U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

33–811 WASHINGTON : 2019

JOBS AND OPPORTUNITY: 

FEDERAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE JOBS GAP 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 17, 2018

Serial No. 115–FC11 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 

ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas, Chairman 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TOM REED, New York 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

PAT MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

KRISTI NOEM, South Dakota 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

JASON SMITH, Missouri 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

DARIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

TERRI SEWELL, Alabama 

SUZAN DELBENE, Washington 

JUDY CHU, California 

DAVID STEWART, Staff Director 

BRANDON CASEY, Minority Chief Counsel 

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of April 17, 2018, announcing the hearing ............................................ 2 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

The Honorable R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 57 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Questions from Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Pascrell to 

Secretary of the Department of Labor Acosta ................................................... 48 

(1) 

JOBS AND OPPORTUNITY: 

FEDERAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE JOBS GAP 

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2018 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 

1100 Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Kevin Brady 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 

2 


Insert 33811.001
3 

f 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. [Presiding.] The committee will come to 

order. Good morning. Chairman Brady will be joining us shortly, 

but out of respect for everyone’s time, we will go ahead and get 

started. 

Today our committee is honored to welcome Department of Labor 

Secretary Alexander Acosta to testify as part of our hearing series 

on jobs and opportunity. While much of his Department’s work is 

under the jurisdiction of other committees, we appreciate the Secretary taking time to testify today on issues under the Ways and 

Means Committee’s jurisdiction—particularly the important role 

the Department plays in connecting the unemployed with work opportunities as our economy continues to grow. 

Thank you for joining us to provide a federal perspective on this 

important issue. Our economy is flourishing, and there are millions 

of jobs which need to be filled. Today, on Tax Day, we recognize 

that in just three months since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was 

signed into law, we have seen over 600,000 new jobs created. Yet 

from our work in the Human Resources Subcommittee, we know 

there are still millions more struggling to get ahead. The labor 

market is strong. 

Employers have added an average of over 200,000 jobs per month 

so far in 2018, and the unemployment rate is 4.1 percent, its lowest 

level since the 1990s. We are going to need more workers to fill 

these jobs if we are going to keep this momentum going. 

This is the second hearing in an important series the committee 

is having to demonstrate how employers are struggling to fill jobs 


Insert 33811.002
4 

in order to expand their businesses. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are stuck on the sidelines creating a major jobs gap. 

[The information follows: Mr. Acosta.] 

f 


Insert 33811.003
5 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. You will see on the screen we have a 

chart showing the difference between employers’ demand for workers, shown as job openings, and the declining number of individuals 

in the workforce, shown as the labor force participation rate. The 

space in the middle separating those two lines is what we are calling the jobs gap. 

As an example of how tight the job market is right now, I noted 

in last week’s HR Subcommittee hearing a report from the Wall 

Street Journal which indicated if every jobless citizen in 12 Midwestern states, including Nebraska, was paired with an open job, 

our region would still be left with 180,000 unfilled positions. 

At last week’s hearing we heard from several employers from 

across the country: homebuilders in central Arizona; a boat manufacturer from Indiana; an aerospace company in Wichita, Kansas. 

All of these employers have one thing in common: they are facing 

a shortage of workers, which is threatening their ability to fill orders and expand their businesses. 

In fact, one of our witnesses, Heather Terenzio—the CEO of a 

software development company in Boulder, Colorado—worked with 

the Department of Labor to develop the first registered software 

development apprenticeship in the country to create a talent pipeline for bringing coders into her company. 

One of the things she said was very striking: A college degree is 

not required to be a great software developer. One of her first hires 

was a janitor at a school she was speaking at who had grown up 

in the foster care system with his mother in and out of jail. He had 

grown up playing video games and teaching himself to code and 

was able to become a contributing member of her team. 

Heather’s story could be repeated across industries and employers. There are good jobs out there, and you don’t need a college degree for many of those jobs. She has hired individuals from all skill 

levels and backgrounds and said as long as they have the desire 

and interest, she is able to set them on a career path in a desirable 

field with unlimited potential. 

Another witness from our hearing, Brian Potaczek, had spent 

years in and out of Arizona correctional facilities and struggled 

with addiction to prescription drugs after having his wisdom teeth 

pulled. Brian participated in a training program developed through 

a partnership with the prison and the Central Arizona Homebuilders Association. The partnership is business-driven and focused on building a labor pipeline in the construction trades, where 

employers are in desperate need of workers. Brian is now an electrician earning $22 an hour and credits the training with changing 

his life. 

Brian also told us he was far too busy with work to even think 

of returning to his previous ways. As far as I am concerned, this 

is the perfect example of a win-win situation. Arizona Homebuilders are able to fill job openings, and, most importantly, Brian 

has his life back and is able to restore his commitment to his family and society. 

This is how important bridging this jobs gap is. If we can solve 

this challenge, it will be an across-the-board victory for American 

workers, American families, American businesses, and the American economy. 

6 

Secretary Acosta, we look forward to your testimony and finding 

ways this committee can work with you to help workers find jobs, 

support their families, and achieve the American Dream. 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Without objection, Mr. Neal, I will recognize you for your opening statement. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the 

Secretary for being here to discuss these very important issues. 

We agree there is a problem here. Good jobs are going unfilled, 

and millions of Americans need jobs or need to move up in the— 

better jobs from the one they have. The labor participation rate is 

something that we all ought to be alarmed about in America. A 

2015 report by the Manufacturing Institute estimated that, over 

the next decade, 2 million manufacturing jobs in this country could 

go unfilled, due to the skills gap. 

Right now, in the smallest geographic region of the country, New 

England, there are 18,000 precision manufacturing jobs that go unanswered. The New England Council has put these results, along 

with Deloitte, front and center. In a time when we are trying to 

compete in the global economy and families across the country are 

trying to reach and stay in the middle class, we can’t afford that. 

Here is where we don’t agree. President Trump’s recent executive 

order seems premised on the belief that we have a jobs gap because 

people don’t want jobs. Well, I am a former mayor of a big city. I 

can tell you that is simply untrue. And his solution is to cut off 

benefits to motivate them to work like food, housing, and health 

care, or benefits they use to buy school supplies or just maybe put 

gasoline in their cars. 

I believe if you offer people real opportunities, they will take 

them. If given a choice between a good job and something else, people will always take the good job, because they want a better life 

for themselves and their families. So, if people aren’t filling those 

job openings, it is not because they don’t want to; it is because in 

some measures they can’t. 

They need to be better prepared. Technology, globalization, the 

economy, and opioid addiction is fundamentally altering the workplace. Our jobs gap is certainly, in some measure, partially a skills 

gap. Many workers don’t have the right skills for some of the best 

jobs our economy is currently producing. If we have Americans upgrade their skills, those open jobs will become opportunities, and 

I anticipate people would take them. 

We know how to help people upgrade their skills: registered apprenticeships, community colleges, career pathway programs that 

combine work training; and supports like child care. All of these 

things could help people learn skills and lead to better jobs in the 

future. 

Last year the President proposed cutting our main employment 

and training services programs by 40 percent, and this year, even 

after the Bipartisan Budget Act made far more money available, all 

the administration did was agree to continue jobs training at the 

current level, which is barely half of what Congress has authorized—again, on a bipartisan basis. 

They proposed cutting trade adjustment assistance funding to 

help trade displaced workers go to community colleges and to learn 

new skills, and we read in the newspaper that the administration 

7 

is quietly working on a plan to cut the workers’ support funding 

that we just approved and is provided for in the omnibus appropriations bill. 

Our committee doesn’t have jurisdiction over the main job training programs, but we do oversee the Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families program, which is supposed to help people move 

from welfare to work, and to get families out of poverty. In the 

past, Republicans on the committee have strongly opposed common-sense efforts to help parents receiving TANF participation in 

fields like education and training that would lead to good jobs. 

I hope they will reconsider that position. Our recent bipartisan 

work on the committee to authorize and fund re-employment services shows how much we can accomplish when we invest in workers. 

At the same time, as we invest in worker skills, we should be 

asking employers what they are doing about the jobs gap. Basic economics says that when employers don’t get the quality job applicants they are looking for, and markets tighten, the answer usually 

is to raise wages. 

So why are wages still stagnant, even after employers got a 

windfall in the Republican tax bill? According to the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, the average American saw an increase of just 

$6.21 a week during the 3 months after the tax bill, far below the 

$4,000 a year we were told, and the President reinforced. 

We have already seen some of these corporations and noticed 

how windfall is largely going to types like Wall Street, rather than 

Main Street. There is a real problem here, and there is a real solution. Instead of adding 2.3 trillion to our debt to provide the 

wealthy and big corporations with tax cuts, and then vilifying 

American workers who are trying to get ahead, we should fight to 

raise wages and invest in the skills that lead to these opportunities. 

And Mr. Secretary, I am delighted you are here to talk about 

labor participation rates. And I would hope that the committee 

would focus on this as we go forward, understanding what really 

is happening across the country as old areas—some are being 

brought back to life, but many others are not. And I emphasize the 

changes that are taking place across New England with which I am 

most familiar. 

So, thanks for being here, and thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you, Mr. Neal. 

Without objection, other members’ opening statements will be 

made a part of the record. 

Today’s witness is Alexander Acosta, Secretary, U.S. Department 

of Labor. 

The committee has received your written statement, Mr. Secretary, and it will be made a part of the formal hearing record. You 

have five minutes to deliver your remarks, and you may begin 

when you are ready. 

8 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Secretary ACOSTA. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Ranking Member 

Neal, thank you for the comments. And Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to appear today. 

I couldn’t help but notice that many Americans are still hurrying 

to file their taxes. And I would like to acknowledge Chairman 

Brady’s op-ed that appeared yesterday, where he pointed out that 

as we Americans file our taxes for the last time, we are doing so 

under the old Tax Code. And I do commend that opinion editorial. 

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before you as part of the 

committee’s ‘‘Job and Opportunity’’ hearing series to discuss the administration’s efforts to help American job-seekers develop the 

skills necessary to excel in good family-sustaining jobs. 

At the Department of Labor, we are creating opportunity for all 

Americans by expanding apprenticeships across all industries, 

streamlining traditional workforce education, and providing state 

leaders the flexibilities they need to meet the needs of job creators 

and their local workforces. 

Since taking office, President Trump has ushered in a renewed 

sense of economic optimism. As a result, our economy and workforce have seen tangible and quantifiable results, and the results 

are quite clear. Over three million jobs have been created since November 2016. In March, the level of non-farm payroll employment 

reached an all-time high. For the past six months, unemployment 

has held steady at a 17-year low of 4.1 percent. In many states, unemployment is now below four percent. The employment rate for 

American veterans in 2017 was 3.7 percent, the lowest since 2001. 

GDP in the fourth quarter of 2017 was nearly three percent, a 

number that just a year ago many economists said could never be 

achieved. And Americans are optimistic about the economy. Consumer confidence reached its highest point in 14 years in 2017, and 

remains very high, according to a University of Michigan consumer 

survey. 

The Federal Reserve reports that industrial production, manufacturing production, and mining output are trending up, and the Federal Reserve estimates that unemployment rates will drop further. 

