U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

75–708 2012

ADDRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE INTEGRITY 

OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR’S JOBS 

REPORTING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 6, 2012 

Serial No. 112–172 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

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

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

RAU ́ L R. LABRADOR, Idaho 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 6, 2012 ................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Daniel Moss, Executive Editor, Economy, Bloomberg News 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

Mr. Robert Doherty, General Manager, United States at Reuters News 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Ms. Lucy Dalglish, Executive Director, Reporters Committee for Freedom 

of the Press 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22 

Dr. Keith Hall, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason 

University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 30 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 32 

Ms. Diana Furghtgott-Roth, Senior Fellow, The Manhattan Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 35 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 37 

Mr. Carl Fillichio, Senior Advisor for Communications and Public Affairs, 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 72 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 75 

Mr. John M. Galvin, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 82 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 84 

The Honorable Jane Oates, Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training 

Administration, U.S. Department of Labor 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 90 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 92 

APPENDIX 

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, a Member of Congress from the State 

of Maryland, Opening Statement ....................................................................... 113 

Questions for the Record ......................................................................................... 115 

Answers to the questions from Thomson Reuters ................................................. 117 

Answers to the questions from Mr. Daniel Moss .................................................. 122 

(1) 

ADDRESSING CONCERNS ABOUT THE INTEGRITY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR’S JOBS REPORTING 

Wednesday, June 6, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:36 a.m., in Room 2154, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Issa, McHenry, Jordan, Chaffetz, 

Walberg, Lankford, Labrador, DesJarlais, Gowdy, Guinta, Kelly, 

Cummings, Kucinich, Tierney, Clay, Connolly, Quigley, and Speier. 

Staff Present: Ali Ahmad, Majority Communications Advisor; 

Will L. Boyington, Majority Staff Assistant; Molly Boyl, Majority 

Parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady, Majority Staff Director; 

David Brewer, Majority Counsel; Sharon Casey, Majority Senior 

Assistant Clerk; John Cuaderes, Majority Deputy Staff Director; 

Adam P. Fromm, Majority Director of Member Services and Committee Operations; Tyler Grimm, Majority Professional Staff Member; Jennifer Hemingway, Majority Senior Professional Staff Member; Christopher Hixon, Majority Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight; 

Mark D. Marin, Majority Director of Oversight; Laura L. Rush, 

Majority Deputy Chief Clerk; John A. Zadrozny, Majority Counsel; 

Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of Administration; Kevin Corbin, 

Minority Deputy Clerk; Ashley Etienne, Minority Director of Communications; Jennifer Hoffman, Minority Press Secretary; Carla 

Hultberg, Minority Chief Clerk; Chris Knauer, Minority Senior Investigator; Lucinda Lessley, Minority Policy Director; and Davida 

Walsh, Minority Counsel. 

Chairman ISSA. Good morning. The Oversight Committee will 

come to order. 

We on the Oversight Committee exist to secure two fundamental 

principles: first, Americans have a right to know the money Washington takes from them is well spent and, second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. Our 

duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to 

protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to 

know what they get from their government. We will work tirelessly 

in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the 

American people and bring genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy. 

2 

When President Obama took office, he promised the American 

people to have a more transparent administration, the most transparent administration in history. From that point on, this was a 

standard that the Obama Administration would be held to. Almost 

four years later, more and more it seems that their own actions, 

the actions of this Administration, say just the opposite is true. 

The U.S. Department of Labor, led by Secretary Hilda Solis, has 

unilaterally changed the method by which the media accesses the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs data. This unprecedented action 

has serious freedom of the press implications. Let there be no 

doubt we appreciate the need for simultaneous release of this sensitive information. But that has been accomplished for more than 

a generation through a procedure that was as effective and more 

acceptable to the media itself. 

The abrupt nature of this change, coupled with the absence of a 

clear explanation and a lack of public input, raises key questions 

about who made this decision to implement this change and why? 

Did that individual have the authority of law? 

As the Committee has examined this, this isn’t the first time the 

issue has come up concerning the Labor Department’s reach into 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You will recall the DOL received 

$500 million in stimulus funds to train workers for so-called green 

skills. But an audit by the inspector general found the program to 

be an utter failure and represented a tremendous loss to the taxpayer. This included training for occupations that are hardly green, 

such as welder, sheet metal workers, and machine operator. Certainly, those are jobs that may be needed, the skills are valuable, 

but they are certainly not all of a sudden green after hundreds of 

years of being around as a profession. 

Aside from the excuse that perpetrated the Department of Labor, 

they have been using the guise of green jobs to justify ongoing 

funding of the President’s green agenda. However, the standard 

they have invented includes counting as a green job, in addition to 

the welder, college professors are now green, environmental reporters are now green, policy experts at any think tank can be green. 

In fact, lobbyists can be green. 

Now, I have been in Washington for nearly 12 years. There is a 

lot of green with lobbyists. None of it should be counted as an environmentally green job. 

There are 33 times as many so-called green jobs in the septic 

tank and—you can’t make these things up, guys—septic tank and 

portable toilet servicing industry as there are in solar, energy, and 

utility areas. More than 160,000 of these green jobs are related to 

school bus drivers. 

Using these tactics to manipulate the number to mislead the 

American people is nothing short of embarrassing and a betrayal 

of the standards that President Obama established for his administration. Transparency begins with honesty. You cannot send out 

false propaganda and then say you are transparent. The truth is 

essential. The barest of the truth is essential; unfiltered if you are 

to be transparent. 

We all appreciate this Administration has an opinion, and this 

Chairman has an opinion that is sometimes different. We are entitled to our opinions. We are not entitled to our facts. 

3 

Is it any wonder why there is such concern now that Secretary 

Solis’s department wants to unilaterally change and control how 

the press receives job numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics? Of course, when invited to appear today to explain why this 

change in freedom of the press would occur, Secretary Solis, in no 

uncertain terms, turned down all invitations and offered us alternatives. We appreciate those who are here as alternatives; however, ultimately, if you are the Secretary of Labor, the buck should 

stop with you. If it doesn’t stop there, where can the Americans believe it stops? It doesn’t stop at the White House if the Secretary 

allows something to happen and then doesn’t have an answer. 

We will hear more about that here today and I hope it will send 

a clear message to the Administration. 

With that, I recognize the distinguished Ranking Member for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 

thank you for holding today’s hearing, which appears to focus on 

two very different topics involving the Department of Labor and 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

The first topic is the integrity of the Department of Labor’s job 

reporting. The Department of Labor strikes a balance between preventing the unauthorized release of key economic data and providing journalists with access to that data ahead of time so that 

they can prepare their stories with context about the broader employment situation. This balance is very important. We are the 

public’s eyes and ears, so it is critical that they have the access 

necessary to ensure that they have a thorough and accurate understanding so that they can place it in context. 

A leak of this data could have negative consequences. For example, in the hands of certain traders, early access to this data, even 

if just by a few seconds, could allow their powerful trading algorithms to manipulate and market and reap millions of dollars. That 

is why the Department and other data reporting agencies employ 

procedures to prevent unauthorized releases. 

Recently, the Department of Labor hired Sandia National Laboratories, which oversees the security of our nuclear arsenal, to 

evaluate whether changes were needed to meet the new security 

requirements of today’s constantly changing technological environment. Sandia found significant vulnerabilities in the Department’s 

procedures and recommended steps to mitigate those risks. Sandia 

also warned that those seeking to break current security controls 

are profit driven, technically sophisticated individuals or organizations who may have considerable resources at their disposal. Acting 

on Sandia’s recommendations, the Department announced new controls on hardware and software in the lockup environment. 

In addition, the Department has now excluded specific firms that 

sought access to sell data to Wall Street traders a fraction of a second before other traders see it. Initially, some in the media complained that the Department’s proposed changes were too restrictive, and these complaints appear to be the impetus for today’s 

hearing. 

Over the past month, however, the Department has worked with 

press outlets to accommodate their concerns while enhancing secuVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:21 Sep 06, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75708.TXT APRIL
4 

rity. We anticipate that there will be additional announcements regarding these ongoing discussions soon. 

The second topic of today’s hearing appears to be how the Department of Labor calculates the number of green jobs in the 

United States economy. This is the third hearing the Majority has 

called on this topic and the third time the Department of Labor officials have testified before us. Last July, the Brookings Institution 

issued an important report on green jobs with the following findings: first, green jobs employ almost 2.7 million Americans, more 

than the fossil fuel industry and twice the size of the bioscience 

sector; second, they said the green economy has expanded at greater rates than the economy as a whole. They went on to say that 

the green economy offers considerable and more highly paid opportunities for low-and middle-skilled workers. 

Finally, they said, fourth, the green economy is manufacturing 

and export intensive, both of which are critical for America’s future. 

Since this report was issued, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that the number of green jobs is even higher, reporting that 

over 3 million that helped rebuild our economy. This really should 

be welcomed by policymakers in Congress. Unfortunately, this 

Committee seems more intent on challenging the methodologies 

used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics rather than helping put people back to work. 

I thank the witnesses for being here yet again today and I look 

forward to your testimony. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

I would take note that although the Ranking Member mentioned 

the DOL report, the Sandia report has not been made available to 

us under any circumstances. So notwithstanding the gentleman’s 

assertions, until the Department of Labor makes that report available to us, we will consider it be a CYA document held close 

against Congress. 

I hope the gentleman will join with me in issuing a subpoena if 

they will not deliver that document they allege is the impetus for 

his closing. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I would be happy to cooperate if the Chairman 

is willing to consult with us on the subpoena. I would be happy to 

talk about it and, if it is warranted, I certainly would join you. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

Members will have seven days in which to submit opening statements for the record. 

We will now recognize our first panel. 

Mr. Daniel Moss is the Executive Editor for Economics and International Government at Bloomberg News. Welcome. 

Mr. Rob Doherty is the General Manager, United States, for Reuters News. Also, welcome. 

Ms. Lucy Dalglish is the Executive Director at the Reporters 

Committee for Freedom of the Press. Also, welcome. 

Dr. Keith Hall is the former Commissioner of the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics and is currently a Senior Fellow at the Mercatus 

Center. 

5 

And, last but not least, Ms. Diane Furchtgott-Roth is the former 

Chief Economist of the United States Department of Labor and a 

current fellow at the Manhattan Institute. 

Welcome all. Pursuant to our Committee’s rules, would you 

please rise to take the oath and raise your right hands? 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.] 

Chairman ISSA. Let the record reflect that all answered in the affirmative, to the best of their ability. 

Please be seated. 

Now, many of you are returning to testify; a couple of you it may 

be your first. We have members that will be coming in and out. We 

estimated about half an hour for your opening statements, so try 

to stay as close to five minutes as you can. We will have your entire opening statement, plus additional material you may wish to 

submit to support anything you say here today, included in the 

record without objection, so you only need to summarize because, 

for the record, all that you have submitted will be on the record. 

Mr. Moss. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL MOSS 

Mr. MOSS. Chairman Issa, Congressman Cummings, members of 

the Committee, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to appear today and I want to express my particular appreciation to the 

Committee for its engagement in this issue. 

Bloomberg News provides data, news, analytics to decision makers and industry beyond finance. Bloomberg News is delivered 

through the Bloomberg Professional Service through television, 

radio, mobile, the Internet, and two magazines, Bloomberg Business Week and Bloomberg Markets. We are syndicated in hundreds 

of newspapers globally. We cover the world with more than 2,000 

reporters and editors in 146 bureaus in more than 70 countries. We 

are experts at publishing economic statistics and disseminating 

market-moving information. 

Media stakeholders are making progress, Mr. Chairman, with 

the Department of Labor in arriving at a place that will not undermine the First Amendment, will not reduce transparency and accuracy of critical data, or create unacceptable cybersecurity risks. 

While no conclusive agreement has been reached, the movement 

that we have seen would not have been possible without the engagement of members of this Committee and committees and members in both chambers of both parties. We are particularly thankful 

to Senator Blunt for his engagement. 

On April 10, without the notice and comment period dictated 

under the Administrative Procedures Act, the DOL announced a 

dramatic policy shift: henceforth, reporters and editors would be required to use only government software, government hardware, 

government lines, government notebooks, and government pens. 

The use of modern news-producing software, with the greater accuracy and context it provides, would be prohibited. All transmission 

6 

would be via the internet, not through secure lines. The Department of Labor would own and operate the lines, control Internet 

access, and control Internet connections, creating a single point of 

failure because all news organizations would share the same infrastructure. 

Although the policy change was unprecedented, it was presented 

as nonnegotiable, a fait accompli. News organizations were required to remove their software, hardware, and dedicated lines 

from the Department by June 15. 

This proposal threatens the First Amendment. The Government 

would literally own the reporters’ notebook. Unlike any other Federal agency, the Department of Labor is requiring that reporters 

write news articles on government-owned and operated computers 

on a regular basis, which would give the Government unfettered 

access to reporters’ notes and draft. No administration anywhere 

should have access to a reporter’s thoughts, drafts, or notes as a 

condition for covering the news, let alone news of such importance. 

The order also threatens national security. House, Senate, and 

the Administration have rightly spent a great deal of time attempting to address potential cybersecurity threats. Protecting our financial markets from disruption from cyber attack has been a key part 

of that discussion. 

In the world in which we now live, for the Department of Labor 

to deliberately force the transmission of data away from secure, 

dedicated lines and, instead, mandate its transmission via the 

Internet is inexplicable. The vulnerability of the Internet to even 

accidental disruption is a large part of the reason why news organizations have invested in their own secure lines. The prospect of a 

deliberate disruption, potential spoofing, potential market manipulation are real. 

In August last year, the Department of Labor’s website went 

down following the release of the monthly employment situation. 

The unemployment rate was unavailable for one hour. 

If the April 10 order, Mr. Chairman, goes into effect, the result 

would be potentially catastrophic. This proposal will increase market vulnerability and volatility. In the modern era of computerized 

trading, people compete in nanoseconds. Studies of the 2010 Flash 

Crash illustrate how quickly small incidents can result in major 

disruptions. 

