers and employees, reviewing records and otherwise investigating compliance. This on-the-job training, while critical to new investigators, has the effect of reducing the normal productivity of the agency’s senior 

investigative staff. As a result, WHD would expect a decline in its productivity 

measures as it saw in FY 2009. During FY 2009, WHD collected over $172.6 million 

in back wages compared to FY 2008 during which the agency collected $185 million 

in back wages. In FY 2009, WHD collected back wages for approximately 220,000 

workers compared to approximately 229,000 workers in FY 2008. As of mid-year 

2010, WHD had collected $76,727,203 on behalf of 91,347 workers. 

8. The President’s budget calls for the establishment of a $50 million State Paid 

Leave Fund within DOL to provide competitive grants to states that choose to 

launch paid-leave programs. 

Under what legislative authority would this State Paid Leave Fund be created and where would the $50 million come from to create such a fund? More importantly, how does assisting states potentially impose new taxes help in creating more 

jobs? Won’t this make it more expensive to for employers to hire more employees? 

Answer: The authority necessary to create the new program is contained in the language proposed in the President’s FY 2011 Budget. The $50 million requested 

is new discretionary funding and represents a small investment to ensure that 

workers are able to balance their work and family responsibilities without fear of 

losing their jobs. The language provides: 

For grants to assist in the start-up of new paid leave programs in the States, $50,000,000, of which the Secretary may reserve not more than 1 percent for administration related to such grants. 

This is not a new Federal mandate or employer tax. The State Paid Leave Fund 

will simply make it a little easier for those States that want to design and establish 

paid leave programs to do so. States like California and New Jersey that have already established paid leave systems have shown that these benefits can be provided at no cost to employers and with very modest contributions from employees. 

States will need to weigh the pros and cons of such a program for their own constituencies as California and New Jersey did and will have the opportunity to debate the merits through their own legislative process. 

9. On September 2, 2009 DOL announced its intention to create a ‘‘chief evaluation office’’ tasked with improving program accountability, eliminating waste within 

the department, and concentrating DOL’s enforcement resources. 

Has the chief evaluation office begun its operation? If so, what is the focus of the 

office and its enforcement role, particularly as it relates to other enforcement divisions within DOL? 

Answer: The Chief Evaluation Office is part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy and coordinates closely with the Office of the Chief Economist. 

The Office is headed by a Chief Evaluation Officer who is responsible for developing and managing a comprehensive DOL evaluation program. The program will 

be designed by the Chief Evaluation Officer in coordination with the Assistant Secretary for Policy, the Chief Economist, the Office of the Deputy Secretary and relevant agency heads. Departmental evaluation funding will be allocated to agencies 

according to the program. 

The Chief Evaluation Officer assists agencies in preparing their annual research 

and evaluation plans; provides technical assistance in project design and analysis; 

ensures a consistent and high standard of rigor in the Department’s evaluations; 

and is responsible for ensuring that research and evaluation are aligned with and 
62 

responsive to the Administration’s overarching performance goals and the Department’s strategic vision. Enforcement agencies do not have their own dedicated 

source of evaluation funding and thus request evaluation funds from departmental 

management. In the past this funding has been awarded by the Center for Program 

Policy and Results. In FY2009 the Deputy Secretary’s Office and the Chief Economist’s Office participated in the decision making process. FY2010 funds are allocated jointly by the Offices of the Deputy Secretary, Chief Economist, and Assistant 

Secretary for Policy. In future fiscal years, the coordination of this work will be done 

by the Chief Evaluation Office. Through this function, the Chief Evaluation Office 

will work with agencies to determine what the desired outcomes of their enforcement programs are and how to evaluate their effectiveness in reaching those outcomes. The Chief Evaluation Officer will also make sure that the programs being 

evaluated are aligned with the Department’s enforcement priorities including targeting of the most egregious and persistent violators, corporate-wide enforcement, 

and leveraging resources to bring about broad-based compliance. 

Dr. Jean Grossman has been selected as the Chief Evaluation Officer and formally 

joined the Department on June 1, 2010. It is expected that additional staff will be 

hired to work in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy and the Chief Evaluation Office on these matters. 

10. The Department has reissued a previously-withdrawn recordkeeping regulation targeting so-called musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), and requiring that MSDs 

be recorded on workplace safety logs. In 2001, the Department settled a lawsuit by 

agreeing to remove the requirement that MSDs be recorded. 