To date, more than 500 companies have announced bonuses to 

more than 4 million Americans, as a result of the President’s Tax 

Cuts and Jobs Act. And the job creation effects of additional capital 

expenditures, repatriation of dollars, and competitive tax rates 

have yet to be fully quantified. 

Personal retirement accounts have soared and jobs are coming 

back to America from overseas. 

America’s average hourly earnings have started to grow. In 

March, the average hourly earning rose by 2.7 percent over the 

previous 12 months, and a 3-month average increase in earnings 

was the highest in nearly a decade, since 2009. We hope that 

growth will continue, particularly in the wage rate, as American 

job creators compete to attract more hard-working Americans. 

Now, as I meet with working Americans, I am focused not only 

on where we were, but also on where we are heading, which is jobs, 

more jobs, and even more jobs. As the committee knows well, there 

9 

are more than six million open jobs. And to fill these jobs I want 

to highlight three areas. 

The first is occupational licensing. We are working with states to 

eliminate artificial barriers to many occupations. Today, more than 

one in four Americans must acquire a license to work. One in four 

Americans. I was in a state just last week where a license to do 

something quite simple cost $1,200 a year. And that hits those that 

can least afford it the most. 

Occupational licensing is a real barrier, and something that 

states have to address. If licenses are unnecessary, eliminate them. 

If licenses are necessary, streamline them. And if they are honored 

by one state, my question is why can other states not honor them 

with reciprocity? 

Second, I would like to briefly touch on apprenticeships. For too 

long, education and workforce education have operated separately 

and without much coordination. We must de-silo traditional education and workforce education. Traditional classroom learning and 

on-the-job skills experience share the same goals, helping more 

Americans gain family-sustaining jobs. 

This spring, the President’s Task Force on Apprenticeship Expansion will issue its report and recommendation for expanding industry-recognized apprenticeships designed to provide job seekers 

with the demand-driven skills they need to excel in the jobs of 

today and tomorrow. These apprenticeships are very important. 

And finally, I would like to touch on a third topic, and that is 

the topic of Pell Grant expansion. This is of critical importance in 

making high-quality, short-term programs that provide students 

with certifications or credentials for in-demand fields accessible. 

Currently, federal law prohibits Pell Grant recipients from using 

their grants for courses and programs that do not meet certain 

time or length requirements. Short-term workforce development 

programs can provide immediate economic return by helping job 

seekers gain the skills in education necessary to quickly join the 

workforce. 

And so, this concept is part of the President’s infrastructure proposal and is also part of Chairman Foxx’s PROSPER Act. Expanding Pell to shorter programs is important and will foster workforce 

education in a very positive way that focuses on skills, rather than 

simply credentials. 

And so, with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time, and 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Acosta follows:] 

10 


Insert 33811.004
11 


Insert 33811.005
12 


Insert 33811.006
13 


Insert 33811.007
14 


Insert 33811.008
15 

f 


Insert 33811.009
16 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Secretary. 

We will now proceed to the question-and-answer session. I would 

like to ask members to limit their questioning of our witness to 

three minutes so we can get through as many members as possible. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Today on Tax Day, when American families are filing for the 

final time under the old code, we are here to talk about the economy driven by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. It is an economy experiencing the lowest unemployment rate since the turn of the century. 

And yet we still have record numbers of individuals on the sidelines and out of the labor force. It has created this jobs gap that 

we have discussed; a growing difference between employers’ demand for workers and the number of individuals in the workforce. 

This is relevant to the committee because we know when individuals and parents work full time, the poverty rate drops to just 

three percent. We also know how work supports—such as child 

care, case management, and transportation—when combined with 

work, can help make the American Dream a reality for more Americans. 

Mr. Secretary, what is your view on the jobs gap and the role 

your Department plays as we prepare to re-authorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF. How important is cross-agency collaboration and coordination? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. 

And first, let me begin by acknowledging what you made clear, 

which is the jobs gap is significant, it is real, more than six million 

open jobs in the United States right now. As we look at how to fill 

that, cross-agency cooperation and collaboration is critical, not only 

with respect to TANF, which you referenced, but also with respect 

to workforce education. 

There are currently over 40 different workforce education programs across agencies. That is a number of programs that often 

overlap. We have requested, for now two years in a row, flexibility 

so that governors can redirect funds within their state from one 

workforce education program to another education program on the 

theory that I think is absolutely correct, which is all the states are 

different, and Nebraska is going to be very different than California, which is very different from Florida. 

And so, I would point out, it is not just cooperation between the 

agencies, but also flexibility to allow the governors to focus workforce education funds where they best serve the needs of their 

states. 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Nebraska, I will point out, is a great 

place to do business. And even at the height of the great recession, 

rural Nebraska communities were going to high-unemployment 

states to recruit workers and to fill numerous unfilled jobs. And we 

know that having too few people to fill the jobs will actually draw 

down economic growth, unless the entire region can attract more 

workers. 

Would you have some insight for rural states or even remote 

areas of the country to address this issue? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Mr. Chairman, as you point out, you know, 

Nebraska’s unemployment rate is below the national average. And 

17 

so, the skills gap is particularly acute. Something that I think is 

important, if we look at our educational system, is our educational 

system doing everything that it can to address what is really a 

skills deficit? 

Coming at it a different way, we have traditional education and 

we have workforce education, and we have siloed the two without 

much communication between them. 

And so, my question is this, as we think of the universities in 

each of our states, we are often familiar with how many students 

they enroll. But do we ask how many students do they graduate? 

What jobs did those students acquire upon graduation? How do 

those jobs pay? And are we really working to inform those educational systems of the in-demand skills so that they can focus students and just give them he options? 

And so, for example, you know, there are many people that engage in study abroad and my question is if you can do a study 

abroad, why can’t you do a semester at a police academy? Or if you 

are studying pre-law, why can’t you do a semester at a law firm? 

Offer credit. Some professions do that well, but many, many do not. 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you. I now recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Neal, for three minutes for any questions—— 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, what is the current labor participation rate in 

America? 

Secretary ACOSTA. The current labor participation rate is a little below 63 percent. 

Mr. NEAL. And how does that stack up against the post-war 

norm? 

Secretary ACOSTA. It is lower than it has been. 

Mr. NEAL. It has been. So right now—I use your statistics all 

of the time, culled carefully—it is estimated by Labor that there 

are 6.2 million job openings right now across the country, is that 

accurate? 

Secretary ACOSTA. That is accurate. 

Mr. NEAL. And what would you suggest is the problem with getting people into the workforce? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Mr. Ranking Member, there are a number 

of, I think, challenges to getting individuals into the workforce. As 

you reference in your opening remarks, opioids are a significant 

issue. 

A Bureau of Labor statistics survey was conducted, and it asked 

adult prime age men—that is men 25 to 54 who are not in the 

workforce—‘‘Did you take a pain killer yesterday?’’ Forty-four percent responded in the affirmative. A follow-up study was conducted 

out of Princeton, and that follow-up study asked, ‘‘Was it a prescription pain killer?’’ Thirty-one percent of prime age males that 

were not in the workforce responded, ‘‘yes.’’ 

And so, opioids are a significant challenge, and it is a challenge 

that I think is particularly pernicious, because people are told by, 

in essence, a fiduciary, a physician who they are supposed to trust, 

‘‘Here is your prescription.’’ They then take the prescription and 

they get hooked. And so, I think that is one challenge. 

18 

A second challenge that we have is changing demographics. If 

you look at what has happened over the last decade, the number 

of Americans that have gone from prime age—25 to 54—versus 55 

and above has shifted. And so, we need to start asking what are 

we doing to provide workforce education to older Americans? 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you. And Mr. Secretary, in addition to what 

you have just stated, labor force participation rates are also predicated in some measure on supply of immigrants, correct? 

I mean you have just made the argument here, given the fact 

that I think the average American family now is having 1.7 children, as birth rates have declined, I think that you are making the 

argument in some measure we need a steady stream of immigrants, a different skill set. Would you agree with that position? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Sir, I believe the administration has proposed concepts that look at the skills of immigrants as they come 

into the Nation. 

Mr. NEAL. Right, but part of the draw is also at the low end of 

the wage set, as well, correct? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Mr. Chairman, at the low end of the wage 

set, one issue that I think also is very important are re-entry programs. And there are a number of Americans that are leaving prisons right now and are looking for jobs. In fact, 84 million—I believe 

the Department just announced a grant program for $84 million to 

focus on workforce education around re-entry. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you. And your participation in this this morning is really critical. It is one of the most looming issues across the 

country. And it has really roiled the political debate across the 

country. So, I hope that we can find a bipartisan path on some of 

the suggestions that you have offered today, as well as some of the 

ideas that we might have on the Democratic side. 

Secretary ACOSTA. Thank you. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr.—— 

Secretary ACOSTA. I would be happy to. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Nunes. 

Mr. NUNES. I yield to Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary, I am pleased your department is working hard to 

make association health plans a reality, given how important good, 

quality health insurance is to workers. Mr. Secretary, wouldn’t you 

agree that AHPs can play a role, an important role, in getting folks 

off the sidelines and into a job? And I will continue to follow your 

work closely. 

Now, Secretary, in my time as chairman of Social Security, I 

have also been working hard on the policies to help Americans return to work. For example, my bill, the Promoting Opportunity for 

Disabilities Benefit Applicants Act, would help denied disability 

benefit applicants return to the workforce by requiring Social Security to provide information about employment support services. 

Many of these folks have already been out of the workforce for 

an extended period, so providing information on training and employment is an important step to helping more folks return to 

work. 

19 

Mr. Secretary, what are some of the training and employment 

services your agency offers to help people get back into the workforce? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, thank you for the question. 

Let me take each of those parts separately. 

First, you referenced association health plans. And I do think 

that there is a significant cost differential between the large group 

market and the smaller group market. To the extent association 

health plans would provide a mechanism for particularly small 

businesses, which are the engine of job creation to access the large 

group market, I think that would contribute to small business 

growth, would reduce the cost of health care, would still provide access to quality care, because the large group market is quite high 

quality care, and is used by all the large corporations around our 

Nation, and I think would help all those Americans that are looking for health care that are now unable to access it because their 

small businesses do not offer it. 

You referenced some of the services that are provided. I have 

been to many, many one-stop centers, many workforce education 

centers. And, you know, they provide a full range of services, from 

efforts to help write resumes, to connecting individuals with job 

creators. They sponsor job fairs, they make suggestions as to how 

to apply, they provide access to job training. You know, well—when 

they are well operated, these centers are a resource for individuals 

to find good, family-sustaining jobs. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Levin. 

Mr. LEVIN. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Talking about workforce 

and skills, the President’s initial budget, as you know, I think, proposed cutting funding for the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act by 40 percent in 1 year. Was that a good idea? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Mr. Congressman, the President’s budget 

made some difficult choices, and understood that this was a process. Congress has, for all practical purposes, fully funded the Department, and that is the—— 

Mr. LEVIN. Okay, but—— 

Secretary ACOSTA [continuing]. That we have. 

Mr. LEVIN. But can you answer my question? You are now part 

of the administration. Was that proposal of the President a good 

idea? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, the budget proposal, I believe, 

proposed reducing three programs within ETA, which is the program you are referencing, because those programs and the needs 

of those programs were being addressed elsewhere. 