When the Department of Labor hosted a conference call on April 

16, ostensibly to answer media questions on the new policy, I 

asked, ‘‘what is the problem you think, you imagine this will prevent?’’ The Department of Labor’s response was, I think we are 

going to move on. Operator, we’ll take the next question. 

The alleged rationale for the new policy has gradually slipped out 

in dribs and drabs, ultimately, relying n a report by Sandia National Laboratories, which, as the Chairman noted, has not been 

publicly released. 

The DOL has alleged its new policy is necessary because unauthorized people planted unauthorized equipment in the Department’s communications closet. But this is an argument for enforcing the existing policy, not imposing draconian new rules. 

The Sandia report speaks of those who oppose the Department’s 

recommendations as adversaries. That is according to a summary, 

7 

Mr. Chairman, which has circulated on the Hill. It notes that although they are willing to bend and potentially violate the law, violence is unlikely as an operational method. Does the Department 

believe the media are adversaries? What rules and laws are we 

likely to break? On what evidence or experience is such a statement based? 

Sandia continues, stating the apparent root cause for the issues 

driving this assessment is the possible presence of algorithmic 

traders and/or their agents in the press lockup facility. Has the 

lockup been infiltrated by hedge funds? The public, press, and Congress would be entitled to that information. Is it that difficult to 

distinguish between an authentic news organization and a hedge 

fund? Most significantly, if the root cause of the issues driving this 

assessment is the possible presence of algorithmic traders, why not 

just expel them from the lockup? Why threaten to erode the First 

Amendment? 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, this proposal does undermine the 

First Amendment; it reduces transparency; it potentially reduces 

the accuracy of the data; increases market volatility; imposes a 

cybersecurity threat. 

Given the DOL’s refusal to extend the current June 15 date for 

removing equipment, the calendar will dictate our shortly seeking 

an injunction unless a comprehensive overall agreement is reached. 

An understanding has been reached amongst technical officials of 

the news organization and some technical staff at Labor. Labor is 

still to get back to us on a number of issues, including rules for the 

lockup. Until an overall agreement is reached in the format of the 

April 10 letter, the order stands. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Moss follows:] 

8 


Insert offset folio 1 here 75708.001
9 


Insert offset folio 2 here 75708.002
10 


Insert offset folio 3 here 75708.003
11 


Insert offset folio 4 here 75708.004
12 


Insert offset folio 5 here 75708.005
13 


Insert offset folio 6 here 75708.006
14 


Insert offset folio 7 here 75708.007
15 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Doherty. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT DOHERTY 

Mr. DOHERTY. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cummings, 

members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify 

today on the new policies and procedures the Labor Department is 

planning for its press lockups. My name is Rob Doherty. I am General Manager in the United States for Reuters, which is the news 

division of Thompson Reuters. 

Reuters is the largest international news agency in the world. 

We have more than 2900 full-time journalists in 200 bureaus 

around the world reporting in 20 languages. Globally our audience 

includes more than 1700 text media and 600 TV clients, over 35 

million visitors to Reuters websites each month, and more than 

400,000 financial professionals who subscribe to Thompson Reuters 

desktop products. 

On April 10th, the Labor Department notified our Washington 

bureau chiefs and other news organizations about major changes 

they plan for the operation of its lockups. Dan has covered those 

changes in detail, so I won’t repeat those. But, needless to say, we 

were taken aback by the planned changes. They were dramatic, announced without any advanced notice, and with no real explanation 

of the rationale, and, importantly to us, without any prior consultation with the affected news organizations. 

I want to be clear on two points. First, we believe lockups are 

extremely useful in promoting accurate and authoritative dissemination of sensitive data because they provide journalists time to 

better understand the information before sending it to the public. 

Second, we fully acknowledge the responsibility of the Department 

of Labor to implement lockup rules to guard against premature release of information. It is in everyone’s interest that the Department do so. 

Indeed, we believe the lockup procedures now in place have been 

effective in preventing early release of the Labor Department data. 

But despite that apparent success, the Department plan announced 

in April would require us to use government equipment to do our 

work as a matter of routine, something we, as an independent 

news organization, fundamentally oppose. 

Additionally, the changes announced by the Department in April 

would represent a major step backward technologically for new organizations and for the dissemination of critical data through recognized news channels. That would imperil the ability of news organizations to provide such information to the public in a reliable, 

accurate, and timely way, and lead to confusion in the public and 

in the financial markets that rely on the Department’s data. To 

gauge the importance of that data to the public in general and the 

markets in particular, one needs to look no further than last Friday’s unemployment report. 

Years of development work have gone into automating our software to ensure it works with our proprietary editorial system and 

redundant private communications lines to speed the delivery of 

crucially important information to millions of our readers and subscribers across the globe. Our software allows journalists to effiVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:21 Sep 06, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75708.TXT APRIL
16 

ciently and accurately incorporate new material from Department 

news releases, as well as to provide historical data that puts that 

new material in context. This would be lost if lockup participants 

must use a Department-provided standard configuration computer 

and a Department-provided Internet service provider, and it would 

be lost without any assurance that new procedures would materially decrease the probability of premature leaks. And, as Dan said, 

you can make an argument that it would actually increase the difficulties with the disseminate of the data. 

Because of these concerns, we joined with three other news organizations, Bloomberg, The Associated Press, and Dow Jones, in requesting a meeting with the White House to voice our opposition 

to the April 10 announcement. We are also hoping to better understand the Labor Department’s concerns and to see if we could find 

a way that the Department could met its responsibility to prevent 

early release of data without the draconian changes it was planning. 

We now have had a series of what I would describe as constructive meetings with the Labor Department officials and staff, and 

those meetings have left us optimistic that we will be able to agree 

on procedures and policies that, while not perfect and not the status quo we would prefer, would, in our view, represent a workable 

compromise and allow news organizations to disseminate information from the lockup quickly, reliably, and accurately. But as Dan 

has made the point, we are not there yet. We still are hoping we 

can complete an agreement in time for the July 6th deadline set 

by Labor. If not, we will be asking the Department for a short 

delay to allow any agreed changes to be implemented in the least 

disruptive way possible. 

And I want to underscore that as we discuss other issues and 

reach agreement on other issues, the timing is really an important 

issue for us. It is now June 6th. As Dan said, the equipment starts 

coming out on June 14th and 15th. The new procedure goes in 

place July 6th, which, by the way, is the next unemployment report, which will be hugely watched. Talking to our technical staff, 

they think it is nearly impossible to do this the right way and be 

ready for July 6th. So if we are able to reach an agreement on the 

larger issues, the technical issues, and go forward, I hope the Department will be willing to be flexible on the implementation date. 

Thank you again for your invitation to address the Committee 

and for your continued interest in this issue, and I would be happy 

to answer any of your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Doherty follows:] 

17 


Insert offset folio 8 here 75708.008
18 


Insert offset folio 9 here 75708.009
19 


Insert offset folio 10 here 75708.010
20 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Ms. Dalglish? 

STATEMENT OF LUCY DALGLISH 

Ms. DALGLISH. Thank you. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member 

Cummings, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Lucy Dalglish, Executive Director 

of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. For more 

than 40 years, the Reporters Committee has provided free legal 

and advocacy services to protect the rights of journalists working 

where United States law applies. 

I am happy to testify today on behalf of the Sunshine in Government Initiative, of which the Reporters Committee is a member. 

SGI is a coalition of media associations promoting greater transparency in government. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. We strongly 

object to the changes the United States Department of Labor announced less than two months ago. The Department’s approach, as 

proposed in April, makes the release of market-moving information 

less reliable, less secure, more prone to errors and inaccuracies, 

and less equitable as it reaches the public. 

Last month, the Sunshine in Government Initiative urged the 

Labor Department to suspend these changes, clarify the concerns 

with the current process, and work with us to address those concerns. Since then, only your attention to this issue has helped bring 

about productive discussions between the media entities and the 

Labor Department. Quite honestly, we are bewildered by the Labor 

Department’s announcement on April 10th, without consulting with 

any of the media involved, about these dramatic changes that will 

have a devastating impact on journalists’ ability to inform the public in a timely and useful manner. It took the interest of this Committee to spur what we understand to be protective discussions between the journalists in the lockup and the Department. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, since its formation after 9/11, SGI 

has worked with you and others on Capitol Hill and across the Executive Branch to work through problems, and we remain committed to working with the Department on this issue. But let me 

be clear; we do not wish for the Labor Department to maintain procedures that would advantage one media entity over another, or 

make it easier to break embargoes. We are hopeful that the Labor 

Department can address vulnerabilities in the current lockup procedures with ongoing dialogue. While these conversations continue, 

let me describe how the announced changes would undermine the 

integrity of the high-profile economic indicators released to the 

public. 

First, the Labor Department’s announced approach raises 

cybersecurity concerns. Releasing this data through an online connection may allow an Internet hacker to target the release and 

change key numbers as they leave the Department, or a denial of 

service attack could delay release to some or all. 

Second, the Labor Department’s new approach would likely be 

less reliable than the current practice. Currently, at least two 

media organizations have built redundant system hardware. If a 

circuit fails, a second circuit already installed in the network reVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:21 Sep 06, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75708.TXT APRIL
21 

routes data traffic. If a secure line fails, duplicate dedicated cabling 

in place carries the traffic. Even attempting to duplicate these secure systems on government-owned computers would be costly to 

taxpayers. 

Last, the Department’s new approach would make errors more 

likely. Without their own equipment, preloaded spreadsheets and 

custom software to digest the data, journalists would have to type 

this information relying on memory or handwritten notes. This dramatically increases the chance of errors. Markets that measure 

time in microseconds surely will react to wrong data before any 

correction can be issued. 

No one begrudges the Federal Government from moving quickly, 

if need be, to address immediate security concerns, but the Labor 

Department should first explain its concerns and consider the perspective of journalists and the public before making such a dramatic and permanent procedural change. The media takes government interference with its work product very seriously. So does the 

Constitution. In fact, the First Amendment obligates the government to allow journalists to operate independently from government control. Requiring journalists to draft and publish stories 

using government-owned computers loaded with government-controlled software simply crosses a line the First Amendment clearly 

drew to separate the press from the government. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we are committed to working with 

this Committee and the Labor Department to find a resolution that 

serves the public interest. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Dalglish follows:] 

22 


Insert offset folio 11 here 75708.011
23 


Insert offset folio 12 here 75708.012
24 


Insert offset folio 13 here 75708.013
25 


Insert offset folio 14 here 75708.014
26 


Insert offset folio 15 here 75708.015
27 


Insert offset folio 16 here 75708.016
28 


Insert offset folio 17 here 75708.017
29 


Insert offset folio 18 here 75708.018
30 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Dr. Hall. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH HALL 

Mr. HALL. Good morning, Chairman Issa and Ranking Member 

Cummings and members of the Committee. My name is Keith Hall 

and I am a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at 

George Mason. Most recently I was the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 2008 to 2012. In my testimony today, 

I would like to talk about the Bureau of Labor Statistics and its 

role in disseminating economic data. 

First of all, let me note that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is an 

independent Federal statistical agency and, as such, it is tasked 

not only with collecting, compiling, and producing economic data, 

but also with disseminating the data and explaining it to the public. There are a number of principles which any Federal statistical 

agency follows: it is to disseminate data in both a transparent and 

independent manner, with no bias of any type; they are also tasked 

with creating a level playing field for the release of data, meaning 

that nobody has an advantage of getting the data earlier, ahead of 

other people. In addition, they are responsible for the security of 

the data, and that is everywhere, including inside the lockup room. 

In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has the responsibility to 

decide whether or not to even have a data lockup. And I am making this distinction because this is the independent Federal statistical agency, this is not the Department of Labor that I am talking 

about. 

Traditionally, news media were considered by statistical agencies 

as the most effective distributor of economic statistics to the public. 

Wire services were the most practical and fair distributor to media 

outlets, and for this reason press lockups were designed decades 

ago to provide the most important economic data to wire service reporters. Wire service reporters would get to look at the data ahead 

of release time, under lockup conditions; they would get to ask 

clarifying questions; they would get to write their stories on a typewriter; and then when the release time came, reporters would all 

race to a bank of telephones and call in their stories. And that is 

essentially how the lockup runs today, despite tremendous changes 

in technology. 

Today, now, most new economic data is actually disseminated to 

the public through a statistical agency website or by email. Lockup 

continues for the most important economic data, but technology 

now has changed and I think it has made it difficult to maintain 

adequate security inside the lockup. In particular, automatic computer trading now has made BLS data, employment release data 

like employment release data from BLS, extremely valuable and 

fractions of a second makes a big difference in financial markets. 

Also, lockup participants may now have specialized computer 

equipment and software that links to automated trading models. 

When I was commissioner, back in 2009, I read one particular article, and I am going to quote from it, and this caused me a great 

deal of concern: ‘‘Key economic indicators are released to financial 

markets through a small and exclusive group of accredited news 

agencies. A trading model can now read the specially formatted 

31 

data and enter into a trading position immediately, before the larger market has had time to read the release on news wires and digest its meaning.’’ 

This, to me, raised concerns over whether or not we had a level 

playing field coming out of the lockup. I have a number of recommendations on this, but let me also mention a second thing, 

quickly, as well. 

Emerging technology constantly changes and agencies like BLS 

that are tasked with disseminating data need to be able to take advantage of new technology and new methods of disseminating data. 

For example, social media is a relatively new method of disseminating economic data and other statistical agencies at the moment 

have free access to use social media. I believe BLS should be allowed to freely use social media and any other new method of dissemination without having to compromise its position as an independent, objective provider of data, free from filtering by the Office 

of the Secretary, free of bias in its presentation, and free from actual or perceived parts in intervention. That is my first recommendation. 

Second, with respect to press lockups, I have a number of things 

I mention here that are just common sense and long overdue: having a lockup agreement, having adequate control of the lockup 

room. A number of those things have not been in place; they need 

to be put in place right away. One of the things that I have a particular problem with is TV journalists are now actually allowed to 

break the lockup and leave the room and, in fact, go outside before 

the data is released to set up for cameras. I think that is a security 

concern, so I think that ought to end right away. 