Can you explain how the Department has the legal authority to reimpose this 

rule, thereby reneging on its settlement agreement in this case? 

Answer: The settlement agreement that OSHA entered into in 2001 did not remove the requirement to record work-related MSDs. Employers are and always have 

been required to record work-related MSDs that meet the general recording criteria 

for all injuries and illnesses in the OSHA Recordkeeping regulation. 

In 2002, after notice and comment, OSHA removed the separate MSD column on 

the OSHA Form 300. This decision was not part of or required by the settlement 

agreement, nor did it eliminate the requirement that employers must report workrelated MSDs. 

The proposed rule would merely change where employers record MSDs on the 

OSHA Form 300; it would not establish new or special criteria for recording injuries 

already required under current law. Employers will continue to use the recording 

criteria for MSDs as they are required to use for any other injury or illness. 

The separate column would improve the accuracy of the data collected on MSDs, 

providing OSHA, workers and employers better information to help identify and reduce hazards and patterns of injuries in the workplace. 

11. Last September, DOL issued a solicitation for construction of a Job Corps Center in New Hampshire that the Department declared was ‘‘urgently needed.’’ Without explanation, the Department attempted to impose a Project Labor Agreement 

(PLA) on the project, which would have required all successful bidders to force their 

employees to work under a union contract even though more than 90 percent of the 

workers in New Hampshire are non-union. After a local small business filed a protest against the PLA, the Department cancelled the solicitation, again without sufficient explanation. 

Please explain why the Department attempted to impose a PLA on this project 

that was well under the $25 million threshold prescribed in the executive order. 

Please explain further why the Department canceled the entire solicitation of an 

‘‘urgently needed’’ project in the face of the bid protest instead of simply removing 

the PLA. Finally, please explain why has the Department not reissued the solicitation for this urgently needed Job Corps Center without any PLA requirement. 

Answer: Executive Order 13502, 74 Fed. Reg. 6985 encourages agencies to consider using Project Labor Agreements on large-scale construction projects over $25 

million. The projected cost of the New Hampshire Job Corps Center will exceed this 

threshold. The Department of Labor remains fully committed to building and opening the Manchester Job Corps Center. Cancelling the solicitation provides the Department with additional time to study the proper implementation of Project Labor 

Agreements. The Department expects to reissue the solicitation for the New Hampshire Job Corps Center as soon as is prudent. 

Rep. Tom Price 

1. The Obama Administration has given unprecedented access at the White House 

to organized labor officials. Partial records for 2009 indicate that President of the 

SEIU Andy Stern has made 27 visits to the White House, and Secretary-Treasurer 
63 

of the SEIU Anna Berger has made 31 visits. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka 

has visited nine times, and United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard made another eight visits. 

a. To date, how many visits/meetings have you taken with organized labor officials? How many of those visits/meetings have taken place at the Frances Perkins 

Building in Washington, DC? Please categorize these visits/meetings if necessary. 

Answer: I do my best to accommodate most meeting requests, as my schedule 

permits, whether from labor officials, business leaders or other constituency groups. 

Each of the labor leaders you list has asked for and received a meeting with me. 

I also get many requests to speak at conferences of labor, business and constituency 

groups, and I attend those as my schedule permits. When I travel I look for opportunities to meet with local labor, business and constituency groups. 

Some meetings are organized for particular purposes. For example I am responsible for co-hosting with Trade Ambassador Ron Kirk, a quarterly meeting of labor 

leaders, the Labor Advisory Committee, to hear their perspectives on trade policy. 

In preparing for hosting the G20 Labor ministers, my staff organized special consultations of both labor and business leaders to incorporate their perspectives into 

our preparation for that meeting. 

b. Does the Department of Labor consider Mr. Stern, Ms. Berger, Mr. Trumka, 

and Mr. Gerard to be lobbyists? How does the Department classify them for purposes of visits/meetings? 

Answer: The Department is not aware of any circumstances during this time period when it needed to ascertain whether the individuals listed above were lobbyists. 

c. Does the Department of Labor have any special task forces or conduits established to stay in regular contact or gather input from organized labor officials? 

Answer: Yes, I have two staff members in the Office of the Secretary whose responsibilities include contact with Department stakeholders, including organized 

labor. 