Congress made a judgement to the contrary. We respect 

Congress’s judgement on that. The Department has now been fully 

funded. 

Mr. LEVIN. Okay. So you don’t want to answer it. I just point 

it out. 

It also—you talk about the Department of Labor’s YouthBuild 

program and applaud it. The President’s budget proposed cutting 

it by 30 percent. Was that a good idea? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, the YouthBuild—and I have 

seen how effective the YouthBuild program can be, I think particuVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:13 May 06, 2019 Jkt 033811 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\33811.XXX 33811
20 

larly when it works with community colleges and community partners, as I have seen, including businesses. It can be very successful. 

Mr. LEVIN. Okay. 

Secretary ACOSTA. As I—— 

Mr. LEVIN. But let me just ask you. You are part of the administration now. Would you propose that kind of a cut again? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, the budget makes difficult 

choices—— 

Mr. LEVIN. Okay. 

Secretary ACOSTA [continuing]. Between departments. 

Mr. LEVIN. Okay. I don’t mean to interrupt, but—I understand 

you don’t want to answer it. I just hope, now that you are Labor 

Secretary, you will not propose flawed ideas. 

Let me just briefly—I have got 30 seconds—talk about unemployment insurance. Mr. Neal talked about labor participation, and it 

dropped dramatically during the recession. And I think, in part, because of the failure of unemployment compensation to respond, people dropped out. 

Are you now working on reforming the unemployment insurance 

program? It—you know, the benefits now have been cut in many 

places, and today only 27 percent of unemployment—okay. 

Are you going to work on reform of the unemployment insurance? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, we are looking very closely at 

a number of issues around the unemployment insurance, which, as 

you are aware, is administered at the state level. 

Mr. LEVIN. Under a federal umbrella, sir. 

Chairman BRADY. [Presiding] All time has expired. So, as part 

of our hearing series on jobs and opportunity, I am glad we have 

the opportunity to explore how we can work with President Trump 

and Secretary Acosta to help workers on the sidelines find jobs and 

support their families. 

It is clear that our human services programs have a role in supporting the next wave of workers needed to continue America’s economic growth. 

American companies are expanding and looking for more customers overseas, and if we are going to maximize America’s growing economy in this new pro-growth Tax Code, then we are going 

to need more workers. 

I have heard from business owners across the country who are 

looking desperately for qualified applicants, but they are striking 

out. That is why today we are looking at ways to help Americans 

who are stuck on the sidelines find work, grow their careers, and 

achieve the American Dream. 

I want to thank you again, Secretary Acosta, for joining us. I 

apologize for being late by a few minutes, and I appreciate Chairman Smith kicking off this hearing. 

But before I recognize Mr. Reichert I would like to take a moment to say thank you to our departing staff director, Dave Stewart. David has been by our side throughout the challenges of tax 

reform. He began in the institution of the House 17 years ago. I 

believe he was an intern for a Ways and Means Committee member, worked for a member on this committee and in key leadership 

roles, and then, for the past two-and-a-half years with his steady 

21 

leadership, we were able to pass the first tax reform in a generation. This helped so many of our families. 

I want to, on behalf of the committee, thank you, David, for your 

service to the House, to the institution, and to the Ways and Means 

Committee. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Chairman BRADY. So, we are turning David back to his beautiful wife, Betsy, and their two young children, and wish him the 

very best. 

With that, Mr. Reichert, you are recognized. 

Mr. REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here this morning, Mr. Secretary. I was the 

chair of the Human Resources Subcommittee for a short while and 

was able to work with a rock star that you just hired, Rosemary 

Lahasky. So, congratulations on a great hire, and congratulations 

to Rosemary on her future career. And good luck. 

Number one, I am just going to whip through this real quick. I 

can give you a lot of stats, but obviously we are talking about labor 

workforce gap. We have that in Washington State, we have a shortage of skilled workers from a machine shop in a small town in Central Washington called Cashmere from a high-tech business in 

Bellevue, Washington, one of the largest cities in Washington State 

on the west side of the Cascades. And I understand that you have 

to have cooperation between the local and state governments to get 

this done. 

For example, one ridiculous rule in Washington State is a 17- 

year-old can’t go to work at a machine shop because they are not 

allowed to operate an electric-powered screwdriver. So, how do they 

expect to get OJT? We have to look at high school, we have to look 

at trade schools and apprenticeship programs. Those are the things 

that you mentioned, and I appreciate that so much. 

The one thing I really want to talk about is veterans. In 1972 

I was hired by the King County Sheriff’s Office as a deputy with 

a 10 percent veteran’s preference. So, for all of you, they are responsible for me being here in Congress today. 

You touched on your efforts like this in your written testimony 

regarding veterans. In particular, you talked about the enactment 

of the HIRE Vets Act to begin recognizing employers that recruit, 

retain, and employ veterans. And you also discussed a new demonstration program. Can you talk about that demonstration program a little bit more, please? You have about one minute. 

Secretary ACOSTA. Thank you, Congressman. The HIRE Vets 

Act was enacted last year, but it was not funded. We found money 

within our budget to begin implementation through a demonstration project. That project will, I believe, expire or end on April 30th 

of this year, and we have already had nearly 1,000—I believe 

around 965, give or take—companies apply and submit under that 

program so that they can highlight the veterans that they have 

hired, so that the Department can recognize them. 

And then I think that the high level of participation for what is 

just a demonstration project right now speaks to the success that 

this program can have when it is fully implemented. 

Mr. REICHERT. I yield back. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Reichert. 

22 

Mr. Thompson, you are recognized. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being here. I want to associate myself with those who have spoken about the troubling situation in regard to both the job gap and the skills gap that we are 

facing. 

My district just went through a very tragic situation, where we 

lost in fires about 8,000 homes. And you just can’t rebuild 8,000 

homes under perfect circumstances. But given the lack of 

craftspeople, carpenters, electricians, roofers, plumbers, framers, it 

is impossible. If we took every home-building craftsperson from 

west of the Mississippi and sent them into my county, Sonoma 

County, they couldn’t rebuild the homes that they lost in the next 

decade. So, we have got to do something to figure this out. 

It is alarming to me that we did this tax bill in this—well, not 

in this committee, because we didn’t have any hearings, we didn’t 

hear from any experts, we jammed it through without even thinking about including some of the bipartisan bills that deal with the 

skills gap. 

Do you believe it is appropriate to use tax policy to close that 

skills gap? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, thank you for the question. I 

believe Congress has made judgements in other areas to use tax 

policy to address and incentivize employers to do any variety of 

things. And so that is certainly a tool that you have at your disposal. 

Let me comment, if I could, on your—you know, the gap particularly in the building trades. 

One of the challenges that I think we have, and it is a bipartisan 

one, is we have sent a bad signal—and I would say that we, as a 

government, are part of that—to so many Americans that one profession is better than another profession. And we need to step back, 

in my opinion, and say—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, I am willing to stipulate, Mr. Secretary, 

that we need folks across the board in all kinds of critical jobs. So, 

I certainly don’t want to fall into that trap of trying to steer people 

where they shouldn’t be. 

But I am concerned that we are not using the full power of our 

office to incentivize those jobs, as you mention. As I say, we had 

bipartisan bills in this committee. They weren’t even included. 

Other than hoping that there is going to be all of this great stuff 

that comes from this tax bill that was jammed through that created 

a $2.3 trillion addition to our debt, is there anything in that tax 

bill that you can point to that at all attempts to address that skills 

gap? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, certainly the fact that companies are now going to have more money available to them means 

that they can—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. So, other than the trickle-down. 

Secretary ACOSTA. So, as I was saying, they can now—and I 

have heard small businesses saying that they are investing in their 

workforce because they know they need better—— 

Mr. THOMPSON. But is there anything in the bill, policywise—— 

23 

Chairman BRADY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Thompson [continuing]. That would do that, rather than hoping—— 

Chairman BRADY. Secretary Acosta has answered. 

Mr. Thompson [continuing]. A trickle-down will work? 

Chairman BRADY. And businesses have more money to invest in 

their workforce. 

Mr. Roskam, you are recognized. 

Mr. ROSKAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Acosta, thank you for your time today. The Tax Cuts 

and Jobs Act has created a resurgence of economic activity that we 

are familiar with and are happy with. One developer in my district, 

Troy Mertz of Gilberts Development, said this: ‘‘With the passage 

of the business tax cuts, U.S. national homebuilders have realized 

a huge improvement in cash flow, which has already spurred economic activity in the industry. In my project they just executed a 

$12 million contract in 2018 for 150 residential lots.’’ Fantastic. 

Can you give us a sense of the types of initiatives that you are 

taking, as it relates to this skills gap? It is a consistent theme here, 

we are hearing a lot about it. I know you are doing a lot about it. 

Could you just continue to educate us on the initiatives at the Department? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, thank you for the question. 

We are doing several things. 

First, as I highlighted in my opening remarks, we are expanding 

apprenticeships across all industries. You know, work-while-youlearn—it works. It provides on-the-job training, it provides a paycheck, it gets individuals to work, it gives them a purpose. 

We are also working with the American Association of Community Colleges and others to more closely integrate traditional education and workforce education. The economy has changed, the way 

that we communicate has changed. Yet the way that we educate 

is not changing all that much. The concepts of short-term credentials, short-term certificate programs—as I mentioned, Pell should 

be expanded to reach those—that can be stackable, that can be attained over time, where you have got lifelong earning and lifelong 

learning that run simultaneously—are very important. 

We are also looking at how traditional education can be encouraged to take on more what I call on-the-job training. So, if you look 

at the way teachers are educated, for example, teachers have to go 

into a classroom and student teach. Doctors have to go into a hospital and actually do rounds. And so why is it so unusual to say 

that when colleges are offering theory, they should also offer opportunities for students to go in and work, not just to learn the career, 

but learn all those soft skills that are associated with working? 

You know, there are students that come to Congress all the time, 

and they receive credit for working here. Why can they not receive 

credit for working in their chosen profession? 

And so, I would like to say if you are studying criminology, why 

can’t you do a semester at a police academy, just like folks do an 

internship up here on Capitol Hill? 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. The gentleman yields. 

Mr. Larson, you are recognized. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

24 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary. Along the same lines as the questioning of Mr. Neal and also Mr. Roskam, I would be delighted— 

and, based on your answers—to have you come up to our district. 

I think this jobs gap, as we were shown at the outset, and all the 

inherent problems, including, as Mr. Thompson mentioned, the 

opioid issues, deserve a different kind of approach. 

Well, we have been working very hard with the academic sector, 

labor unions, and the private sector to try to really get after the 

whole jobs issue. 

Back in 2013 Goodwin College didn’t offer a manufacturing program, whatsoever. They now offer a bachelor’s degree, they now 

have a credentialing program. They now have machinists from the 

IAM, both who need to be retooled on advanced machinists and operations skills that are required, as well as training another generation. 

The President of Goodwin College goes out and actually meets 

with industry and business and talks about what are the skills that 

they need to be perfecting. What are they credentialing that they 

are going to need for the workforce of the future? They do so, along 

with The Connecticut Center for Advanced Technology. And in a 

collaborative effort, everybody is pulling together. 