Most importantly, though, I think that the Bureau of Labor Statistics should be given full oversight authority for conducting all its 

press lockups, developing and maintaining policy and procedures, 

and have the authority to establish and implement credentialing 

and confidentiality protocols for participating news organizations 

and employees. 

Let me just say to some degree this is not just my opinion; this 

is the opinion of the Office of Management and Budget, at least if 

you believe the OMB Federal Statistical Policy Directives Number 

3 and 4, who make it clear, as I mentioned before, that it is BLS’s 

responsibility to determine whether or not there is a lockup and it 

is their responsibility to actually disseminate the data, and they 

are the ones who are responsible for the confidentiality. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

32 


Insert offset folio 19 here 75708.019
33 


Insert offset folio 20 here 75708.020
34 


Insert offset folio 21 here 75708.021
35 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Ms. Roth. 

STATEMENT OF DIANA FURCHTGOTT–ROTH 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Thank you very much for inviting me to 

testify here today. I was asked to talk about green jobs, and it is 

a very topical time to be discussing green jobs because we just got 

the employment news on Friday which showed that the number of 

jobs in the economy rose by only 69,000, following an increase of 

77,000 in April. The unemployment rate rose to 8.2 percent and 

has been above 8 percent for well over three years. 

Well, America might not be good at creating jobs, but it excels 

at relabeling jobs as green jobs. It is much easier to redefine an existing job as a new job, a green job. How many jobs has our government relabeled as green? The Bureau of Labor Statistics decides 

which jobs are green and which are not, and they identified 3.1 

million in 2010, the latest year available, in a release in March 

2012. Americans may have toiled for decades at the same job, unaware that a Federal agency might some day designate that job 

green. 

I would like to argue that we should focus on job creation, rather 

than green jobs, because we have over 12 million unemployed. Our 

broadest rate of unemployment is 14.8 percent. If people want to 

buy green products, such as Priuses, because the price of gasoline 

is high, they will do so. Much emphasis on green has driven jobs 

overseas. Just two examples: incandescent light bulbs. The ban on 

incandescent light bulbs has resulted in the closure of those factories and the new CFLs, the new fluorescent are all made in 

China. So there are green jobs, but green jobs for China. 

Many solar panels, wind turbines that are required by law are 

made overseas in places such as China. Coal is produced here, but 

we are increasingly not being allowed to use it. China is using our 

coal and produces less than 1 percent of its electricity from renewables. So it makes these products with coal and then sends them 

to us, which reduces our jobs. 

So BLS decides which jobs are green, and sometimes these jobs 

qualify for tax preferences or subsidies. For example, our transportation policy is based on green jobs, with 20 percent of the Highway 

Trust Fund reserved for mass transit. Tax subsidies are given to 

electric vehicles both for companies to produce them and for Americans to buy them. 

BLS has defined green jobs as ‘‘jobs in businesses that produce 

goods or provide services that benefit the environment or conserve 

natural resources’’ or as in ‘‘jobs in which workers’ duties involve 

making their establishment’s production processes more environmentally friendly or use fewer natural resources.’’ 

So in order for a firm to be considered green, they have to meet 

one of five goals, namely, energy from renewable sources; energy 

efficiency; pollution reduction or removal; natural resources conservation; and environmental compliance, education, training, and 

public awareness. 

So I was particularly interested when I came in today to see this 

cup here. Now, this just is a cup, but on it it says ‘‘We have the 

power to save energy.’’ So this fits in with number five, environVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:21 Sep 06, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75708.TXT APRIL
36 

mental compliance education compliance, education, training, and 

public awareness. So now people who produce these cups, they 

would be considered to have green jobs, but that hasn’t meant a 

total increase in jobs in the economy, it is just a matter of relabeling. 

In agriculture, for example, one of the main categories of workers 

are 36,000 organic farmers and growers, and their workers are 

credited with accomplishing both natural resource conservation and 

creating energy from renewable sources. So when a farmer produces corn to eat, that is not counted as a green job, but when he 

produces corn for ethanol, that is counted as a green job. 

With farming, it is possible to calculate the percentage of employment that is dedicated to ethanol or organic produce, but in other 

areas it is not so clear. One example is wood chips used for biomass. How many workers are employed by the timber industry to 

create wood chips? Wood chips are largely a byproduct of milling, 

and milling is not considered a green job. Yet, according to a Labor 

Department definition, the 33,000 wood product manufacturing 

jobs are called green because companies can sell the wood chips for 

biomass. 

I have many other examples in my testimony, but I see that my 

time has run out. Thank you very much. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Furchtgott-Roth follows:] 

37 


Insert offset folio 22 here 75708.022
38 


Insert offset folio 23 here 75708.023
39 


Insert offset folio 24 here 75708.024
40 


Insert offset folio 25 here 75708.025
41 


Insert offset folio 26 here 75708.026
42 


Insert offset folio 27 here 75708.027
43 


Insert offset folio 28 here 75708.028
44 


Insert offset folio 29 here 75708.029
45 


Insert offset folio 30 here 75708.030
46 


Insert offset folio 31 here 75708.031
47 


Insert offset folio 32 here 75708.032
48 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony. 

Dr. Hall, I am going to begin with you because you do see a need 

for reform in the lockup, but what you said earlier is of concern to 

me. The Office of Management and Budget has a set of guidelines; 

it makes every effort to make sure that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is independent. 

Carl Fillichio, do you know who he is? 

Mr. HALL. Yes, I do. 

Chairman ISSA. Does he work for the Bureau of Labor Statistics? 

Mr. HALL. He works for the Secretary of Labor. 

Chairman ISSA. So he is in fact a political appointee, non-confirmed, working for the Secretary of Labor, and he is the person 

that came up with this policy, isn’t he? 

Mr. HALL. Yes, he is. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. So they violated OMB guidelines. It is 

being directed from the Department of Labor. This is in fact not 

the independent agency intention that you worked for so long and 

hard, and you have been very candid with us in the past. It is your 

job to count the green jobs you are told to count, so you accurately 

account for the numbers. It is somebody else’s decision about 

whether they are green or not under a definition. So we have enjoyed your honesty, but your honesty here says it is supposed to be 

one way. It clearly wasn’t, isn’t that correct? 

Mr. HALL. That is correct. I do think the Bureau of Labor Statistics should be responsible for running the lockup. 

Chairman ISSA. By the way, would you ever have thought that 

the Department of Labor or Bureau of Labor Statistics would be 

left of Brookings, able to come up with more green jobs, even then 

one of the great liberal think tanks? You need not answer that one. 

Mr. Moss, you are one of the companies that invested heavily in 

proprietary lines in order to send out in a timely basis, aren’t you? 

Mr. MOSS. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. So you did so for two reasons. One was 

clearly to ensure that your story didn’t fail to go out and I guess 

the second one is to make sure you got it out at least as fast as 

anyone else, if not a few seconds faster, isn’t that right? 

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, we are not interested in getting it out 

faster than anybody else. 

Chairman ISSA. But you at least want to tie the fastest. 

Mr. MOSS. We have an interest—— 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Doherty, next to you, is shaking his head 

yes, so I am assuming he wanted to. 

Mr. MOSS. We have an interest in transmitting the information 

as instantaneously as the lockup rules will allow. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. 

Mr. Doherty, you also obviously have an interest in absolutely, 

positively not being beat to the newsstand. 

Mr. DOHERTY. I would just repeat what Dan said. Our interest 

is to get the information out as quickly as we can to all of our clients within the rules of a lockup. 

Chairman ISSA. And, Ms. Dalglish, you are sort of representing 

the umbrella here for a moment. Dr. Hall was very kind in saying 

that, one, most of the statistics actually just go out on the news 

wire; they are not important enough so they go out, everybody gets 

49 

them at the same time and they look at them. But the most important are subject to this lockup, historically, until today. 

Let me ask you one question. If in fact the Bureau of Labor Statistics simply starting pumping this all out through their internet, 

wouldn’t in fact it be worse for these most critical information because then the hedge fund with the best computer diagnosing what 

is very predictably exactly the same raw statistics would then 

make the decision on market interruptions and trade during those 

first few seconds? 

Doesn’t the plethora of different news organizations, with different opinions, reporting in a different fashion, reaching sometimes different conclusions on raw data actually negate the advantage of a hedge fund, because ultimately looking at any one of 

these services doesn’t guarantee him anything? Doesn’t give him 

the wrong information as much as it gives him somebody’s opinion. 

And isn’t a dozen or a hundred opinions a better safeguard against 

a radical market move than a single piece of fact? 

Ms. DALGLISH. Mr. Chairman, I really have to confess I don’t 

know a lot about how hedge funds operate, but I can tell you that 

by having multiple news organizations in that lockup disseminating that information I believe there are safeguards for the public, and I also believe that the independence of those news organizations is a benefit to the public, rather than having the Government just being the only source of the information as it gets out, 

whether it be to the public or to the hedge funds. I think there is 

value in having multiple news organizations digesting and disseminating this information. 

Chairman ISSA. And to the two news organizations represented 

here today, if you are given no tools, if you are given information 

in a short period of time basically to report what you are given, 

aren’t you in fact an arm of propaganda? The difference between 

propaganda and independent news, isn’t it the value added that 

your reporters can bring, either through their years of experience 

or, in fact, the information they bring in that helps them take raw 

data and turn it into opinionated factual news? 

Mr. MOSS. Well, Mr. Chairman, the advantage of the lockup as 

it is currently run at the Department of Labor, and at Commerce, 

Agriculture, and agencies disseminating statistics around the 

world, is that it allows us to publish information with as much context and supporting data and as many superlatives as we can. 

What we publish at 8:30 sharp goes beyond one headline and one 

number; we endeavor to tell the story both behind the number, on 

top of it, and underneath it. 

Mr. DOHERTY. And I would just add that one important part that 

we didn’t talk about, in the April 10th order that Labor put out, 

although we are in talks about changing this, is that there was no 

internet access at all, even in the half an hour or so that leads up 

to the lockup starting. That is important because it allows our journalists to do a variety of things, but one of those is to see what is 

happening around the world, and add that context. And even if it 

is breaking at the last minute, 7:45 that they are in the internet, 

and with everything happening today in the Euro zone, that sort 

of information is invaluable; it can really provide some context to 

the stories. 

50 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

I recognize the Ranking Member for his questions. 

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

Mr. Hall, it is good to see you again. I just want to make sure 

we are clear, because sometimes I don’t want the wrong, inaccurate 

information to be in the headlines tomorrow. The Bureau of Labor 

Statistics is a nonpartisan statistical agency, is that right? 

Mr. HALL. That is right. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Did the Department, to your knowledge, and you 

just left. When did you leave the Department of Labor Statistics? 

Mr. HALL. In January of this year. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. Did the Department of Labor or any other 

entity within government that is focused on the development and 

advancement of policy interfere with BLS’s development of a methodology for counting green jobs? 

Mr. HALL. No, they didn’t. They were very good about letting us 

do our work and staying at arm’s length. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And as I listened to the testimony, clearly, I understand and sympathize with the news organizations. I understand exactly what you are saying. It seems like we have a question here of balance. Any time anything gets out of balance, you 

usually run into problems. But it appears to me that our security 

procedures are not equal to what technology can be used to do with 

the data. I think Mr. Hall described what happened, how this thing 

first came about 40 years ago, and now technology has changed 

dramatically since then. Would you agree with that, Mr. Hall? 

And then I will go to you, Mr. Moss. 

Mr. MOSS. Congressman, the Department of Labor has a master 

switch that controls communications into and out of the room. No 

news headline or story can be published until the Labor official literally flicks that master switch at 8:30. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Hall, did you have a comment? 

Mr. HALL. Well, that is absolutely true. One of my concerns, 

though, and one of my concerns with the whole lockup room came 

from an extraordinary number of incidents out of the lockup room 

over the past few years that involved this sort of struggling with 

the technology coming out, and I do think that there is a need to 

sort of, at a minimum, really review the security in that lockup 

room. 

Mr. DOHERTY. Congressman, I would add that is why these discussions we have been having with the Labor Department are focused on that. They have needs and, as I said in my testimony, we 

understand they have the responsibility and the right to set up 

lockup rules. I think our view would be that the April 10th announcement, plan, whatever you want to call it, didn’t strike that 

balance, and we are hoping to in these negotiations. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And I am hoping that that happens too, and I 

am going to urge the Secretary to try to move that along so that 

you all can come up with an agreement. Sometimes I think it is 

a matter of people sitting down and working out things. Not everything has to be legislated. As a matter of fact, it moves a lot slower 

sometimes when you have to depend on the legislature. 

According to a joint news statement issued on December 9th, 

2008, by the then Commissioner of Bureau Statistics, Keith Hall, 

51 

and the then Assistant Secretary of Labor for Public Affairs, ‘‘data 

from the November 2008 employment situation news report that 

was scheduled for release Friday, December 5th, at 8:30 a.m. EST 

was inadvertently transmitted from the lockup facility approximately 25 seconds early.’’ 

The news release states that a similar early transmittal occurred 

on December 3rd, 2008, involving the data on productivity and cost. 

The news release clarifies that ‘‘a wire service bureau chief informed us that his outlet had inadvertently released data from the 

lockup facility early to subscribers on both occasions’’ and that the 

Department of Labor confirmed this claim. Finally, the news release states the early transmissions were accidental and followed 

a recent technical change in hardware configuration. 

Dr. Hall, you were Commissioner of the Department of Labor 

Statistics at the time these leaks occurred, is that right? 

Mr. HALL. That is correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. What can you tell us specifically about how that 

occurred? In particular, how were the leaks accidental and what 

circumstances allowed such accidental leaks to take place? 

Mr. HALL. As I recall, the news agency was allowed access to the 

room without any BLS technicians, and they replaced a cable from 

their computer to that box, and it turns out that cable inadvertently bypassed the security on the box. And the company didn’t 

mean to do that, they were just trying to increase their 

connectivity, I suppose. So since then we have tried very hard to, 

what we would still like, and this is why it is one of my proposals, 

to not let people into the room and mess with the equipment without a BLS technician there so that sort of thing doesn’t happen—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And were those leaks detected at the time they 

occurred? 