2. You and President Obama have been leading proponents of ‘‘green jobs.’’ What 

is a ‘‘green job?’’ How does the Department classify a ‘‘green job?’’ 

Answer: Currently, there is no one standard definition of green jobs across agencies and industries. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has started a process of 

soliciting comments on the definition BLS will use in measuring green jobs. According to BLS, green jobs, broadly defined, are jobs related to economic activity that 

helps protect or restore the environment or conserve natural resources. These economic activities generally fall into the following categories: 

• Renewable energy 

• Energy efficiency 

• Greenhouse gas reduction 

• Pollution reduction and cleanup 

• Recycling and waste reduction 

• Agricultural and naturals resources conservation 

• Education, compliance, public awareness, and training for protecting the environment or conserving natural resources 

For the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) Solicitations for 

Grant Awards, ETA utilized the Green Jobs Act of 2007 which identified seven energy efficiency and renewable energy industries including: 1) energy-efficient building, construction, and retrofit industries; 2) renewable electric power industries; 3) 

energy efficient and advanced drive train vehicle industries; 4) biofuels industries; 

5) deconstruction and materials use industries; 6) energy efficiency assessment industries serving residential, commercial, or industrial sectors; and 7) manufacturers 

that produce sustainable products using environmentally sustainable processes and 

materials. Applicants were also encouraged to propose strategies that would train 

for green occupations in transportation; green construction; environmental protection; sustainable agriculture, including healthy food production; forestry; and recycling and waste reduction industries. Additionally, states, private and non-profit organizations, and local governments are working to address emerging green needs in 

their own jurisdictions. Therefore, ETA allowed flexibility for grant applicants to describe their training and job placement activities as green within the parameters 

laid out by the Occupational Information Network (O*NET) study described shortly. 

Before discussing the O*Net Study, it is important to note that a portion of the 

Recovery Act investments fund state labor market information research on green occupations; these investments are being used by grantees to collect, analyze, and disseminate labor market information, and to enhance the labor exchange infrastructure for careers within the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries. 

Grantees are including strategies for posting job openings to online job banks that 
64 

will be highlighted for easy recognition as green jobs by job seekers, in an effort to 

ensure that workers trained for green jobs will be able to find employment in energy 

efficiency and renewable energy sectors after they finish training. 

As mentioned, the Department of Labor-sponsored O*NET project has produced 

a report on the impact of investments and technological developments related to energy efficiency, renewable energy, and environmental sustainability. In the report 

titled, Greening the World of Work: Implications for O*NET-SOC and New and 

Emerging Occupations, research identified 218 occupations impacted across three 

distinct categories: 

1. Green Increased Demand—These are existing occupations that are expected to 

experience increased employment demand. In this category are 69 O*NET-Standard 

Occupation Classification (SOC) occupations, such as Forest and Conservation 

Workers, and Electricians. 

2. Green Enhanced Skills—These are existing occupations that will experience 

changes in tasks, skills, and credential requirements (and may or may not increase 

in demand). In this category are 59 O*NET-SOC occupations, such as Architects, 

and Plumbers. 

3. Green New and Emerging—These are more specialized occupations that are 

sufficiently different in tasks and skill requirements from currently existing O*NETSOC occupations, such that they merit separate identification and data collection on 

O*NET occupational requirement variables, such as occupation specific skills and 

tools and technology. Forty-five occupations in this category are identified in prior 

research, with 45 additional new and emerging occupations arising out of this specific study of green economic investments. 

3. At the end of January 2010, the Department of Labor published a proposal to 

revise its regulation on Recording Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in order to 

add a column on the OSHA Form 300. The addition is to capture information on 

work-related musculoskeletal disorders. 

As succinctly as possible, please describe the rationale for capturing such information. 

Answer: Under current law, employers are already required to report work-related musculoskeletal injuries and disorders (MSDs). Putting the MSD column back 

on the OSHA Form 300 would improve the accuracy of the nation’s data on workrelated MSDs. In turn, OSHA, workers, and employers would have better, easierto-use information to help identify and reduce hazards on this important group of 

occupational injuries and illnesses. 

4. Although the Congress passed legislation in 2001 to overturn a Clinton-era 

ergonomics regulation, is the Department of Labor moving forth with the implementation of a similar regulation? 

Answer: Although musculoskeletal injuries and disorders (MSDs) continue to be 

a major problem for American workers, at this time the Department has no plans 

to issue a standard in this area. 