Louis Brandeis, I think, said it best, that states become laboratories for democracy. And I think this is a great opportunity, especially given your pursuit and what you are talking about, and the 

need for us to advance through our educational system a different 

approach that is going to do strong outreach, and combine those 

very academic, labor, and private-sector skills that often times 

have gone in different directions. 

I would like to ask you to come up and then have an invitation 

to come up and meet with those impacted entities who have put 

forward a plan, and perhaps with the Department of Labor we can 

modify it in a way that works best to get after that skills gap issue 

that we have been addressing here this morning. 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, thank you. Thank you for the 

invitation and for those words describing that program. I would be 

happy to come visit. 

And let me add that the community colleges and the educational 

institutions that partner with business, where business also has 

skin in the game, where there are funds or in-kind contributions 

that business puts up and where business then hires the graduates 

of those programs—because the community colleges look to business for input into the curriculum, so the curriculum is designed 

to meet those workforce needs are what work best. And if that is 

what is going on, I would love to see it. 

Mr. LARSON. Absolutely. Thank you. 

Secretary ACOSTA. Thank you. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Larson. 

Ms. Jenkins, you are recognized. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary Acosta, for joining us today. 

With a quickly expanding job market now available, in part because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, employers are facing workforce 

pipeline challenges across our country. And in fact, one Kansasbased company, Spirit AeroSystems, testified last week before the 

25 

HR Subcommittee about some of the challenges that they face trying to fill open aerospace manufacturing jobs. 

At Spirit’s 4 United States plants they have hired more than 

4,000 front-line employees since 2015. While that is great news for 

my state and national industry base, businesses like Spirit are increasingly struggling to find the qualified workers with the skill 

sets needed in today’s advanced manufacturing environment. It is 

imperative that we look to additional policies which foster support 

for our private-sector workforce in order to build on the recent successful tax reform. 

One policy that I believe in is the promotion of apprenticeships 

and technical education to strengthen and sustain our economy. In 

last week’s hearing we heard how Spirit maintains an apprenticeship program with the International Brotherhood of Electrical 

Workers, which represents roughly 750,000 workers who work in 

a variety of manufacturing and technical fields. So as Spirit pursues highly-skilled workers to fill job openings, one of the many 

steps they are taking is to launch a new apprenticeship program 

with one of their other labor unions this year there in their Wichita 

site. 

Secretary, I know from your written testimony that the administration is supportive of expanding apprenticeships across the country. And perhaps this is a better question to ask you after the report from the President’s task force on apprenticeship expansion 

comes out. But from your experience, are there particular legislative barriers to expanding these programs? Or conversely, legislative actions that we all can take proactively to further incentivize 

more companies to establish apprenticeship programs? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congresswoman, thank you for the question. 

And as you noted, your state has a particularly low unemployment 

rate, about 3.4 or 3.5 percent. And so, you know, in a sense it is 

great when job creators, really, really, really want workers because 

it helps the job seeker. But then it sort of also incentivizes them 

to participate in programs like these apprenticeship programs. 

Apprenticeship programs work in part because job creators focus 

on the skills that are being demanded. They are part of it. They 

say, ‘‘This is what we need,’’ and the apprenticeships respond by 

teaching those skills. And so, the administration is looking to expand them broadly. 

They have been used traditionally in the building trades, and in 

the building trades they have worked very well. The industries outside the building trades have used them less, in part because of the 

regulatory barriers. And so, the vision of industry-recognized apprenticeships is to provide an alternative that has less of those barriers. 

Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Ms. Jenkins. 

Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you—— 

Chairman BRADY. You are recognized. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER [continuing]. Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for joining us. I would like 

to return to something that my friend, Mr. Thompson, raised tangentially, in terms of dealing with the opioid crisis. 

26 

We have perhaps in some areas 20 percent of the population that 

is not able to be able to compete successfully for jobs, because they 

simply are either addicted or they can’t pass a drug test. In some 

cases, there are problems using substances that are actually legal 

in the states—dealing with marijuana—that show up in trace 

amounts that are disqualifying, even if it doesn’t speak to actually 

being impaired. 

Do you have some thoughts about what we are going to do to be 

able to do a better job of reclaiming this vast pool of people who 

have, for one reason or another, been unable to pass the drug test, 

been unable to escape the impact of addiction in ways that can unleash the potential that they represent? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, thank you for the question. 

You know, this is very important, and I was thinking about it just 

this morning, as I was reading an article. 

And, you know—there are sometimes very valid health and safety reasons why an individual that cannot pass a drug test shouldn’t 

hold a certain job. And we need to recognize that and, if there are 

health and safety reasons or others, you know, then the companies 

certainly have the right to say you can’t work in that job. 

At the same time, I think sometimes, whether it is in this or 

other areas, job creators are not well informed about an individual’s skills, and make the assumption that because there is a negative result on a test they would not be a good employee or they 

would pose a risk. And so, I think it is important to take a step 

back. 

Now that, you know, we have a lower labor force participation 

rate, and we have all these Americans that are looking to work and 

ask ‘‘are we aligning our drug policies and our drug testing policies 

with what is right for the workforce?’’ 

And so, for example—— 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary, my time is almost up, but I just—I appreciate what you are saying. I hope that 

there is a way that we can work to be more artful and specific 

about what we do with people to be able to judge impairment and 

be able to have that broader concern that you are talking about 

and would look forward to maybe providing a little back-and-forth 

with your team to be able to understand how we can build on the 

opportunities to reclaim them, recognizing the reality that you just 

outlined. 

Secretary ACOSTA. I would be happy to, Congressman. Thank 

you. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you very much. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. Paulsen, you are recognized. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, as you know, in Minnesota we have got an unemployment rate of 3.1 percent, which is also significantly lower than 

the national average right now. Our state also ranks third, nationally, in the labor force participation rate, with over 70 percent of 

eligible individuals participating in the workforce; and, we rank 

second with the proportion of individuals who have a 2-year degree 

or higher, yet, in Minnesota, we face the exact same skills gap 

27 

challenges that are impacting employers of all types and sizes 

across the country. 

And I heard from a lot of farmers who are seeking seasonal 

workers and various vocational industries that are seeking the next 

generation of those truck drivers, electricians, woodworkers, manufacturing, the trades, and they all are saying the exact same thing. 

They can’t find enough skilled workers to hire. 

I have spoken with a lot of high school counselors who are trying 

to also advocate on behalf of career and technical education for the 

students that they know may not excel as well at a traditional 

four-year institution, and we know that research is showing that 

people with career and technical education are slightly more likely 

to be employed than those counterparts that might just have academic credentials. 

And I also know of many employers that are using the benefits 

of the tax cuts and the tax overhaul to reinvest in education and 

reinvest in training their employees. So, our employers now are 

working on these apprenticeship programs, similar to what Representative Jenkins had mentioned, to draw that talent to their industries. 

And in Minnesota we have got organizations like RealTime Talent. They are a non-profit. They are working to specifically address 

the jobs gap. So RealTime Talent is bringing together education 

and workforce and economic development, and then private industry leaders to address our state’s looming talent shortage, which is 

now anticipated to be about 62,250 workers short by the year 2020. 

And I know last summer you visited Minnesota, you discussed 

some workforce development and apprenticeship programs with 

business executives that are in those struggles finding workers. 

And in your testimony today you also mentioned that high-quality 

programs, including those apprenticeships that instruct Americans 

in the trades, deserve the same respect as traditional education options. 

So, with that being said, I would just like to ask if you would 

be willing to come back to Minnesota some time this year to visit 

some of those apprenticeship programs that Minnesota companies 

have worked with now to establish in order to accelerate workforce 

readiness and global competitiveness. 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, I would be happy to. I think 

those programs are emblematic of what we need more of, and I 

would be happy to visit them. 

Mr. PAULSEN. Good. Thanks, Mr. Secretary. I will follow up 

with you in writing and give you a more formal invitation. But we 

look forward to that and highlighting those opportunities. 

Secretary ACOSTA. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. PAULSEN. I yield back. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Paulsen. 

Mr. Kind, you are recognized. 

Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thanks for your attendance, being here today. Mr. 

Secretary, I am afraid that we are in a bit of a conundrum, philosophically. We have an administration in power, we have a majority power in power in Congress who believes that any need-based 

program is, by definition, considered welfare, and must be reformed 

28 

or cut. And yet those that we need to reintegrate into the workforce 

are, by definition, those who are even lacking basic skills, meaning 

they are going to be in need of need-based funding program. 

And yet we have an administration that came into office last 

year, the first budget that they submitted they proposed cuts of up 

to 40 percent on adult job training programs. 

Early last year the President came into Milwaukee in my home 

state, talked about this great apprenticeship program. And I went 

back and looked at the first budget the administration submitted. 

While he was talking about the value of apprenticeship, there was 

a 50 percent proposed cut to apprenticeship programs. Fortunately, 

there has been some bipartisan support to make sure that that did 

not happen, and it seems as if now the administration is coming 

around in regards to supporting apprenticeship programs. 

But we are hearing recently that there is a potential budget rescission bill in the works that will cut Medicare, Social Security 

leading up to the mid-term elections. That would be political suicide. Defense spending won’t be cut. Interest on the debt can’t be 

cut. So that leaves that very small discretionary part of the budget 

that could be subject to huge, Draconian budget cuts. Your domain. 

Is your Department involved at all in recommending any spending cuts to a potential budget rescission bill that might come before 

Congress in the next couple of weeks? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, first let me take your question 

in parts. 

I believe that the budget that was submitted requested actually 

an increase in apprenticeship funding. 

Mr. KIND. I am asking you now is your Department right now 

involved in recommending spending cuts for a possible budget rescission bill that will come before us for consideration within the 

next couple of weeks? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, we are discussing potential 

rescissions with OMB. 

Going to the point that you raised, because I believe you stated 

that we had requested a reduction in apprenticeship funding, and 

my recollection is the opposite, where we actually requested an increase in apprenticeship funding—— 

Mr. KIND. The most recent budget you submitted, but not the 

first one, when this administration came into office, but—— 

Secretary ACOSTA. I believe that the—— 

Mr. KIND. So, it is my understanding—and you are able to testify for the committee that there is a budget rescission bill in the 

works, your Department is involved in recommending various cuts 

to that rescission bill. Is that right? 

Secretary ACOSTA. I think, Congressman, what I said is that we 

are in discussions with OMB around a potential rescission. If there 

is a bill, that would be for Congress to determine. 

Mr. KIND. Well, I would certainly hope that you would go to bat 

and defend these job training programs. And perhaps the chickens 

are coming home to roost with the recent Congressional Budget Office score showing that with the recently-enacted tax cut there 

would be another $2.3 trillion of national debt accumulated over 

the next 10 years. These programs will be in jeopardy. So, I ask 

you to at least go to bat for them. 

29 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Marchant, you are recognized. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you for being here today, Secretary. Recently in the Dallas morning news, it was reported that because 

the tax reform—because of the exploding economy in Dallas-Fort 

Worth—that 92 percent of home builders are saying that their 

projects are being seriously affected and slowed down by the worker shortage. 