Mr. HALL. They were not. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Doherty, you write in your testimony 

Thompson Reuters ‘‘takes embargoes very seriously and we have 

always intended to comply with the Department’s lockup procedures, but our company, after a hardware reconfiguration, did inadvertently uncover defects in the Department’s equipment that resulted in two unintentional early releases of data from our machines and the Labor lockup in late 2008.’’ 

What can you add to what Mr. Hall said about how the leak occurred? Also, your statement indicates ‘‘a defect in the Department’s equipment resulted in two unintentional early releases.’’ 

Was the fault in this matter with the Department or with your 

firm? 

Mr. DOHERTY. My understanding, and I wasn’t part of this at the 

time, but my understanding is we did configure our hardware. My 

understanding is that the way that interfaced with the lockbox and 

how that was cabled at the Department led to the inadvertent releases. As I say, and Mr. Hall said, the first release wasn’t detected 

by anyone, it certainly wasn’t detected by us. 

The second we realized and immediately made that known to the 

Department. We worked with them to figure out what the problem 

was, a fix was implemented, and as I say in my testimony, we are 

aware of no other issues in the three and a half years since and 

52 

the Department has 8 to 10 lockups a month, so that would be 

roughly 350 lockups or so since there was that problem. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. One last question. Dr. Hall, as a former commissioner of the BLS, do you believe that the steps the Department 

of Labor announced to improve the security of economic data during the prerelease embargo period are necessary? 

Mr. HALL. I think most of them are necessary. The one aspect 

would be replacing the equipment. That is a pretty dramatic step. 

I do think that was worth considering and I do think that is a possible solution. I also think it is a possible solution to release the 

data on the website and then open up the lockup room so it runs 

a little bit behind the website so people get to write their stories 

and get it out, but there won’t be quite such a rush to move trading 

from inside the lockup room. 

I am not sure for sure, I think it is something that should be 

done. I do think it should be considered and should be discussed. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. And just for the record, when these 

lapses occurred, who was president of the United States? 

Mr. HALL. I believe it was during the Obama administration. But 

we did have a lapse, to be fair—— 

Chairman ISSA. November of 2008, who was president? 

Mr. HALL. Oh, 2008, I’m sorry. It was the 2008 one. Yes, that 

was the—— 

Chairman ISSA. Okay, I just want to make sure that this is so 

long ago that President Bush is responsible for the leak and yet, 

three and a half years later, we have a fix proposed. I guess that 

is quick and dramatic action. 

Dr. Des Jarlais is recognized. 

Mr. DES JARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I really appreciate you holding the hearing on this topic right now. As everyone 

is well aware, this is an election year and I don’t think that anyone 

who follows statistics doesn’t realize that the number one issue facing our Country are jobs and the economy, and that is what people 

are looking to in leadership to make their decision this fall. 

So I think these numbers are extremely important and I think 

this hearing is very timely. The one thing the American people do 

agree on is that Congress is not doing a very good job, and I think 

their trust factor for Congress is very low, so the one thing they 

should get are the facts on these numbers. I often wonder why we 

focus so much on unemployment numbers rather than employment 

numbers, and I just wonder if anybody on the panel would have a 

comment why we don’t look at employment numbers, the number 

of people actually employed. 

Mr. MOSS. Congressman, that is an argument for allowing the 

news organizations to publish as much context, as much full information at 8:30 sharp as possible. 

Congressman, Mr. Chairman, and Representative Cummings, if 

I may return to a point that Dr. Hall made, he was talking about 

unauthorized access to the room—— 

Mr. DES JARLAIS. Mr. Moss, we will get back to that. I actually 

do have a line of questioning for all you. 

Mr. MOSS. Excuse me. 

Mr. DES JARLAIS. Okay. 

53 

So, anyway, I just think that there is such a disparity in unemployment numbers, whether it is 8.2, who is unemployed, who is 

underemployed, and when we are talking about getting to the truth 

so people can make a decision on who they want to lead this Country, we should provide the facts to them. 

Mr. Moss, I will ask you this. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would 

you rate the Department of Labor’s transparency in conducting the 

change to its lockup policy? 

Mr. MOSS. Congressman, I am here as a journalist, not a mathematician. I would just say that it leaves a lot to be desired. The 

Department has relied on a Sandia report that has not been made 

available. 

Mr. DES JARLAIS. Mr. Doherty, what would you rate that? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Well, again, I think, going backwards, based on 

what we have been able to achieve by having discussions, the discussions that we in the media have had with the Labor Department, I think everybody would have been better served if those discussions had taken place prior to April 10th, as opposed to in response to what was put out on April 10th. 

Mr. DES JARLAIS. Okay. Well, again, with the uncertainty facing 

our Country and the importance for this transparency and these 

numbers, the Sandia National Labs was asked to review the Department of Labor’s data security procedure. 

Mr. Moss or, actually, Mr. Doherty, is it correct that the Department of Labor is justifying the change to the lockup procedure by 

citing the findings of this National Lab report, Sandia? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Yes. 

Mr. DES JARLAIS. Okay. Have you seen a full copy of that report? 

Mr. DOHERTY. I have not. 

Mr. DES JARLAIS. All right. To your knowledge, has anyone outside the Department seen a full copy of that report? 

Mr. DOHERTY. I don’t know, sir. 

Mr. DES JARLAIS. Okay. In an Executive Summary, the report 

implies that organizations or news organizations like yourselves 

are adversaries to the Department of Labor. Do you believe that 

you are adversaries to the Department? 

Mr. MOSS. I do not, sir. 

Mr. DOHERTY. Nor do I. 

Mr. DES JARLAIS. Okay. Are you personally aware of any security 

deficiencies with the Department’s lockup procedures? 

Mr. MOSS. Congressman, this brings me back to a point I wanted 

to make in response to Dr. Hall, if I may. 

Mr. DES JARLAIS. Okay. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MOSS. Dr. Hall referred to one of the problems being unauthorized access to the room. That is an argument for the enforcement of an existing policy, not the replacement of that policy with 

something very draconian. Access to the room is supposed to take 

place with a technically proficient Department of Labor official, and 

we are comfortable with that. 

Mr. DES JARLAIS. Ms. Dalglish, the Department of Labor’s new 

policy for its lockup facility would require all reporters to use own 

government-owned and government-operated software, hardware, 

and wiring. Is this action permissible under the First Amendment? 

54 

Ms. DALGLISH. Dr. Des Jarlais, I don’t believe so, and I think it 

raises substantial First Amendment problems. As you know, the 

First Amendment is designed to allow the press to operate independently. When you are using government-owned hardware and 

software, and you have no control over what it does and you have 

no knowledge of, perhaps, in an extreme circumstance, you don’t 

know what they are able to monitor from your work. You don’t 

know what they are taking; you don’t know what they are putting 

into it. You have no control what goes out. I think it is a very 

frightening prospect. 

Mr. DES JARLAIS. To your knowledge, do any other government 

agencies require reporters to use equipment, tools owned by the 

government? 

Ms. DALGLISH. I can’t think of one off the top of my head. It is 

possible, but I am not aware of one. 

Mr. DES JARLAIS. Okay. So, in your opinion, this government 

ownership could be problematic for the freedom of the press? 

Ms. DALGLISH. For freedom of the press and for the public’s right 

to get independently gathered and digested and disseminated information. 

Mr. DES JARLAIS. Thank you. 

Dr. Hall, as you probably know, the current head of the Office 

of Public Affairs, Mr. Fillichio, has not been confirmed by the Senate, as he is technically a senior advisor, do you recall if during the 

Bush Administration that position was occupied by someone who 

was Senate confirmed? 

Mr. HALL. Yes, I believe it was. 

Mr. DES JARLAIS. Okay. Then, Dr. Hall, given the importance of 

these numbers, as I have talked about earlier, both economically 

and politically, do you think it is right that the process for the release is being overseen by a non-confirmed political appointee? 

Mr. HALL. No, I don’t, and I think the most important thing is 

that BLS has the responsibility for security of the lockup room and 

for disseminating data with a level playing field, yet they don’t 

have the authority to make changes because they don’t run the 

lockup room. 

Mr. DES JARLAIS. All right, thank you. And I thank you all for 

being here today. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

With that, we go to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, 

for five minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to our panel for being here today. I especially 

want to welcome Dr. Hall from the great university, George Mason 

University, in Northern Virginia, in my district. So we are delighted to have you here. 

Maybe, Dr. Hall, I could begin with you. I am listening to your 

testimony, and if I could infer from what you were saying, when 

you talked about how originally this process was established, the 

lockup, and the control of data, and reporters waiting at their 

trusty typewriter to get it out, I think you were leading us to believe that technology maybe has passed us by, and I am looking at, 

just as legitimately, I think, Ms. Dalglish has warned us about, 

55 

gee, even with the best of intentions, government insisting on 

transfer to all of their technology and their government-controlled 

computers compromises the First Amendment rights of the fourth 

estate. 

Government also has a legitimate concern, after all, the media 

are profit-making entities that have motives that go beyond just 

the First Amendment sometimes. And I am reading from the executive summary of the Sandia report and it says, although DOL operations, BLS, and OPA personnel are doing due diligence in their 

efforts to monitor the press lockup facility, their efforts are complicated by the presence of non-DOL IT equipment and communications lines in this facility. The opaque nature of this equipment and 

DOL operations, BLS, and OPA stakeholders is a major impediment to ensuring that embargo data are not released prior to authorization. 

In your opinion, Dr. Hall, from your experience, is that a legitimate concern? 

Mr. HALL. Yes, it is. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So we have to balance that with the legitimate 

First Amendment concerns we have heard here from the three witnesses on your right. 

Mr. HALL. Absolutely. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And might that be the motivation of the Department of Labor in these new regulations? I will withhold judgment 

as to whether they went too far or whether better notification could 

have been given and whether the press should have been brought 

in earlier to dialogue about that. But that might have been their 

motivation, not the hobnail, voodoo government on the necks of the 

media trying to strangle the First Amendment. 

Mr. HALL. Sure In fact, I absolutely support generally the recommendations. The only thing about the IT equipment, I think it 

is worth considering having government equipment in there, but I 

think it probably should be studied a bit more. I happen to think 

that there is a bigger policy issue here for the Federal statistical 

agencies. They need to decide whether or not it is advisable to have 

trading come out of lockups. And I think that question needs to 

be—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Do we even need a lockup? I mean, given technology, why have a lockup at all? There is no First Amendment 

right, I might add, to being in a lockup. 

Mr. HALL. That is right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But why have one at all? Why not just post 

something on the Web at 8:30 and everybody can have at it? 

Mr. HALL. No, absolutely. I think the issue at least for BLS is 

we want to disseminate the data and we want to give people a 

chance to write accurate stories and be able to ask questions and 

get those stories right. That was originally the idea of the lockup. 

But you are absolutely right. In fact, like I said, most economic 

data is in fact just put up on the Web. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I think the inference to be drawn from your testimony is that is where you were leading us, from that typewriter 

to today’s fast-moving, 24/7 news world with the technology advancing. Might the Government have enough concern, and that is 

56 

that leaks or unfair advantage to somebody in terms of information 

is enormous power? 

I am looking at a letter, for example, that was submitted by the 

Republican ranking member of our counterpart committee in the 

Senate, Senator Collins of Maine, writing to Secretary Solis expressing concern about the unusual trading activity reported in the 

Wall Street Journal just prior to the release of the unemployment 

data in the month of May. Is that also a legitimate concern of Government, that, gee, we don’t want to somehow give an unfair advantage to somebody that might move markets, fairly or unfairly, 

and do damage in a broader economic sphere and favor one entity 

over another? Does the Government have a legitimate concern 

about that? 

Mr. HALL. Oh, absolutely, and that is one of the principles for a 

statistical agency, is to help do its best to create a level playing 

field and not have that happen. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Final question. We heard the testimony of your 

seatmate there on the left, Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. When you were at 

BLS, did you see untoward and capricious interference by the Department of Labor forcing you to redefine existing jobs arbitrarily 

as green? 

Mr. HALL. No, not at all. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Not at all? I thank you. My time is up. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

We now go to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy, 

for five minutes. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would yield my time 

to the Chairman, who is so well versed in all the issues related to 

this hearing. 

Chairman ISSA. You are too kind. You are going to go a long way 

on this Committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman ISSA. Ms. Furchtgott-Roth, I don’t think I heard you 

say that this was about interference. I think that your statement, 

and we have a second panel, had to do with the fact that a substantial number of what Dr. Hall put out, this 3.1 million green 

jobs, are in fact jobs that have been around for generations. Isn’t 

that true? 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. I mean, septic tank cleaners, in fact, are not a 

new profession, is that right? 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Yes. In fact, the Federal definition of 

green jobs was under Title X of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which was signed into law by President George 

Bush, which gave BLS the instruction to do this. But, nevertheless, 

it does result in relabeling of jobs. Someone who is putting in a 

low-flow toilet, for example, that is a green job. A regular toilet is 

not a green job. What we need to be focusing on is just creating 

jobs. This is not something we should be worrying about. 

Chairman ISSA. Dr. Hall, I think the reason that there is controversy about the green jobs is, in fact, a lot of them came out of 

‘‘stimulus money’’ and the claim that stimulus was working included the claim of those green jobs. Wouldn’t you agree that, as 

an observer, that was a lot of where your information got used? 

57 

Mr. HALL. It seems that way, yes. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay, so one of my questions, and probably the 

most important question, is if I relabeled all of these jobs, since 

most of them, such as diesel repair person repairing a mass transit 

bus, since that was a green job 50 years ago, wouldn’t it be fair, 

if we wanted to get accuracy, that we would go back all those generations and we would simply have this rise and fall of, as close 

as we could, the same job year over year? So wouldn’t we have 

found, as a result, that at the beginning of this recession we lost 

green jobs? 

Mr. HALL. Absolutely, it is quite possible. A new data series 

doesn’t really tell you about the past, so you really don’t get an 

idea of what has changed over time. 