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers 

1. The Obama Administration has talked about helping workers improve the 

work-family balance, something that is a stated goal of the White House Task Force 

on Working Families. First Lady Michelle Obama has embraced that goal as well, 

as part of her commitment to ‘‘ensure that there are policies in place that help 

women and men balance their work and family obligations without putting their 

jobs or their economic stability at risk.’’ 

In fact, workplace flexibility could very well provide one of the solutions to help 

employers navigate these tough economic times. Many employers have been forced 

to reinvent work: as part of an effort to improve efficiency, adjust to shifts and demands in the economy, and to respond to employee desires for greater accommodation in the ‘‘when, where, and how’’ they do their work. The advantages and benefits 

of increased flexibility in the workplace accrue to both employers and employees 

alike, and have been well-documented over the years. 

Private sector employers and employees are denied the use of so-called ‘‘comp’’ 

time programs, which would very simply provide a large measure of workplace flexibility, while most public sector employees—including Federal workers—have the 

ability to choose comp time off in lieu of overtime pay. 

What is your view on this type of work arrangement in terms of helping workers 

better balance work and family obligations, and would you support extending a 

comp time option to workers in the private sector? 

Answer: The Administration and I strongly believe that workplace flexibility is 

a necessity to meet the growing demands of our workplace and families. Significant 

demographic changes in the workforce mean that more working individuals must 
65 

juggle the responsibilities of taking care of children and helping older parents and 

to pursue education to enhance skills to keep pace with the demands of the workplace. Employers also directly benefit from flexibility for workers; the White House 

Council of Economic Advisers released a report in March 2010 that found that flexible work arrangements can lead to lower turnover and absenteeism and higher productivity. 

The Administration and I strongly support increasing flexibility in the workplace. 

I recently participated in the Workplace Flexibility Forum at the White House, and 

we are committed to increasing flexibility in the workplace. Over the next year, the 

Department of Labor will be hosting regional forums to continue the dialogue started at the White House event and to highlight best practices of employers who are 

already deploying flexible options in their workplaces to help others learn from their 

experiences. In addition, a wide variety of agencies at the Department of Labor are 

working together to examine our programs, policies, data collection, and regulations 

that impact workplace flexibility to see how we can better meet the needs of the 

modern workforce. Similarly, the Office of Personnel Management has announced 

a pilot program that would evaluate workers on their performance and would allow 

workers to choose where and when they work. The Department of Labor is very interested in exploring innovative programs and policies that would allow flexibility 

for workers, especially low-wage workers who often have little or no control over 

their work schedules, while preserving the fundamental safeguards in current law. 

2. The Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted more than 70 years ago. We know 

that over the years, there have been a number of amendments made to the law in 

order to address changing workforce conditions, such as when, where and how work 

is conducted today. At the same time, there are many aspects of the law that have 

not been updated or modernized in decades, nor have there been changes to address 

the advent of new technologies—such as Blackberries, smart phones and even the 

Internet—and how these technologies affect how, where and when work is conducted today. 

These outdated and unclear provisions restrict the ability of companies to provide 

certain workers with work place and work time flexibility, along with access to technology outside the workplace. And, this results in more difficult work-life balance 

decisions—and limited work/life balance options—for workers. It also negatively impacts job creation opportunities at a time when job creation should be our primary 

focus. 

Today’s worker responsibilities, lifestyle choices, and changing work methods necessitate that specific aspects of our primary labor law be reviewed, modernized and 

clarified in order to provide workers and their employers with both the flexibility 

and certainty that are lacking today. I would bring to your attention three specific 

issues which greatly need to be updated and clarified: 

• First, the lack of a statutory definition of ‘De Minimis Use of Technology’ and 

the lack of clarification of what types of activities trigger the start of the work day; 

• Second, the unequal treatment of inside salespeople compared to their peers 

who are doing the same work from a different physical location; and 

• Third, the outdated definition of what constitutes a ‘‘computer professional.’’ 

What is the Department’s view with respect to about taking a fresh and necessary 

review of these three issues? 

Answer: I agree that there are aspects of Fair Labor Standards Act that should 

be updated to provide greater protections to workers employed in work environments different from those that existed when the law was first enacted. The Administration would be pleased to review and provide its views on any legislation affecting today’s workforce. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