At the heart of that is, in Dallas, a participation, the participation rate. How many able-bodied men are on government-assisted 

programs that do not require any work requirement? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, I don’t have that data. I can 

tell you that in Texas the labor force participation rate is above the 

national average by just under one percent. It is at 63.6 percent. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Well, most of the people in my district—and 

they talk to me at town hall meetings, they talk to me in my office—they believe, nationwide, there are millions of men that are 

on some kind of assistance program that have no work requirement 

whatsoever; and, they believe that if that were the case, then there 

would be another million or so workers available for our economy. 

And I think the number-one impediment to our economy getting 

any better, especially in my district, is going to be a higher participation rate and these businesses are also complaining that their 

competitors, their unscrupulous competitors, are going out and employing illegal aliens, and are not participating in the program that 

verifies that they are legal. And so, they feel like they have been 

penalized by the number of illegals—not taking skilled jobs, but are 

taking jobs that are not on the books, they are paying into the system, they are using false identities. 

So, it is the perception in Dallas, Texas that first we have a lot 

of men, able-bodied men, that, if there was some work requirement—required on some of their benefits, that they would enter 

the workplace, and that we really need some kind of a system that 

will make employers verify that their employee—legal employees. 

Thank you. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. 

The gentleman’s time is expired. You can answer in writing, Mr. 

Secretary, to Mr. Marchant. 

Mr. Pascrell, you are recognized—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us. There are 27 million 

working poor in this country, people who are in the labor force 

working, but whose incomes fall below the poverty level. The problem is not work, the problem is wages. 

Rents have risen 66 percent since the year 2000. Perhaps that 

is why half-a-million people are homeless, the average of whom is 

just nine years old. 

Health care costs have increased. And, by the way, 21 states 

have seen an alarming increase in the death rate. 

So, 1.5 million American households live on less than $2 a day. 

That figure has nearly doubled since 1996, the same year the welfare reform bill was passed with strict work requirements. It 

30 

passed the Congress, and my colleagues on the other side want to 

double down now. 

The EITC has been more effective at reducing the welfare rolls 

than any work requirement. Economists at UC Davis and UCLA 

have studied this, and the EITC has long-term effects on employment, health, and education. The ranking member of this committee has a bill to expand the EITC to childless workers. Why 

don’t we have a hearing on that? 

And my question to you pertains to trade. The fiscal year 2019 

budget proposed gutting trade adjustment assistance, which retrains workers displaced by trade by more than $1.7 billion. How 

do you explain your commitment to workers finding jobs when you 

slash the support? 

And the second question is the ILAB, the International Labor Affairs Bureau, enforces the international labor commitments. The 

budget cut 80 percent from them, those two things. How does that 

help us get back to where you think we should be? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, thank you. Thank you for the 

question. Let me begin with the first. 

The Trade Adjustment Assistance money is mandatory money. 

And therefore, it is not slashed by the budget. In fact, what the 

budget shows is, as more people get back to work, there would be 

a budget savings. So, what you call a budget reduction, it is not 

a reduction in funding, but is actually a budget savings from reduced unemployment insurance as more people come back—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. Do you think that program is a success right 

now? 

Secretary ACOSTA. That program has some challenges. And I 

am happy to discuss those with the Congress. I think the mandatory funding—let me focus on the question, because the mandatory 

funding is not reduced, but it does have challenges. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. The time is expired. 

Mr. Reed, you are recognized. 

Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. 

Mr. Secretary, I am more than willing, as my colleagues on the 

other side of the aisle are trying to do, is trying to make a work 

requirement, some sort of requirement that is heartless, that 

doesn’t show that we care about workers, and that is the farthest 

thing from the truth. I embrace that brand as being the party of 

work, because it is not just about work in regards to what it does 

for a person’s paycheck, but what it does for a person’s dignity, for 

their pride. And I am proud to be an individual that will support 

those types of requirements. 

And so, one of the things I wanted to ask your input on is, as 

I have looked at this issue and I have studied the multiple workforce development, work requirements under TANF, and issues 

there, I see a silo effect throughout the country and the various organizations and agencies that are responsible for dealing with this 

issue. 

Do you agree there is a silo effect? And what I mean by that is 

that the agencies can’t seem to talk across their territories and 

work together in a very efficient manner. It seems like the left 

hand often doesn’t know what the right hand is doing across the 

31 

bureaucracy of the Federal Government and down below, in the 

state and local governments. 

Do you agree that is in the system? And if you do, why does that 

occur, and what can we do to make sure that that doesn’t continue, 

going forward, with policies we enact here? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, I do believe there is a silo effect. I noted earlier the silo between workforce education and traditional education, and I do think there is a silo effect as well between what we do at the Department of Labor and some of the programs at HHS. 

As importantly, I believe that there are congressionally-imposed 

artificial separations. As I mentioned, we have asked for greater—— 

Mr. REED. Why do you think that is there? Why do you think 

that is there? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Well, for example, there are any number of 

governors on both sides of the aisle that have asked me for additional flexibility on WIOA funding. They will say that the situation 

is different from New Jersey to California to Nebraska to New 

York, and they will say, ‘‘Can we move some spending from this 

line to this line because we have a greater need here?’’ 

And my answer has been to all the governors, to the extent I 

have waiver authority, I am happy to engage in discussions with 

you. But Congress has not given me waiver authority on much of 

the WIOA funding. 

Mr. REED. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary, because that is right 

in the heart of legislation we have been proposing, is to give that 

flexibility waiver. 

So, what I hear from your testimony is to encourage us, as legislators, if we want to promote a work requirement and to reward 

people and give them opportunities that a skill set will be able to 

take care of them and their families for a generation, break those 

silos, give flexibility so that we accomplish a mutual goal I think 

that we all share, Democrats and Republicans, to empower people 

to have the skills to be able to go out and take care of themselves. 

Would you agree with that? 

Secretary ACOSTA. We should trust our governors, yes. 

Mr. REED. Thank you. 

With that, I yield back. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, the gentleman yields back. 

Ms. DelBene, you are recognized. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for being with us. 

The world has entered a period of significant technological advancement, which has sparked what is being described as the 

fourth industrial revolution. The economy is changing so rapidly 

and so profoundly that in some cases we may not even know what 

some of the jobs of the future may be. 

According to the World Economic Forum’s report, ‘‘The Future of 

Jobs,’’ 65 percent of children starting school today will have jobs 

that do not yet exist. Additionally, an Accentia report found that 

74 percent of business and information technology leaders in 31 

countries say their organization is entering areas that have yet to 

be defined. 

32 

While this progress means new opportunities, it also means new 

challenges. And according to the OECD, nearly 10 percent of jobs 

in OECD countries are at risk of being completely displaced by automation. 

So, despite all of this, I haven’t heard you mention what the Department of Labor is doing to pivot to focus on the new economy 

or the fourth industrial revolution, and I wondered if you could tell 

us how the Department of Labor is allocating resources to prepare 

American workers for the jobs of tomorrow, and ready itself for the 

impact of things like automation and artificial intelligence. 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congresswoman, these are very important 

questions. And you know, it is interesting that you cite the World 

Economic Forum, because I was talking about these very same 

questions at their annual conference. 

A few points. First, the Bureau of Labor Statistics came out with 

a report in 1995 and came out with a follow-up report in 2005. It 

did not come up with a third report in 2015, but hopefully will be 

coming out with a report no later than this summer on the gig 

economy—the entrepreneurial economy—to really measure and try 

to quantify how our economy is changing. Between 1995 and 2005 

there wasn’t that much of a change, but I personally believe that 

there is a substantial change between 2005 and now. 

The second thing—and this came up at that meeting, and was 

addressed by the World Economic Forum—is often we focus on the 

jobs that are being taken away and forget the jobs that are being 

added. So, one of the discussions at the World Economic Forum 

was between various online platforms—Etsy, eBay, and others— 

there are now 20 million small businesses here that have access to 

a global marketplace. And so, a small business, something that 

could be operated out of a home—— 

Ms. DELBENE. Mr. Secretary, I am going to run out of time. But 

when you look at automation and artificial intelligence, those impacts are things that aren’t necessarily jobs that are existing today. 

And so, the question is how are we being future-looking, and how 

are you putting resources towards being future-looking? 

I have been working on legislation that would require you, along 

with the Departments of Education and Commerce, to help forecast 

the new economy. I hope you would work with me on that. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Secretary ACOSTA. Glad to do so. 

Chairman BRADY. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Kelly, you are recognized. 

Mr. KELLY. Thank you, Chairman. 

Secretary, thank you for being here. Last month I had the opportunity to actually visit some places back in our district. One was 

Wheatland Tube, AK Steel, the Lord Corporation, and Sharon 

Fence. And I heard a common refrain: the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 

is working. But now businesses are faced with a much different 

problem: finding qualified workers to fill jobs. 

Now, thanks to this President, we currently have record-low unemployment. But in order for it to keep growing, we need to do a 

better job at training and connecting workers with jobs. 

It was interesting because when I heard Mr. Reed talking, about 

the dignity of work, that really made sense to me. And I looked this 

33 

up. Work is not a punishment or a necessary evil, nor is it a means 

of accumulating control, power, and wealth. Both of these ideas are 

contrary to the biblical view of work. We understand work as something intrinsically good. We are co-creators of God’s world, and 

work is part of our contribution. 

In light of all that, Mr. Secretary, I know the administration is 

taking a real serious look at work requirements and welfare programs. If you can, just a few thoughts on what role the workforce 

development programs can play in moving folks from welfare to 

work. There are so many people that are needed today in the workforce, and yet they are just not ready to go into the workforce. So, 

ideas you have addressing that? 

And again, the main idea, that there is a dignity, there is a dignity in work. 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, thank you for your remarks. 

As you were speaking, I had a flash to a visit I had recently to 

Maryhaven Treatment Facility, which is an opioid treatment facility. And I was struck, because they do a very good job in treating 

someone for an addiction, but then they send them back, and often 

the person got there because they didn’t have a job and they are 

leaving without a job. 

And so, the Department of Labor has put out a call for proposals 

to do pilot programs and how we can integrate workforce services, 

workforce training, workforce counseling into opioid addiction 

treatment facilities on the theory—which I think is completely correct—that someone who has a job is going to have a purpose to 

avoid going back on the opioids, is going to have a purpose to then 

move forward. 

Along the same lines, a second topic that I have talked about a 

lot and I truly believe, it is important not just to have a job, but 

a career path. And so how do we design jobs that have career 

paths? So, you have, for example, micro-credentials, so you begin 

with, for example, a pharmacy tech level one, and then someone 

knows that if they join an apprenticeship program they can go on 

to a level two or a level three, where you have a career path. And 

that gives individuals a purpose and a goal to move toward. 

And all of those, I think, are very important. 

Mr. KELLY. You are right. I got to tell you there is nothing 

harder for people that have an opioid addiction than to get a job 

after they go out of that. It is absolutely incredibly difficult. With 

all the good things I hear about we have to give these people a 

chance, you go to an employer who has a tremendous legal liability 

to anybody that has that type of condition, it is critical. It is hard 

to hire people like that. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. 

Ms. Chu, you are recognized. 

Ms. CHU. Secretary Acosta, I would like to bring your attention 

to an LA Times article from January that found employers are increasingly threatening and intimidating immigrant workers to keep 

them from reporting illegal, unsafe, and unfair labor practices in 

the workplace. 