Chairman ISSA. So the, if you will, propaganda value or the disingenuous part of green jobs is we are not talking about the fact 

that green jobs undoubtedly, since it includes welders and, like I 

say, people that empty septic tanks and people who mill wood, 

since there were jobs lost in those areas, we lost those jobs and 

then we got them back. So when you score 3.1 million new jobs, 

some of those are jobs that undoubtedly were lost and then reclaimed. 

Mr. HALL. Oh, absolutely. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Moss, I am going to return to a line because this is the committee of transparency and it is the reason that we will continue 

having not only these hearings, but we will continue to push to not 

have the kind of behavior, and I can’t remember what the gentleman of Virginia used in relation to boot, but his allegation, but 

the press historically gets treated one way. When the press gets 

changed to another way and you feel it impinges on your freedoms, 

isn’t that in fact at the core of where the press must push back and 

force government to justify two things: one, the need to do it and, 

two, pursuant to the First Amendment, the right to do it? 

In this case, haven’t they failed both tests? They failed to give 

you the specific need of why they needed to do it and they certainly 

have not shown where the specifics of forcing you to use government equipment, government lines, bring in no key fobs, et cetera, 

et cetera, and, of course, then have the access to your typed material on their computers so they can look at your material later if 

they choose to, hasn’t that in fact crossed that First Amendment 

question, as well as the not stating the need? 

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, the DOL, in its discussions with the 

media, has highlighted the need for security. We understand that. 

It is our belief, based on some of the proposals we have discussed 

with the DOL, that the stated concerns about security can be addressed and the media’s First Amendment rights protected. We 

have had some productive discussions. There are some areas where 

we are close. We are not there yet. 

Mr. Chairman, may I just make two quick points in response to 

Congressman Connolly’s remarks? 

Chairman ISSA. Of course. 

Mr. MOSS. Firstly, regarding Dr. Hall’s response to your question, sir, he said that some efforts had been complicated by nonVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:21 Sep 06, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75708.TXT APRIL
58 

Department of Labor lines. Again, that is an argument for enforcing the existing policy. 

The other point I would make, sir, and Mr. Chairman, is that 

under the proposals that we are currently negotiating with the Department of Labor, Department of Labor technical staff will be able 

to install equipment that is owned by the news organization. 

Chairman ISSA. If I could ask unanimous consent for just one 

more question, because Mr. Doherty—thank you. 

Mr. Doherty, you have been involved and are more knowledgeable of the negotiations. At a minimum, wouldn’t the government 

be able to ‘‘specify’’ and approve equipment coming into the lock 

area, rather than, say, as Sandia apparently says in this confidential finding, that they can’t know? In fact, isn’t it something where 

part of the negotiations could be that they will approve and specify 

in advance any equipment coming in? Doesn’t the government effectively have that ability to negotiate what comes into the room, 

thus never being surprised that they didn’t know what you were 

using? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Yes, and that is part of our discussion. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

With that, we go to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 

Tierney, for five minutes. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. 

Thank you all for your testimony here this morning. I want to 

follow up on something that Mr. Connolly was following on that. 

There was an op ed recently by a financial advisor, former journalist named Larry Elkin. Some of you may have seen it. He said 

that outfits such as Bloomberg, Dow Jones, and Reuters compete 

fiercely for subscribers who pay a lot of money for split-second access to market-moving information. 

So, Mr. Doherty and Mr. Moss, who receives the first access to 

the reports on employment data from your outlets, is it the general 

public or is it subscribers to the service that you offer? 

Mr. MOSS. Subscribers to the Bloomberg Professional Service are 

included in the public, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Doherty? 

Mr. DOHERTY. The same with us, sir. And it should be noted that 

everything goes out at 8:30 at the same time, so whether it is a 

story or a table or data, it all leaves the lockup at 8:30, or whenever the Department of Labor pushes that switch. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Are there any incentives, do you think, for some 

people, at least, to try to get that data out a split second earlier 

than their competitors? It seems there is a lot of money moving 

around. If somebody could do that, there would be a certain advantage to that. 

Mr. MOSS. Congressman, right now the Department of Labor has 

a master switch—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. No, no, I understand that. What I am asking you 

is the more general question: Is there a real concern that if somebody were to get that information out quicker than others, they 

would have an unfair advantage? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would my colleague yield? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Yes. 

59 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I would just point out that Mr. Doherty testified 

a little earlier ‘‘we want to get that information out as fast as possible to our clients.’’ 

Mr. TIERNEY. Of course. And that is the only point I am trying 

to make. There is an advantage of getting it out quickly. If you get 

it out quicker than your competitors, that is a good thing for you. 

Mr. DOHERTY. Absolutely. But as I said earlier, as well, in that 

earlier response, everything that we do needs to be done within the 

rules. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Obviously. 

Mr. DOHERTY. And as has been said a couple times, DOL has 

control—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. I think one of the important points that Mr. 

Connolly made was that the Department of Labor isn’t under any 

obligation to provide prerelease access at all, correct? There is no 

legal or constitutional requirement that the Department of Labor 

issue that information prematurely or earlier than one fell swoop. 

Mr. DOHERTY. That is correct. But as we said earlier, we think 

lockups are important. 

Mr. TIERNEY. But I think they do that and I think The Office of 

Management and Budget made clear they do it because they think 

there is a value in fostering improved public understanding of the 

data and that there is a value to having accuracy for any initial 

commentary, and that, I think, you folks agree with, right? 

Mr. MOSS. Congressman, if I may. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Briefly, please. 

Mr. MOSS. Our attorneys have looked into this question, because 

it is something that the DOL has brought up in our discussions. 

It is our belief that once a agency establishes a policy that affects 

a substantive right, in this instance the First Amendment, an 

agency cannot arbitrarily change that without due process of a 

proper notice and comment period. 

Mr. TIERNEY. That is not the question. The question was whether 

they were under any initial obligation to share it at all. They can 

go through their due process and come back to the point that they 

are just going to issue it once and everybody is going to get it, and 

that is it, without any prerelease information. I don’t think there 

is any disagreement with your lawyers or any other lawyer on that. 

But I agree with you, what you are working for is a process that 

strikes the balance that Mr. Cummings was talking about, one that 

allows for securing it so nobody gets an unfair advantage and one 

that makes sure that you get that ability to have a better public 

understanding and more accuracy in your initial commentary. You 

have been working towards that with the Department, have you 

not? 

Mr. MOSS. We have, sir. The discussions have been productive. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Exactly. I guess that is my next point, that I think 

you have indicated that you have held a series of constructive 

meetings, Mr. Doherty, and you were left optimistic that you are 

going to be able to agree on procedures and policies, is that right? 

Mr. DOHERTY. We are hopeful that we will finish it, yes, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Moss, you said that even as you prepared the 

testimony today, the media and the public interest groups appear 

to be making progress. Do you agree with that? 

60 

Mr. MOSS. We are not there yet, but we have made progress. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So the current status is that you are almost there. 

Have you got an agreement in principle? 

Mr. MOSS. I am not sure I would say we are almost—well, I 

think we are getting close on some issues, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And have you agreed to ensure security and still 

try to allow you to choose your own hardware and software? 

Mr. MOSS. Those are amongst the proposals we have made. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Okay. And that proposal also would be the Department would still control the physical access to the hardware? 

Mr. MOSS. They would install it and manage it. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Okay. And if that agreement were to go into effect, 

would that allow you to continue to prepare your news reports and 

statistical data appropriately? Would that be a direction in which 

you would want to move? 

Mr. MOSS. There is no—sir, at the moment, there is no formal 

comprehensive agreement—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. But there is one that you are working on, right? 

Mr. MOSS. If we were to work toward and arrive at something—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, how close are you? How close are you? 

Mr. MOSS. On the technical issues? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Yes. 

Mr. MOSS. I am told we are close. There are some issues that 

DOL has said they would get back to the news services on. We are 

awaiting DOL comments on rules of the lockup. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And are you feeling good; all parties are working 

in good faith? 

Mr. MOSS. I do believe everyone is working in good faith. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Good. Okay, thank you. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. I guess I will go to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Kelly. 

Could you yield to me for just one second? 

Mr. KELLY. Certainly. Go ahead, Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Moss, Mr. Doherty, were those discussions 

fruitful during the period prior to this Committee taking a direct 

interest in it? Were you having the same level of discord, where 

you were resolving that an arbitrary rule perhaps wasn’t going to 

be the final judgment? 

Mr. MOSS. Congressman, it is my understanding that the interest of the Committee has been vital in that process. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Kelly. 

Mr. KELLY. I thank the Chairman. 

One of the things that I have been looking at, I try to look at 

the statistics and I know that what I did previously was in the 

automobile business, and we always looked at markets and we 

looked at markets that were available to us, and we kind of looked 

at the definitions and then we looked at the statistics, but they 

only mattered if they were actually accurate and they actually had 

some type of credibility. 

And my questions come on the green jobs initiative. I am trying 

to understand, Dr. Hall. Does BLS not count blue collar jobs or 

61 

white collar jobs, but BLS was asked to begin counting green jobs? 

Now, do you believe that BLS was asked to begin counting green 

jobs for political reasons? 

Mr. HALL. I think it was for policy reasons. I think there was a 

good deal of interest in green occupations and I think there was 

clearly going to be some policy, at least policy debates on the issue. 

Mr. KELLY. And I understand that. So in order to give credibility 

to the policy, then we had to come up with metrics that made 

sense. So when you talk about green jobs that were created, do you 

think we have actually done a great job with that? Has there been 

a good, positive ROI? 

Mr. HALL. Well, I think part of the issue is that BLS was not 

trying to feed into a particular policy. It didn’t have policies in 

mind. And they took two approaches: looking at green industries 

and then green occupations. I think part of the problem is those 

two things get mixed. 

But what they were trying to do was they were trying to be helpful. We were trying not be helpful. We were trying to make a definition, a fairly broad definition so that people could use this data, 

people could even make up their own definitions of green jobs— 

there were a million definitions around—and use the data to piece 

together their own definitions and use that for policy. 

Mr. KELLY. I understand that. But whenever you change the definition of what a person is doing and you game it or shade it so 

that the answer that you are looking for can be supported by data 

that you very carefully craft to come up with the answer that you 

want, and that is the problem that I have with this. I am trying 

to understand it. If we are really looking to develop policies or develop the future of the Country and say, boy, there is a great jobs 

market out there, and a guy that drove a bus before, if he went 

from driving a regular fuel bus to a propane bus, we created a 

green job. We didn’t create a job, we just shifted a person from one 

category to another. 

And I think for people like me, I think you want to see some type 

of positive return on your investment, and I get the feeling that a 

lot of what we are looking at was a policy that, while it was well 

intended, hasn’t really created the jobs that the Administration 

thought it would create. I have no problem with that; I have made 

a lot of mistakes in my life. The only thing is I just didn’t keep on 

that path if I thought it was wrong. And the reason I couldn’t do 

it is because I was using my own money. 

But this has been very bothersome to me. So tell me how do you 

get from one position to another position and say, well, this supports what it is that we are doing? That is, I think, the problem 

that the American people have with this. Because if we are truly 

talking about creating jobs, if we are talking about making an environment that is more conducive to creating jobs, this doesn’t do it. 

Mr. HALL. Right. I think the first thing I would like to say is one 

of the things I learned quickly when I was at the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics is you can produce the best data you want, the best data 

you can and explain it, but you can’t control how people use the 

data. They are going to use it however they are going to want to 

use it. And that is true with all BLS data. In fact, my big goal was 

that we at least make sure that when people use the data, they 

62 

know when they are using it wrong, even if they want to go ahead 

and use it wrong to begin with. So that is sort of an impossible 

thing for BLS to sort of control. 

Mr. KELLY. Ms. Roth, how do you feel about that? 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Well, first of all, I am an economist, so 

I don’t feel. But looking at the numbers—— 

Mr. KELLY. Well, let me put it this way. As an American taxpayer, because that is what we all are, regardless of whether you 

are sitting up here or you are sitting down there, we are responsible to people to pay all these bills as hardworking American taxpayers. So I have to tell you how I feel, and I feel at times that 

we are so separated from reality in this town, I need to know, okay, 

you use whatever term you want to use, but what is the result of 

this? Do we have any positive answers? 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. No. No. I think the whole concept 

doesn’t make sense. For example, in the transportation area, buses 

and trains are green jobs, but taxis are not green jobs. But sometimes it makes more sense to be able to take a taxi, rather than 

build an expensive rail line. So there isn’t any point in adding any 

of these together. Or science museums, for example, vis-a-vis another museum. A science museum is a green job; another kind of 

museum isn’t a green job. The American people want just jobs, and 

I don’t think they mind if they are green. With unemployment over 

12 million, with the unemployment rate above 8 percent for over 

three years in a row, we just need lots of regular jobs. We shouldn’t 

worry about whether they are green, blue, red, whatever. 

Mr. KELLY. Well, we are looking for red, white, and blue jobs; it 

doesn’t have to be any other color than that. I appreciate your answers and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

With that, we go to the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, for 

five minutes. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Le me start with Dr. Hall. 

Doctor, can you describe the work that went into developing the 

BLS’s methodology for counting green jobs and what were the expert sources the BLS consulted when developing this methodology 

for counting green jobs? 

Mr. HALL. Sure. First, let me say that the folks at BLS are experts in conducting surveys and collecting data, they are not experts in what is green and what is not green. So BLS spent a good 

deal of time talking with Federal agencies who are involved with 

green things, I guess; spent some time looking at how some of the 

States are defining green jobs and found how they were finding it 

useful, and with the private sector. 

So the idea was to sort of try to vett ideas on what should or 

shouldn’t be included in green jobs and come up with a definition 

that was sort of—that had some logic to it. But I will say, though, 

one thing that is pretty clear is that there is no one definition; 

there is clearly an arbitrariness to it at some point. I thought it 

was important, and I think we did, we erred a little bit on the side 

of broader, because our goal was to be useful to people. We weren’t 

thinking of ourselves as being the definitive folks who determined 

what is green and what is not green. 

63 

Mr. CLAY. And let’s be clear that the Department of Labor Statistics is a nonpartisan statistical agency. Did the Department of 

Labor, or any other entity within government that is focused on the 

development and advancement of policy, interfere with the BLS’s 

development of the methodology of counting green jobs? 

Mr. HALL. No, they did not. In fact, we went to some of the agencies to talk with them about what they thought maybe should be 

in a green job or considered a green job or not, but it was entirely 

up to BLS as to what to include or not include. 

Mr. CLAY. Ms. Roth, you evidently do not agree with the Federal 

policy to promote renewable energy technology or invest in green 

jobs, but, as you know, today’s hearing is not about that policy. The 

hearing title plainly says that the hearing is about DOL’s reporting 

of jobs figures, which includes the definition and the number of 

green jobs calculated by the Bureau of Labor Stats. On that 

topic—— 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CLAY.—what you—— 

No, I am not going to yield. Let me finish my question. 

Chairman ISSA. I just don’t think you intended to disparage the 

lady’s intent. That was the only reason—— 

Mr. CLAY. No, no. No. Let me—— 

Chairman ISSA. I thought you couldn’t have meant that. 

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, can I get some more time? Thank you. 

On that topic, this is what you say in your testimony: Federal 

and State governments re-label existing jobs in an attempt to convince themselves and the public that such jobs exist. This entire 

exercise is an attempt to justify government initiative. 

You have heard Dr. Hall testify that the BLS, which he led as 

a President Bush appointee until recently, is an independent statistical agency, not influenced by politics and disinterested in policy 

formation. Yet, you accuse BLS in engaging an attempt to justify 

government initiative. 

Ms. Roth, did you mean to accuse Dr. Hall and the BLS of engaging in the biased activity of promoting certain policies? 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Well, I would say that Dr. Hall is my 

very good job, and I would not want to accuse him of anything 

other than trying to do the utmost good with the data. But I think 

before you came in I showed this cup here, which says ‘‘The power 

to save energy.’’ And this fits in with a definition of green jobs: environmental, compliance, education, training, and public awareness. It is ludicrous to say that there are more jobs created because 

we are drinking out of these cups than if we were drinking out of 

plain white cups. 

We should be concerned with increasing employment in the 

United States. We, taxpayers spend a great deal of money, they 

pay a great deal of money, and they should get the best value, and 

the best value should be job creation as a whole, rather than dividing the jobs into green jobs and other jobs. 

Mr. CLAY. Now, do you have any anecdotal evidence of where it 

has just been a huge boondoggle? I know in Missouri we have a 

certain wind farm that was created by one of the President’s 

bundlers. Could you point to something like that and say there has 

been no jobs created? Do you have any anecdotal evidence to that? 

64 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Well, there is Solyndra, a company that 

received—— 

Chairman ISSA. I would ask the gentleman have an additional 15 

seconds. Without objection. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. There is Solyndra, that received $535 

million and then went bankrupt. You had a hearing last month on 

Bright Source Energy that showed involvement in the highest levels at the White House and the approval of that loan guarantee. 

These are all green jobs. Meanwhile, coal is not green, but employs 

many, many Americans. We have 200 years of inexpensive natural 

gas that we could be mining and giving Americans lower household 

utility bills. Wind and solar might be green jobs, but they result 

in high electricity bills for households. 

Mr. CLAY. What about the Keystone pipeline, would you count 

that as green jobs? 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. I would say this is something that 

should be approved so that we can bring more oil down from Canada—— 

Mr. CLAY. Would that be characterized as a green job? 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. Under BLS, would you think a pipeline 

would be a green job? 

Mr. CLAY. No, no, I am asking you now. 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. I don’t know that—I believe that construction of the Keystone pipeline would not be a green job, even 

though it would create more jobs for our refineries in the Gulf of 

Mexico. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. We now go to the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Guinta. Could you yield to me for just 10 seconds? 

Mr. GUINTA. I would be happy to. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

I might make note that Hilda Solis, now the Secretary, was a 

sponsor of the Count Green Jobs bill, which got put into the act. 

So the very idea that this is not political, when in fact our former 

colleague is responsible for it and now oversees, making sure that 

the numbers come out. I think we have to be honest; it is all about 

politics, it has always been all about politics. And to answer your 

question on pipeline, quite frankly, the President was standing in 

front of green empty pipelines when he went to Oklahoma, so they 

probably would count as green just because of the color of the pipelines. 

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?—— 

Chairman ISSA. With that, we go to—it is the gentleman from 

New Hampshire’s time. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Would the gentleman from New Hampshire yield 

to me for 15 seconds? 

Mr. GUINTA. No, thank you, I do need to get to my questions. So 

I appreciate the Chairman yielding me back the time. 

I am glad we are actually having this discussion, and I wanted 

to address my comments and questions to Ms. Furchtgott-Roth. I 

personally believe that there is some politicism in this particular 

issue. Other people may disagree, and they are fair to have their 

point of view and their perspective, and I respect that. 

65 

But you said something in your earlier testimony that I think is 

very important. Why distinguish a green job from a job? A job is 

a job is a job, and we are in an economic climate where we just 

saw our job growth for the last month at 69,000. The unemployment rate has now jumped a tenth of a percent, and we have CBO 

estimates that they could meet or exceed 8.5 percent by the end of 

the year. So people at home, at least in New Hampshire, aren’t distinguishing between a green job or a job. What they are looking for 

is a career. 

So, to that end, the Department of Labor receives a $500 million 

grant in stimulus funds to train workers in green skills. I probably 

would not have done that had I been in the position to make that 

decision, but that being said, the $500 million was appropriated. I 

think we have 189, somewhere around there, different programs 

that we are now training for careers in this related field. 

I guess my question to you would be has there been an economic 

benefit to these green job training? Have we seen a demonstrable 

or have we seen a specific economic benefit to our economy? 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. I would say that there has been practically no benefit to the green jobs training. The assistant inspector 

general at the Department of Labor testified in June 2011 that, at 

that time, there were only 1,366 green jobs trainees that had been 

in their jobs for six months afterwards, which was a very low return. The cost was over $100,000 per job trained. 

If you want to look at where there is low unemployment, you 

look at North Dakota, with an unemployment rate of 3 percent, the 

lowest in the Country. There is a boom because of fossil fuels, 

hydro-fracking, natural gas development, and I believe there are 

very few—I don’t know of any green job trainees in North Dakota. 

But there is so much business you can’t even get a motel or a hotel 

room there. The same with Eagle Ford, south of San Antonio in 

Texas. 

Mr. GUINTA. And then of the people who were trained, do you 

have a percentage or a number as to how many of those were people currently employed or incumbent employees? 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. I do not have that percentage offhand, 

but I could get back to you on that. 

Mr. GUINTA. Would it surprise you if it was about half? 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. That would not surprise me. 

Mr. GUINTA. Okay. And then, finally, do you have, or if you don’t 

have it here, how could we find—I am curious to know, of the people who were trained, how many of them actually are now working 

for an employer that got a DOE loan? 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. I don’t have that information with me, 

but I could look for it and see if it is available and get back to you. 

Mr. GUINTA. That would be wonderful, and I would yield back 

the balance of my time to the Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GUINTA. Yes, please. 

Chairman ISSA. Back to that point, though, we are not debating 

green jobs; we are debating whether in fact what they are calling 

green jobs are green jobs here. If you drive a bus, you have a green 

job. If you sell used sporting goods, you have a green job. If you 

do—well, we already went through this—septic tank emptying, it 

66 

is a green job. If you work at the Salvation Army recycling clothes, 

it is a green job. 

No problem with any of these, but when people say there have 

been 3.1 million green jobs produced, aren’t they, in fact, talking 

about jobs that have been around since before anyone in this room 

was born, and, in fact, those jobs rise and fall and have very little 

to do with anything unless you look at them in context over a long 

period of time with a same job analysis, as an economist? 

Ms. FURCHTGOTT-ROTH. That is correct, yes. The science museums were in place beforehand; now they are labeled green jobs, so 

they are part of this green job creation, even though they were 

there beforehand. The same with the cup manufacturers; they just 

didn’t put this log on the cup. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Speier, is recognized for five 

minutes. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pretty perplexed by this entire discussion, and maybe you 

on this panel can shed some light. What happens with this lockup 

is that you get information at 8:00, you have a half hour to digest 

it, and at 8:30 you release it to your clients and to the public. That 

is how I understand it. And all of the time, effort, money, extra efforts, extra expenses that go into creating this lockup could be 

erased if we just had the Department of Labor issue these statistics 

at 8:30, you then digest it, and rather than get the information at 

8:30, the traders on Wall Street get it at 9:00. And what have we 

gained or lost as a result of that? 

I would suggest that this is all about what works for Wall Street, 

and I would like to ask a question of the two representatives from 

Bloomberg and Reuters, Mr. Moss and Mr. Doherty. Why would 

anyone subscribe to your newsletters if they weren’t getting some 

benefit in terms of accessing information before the public? In response to one question asked earlier, you said that your information is provided to your clients and to the public at the same time. 

So could you answer for me why would anyone subscribe to your 

newsletters if they are not getting some kind of advantage? 

Mr. DOHERTY. Well, you know, how we send it out is one thing, 

and, as I said, everything goes out at 8:30. How people receive it 

and use it is totally up to them. So as to how they would use it, 

that is where the benefit would come in. As I mentioned earlier, 

the information does go out to a variety of places; it would go out 

to people on Wall Street, and not just Wall Street, but the financial 

community worldwide. It would also go out to media clients, who 

can use it on their websites. It also goes out to the consumers via 

Reuters.com. But I think the idea is how people use that information once they have it is what the difference is. 

I would say, to your comment, that if BLS or the Department of 

Labor put things out at 8:30, it wouldn’t be things to the general 

public; people would be grabbing that information and putting it 

out as quickly as they could, and without the benefit of having had 

that half hour to digest it and make some judgments as to the importance of the data. 

Mr. MOSS. This is not just about Wall Street. Our subscribers 

throughout the Country and throughout the world include people 

67 

managing the pension funds of teachers and firefighters; they include universities and other places of higher education; they include philanthropic ventures; they include coffee makers; they include airlines. 

Ms. SPEIER. It is all about making money, though, isn’t it? 

Mr. MOSS. Our concern here is about ensuring that the public 

continues to receive something that they have been receiving for 

more than a decade and that the public is fully informed and able 

to make its decisions accordingly, remains fully informed. 

Mr. DOHERTY. And I would say—— 

Ms. SPEIER. I still would like an answer to the question why 

should I subscribe to your service if you are presenting it to the 

public and to your clients at the same time. 

Mr. MOSS. If you have an interest in economic statistics and the 

full context, not just what the unemployment rate is or what the 

payroll creation or the structure may be in any particular month, 

then you want a news service that provides you with as much context, analysis, and data as possible. The lockup facilitates the 

transmission of just that at 8:30 sharp. 

Mr. DOHERTY. And I would say, in terms to your point, people 

subscribe to us for a variety of reasons. People can get our coverage 

of Congress, of the White House on the Internet as well, but other 

people do pay for that coverage. 

Ms. SPEIER. I will yield the rest of my time to Mr. Tierney, if he 

wanted to ask that additional question 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you very much. I knew the Chairman really 

wanted to do that because he had about 8 minutes extra, and I 

knew he wanted to give at least half a minute to another member 

of the panel, so I thank you for doing that. 

I make a point here, just that the Green Jobs Act, which Ms. 

Solis cosponsored with me, was not about creating jobs, it was 

about training people with the skills and education needed to take 

the jobs that were created. So I just didn’t want to conflate the two 

and I want to make that distinction on that. 

Also, there have been about 100 new renewable energy and energy efficiency manufacturing plants that opened up in this Country since 2009, a number of them in my district, that were telling 

us they needed people able to do those jobs and asking for that job 

training program. So I make that distinction on that. 

And I guess the only ones not interested in making sure that the 

green energy and energy efficiencies industries thrive at the Republican party, because I note the emphasis the Department of Defense is putting on green energy right now for a number of reasons, 

safety of our troops being one—— 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman will suspend. 

Mr. TIERNEY. I thought you might want to finish that. 

Chairman ISSA. Pursuant to the rule, as you know, you may do 

a great many things; you may not disparage the intent of members 

of either party or any individuals here. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Did you feel disparaged, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ISSA. To make a comment about the intent—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, I am asking you to clarify. Did you feel disparaged? 

Chairman ISSA. Yes, I did. 

68 

Mr. TIERNEY. And how did you feel disparaged? 

Chairman ISSA. For the same reason that when the gentlelady 

just down the dais went to the Floor for a long period of time, if 

the gentleman would please refrain from violating the rules of the 

House. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, help me out here. Tell me how you felt disparaged. 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman may continue for his 15 seconds. 

Mr. TIERNEY. I have had my 15 seconds, but I would use the rest 

of it to yield to you to tell me how you felt disparaged. 

Chairman ISSA. To allege that we don’t care about energy, when 

in fact what we are seeing is people emptying sewage out of portapotties being counted as green jobs is in fact—— 

Mr. TIERNEY.—personal issue by you, is that correct? 

Chairman ISSA. You disparaged—— 

Mr. TIERNEY.—about seeming that the Republican party—— 

Chairman ISSA. You disparaged the Republican party. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We now go to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. McHenry, 

for five minutes. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Well, I can’t follow up those fireworks. 

Chairman ISSA. Don’t try. 

Mr. MCHENRY. I won’t, Mr. Chairman. I do respect—I try to respect my colleagues, even if they are wrong. But the question—in 

North carolina—— 

Dr. Hall, you might be the right person for me to ask, based on 

your experience with BLS. I am deeply concerned about our statistical agencies. We should be a light for the rest of the world on how 

governments keep track of data, whether it is labor statistics, 

whether it is our census, whether it is these very key, important 

pieces of data that we need to have very clear understandings of 

strikes and balls, you know, the whole thing. So I am very concerned about both the strength of that data and the independence 

of it, and then making sure that release is done well and correctly, 

the public has this information. 

My colleague asked about why you would subscribe to Bloomberg 

or Reuters, or whatever these different services are, and I subscribe to a whole variety of services in my office so I can have data 

assembled in a way that I can consume it better than maybe what 

is on the website. Maybe putting 50 pieces of data together that are 

all publicly available and giving you good analysis. I think the free 

market works in that regard that we can actually have access to 

that. 