The illegal labor practices reported a range of kinds of infringements from not paying workers, denying sick leave, and demanding 

34 

different documents than those required by federal immigration 

law for workers to continue their employment. 

In California, 94 reports of threats and intimidation were made 

in 2017, and this is up from 7 that were done in 2015. So, from 

7 to 94: something is clearly happening. 

At the same time, administration officials like Tom Holman, deputy director of ICE or the Immigration, Customs Enforcement, 

have stated that they would like to see a 400 percent increase in 

ICE raids and audits of work site operations that employ immigrants. 

I am deeply concerned that the anti-immigrant actions of this administration, particularly the drastic increase in ICE raids in 

places of work, have emboldened employers to increase threats and 

intimidation tactics against immigrant workers, and that is unacceptable. 

I believe these workers who are often exploited have the right to 

assert their workplace rights without facing threats of retaliation 

from unscrupulous employers. That is why I plan to reintroduce my 

bill, the Protect Our Workers from Exploitation and Retaliation 

Act, or the POWER Act. This bill would provide critical labor protections for the most vulnerable workers involved in a workplace 

claim who fear significant harm from their employers by expanding 

visa eligibility. 

This bill would also strengthen the Department of Labor’s investigative powers to more effectively prosecute employers who break 

the law. These reforms are sorely needed in order to provide all 

workers with the assurance that they can speak up against illegal 

business practices without fear of retaliation. 

And turning to a different topic, Secretary Acosta, I would like 

to ask you two yes-or-no questions. 

Do employers currently get to decide what kind of cancer treatments their employees receive if they are sick? Yes or no. 

Secretary ACOSTA. I believe that the choice of treatment should 

be up to the physician, not the employer. 

Ms. CHU. Do employers get to decide which vaccines that children of their employers (sic) receive? Yes or no? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Again, I think the choice among different 

vaccines is traditionally to the physician, not the employer. 

Ms. CHU. And yet, when it comes to employees making decisions 

about birth care and birth control, a form of health care, this administration has taken a different stance. And in fact, it has released a rule that would allow virtually any employer to decide 

that their employees cannot have coverage of birth control as part 

of their health insurance. I strongly urge you to reconsider this 

rule and the destructive impact it will have on American women 

and their decisions about having a family. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. Renacci, you are recognized. 

Mr. RENACCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary, for being here. I want to touch on a couple areas. 

But first—and I have heard this a number of times—look, the 

problem is not jobs, the problem is with the training to fill those 

jobs, in many cases. And I am seeing that back in my home state 

35 

of Ohio. And it is going to get worse, because the Tax Cuts and 

Jobs Act—the CBO did come out last week and say that the CBO 

score included that that Act would increase jobs over the next 10 

years by 1.1 million more jobs. So, we are going to have more jobs 

without trained people. 

I visit a local high school, and I was talking to the superintendent, and I ask him how many students were there. He said 

1,300. I asked him how many were going to vo-tech, he said 29. I 

almost stopped in—just said, ‘‘Twenty-nine out of thirteen hundred?’’ 

And what he told me was, ‘‘Congressman, there is a stigma to 

go to vo-tech. People don’t want to go to vo-tech. They are being 

told the only way to be successful is go to college.’’ So, there is this 

stigma that we have out there, because we have told everybody the 

only way to be successful is to go to college. 

And I know in Medina County, which is also in my district, there 

is a Medina County manufacturers partnership. This industry-led 

group worked with the local community college on creating a curriculum attaining classroom space for technical instruction related 

to careers they are looking to fill. While the first group only had 

5 participants, they are now expecting 30. But there is still a stigma. There is a stigma to this. 

So, I am asking you. What can we do, and what can you do, as 

Secretary, to change that stigma? Because clearly, these are goodpaying jobs. You can come out and start with 60 percent more than 

you can with a college education with some of these jobs. 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, thank you for the question. 

And there is a stigma, and I think it is unfortunate and flows from 

facts that aren’t fully shared. 

And so, as I have traveled and I have talked to governors, ideas 

that I have heard—one governor mentioned that maybe high 

schools should have a career awareness series, where they point 

out these are the various career choices you have, these are the estimated salaries, these are the number of years of education that 

you need, this is the likely debt, and so let individuals make a 

choice based on data and based on information. 

I think of the way that we have structured a lot of the—for example, the Pell Grants. Pell Grants will for pay for degrees, but 

they will not necessarily pay for shorter-term, high-quality certificate programs, one of the reasons I mentioned in the opening, and 

one of the reasons, for example, in the infrastructure proposal and 

the PROSPER Act, short-term Pell Grants are being proposed. The 

infrastructure proposal is going to create a number of jobs. And if 

individuals choose to have certificate programs so they can get the 

skills to fill those jobs, rather than a full degree, they should have 

the ability to choose that and still benefit from programs like Pell. 

Finally, by having those programs, we are sending a signal that 

one is better than the other. And those are really bad signals to 

send. 

Mr. RENACCI. Thank you. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. 

Mr. Holding, you are recognized. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it is 

great to see you there today. Thank you for being here. 

36 

I represent one of the fastest-growing districts in America, and 

we have to have more people joining the workforce if we are going 

to keep up the pace of that growth, and also the pace of the economic expansion that we are experiencing, as a result of tax reform. 

Now, I appreciate the administration’s focus on encouraging economic mobility through workforce development, and I note that the 

President signed the executive order last week on reducing poverty 

by promoting opportunity in the economic mobility, and I look at 

this chart that we have here today, which I believe you mentioned 

has 40-some-odd programs throughout the government to train 

folks to either enter the workforce or increase their value in the 

workforce. 

And when I look at all the programs—and these are programs 

to benefit people from low income, people who are unemployed, and 

I think that, every program that we ought to have ought to have 

some sort of work fair element to it for able-bodied persons who 

are—you know, have the ability to work, they are not taking care 

of family members, they are able-bodied, you know, every one of 

these programs needs to have some element in there to encourage 

work. So many times, I believe, that we discourage work and we 

need to try to get over that. 

So, when you look across the spectrum of what your purview is 

as Secretary, the—what do you view is the major hurdle that prevents us from getting more towards a work fair programs, rather 

than just welfare programs when it is appropriate for the certain 

individuals? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, thank you for the question. 

And so, first, let me agree that states and one-stop centers that 

have work fairs have been incredibly successful. And, I can’t help 

but mention about a week-and-a-half ago I was in Iowa and the 

governor mentioned an idea that I thought was really interesting, 

where they are having, in essence, an inverse work fair. 

It has gotten to the point that employers want to hire so much 

that they are having the individuals that are looking for jobs be 

present, and then the employers go and they interview applicant 

to applicant in an inverse way. And they have found, for example, 

that that allows applicants that otherwise might be nervous and 

might not have very good interviewing skills to be exposed to any 

number of employers. 

And so, states are experimenting. States are looking for innovative ways to do this. And the states that have the greatest need are 

coming up with great ideas. 

Mr. HOLDING. Well, I look forward to working with you to finding those great ideas and applying them here to anything that we 

can do in Washington to move towards more work fair rather than 

welfare. Thank you. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. 

Mr. Lewis, you are recognized. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Good to see you. And Secretary of 

Labor, what can you do to see that people receive their wages and 

we are not seeing that people wages are taken from them, or wages 

theft? 

37 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, certainly the Wage and Hour 

Division has very vigorous enforcement. And if—you know, I am 

happy to share the data. I don’t have it at my fingertips, but hundreds of millions of dollars are being returned to individuals as a 

result of the enforcement of the Wage and Hour Division. 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, as Secretary of Labor, can you use your powerful position and influence to see that companies, businesses provide 

people with a livable wage? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, certainly Congress has passed 

any number of laws that regulate the wages that should be paid, 

whether it is overtime, whether it is minimum wage. And we enforce those laws, and we do so vigorously. 

Mr. LEWIS. But that is hundreds and thousands and millions of 

our citizens work each and every day, hard labor, and they are not 

receiving livable wages. Is there something that you can do, something you can say? 

Secretary ACOSTA. So, Congressman—— 

Mr. LEWIS. To create this climate, this environment, where people should receive livable wages. 

Secretary ACOSTA. So, Congressman, as I said, Congress—this 

body has enacted laws that govern wages. Over the past year we 

have recovered more than 269 million in wages for more than 

241,000 employees from about 29,000 cases where we enforced the 

laws that this body has passed. And so, we are enforcing those laws 

vigorously. We take the obligations quite seriously. 

And in fact, if you look at the budgets—and I mention this because we have talked about budgets—the enforcement side of the 

budget hasn’t—despite the budget pressures and the recognition 

that we need to reduce budgets—the enforcement side of the budget has not gone down. If you look at other parts that are closely 

related—EBSA that has to do with pensions and retirement collections—we have had record collections. If you look at OSHA, we 

have had an increase in inspections. And so, we take those obligations to enforce the laws that this body has passed quite seriously. 

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. Meehan, you are recognized. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to—coincidentally, to be grateful to be following my good friend, Mr. Lewis, 

who yesterday had the great pleasure to present at St. Joseph’s 

University right near my district, where they had high praise for 

your moments there. Thank you for taking time to come up to 

Pennsylvania, Mr. Lewis. 

Mr. LEWIS. Well, thank you very much. I was honored and delighted to be there to receive a medal from St. Joseph. Dr. King 

spoke there in 1967, and I was invited, it was unbelievable group 

of students, elected officials, and others. Thank you—— 

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, thank—— 

Mr. LEWIS [continuing]. For allowing me to come to your district. 

Mr. MEEHAN. They loved having you there. Thank you. 

38 

And nice to see you, Secretary, again. I want to take a moment 

just—you talk a little bit about the apprenticeship programs which 

have been effective. 

Speaker Ryan came to my district to Penn Machine Works, and 

we had the owners, who are in advanced manufacturing, but it is 

still—you know, it is metal nuggets and things that are specialty, 

and they have a hard time finding employees. And they use the apprenticeship programs in concert with some of the other local 

schools. And when they can get somebody, they really take advantage of it. 

And these are careers. You mentioned there was almost 500,000 

jobs that are available in manufacturing that are going unfilled. 

What are we missing with respect to making that connection with 

regard to using apprenticeship programs to help find those kinds 

of people to get the training within the program for a career-sustaining position? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Well, Congressman, thank you for the question. And as you mentioned, apprenticeship programs are quite successful. 

Some of your colleagues, I think, have also touched on one of the 

issues, which is we are sending signals to young Americans that 

certain careers are encouraged and certain careers are discouraged. 

You know, and it strikes me that young Americans want familysustaining jobs, good jobs, family-sustaining jobs, and we should be 

empowering them with the information they need to make their 

choice of career based on how these jobs are going to pay, how 

these jobs are going to reward them. 

So, this past Sunday I had the opportunity to go to an event 

called Helmets to Hard Hats, where veterans are recruited into the 

trades. And there was a woman who stood up and she said, ‘‘I was 

in the Army and I was training to be a medic. And then I talked 

to my brother, who was a sheet metal worker, and he said, ‘‘Why 

don’t you try this out.’’ And, she did. And she said she’s making 

great money, she got a career right away, she went straight from 

the military to this job, and she loves it. We need to send that signal more often. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Meehan. 

Mr. Schweikert, you are recognized. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, something I have great interest in, and particularly if you read over the latest CBO numbers, they actually have 

in there as one of the constraints in our Nation’s economic growth 

is labor force participation. Basically, they allude to, hey, we just 

don’t have enough workers, which is an amazing thing to think 

about what the discussions were just a few years ago of not enough 

jobs. 

As you do—you know, you have some very smart staff around 

you. I guess what we are up about 63 percent on the mean labor 

force participation number. Have they ever talked to you about 

where they think we could get to? 

Secretary ACOSTA. So, Congressman, maybe—so where we 

think is a difficult—but it is interesting, if you break it down into 

different categories. 

39 

And so, one of the challenges—I spoke a little bit earlier about 

older Americans and demographic shifts. But I ran out of time and 

did not speak about younger Americans. And so, one of the big, big 

drops in labor force participation rate has come in younger Americans. And I think one of the challenges there is—you know, it is 

taking—on average it now takes six years to complete college, as 

opposed to four. And on average, the national graduation rate for 

those students that begin college is a little—just a little over half. 

And so, one of the issues that we need to ask is how do we engage younger Americans in the workforce? How do we empower 

them with the skills to hold those jobs? Is the go to college for six 

years and then think about work the only model? Or are there 

work-and-learn experiences where we can bring them into the labor 

force earlier, empower them—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. No, no, and you have actually spoken very 

elegantly on that subject multiple times here on, you know, what 

do we define as work, when your plumber actually makes more 

money than your vet, and they are married to each other, you 

know there is something going on in the economy. 

You may actually have some other, though, factors to think 

about: accreditation of university programs. When, you know, you 

visit Silicon Valley, or you visit these and say, well, we hire a computer science major and then spend two years training them so 

they can actually function in our business, wouldn’t it be neat if 

they spent those four years getting—but then you meet with the 

university, and the university says, well, we can’t do that because 

the accreditation won’t give us credit for that. 

Another thing is also—and this is just sort of an aside—I have 

great interest in sort of—is there a better way in the U6 data to 

be able to see discouraged workers, felons, other things that—we 

hear sort of anecdotes, we had some testimony here last week, 

there are some really neat things happening in our society where 

folks who have been marginalized are moving into work. How robust is that, and is there a better way to just keep that going, and 

have more of that happen? 

With that I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Schweikert. 

Dr. Davis, you are recognized. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I understand that DoL is working with congressional Republicans to require workers to take drug tests before 

they can receive the unemployment insurance benefits they have 

earned, even though there is no evidence that unemployed workers 

have a higher rate of substance use disorders than the general public, or that this requirement would be anything other than an additional humiliation inflicted on people who are working hard to find 

new jobs. 

Since you support drug testing of workers, can you tell us the administration’s plan for drug testing political appointees or seniorlevel management personnel? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, as you noted, there is a rule 

that we are developing, pursuant to congressional action. The rule 

was subject to a CRA. And therefore, as we develop that rule, we 

40 

are quite sensitive to the fact that there was a CRA, and that it 

must be substantially different. 

With respect to the second question, I would refer you to the Office of Personnel Management, which would be much more familiar 

with those rules. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. And I would be very concerned if we were to require drug testing for individuals who have 

earned benefits. And this category of individuals could be denied, 

and yet we have other individuals receiving public resources of 

public dollars where there is no requirement for them. 

So, I thank you for your answer, and I will check that with the 

personnel management. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back. 

Chairman BRADY. Yes, sir. Thank you, Dr. Davis. 

Mrs. Walorski, you are recognized. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary Acosta, for being here. I chaired the Nutrition Subcommittee for the Ag Committee in 2015 and 2016. We 

conducted a comprehensive review of SNAP, formerly known as 

food stamps, over 16 hearings. One thing that stuck out is the idea 

of moving away from just counting the number served and focusing 

instead on outcomes. 

So, we can’t just stop asking how many people received benefits, 

but we have got to go a step deeper. Did the recipient get and keep 

a job? Are they moving up the economic ladder? If not, what happened? We get a much more comprehensive picture from which we 

can evaluate the effectiveness of these programs. 

The recent executive order on reducing poverty acknowledges, 

however, that the outcomes being measured also need to be aligned 

across agencies to the greatest extent possible, so that we can look 

at workforce agencies like TANF and SNAP and other programs 

and see how they are working and see how we can improve them. 

Can you tell me about your implementation of these outcome 

measures? What could we learn as we look to apply them to other 

programs, to our programs, and what the larger vision is for using 

some of the same measures across programs? Thank you. 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congresswoman, thank you for the question. 

And so, I think it is so important that we focus on outputs, not inputs. You see that in any number of government programs that 

measure the input and not the output. You see it in—for example, 

I have talked about higher education, where we measure the number of students, not how many graduates, and how many go on to 

get jobs, and what do those jobs, in fact, pay? 

Under WIOA we had a number of output measures. I believe 

that there were six that were required. And we have gathered the 

data, and we are looking at that data, and I am happy to share 

that data with you or with the committee, once we have fully analyzed it. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. I appreciate it, and I just want to echo the 

comments of my colleagues. I represent the Indiana second district, 

which was in the Wall Street Journal just a couple of weeks ago 

about what the future of America could look like. 

And it was, again—and I am just re-emphasizing the point of 

how desperately we need those jobs, and applaud any of your efVerDate Sep 11 2014 12:13 May 06, 2019 Jkt 033811 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\OUT\33811.XXX 33811
41 

forts in assisting with moving folks from where they are at right 

now, and flushing more people into our economy to produce 

jobs—— 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. We are importing jobs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRADY. You bet. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. Sa ́nchez, you are recognized. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Secretary Acosta, 

for being here today. 

This Republican Congress seems obsessed with pushing an agenda that actually makes it harder for working families to get ahead 

in life. From passing tax cuts that is going to add $2 trillion to our 

debt to cutting funding for education, workforce development, and 

essential services that allow struggling families to put food on the 

table, see a doctor, or buy school supplies for their children, Republicans are working to undermine the very critical programs that 

help Americans get back on their feet and succeed. 

Contrary to the delusions of my colleagues on the other side of 

the aisle, large corporations haven’t increased wages. They have, 

instead, used most of their very handsome tax breaks to buy back 

stock and to boost executive pay. So, they have made life much 

easier for corporate executives and the rich, and much harder for 

the middle class. Trump’s corporate tax cut leaves us less money 

to invest in critical programs, from infrastructure to health care 

and education, all in the name of giving wealthy corporations a tax 

break. 

This administration recently issued an executive order that requires agencies to cut housing, food, health care, and many other 

critical supports to individuals who are not currently working. Taking away those supports will not help individuals find work. It will 

only make it harder for many people to get and keep a stable job. Republicans passed $2 trillion in their tax package, and now are 

passing the tab on to hard-working men and women. These baseline support systems allow individuals to find and keep jobs. They 

don’t deter work. 

So, Mr. Secretary, the question that I have for you is why do you 

believe that kicking men and women off of assistance programs, 

programs that provide them with basic necessities such as shelter 

and food, how is that going to enable people to help them find work 

faster? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Well, Congresswoman, I think we have different perspectives in what exactly we are trying to accomplish—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I think we do, because I think cutting food assistance or shelter for people that are actively looking for work isn’t 

going to help them find a job any faster. 

Is your perspective that these programs are so generous that people don’t need to go out and look for work, that they are going to 

be sustained by these very generous programs? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congresswoman, as we have discussed 

throughout this hearing, there is a skills gap, there is a skills deficit, and there is a real need to provide workforce education. 

There is also a need to help individuals—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. So is it fair to say that you—— 

42 

Secretary ACOSTA. There—— 

Ms. Sa ́nchez.—you believe that many people can’t find jobs because they are not qualified for the jobs that exist? 

Secretary ACOSTA. As I was saying, there is also a need to help 

individuals find jobs so that they can move from dependence to 

independence, and I think that is the goal. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Do you think that people can’t find jobs, or do 

you think that it is that people don’t have the skills for the jobs 

that exist? 

Chairman BRADY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. LaHood, you are recognized. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent 

to allow the witness to answer that in writing, please. 

Chairman BRADY. Well—— 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Post-hearing. 

Chairman BRADY. Every witness is asked to answer these questions in writing, and I am sure the Secretary will. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BRADY. Mr. LaHood. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Secretary Acosta. Thank you for your service to this administration 

and the country. 

Across my district in central and west central Illinois, as I travel 

around and talk to businesses and companies, you know, there is 

a common theme of lack of qualified workers. I think about Dot 

Foods in Mount Sterling, Illinois, largest food distributor in the 

country, but they can’t find truck drivers. 

I think about Standard Aero, which is an aviation tech company 

that services airplanes. They want to go to a third shift and add 

workers, but they can’t find aviation technicians to do that. Again, 

stable, good-paying jobs. 

And you look at the reasons that we have talked about here 

today, the lack of necessary skill. Sometimes you can’t pass a drug 

test or you have a criminal history. 

And I know we have talked about a number of solutions, and I 

commend the administration for the executive order that was put 

out on reducing poverty and promoting opportunity and economic 

mobility. 

We in the House last year passed the career technical education 

bill, a bipartisan bill, overwhelming. It is now over in the Senate, 

we hope to get that done. 

Are you working on solutions in that piece of legislation? Are you 

following that, Mr. Secretary, on how that can be helpful? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, I am following that. One of 

the issues that I think we have is that there is an unfortunate 

siloing between labor force education and traditional education. 

So, for example, the Department of Education has authority over 

vo-tech education, whereas we have authority over workforce education. Now, the Secretary of Education and I work very, very 

closely together, but I think that siloing contributes to one of the 

challenges that we have, where we don’t integrate these systems as 

well as we can. 

If I could, you also mentioned two areas, truck driving and Aero 

Tech, and I think that those are really important, because one of 

43 

the other challenges is occupational licensing. We haven’t talked 

about that. But individuals can be licensed to drive trucks in the 

military, literally drive trucks with explosives, and then leave the 

military, and not have that military license automatically recognized. And you see that with aeronautics technicians, you see that 

with truck drivers. 

And that is something that I would also encourage states to look 

at. Recognize the talents of the men and women in the military 

that are getting great workforce education and recognize those credentials. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Yes, thank you. Last thing—this was referenced 

earlier—we have over 40 job programs across multiple agencies. 

Can you talk about your plans to remove those unnecessary burdens in that bureaucracy there, how we can make that more efficient, effective, and accountable, so that it can start working? 

Secretary ACOSTA. So, Congressman, we are very much trying 

to streamline. We—you know, for that we really need Congress’s 

help. 

And so, whether it is part of the infrastructure bill, where we are 

looking at Perkins, CTE, and others, I would be happy to work 

with you. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Bishop, you are recognized. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Secretary, 

for being here today. I am from the State of Michigan, the comeback State of Michigan, and manufacturing jobs are important to 

us. 

Everywhere I go, as you have heard from other members, I hear 

about this jobs issue, people looking for skilled workers to work 

and to fill positions, and it is a huge problem. Our farmers are saying the same thing, that they are leaving crops in the field, and we 

want to make sure that we do whatever we can to create an environment where they will have a pipeline where they can get skilled 

workers. 