In North Carolina, Dr. Hall, we have this issue, for State level 

data, Governor Beverly Purdue in North Carolina, who is a governor who has had a variety of issues, but in this circumstance she 

released the State unemployment data in a private group. She was 

speaking to a Rotary Club and released this data before her office 

put it out officially to the wider variety. How is that done at the 

State level? Is there a great latitude that governors have on putting out the State level data? And what is that relationship? 

Mr. HALL. Sure. BLS works with State partners to collect the 

employment data, and one of the things that happens is, because 

we are working with the State labor agencies and they are helping 

69 

us, they themselves get the data ahead of time, it is before BLS 

has done some things. So they get the data before the release. And 

because they are not Federal employees, we can’t really control 

what they do with the data. 

We can ask them, for example, when they write the data up and 

present it, we can ask them to try not to be political. Sometimes 

they are in how they describe the data, something I wouldn’t be 

comfortable with. And sometimes, as is in this case, it appears like 

the State office may have shared the data with the governor, who 

then shared it. I happen to think that is a little bit of a problem 

and it is something that is sort of falling between the cracks because of this marriage between the Federal and the State governments. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Well, there are penalties. The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 carries a 

fine of $250,000, up to five years in prison, or both, for breaking 

that. It has been hashed out in the newspapers and my understanding is that the governor didn’t violate that law. Has there 

been any action in terms of fines or penalties for release of this 

type of data? 

Mr. HALL. Not that I know of, and I am not an expert in the law, 

but that law you mentioned, I believe it governs Federal employees. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Okay. 

Mr. HALL. And the Federal handling of data. 

Mr. MCHENRY. So that goes to the State latitude. 

Mr. HALL. Yes. 

Mr. MCHENRY. So to that regard, you served in a previous administration, but do you think that this Administration has been 

too lax in its release of the monthly unemployment numbers? 

Mr. HALL. No, I don’t think there is any issue with anything 

with the release other than the technology has changed and it has 

made it harder to control the security of the release. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield the 33 seconds I have. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

Dr. Hall, you keep talking about the security, the security, the 

security. Ultimately, if no wireless device is allowed in the room 

and if wires do not accidentally or inadvertently bypass controls of 

a switch, and you don’t let a reporter walk outside to set up his 

camera, if you don’t do those things, you still have the same level 

of security you have always had, which are people, 10 times a 

month or more, when convenient to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

when you want them there, because otherwise you just release directly, but when you want them there, you put them in a room and, 

in fact, you don’t give them access to send out information until 

you turn the switch. 

So I understand the technology. I spent a lot of time growing up 

in business in technology, but this doesn’t sound like technology 

where it just oozes out. Ultimately, the failures that we heard 

about were mechanical failures, weren’t they? 

Mr. HALL. Yes, they were. Let me just say that BLS sees value 

in the lockup, because we are not only tasked with disseminating 

the data, but they also want people to get it right. They want a 

70 

chance to explain it so that it is reported correctly and then, when 

it is disseminated, it is disseminated correctly, there aren’t mistakes made, et cetera. So there is real value in the lockup. Our concern is just that it needs to be done in a secure environment. 

Now, the taking out of equipment out of the room, I can tell you 

what is really behind that. It is an effort to get traders out of the 

lockup, automatic traders. So there was a decision, in my opinion, 

to get the traders out of there and have a lockup without traders 

in there. That decision is kind of a really critical policy level decision for statistical agencies. 

I know of two agencies that have traders in the lockup. USDA 

has traders in the lockup, they have commodity trading that come 

out of there. They, for years, have encouraged that. They are trying 

to facilitate traders working out of the lockup; it is on purpose. 

They have much higher levels of security and they take care of 

things better. What this is, this is an effort, to some degree, to sort 

of bail on allowing the trading and try to get it—— 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. I would be happy to yield time to the Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Then I will pick up where I left off, which works 

out really well here. 

I started on a line, though, and I want to continue it. It is in the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics’ interest to have lockups, and that is 

why they have them. 

Mr. HALL. Absolutely. 

Chairman ISSA. When it is not in their interest, they simply put 

the information out. 

Mr. HALL. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. When I watch CNBC, Bloomberg, and 

other services, all the various—I came out of business, so I used 

to have multiple TVs in my office that distracted me from everything. But, in fact, when I would watch those, I would hear people 

trying to analyze your very statistics after the lockup had ended, 

after the numbers were out, and they were arguing, often, 

Quintanilla and others, they were arguing back and forth about 

whether it really meant something, how it dealt with the previous 

revision, since you are somewhat famous for having a set of statistics and a revised set and a revised, revised set. And all of that 

takes analysis that is far beyond the number, doesn’t it? 

Mr. HALL. Yes, it does. 

Chairman ISSA. And whether, as Ms. Speier mentioned, there is 

a financial interest by people watching it or simply a businessman 

trying to figure out whether my forecast for future products is 

going to go a different way and I may want to reconsider how much 

I stock up on inventory for Christmas, whatever the reason is, your 

facts, your statistics in a vacuum are dangerously useless if you 

don’t have people who can make secondary evaluations and turn 

them into meaningful information with comment, dialogue, and 

perspective. 

Mr. HALL. Absolutely. It is a very important part of BLS. It is 

also one of the reasons why BLS is tremendously available directly 

from the public. You can call us, et cetera. This is why I thought 

it was really important that nobody stands between BLS and the 

71 

public in not only disseminating the data, but being able to describe it and help people understand it. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, I am going to close with just one question 

for Mr. Moss and Mr. Doherty. If this rule, as it was originally requested, were to take effect, in which your people are put into a 

room with only essentially a typewriter of modern making, a PC 

with Word on it, and no reference data, no ability to bring in anything more than they happen to have in their head, wouldn’t the 

quality of your reporting from your two major news services go 

down, and wouldn’t the differentiation of your services be narrowed, meaning wouldn’t you tend to look more alike if all you had 

was your source material and a half hour to scratch up what you 

could on a typewriter? 

Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, that would be very detrimental to the 

quality, accuracy, and context of what is now published at 8:30. For 

one reason, we would not be able to bring our software, which 

helps us with historical context, it helps us formulate tables, reams 

of data on everything from participation rate to gender to industries. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Doherty? 

Mr. DOHERTY. I would just add not just that, but the quantity 

of information we are able to put out at 8:30 would drop dramatically because we would be doing a lot more by hand, as opposed 

to things that are done by the software automation. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

In closing, I know there has been a lot of controversy here on 

how we count and what we count as green jobs, and we will have 

more of that on the second panel, but I would like to thank the representatives of the press, both broadly and specifically. It is unusual to have the press before this Committee. It is not a standard 

for us to be asking you questions. And we really appreciate being 

able to get the answers. 

But it is so important that what you do and the fact that, as a 

businessman, I never subscribed to your services. I wasn’t looking 

at it in that detail. I wasn’t worried about making a trade immediately. But the things I read in the Journal, in paper, and so on, 

in the days and weeks afterwards I knew were affected by the 

quality of your initial reporting; not by the source data itself, but 

by the analysis of the source data. So on a personal basis I want 

to thank you for pushing back to make sure that people in all aspects of life have the opportunity to have a free and differentiated 

press coming out of those lockups. 

With that, I thank you. We are going to stand in recess for about 

five minutes while they reset for the second panel. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman ISSA. We now recognize our second panel. Mr. Carl 

Fillichio is the Senior Advisor for Communications and Public Affairs at the United States Department of Labor. Mr. Fillichio has 

not been through the Senate confirmation hearing, despite the fact 

that he is responsible for conducting his duties, he is responsible 

for those conducted during the Bush Administration by a Senateconfirmed Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs. 

Mr. John Galvin is the Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics; and the Honorable Jane Oates is the Secretary of 

72 

Employment and Training Administration at the United States Department of Labor. 

Again, pursuant to the rules of the Committee, would you please 

rise to take the oath? Raise your right hands. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.] 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

You are much more skilled, perhaps, than the members of the 

press, so I know that you will understand that your full statements 

are being placed in the record, and summarize when the light begins to go yellow and finish when the light turns red, if you possibly could. 

Mr. Fillichio. 

STATEMENT OF CARL FILLICHIO 

Mr. FILLICHIO. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cummings, and 

members of the Committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to share with you the efforts we are taking regarding the release of important national economic data. 

At the Department of Labor, we take our security responsibility 

seriously and we value the critical role the press plays in disseminating this information. The Office of Management and Budget’s 

Statistical Directive No. 3 permits, but does not require or recommend, prerelease access to the news media of principal Federal 

economic indicators. Should an agency elect to prerelease, OMB requires it to establish the security necessary to ensure that there is 

no premature dissemination of the data prior to the designated release time. 

We provide what is called press lockups solely for the purpose of 

serving the public. Reporters are sequestered and given the data on 

an embargo basis at 8:00 a.m., and have 30 minutes to examine the 

data and prepare their stories for 8:30 a.m. release. We believe that 

the lockups facilitate good journalism and a more enlightened public debate. Through press lockups, we release all principal Federal 

economic indicators produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as 

well as an unemployment insurance weekly claims report produced 

by the Employment and Training Administration. 

Our lockups have evolved since the mid-1980s, when reporters 

would congregate behind a closed door in a DOL office and were 

provided with paper copies of the report. Since then, obviously, 

technology used by the news media to transmit economic data has 

evolved rapidly. 

In 2001, the Department took steps towards implementing additional data security controls in response to speculation that movement in the markets prior to 8:30 a.m. was the result of premature 

leaks. Not long after, automation in trading became prevalent and 

we began to hear directly from traders eager to know which news 

organization had prerelease access to the numbers. 

Over the years there have been different types of violations of security protocols, technological and otherwise, and the Department 

73 

addressed them accordingly, but in 2011 more than a decade had 

passed since we undertook a thorough review of our policies, our 

procedures, and protocols regarding the lockup. 

We understand that there is an intense competition to provide 

information first to investors and to the general public. We also 

know that the competition now extends to making the raw data 

available to subscribers trading on it through algorithms, which is 

not the purpose of the lockup. But we very much believe that it is 

possible to balance our commitment to contribute to an informed 

public debate with an equally strong commitment to prevent the 

premature release of economic data. So we recently announced new 

security protocols that will give participating news organizations 

the continued opportunity to write their stories in a secure lockup 

environment, while taking additional precautions to prevent early 

release. 

Last year we entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with 

Sandia National Laboratories to identify potential vulnerabilities in 

our lockup and provide mitigation options for vulnerabilities identified. Sandia is a government-owned entity, recognized as a leader 

in preventing technological surprise, anticipating threats, and providing science-based system engineering solutions. 

Sandia began its work in July and provided the report to us in 

August of last year. The report included recommendations that we: 

one, replace the variety of privately owned equipment with standardized equipment that will significantly reduce the possibility of 

data leaks; two, secure standardized phone data lines that are 

physically off limits to news media organizations; and, three, require that reporters’ electronic devices and personal effects be 

stored outside of the lockup room. 

In addition, we announced new credentialing processes ensuring 

that reporters in our lockup represent primarily journalistic enterprises and produce time-sensitive summaries and analysis of department data to a broad audience. The decision on credentials 

were handled by a committee of career employees, and neither editorial nor political viewpoints were considered in the process. Concurrently, I instituted internal rules regarding DOL personnel who 

staff the lockups, including prohibiting noncareer employees in the 

lockup facilities. 

Some media organizations have expressed concern that our plan 

would not permit the use of their private, individual high-speed 

data lines, their customized publishing software, and their personal 

computers and other hardware. We met with the news organizations on May 15th and then brought them and our technical experts together for discussions on May 23rd, May 30th, and June 

1st. 

These meetings have been productive and I am encouraged by 

the progress that we have made towards a solution that addresses 

our security mandates, as well as the media’s business and journalism goals. We are also working with the news organizations on 

a code of conduct for reporters who participate in our lockup, and 

we are on track to institute new and additional safeguards based 

on Sandia’s recommendations, in consultation with representatives 

from the Associated Press, Bloomberg News, Dow Jones News 

Wire, and Thompson Reuters. 

74 

Technology is going to continue to change at a rapid pace and adjustments to protect the integrity of our data must be made on a 

continuing basis. I believe that we have laid a great foundation to 

move forward. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify, 

and I am pleased to answer your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Fillichio follows:] 

75 


Insert offset folio 33 here 75708.033
76 


Insert offset folio 34 here 75708.034
77 


Insert offset folio 35 here 75708.035
78 


Insert offset folio 36 here 75708.036
79 


Insert offset folio 37 here 75708.037
80 


Insert offset folio 38 here 75708.038
81 


Insert offset folio 39 here 75708.039
82 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Galvin. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. GALVIN 

Mr. GALVIN. Good morning, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member 

Cummings, and distinguished members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss the methods used 

by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to protect economic statistics 

prior to their official release to the public. 

Immediately upon the official release date and time of BLS statistical products, the BLS widely disseminates these products to 

the public through the BLS website and an email subscription service. Prior to that official release the BLS spares no effort in securing the confidential information from unauthorized disclosure or 

use. 

The BLS is responsible for protecting two types of confidential information: respond and identifiable information, and prerelease information. Respond and identifiable information is collected from 

businesses and households under a pledge of confidentiality and is 

protected from unauthorized disclosure and use by the Confidential 

Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002. After 

that collection, the information is aggregated in a manner which allows its release to the public through a statistical report, while ensuring respondent identities are not disclosed. 

Prior to its release to the public, the aggregated statistical report 

is considered prerelease information. The Office of Management 

and Budget exercises authority for coordination of the Federal statistical system and dissemination of its outputs. Consequently, the 

handling of prerelease information is governed by OMB statistical 

policy directives. 

Specifically, OMB Policy Directives 3 and 4 govern all BLS 

prerelease information. Directive 3 applies to our handling of principal Federal economic indicators, or PFEIs. The Bureau produces 

seven of these PFEIs. All our other data are governed by OMB Policy Directive No. 4. 