I also heard today that this continuing theme that the tax reform 

we just passed was simply for the rich and for corporations who 

will retain those earnings, and not pass them along; yet, last 

month’s job report showed that 22,000 manufacturing jobs were 

created just in the last month alone. And over the past 6 months 

a total of 163,000 manufacturing jobs were added, which is really 

great news. I mean that is the largest 6-month gain in 20 years. 

Can you characterize what the cause is for that? Is it the Tax 

Cuts and Jobs Act? Is it regulatory reform? Is it just renewed consumer confidence? What are your thoughts? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, I think you touched on three 

very important parts. Certainly, renewed consumer confidence— 

Americans feel it is a great time to invest, and therefore it is a 

great time to hire more individuals as they expand their businesses. 

You know, certainly streamlining of regulation is contributing 

very much to the faster economy. 

44 

The tax cuts have contributed, you know, just—it is a fact that 

companies have told more than four million Americans, ‘‘Here is a 

bonus, here is a wage increase, here are real dollars,’’ because of 

those tax cuts, and that is simply—that is a fact. That is what companies have told Americans. 

And so, I think in so many ways the economy is strong and getting stronger. The Federal Reserve is estimating that unemployment will fall below four percent this year. 

Mr. BISHOP. Wow. That is adding to the confusion, though. Last 

month’s job report came back and it is below expectations. Nonfarm payrolls only increased 103,000 in March. But at the same 

time there were 326,000 jobs created in the months of February 

and March. It is about 200,000, on average. It is confusing. How 

would you characterize this labor market? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Well, Congressman, the labor market is 

strong and steady. Jobs are being created—nearly three million 

jobs since the election. And there is variance month to month, but 

it remains strong. 

Mr. BISHOP. Sorry to ask you that question, big question—— 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. BISHOP. I yield back. 

Chairman BRADY. Mr. Higgins, you are recognized. 

Mr. HIGGINS. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, to create excitement behind job training, you have got to create a demand for those jobs people are being trained for. And I think that 

brings us to an age-old tradition in America, and that is infrastructure spending. 

The United States is now 11th in the terms of the quality of our 

infrastructure, based on the World Economic Forum. We have 

56,000 structurally deficient bridges in America. And the President’s infrastructure plan is transparently weak, ineffective, and 

unworkable. And let me tell you why. The President proposes to spend $200 billion over a 10-year period, which is nothing. In fact, the United States taxpayers have 

spent almost $200 billion over the past 10 years to finance road 

and bridge construction in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the local 

provinces weren’t required to provide a local match. 

So, the President wants to spend $200 billion over the next 10 

years and require for $1.5 trillion overall plan. So, every $6.50 that 

a local or state spends on infrastructure, the Federal Government 

will provide $1. And how do state and localities finance infrastructure? They issue debt. They issue bonds which they pay back over 

the life of the infrastructure. That is how they are able to do it. 

There is no enthusiasm for the President’s infrastructure plan. 

Nobody is talking about it with any sense of viability when it, in 

fact, should be with great urgency. 

Now, we just passed tax cuts in this House, and the best economic studies say for every dollar that you spend in a tax cut you 

would get $.30 back on that. So,n it necessarily creates a deficit situation. 

Here is what I would ask you to consider: a $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill that would create almost 500,000 jobs every month 

over a 5-year period. That infrastructure investment would have a 

very robust multiplier effect. In fact, it is said for every dollar you 

45 

spend on infrastructure you get a buck-60 back in economic impact. 

I just think that we need to get enthusiasm behind a real infrastructure bill. 

And I have heard this President say in meetings that he rejected 

the public-private infrastructure because it hasn’t worked in places 

like Indiana. And if it hasn’t worked in places like Indiana it is not 

going to work in America. So, I think we need to get real about it, 

and I think everybody of every political persuasion would benefit 

tremendously by a robust infrastructure investment, rebuilding not 

Afghanistan, not Iraq, but America. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Rice, you are recognized. 

Mr. RICE. Mr. Secretary, I need your help. South Carolina is 

doing well, economically. And I have eight counties in my district— 

I am one of seven districts in South Carolina, I have eight counties. 

But three of my counties are not doing well. They lag behind our 

averages terribly. South Carolina’s unemployment is between 4 and 

4.5 percent. These three counties are around eight percent unemployment. 

The wage in South Carolina is about the national average, a little below. But these three counties, the wage is two-thirds below 

the South Carolina—or two-thirds of the South Carolina average. 

They have declining populations. 

Now, on the other hand, I have three technical schools in my 

eight counties, and all of them do a great job. And they all tell me 

they are dying for students. And they have programs like welding 

or plumbing or machining that have 100 percent placement rates 

at salary levels higher than the state average. 

So, we have got this glaring need, on the one hand, for employees. On the other hand, we have an idle population. How can we 

help these technical schools? How can we help these employers to 

engage this population? Does the Department of Labor have programs, do they have people that they can send into my district and 

help to engage these folks? Because these counties desperately 

need it. 

Secretary ACOSTA. Congressman, thank you for the question. 

Let me offer up two or three ideas. 

First, I think it is so important to engage parents and kids in 

high school, so that they are aware of these opportunities early on. 

Engage teachers, bring them in, show them what these careers are 

like. Show them how well these careers pay. Show them these are 

good, family-sustaining jobs. 

Secondly, the Congressman referenced the infrastructure plan. 

And, I really would encourage Congress—this is something that 

should be bipartisan, and Congress should come together and look 

at it. And within that, there is an important provision which is the 

extending of Pell to certificate programs. 

Right now, we tell young Americans if you go and you get a degree, even if that degree leads to more debt than you can pay off, 

we will support you. But if you go and you get a certificate program 

in welding, we will not. So why are we limiting Pell to certain programs and not others? Why are we not allowing young Americans 

to make that choice for themselves? 

46 

Mr. RICE. Mr. Secretary, my technical schools tell me that if you 

make below a fairly modest wage in South Carolina, that these programs are free. They are free. There is no possibility of debt. With 

the South Carolina lottery and the other grants that are available, 

these kids can go to school for nothing, and yet they can’t fill these 

programs. 

There is computerized digital machining, they have a 2-year program, they can take 80 kids. They have two problems: one, they 

can’t get but 40 kids a year to sign up; and number two, they don’t 

finish. And why don’t they finish a two-year program? Because 

after a year there is such a need the employers hire them away. 

Secretary ACOSTA. That is right. 

Mr. RICE. So how do we connect this disconnected population? 

Secretary ACOSTA. We are sending them—I am happy to speak 

to you individually. We are sending a horrible signal to young 

Americans across the country that this—these are not good careers 

when, as a factual matter, they are. They are great, family-sustaining jobs. 

Mr. RICE. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, members. 

Secretary, thanks for being here today. Two quick questions. 

So, I think media and Democrats make a pretty compelling case. 

CBO is no fan of the new Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. But even if you 

accept their extremely low estimates, a million new jobs for Americans, over a million new jobs for Americans seeking work today. 

That is crucial. Paychecks going up by over $1 trillion. Think about 

that. After a decade where paychecks have been flat for most 

Americans, $1 trillion in higher wages for working families. Over $6 trillion of new economic growth from last April to June. 

The only thing different is the new Tax Code that we have today, 

and a re-balanced regulatory environment, $6 trillion of a higher 

economy, and—media doesn’t report this—more revenue for the 

Federal Government now, because of tax reform, $1 trillion more 

for a tax cut of $1.5 trillion. 

So, two-thirds of the static score under the worst-case scenario 

at CBO has already been paid for, going forward. The only thing 

that is missing from all of that are the workers. If you look at 

every economic analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, they predict 

higher economic growth for America, higher economic growth for 

the world. In the out-years they start to pull their punches. 

And why? It is because they are not convinced America will develop the workers we need to take advantage of, now, one of the 

most competitive Tax Codes on the planet. They are not convinced 

that we will get—close this jobs gap, that we will train the workers 

of the future. They are not convinced we will get people off the 

sidelines who too many in Washington have given up hope on. 

Republicans don’t. We actually believe we can get people in to 

prosperity and opportunity from government dependency today. 

And yes, we have to get immigration right for the long term, no 

doubt about it. 

So, you are working with us in a bipartisan way, because I am 

convinced Democrats and Republicans both want to see people get 

back to work. I think that is crucial. That is why you are here. 

Thank you for that work. 

47 

Final point: 2012, President Obama signed legislation to allow 

states to begin to drug test those on unemployment for those seeking jobs in industries that required those drug tests. So not willynilly, but to have them job-ready in the industry they are interested in. 

But over the five years—six years now, Department of Labor 

dragged their feet, basically blocked states from doing this. And 

even as they were walking out the door, put in place a rule that 

stopped the states, who were very effective at matching local workers, you know, with local jobs from doing this. Congress repealed 

that final rule. 

I understand revised regulations appeared on the unified regulatory agenda that can begin this work. Can you give us a quick 

update? 

Secretary ACOSTA. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. There is a revised regulation that we are looking at. It is on the regulatory 

agenda. 

As we go forward, one of the issues that we are looking very 

closely at is how this interacts with the CRA. It will be quite possibly the first test of the CRA. And so that is an issue that overlays. 

Chairman BRADY. Yes, I just think it is important. Look how 

Texas was the first state to raise their hand, ‘‘We think we can do 

a better job of matching those local hope-to-be workers with local 

jobs.’’ We are anxious to do that. 

I also want to commend you on having with you today two of our 

former Ways and Means team, Rosemary Lahasky, who is here 

today, and Robert O’Quinn. We think you have a good choice in the 

labor team folks. 

Ranking Member Neal would like to make a comment. 

Mr. NEAL. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I think, despite some of 

the differences that were expressed today, there was also a lot of 

common ground. And I think there is broad agreement on that notion of the number of jobs that go on in America every day. As the 

Secretary pointed out, I think there is some room here on apprenticeship programs, community college expenditure, and getting people into voc-ed. 

I think that the committee could have, I think, some meaningful 

input—again, on a bipartisan basis. And where we might have disagreement over broad strokes of policy, I think that I might encourage us at the committee level here, Mr. Chairman, to continue to 

pursue this line of discussion and reasoning, as we go forward for 

the remainder of the year, on the whole notion, as you know, that 

I have been obsessed with, and that is labor participation rates. 

Thank you. 

Chairman BRADY. Thank you, Ranking Member Neal. I would 

like to thank our witness for appearing before us today. 

Mr. Secretary, please be advised that Members of the Committee 

have two weeks to submit written questions that will be answered 

later in writing. Those questions and your answers will be made 

part of the formal hearing record. 

With that, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions for the Record follow:] 

48 


Insert 33811.010
49 


Insert 33811.011
50 


Insert 33811.012
51 


Insert 33811.013
52 


Insert 33811.014
53 


Insert 33811.015
54 


Insert 33811.016
55 


Insert 33811.017
56 

f 


Insert 33811.018
57 

[Submission for the Record follows:] 


Insert 33811.019
58 


Insert 33811.020
59 


Insert 33811.021
60 

Æ 


Insert 33811.022