The BLS has strong internal policies and procedures in place to 

ensure the integrity and confidentiality of the data we compile, 

store, analyze, and provide to the public. BLS employees and contractors are informed of these policies and procedures in annual 

training. Furthermore, the BLS restricts access to confidential information to only those individuals who need the information to 

carry out program missions. BLS policy explicitly prohibits employees from using their access to these data for personal financial 

gain. The BLS information systems that store and process confidential information have implemented security controls to meet or 

exceed those required for moderate systems by the Federal Information Security Management Act. Personal identification cards are 

used for all physical access to the BLS building and to specific locations, housing, critical telecommunications equipment, and IT 

equipment. 

OMB Statistical Policy Directive 3 allows for sharing of 

prerelease PFEI information in a lockup arrangement. In such an 

arrangement, prerelease access is provided within the confines of 

a secure physical facility 30 minutes prior to the publicly anVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:21 Sep 06, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75708.TXT APRIL
83 

nounced release time. Participants are not permitted to leave the 

lockup room until the information has been released to the public. 

No external communication is allowed during the lockup. BLS has 

used a secure prerelease arrangement to provide prerelease data 

access to the Office of the Secretary of Labor and to the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. BLS uses the Department of Labor 

lockup facility to provide secure prerelease data access to 

credentialed members of the media. 

In 2011, DOL, with the full support of BLS, entered into an 

MOU with Sandia National Laboratories for a vulnerability assessment of the DOL lockup facility. That assessment identified 

vulnerabilities that the BLS and the Department of Labor plan to 

eliminate with the changes to the lockup facility scheduled to go 

into effect on July 6th, 2012. BLS and the Department of Labor are 

working with participating news organizations to finalize solutions 

based on the Sandia report recommendations that satisfy the government’s need to protect the prerelease data from unauthorized 

dissemination and use, but also facilitate timely and informative 

analysis of the data by the media. 

In summary, the reputation and credibility of the BLS depends 

on our ability to release economic data to the public in a fair and 

orderly manner. The BLS has strong internal policies and procedures to ensure the security of our sensitive prerelease information. 

The BLS agrees with the Sandia report recommendations and fully 

supports the Department of Labor’s implementation of these recommendations. 

Thank you again, and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Galvin follows:] 

84 


Insert offset folio 40 here 75708.040
85 


Insert offset folio 41 here 75708.041
86 


Insert offset folio 42 here 75708.042
87 


Insert offset folio 43 here 75708.043
88 


Insert offset folio 44 here 75708.044
89 


Insert offset folio 45 here 75708.045
90 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Ms. Oates. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JANE OATES 

Ms. OATES. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to come and 

talk with you and update you on the progress of your investigation—— 

Chairman ISSA. We still are really not able to hear you. Could 

you pull the mic to where it is sort of in front of you? Thank you. 

Ms. OATES. I am so sorry. It is the first time in my life I have 

been told to speak up. 

Chairman ISSA. And one of the amazing things is you project perfectly to the dais, but this wonderful woman over here, who is off 

to your side, is the only person that makes your presence permanent. 

Ms. OATES. I will be much more attentive to you, madam. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Ms. OATES. So good morning again, and thanks for the opportunity to update you on our progress on your investments and the 

ability to train workers for good jobs in green industries and other 

industries. 

The Department plays a critical role in ensuring that we have a 

prepared workforce for the economy of today and tomorrow, an 

economy that deals with all sectors, including green. Over the last 

few years, we have made a number of strategic investments to ensure that, as the green sector grows, businesses will have the talent they need to prosper. 

Strong partnerships with employers have been critical to these 

investments from the very beginning. That is why the Department 

required that grantees work closely with employers to assess the 

real employment needs of their local areas, and we encourage 

grantees to be flexible throughout the full life cycle of the grant. 

In some communities employer needs have changed since the 

grants started, and grantees have made adjustments to continue to 

ensure that their projects are aligned with employer needs, such as 

providing training for additional occupations that require the same 

skill sets, but were with different employers than they had originally anticipated. 

The Department is also committed to making sure these investments work. We have implemented a number of new processes to 

monitor progress and intervene as necessary to improve grant outcomes and hold grantees accountable, including a performancebased process for identifying and prioritizing grantees with high 

technical assistance needs. 

We provide technical assistance through several mechanisms, including in-person meetings and workshops, facilitated peer learning conference calls, webinars, and case studies examining promising practices implemented by our highest performing grantees. 

Technical assistance covers many topics, including the basics of 

proper reporting and accounting procedures, but also focusing 

heavily on job placement and employer engagement strategies. 

Some of the grants to train workers in green industries did take 

longer to get off the ground than the grantees planned, but through 

the strong partnerships with businesses, increased flexibility to 

91 

meet those local needs, the targeted technical assistance that I 

have outlined, and our comprehensive communications with grantees, the investments are now paying off. 

Through the Recovery Act, the Department invested nearly $500 

million, directed by Congress, in 189 green job training and related 

programs to help train workers for careers in sustainable manufacturing, energy efficient construction, biofuels, and other renewable 

energy sources. These grants have served, and are still serving 

today, more than 99,000 workers. To date, more than 65,200 have 

completed training, and of those 88 percent have received an employer or industry recognized credential such as a certificate or degree. 

Despite tough economic times, after completing their training, 

more than 25,200 workers have already found new jobs, with 81 

percent of them in green training related jobs. It is important to 

note that of the over 99,000 workers who have received services, 

almost 49,000 were incumbent workers and were not necessarily 

seeking new positions, but looking to attain credentials that would 

help them improve the productivity of their employer and basically 

help them keep their job. 

To date, 29,899 incumbent workers that have completed training 

have received a credential. While some incumbent workers who received green job training did find new positions, for incumbent 

workers that did not find new jobs, we estimate through the data 

we collect that at least 90 percent of those workers retained their 

current job, which may have included advancement potential. 

Similar to the upward trends in performance, the current expenditures reflect increased grant activity. As of the quarter ending 

March 31st, 2012, 62 percent of these grant programs have ended 

and been closed out, and 68 percent of the total funds for all grantees have been expended. This represents more than a twofold increase, compared to the 29 percent expenditure rate cited by the 

OIG in the September 2011 report. In the coming months we expect the positive trend to continue. 

To ensure we learn as much as possible from these investments, 

the Department is conducting formal evaluations of the green 

training grants. The interim report for the qualitative evaluation 

of the training focus grants was recently published and included a 

descriptive analysis of eight grantee projects. In the essence of 

time, we will keep you up to date on those through your Committee 

staff. 

Thanks again for inviting me and I look forward to answering 

any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Oates follows:] 

92 


Insert offset folio 46 here 75708.046
93 


Insert offset folio 47 here 75708.047
94 


Insert offset folio 48 here 75708.048
95 


Insert offset folio 49 here 75708.049
96 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

We now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, all of you. Actually, it is good afternoon, approaching quickly on it. Let me try to run through a few things. 

Ms. Oates, you got a chance to chat a little bit about the definition. That was initially the first hurdle for what is a green job, in 

forming a definition. Did you feel like that is solidified at this 

point, that we have a definite definition of what a green job is now? 

Ms. OATES. To be honest with you, we take whatever definition 

is given to us and get that information out, but our focus is really 

on relying on States and local areas to tell us where the employers 

have needs, filling that skills gap that we hear, and having our 

grantees respond to that. 

Mr. LANKFORD. So let me just run a couple things. 

Ms. OATES. Sure. 

Mr. LANKFORD. If they work at a solar manufacturing plant, 

green job; wind manufacturing plant, green job; the energy, the actual production of those, electricity, hydroelectric dam, I assume 

that is a green job. What about a custodian that puts in fluorescent 

light bulbs? They used to put in incandescent, now they put in fluorescent? 

Ms. OATES. Again, sir, that is not my job. My job in Employment 

and Training is to make sure that if a local area needs somebody 

who can work with natural gas or put in a fluorescent light 

bulb—— 

Mr. LANKFORD. But you understand where I am on this? The difficulty of trying to find out, getting them ready for a green job. 

And let me tell you the perspective for me, because I visited one 

of the programs, got a chance to walk through, see the training, 

met some great folks that are very dedicated to training people 

that are unemployed to get employed. In my conversation with 

them, they had just finished up, they just graduated a group out, 

so we were able to talk about how many people got placed. My conversation with them was how many of the individuals in this program were placed in a green job. 

They hesitated and responded back to me all the skills are 

transferrable, which, great. They ended up in a job, but they 

couldn’t name a single person that ended up in a green job, or, if 

they worked the numbers right, for instance, if they ended up in 

home repair, they said, well, they will replace windows, so that is 

a green job; or they will end up in waste collection, so that is a 

green job; or this individual now works at a used book store and 

that is a green job because it is recycled materials. 

The challenge is not employment, the challenge is the number of 

what is a green job and what is not, and that seems to be a very 

fluid number in this process. Based on the definition, almost anything could be considered a green job at this point, if you had some 

connection to it at some point. 

Ms. OATES. Again, Congressman, maybe it could be better directed to someone else, this question. My concern, my charge when 

I took this job was to make sure that job training was aligned to 

the needs of employers. And if that guy wants to hire somebody for 

$10 an hour to replace fluorescent bulbs, that is what my training 

97 

providing should do. As you know, we had the chance to talk a little bit in your district and I was amazed that what was happening 

with natural gas and what was happening with some of the things 

like that, and I was thrilled that our training programs were working on that. But I was equally thrilled when I visited Sonic, that 

we were also getting people that they needed in their back room 

functions at the Sonic headquarters there in Oklahoma. 

So, again, I understand this is a political debate. I hope you 

would agree my job is to make sure my training programs are 

meeting the needs of local employers. 

Mr. LANKFORD. I absolutely agree. It is only a political debate because it is designated for just green jobs, and that is the challenge 

of it, to try to determine are we doing job training, are we trying 

to focus in on a specific sector. And even when we had the chance 

to chat at the career tech, it was this ongoing challenge, even when 

I visited with some of the leaders there, to say they have programs 

that are focused on that, but they also have challenges based on, 

when people graduate, trying to place them in a green job, and it 

is trying to redefine what is that definition and how does that really get accomplished and how do they track those numbers back. 

I was at a wind farm a few weeks ago, and when I was out there 

I asked how many people do you employ total. It is a huge wind 

farm. It was 12. So when we train people in trying to do repair on 

a wind farm, there is not a large population of people that are 

needed on that, and all of them formerly had done something else 

and been trained onsite to do that job. So that is the push and the 

pull on that, is how do we get around the training-related employment type figure of it. 

Now, there is a difference between trying to just employ people 

and trying to target for an industry that may or may not be there 

actually for employment, and that is the challenge of it. So that is 

not the push and pull. I want it to be a growing sector. 

Your comment also about incumbent workforce is a great comment about half the people that are in the program were already 

trained, they are just getting retrained for something else within 

the same company on that. That helps them be able to keep a job, 

but it is a challenge for people, when we have such massive unemployment, to focus in on why don’t we train people that are unemployed on that one. How did that work out for you as far as retraining and training? How did you all make the decisions on that? 

Ms. OATES. So I don’t know how familiar you are with how we 

award grant money. First of all, usually you are pretty prescriptive, 

as this was. I didn’t make the decision how to spend this money; 

I tried to enact what Congress told me to do. And then we change 

the way we panel. Previously, our paneling had been three Federal 

workers, mostly retirees. I really felt that in this changing economy 

we needed to shift that and have two outside experts on every 

panel that we open to the general public and one Federal worker. 

So I don’t even see the grants until they are awarded. So part of 

that is that we are really looking at the strength of the applicant, 

the local training provider, the local government, the State government to really make a case for what the need is. 

Now, we know that oftentimes six months or a year could elapse 

between when you really started writing that grant and when the 

98 

money is awarded. That is why this flexibility. So we said to people, when they were writing these grants, in the instruction, in the 

request for applications, that you need to look at what the greatest 

need is. Quite frankly, in some States it was definitely getting unemployed people trained because there were job vacancies. In other 

States there weren’t job vacancies, but there were threats that employers were going to leave the State or that companies were 

changing the way they did business. So they made a strong enough 

case that that panel said incumbent worker training, making sure 

we are doing layoff aversion is the most important thing in that 

local area, and they made that case strongly enough that they were 

awarded. 

And as we see, some of them really hit the nail on the head and 

some of them we have had to be really spending much more time 

with in technical assistance. The wind farm example is a great one. 

Some people who had no—not in Oklahoma, but in other neighboring States who had no experience with wind farms before 

thought they were going to have thousands, hundreds of jobs, and 

when they found out there were three technicians per shift and 

that is all they were going to need to service these, they were 

shocked. 

So we then went in to real overdrive to connect them with the 

local utility companies who were looking to green up, and they actually have been able to hire new people. It is a very graying industry and it is an industry that is everywhere. So we have been able 

to work with CEWD to redirect some of those workers because the 

training was the same that they would get if they were doing wind 

power technician stuff, but the jobs weren’t there. 

Mr. LANKFORD. I yield back. 

Ms. OATES. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. I guess that means that they didn’t 

get real green jobs by the definition of the public, but they did get 

jobs that they got trained for. So the good news is your training 

worked; the bad news is the scoring of 3.1 million green jobs had 

to include all kinds of things that people didn’t think were green 

in order to hit some hypothetical political number, which I think 

is what you were talking about when you said this is a political discussion. 

Ms. OATES. Mr. Chairman, at least we got the chance to talk a 

little bit. We don’t know each other at all, so please take this with 

the great respect that it is given. My job is to make sure the training matches the job vacancy needs, and whether they are green or 

white collar or blue collar jobs, that is for the local areas to decide 

and for the statisticians and the researchers to say which was 

what. My job, and I think you would, I hope, agree with me, is to 

make sure that we are not wasting taxpayers’ money training people for jobs that don’t exist. 

Chairman ISSA. We couldn’t agree with you more. 

With that, which one of you, I believe Mr. Lacey is next for five 

minutes. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Look, I hope we can agree that green jobs are a new emerging 

economy. If we can grow jobs in this sector, this can, more than 

99 

likely, help our economy in job creation. I would just hope we on 

this Committee and in this room can agree on that simple aspect. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CLAY. Sure. 

Chairman ISSA. I think in my wholeheartedly agreeing with Ms. 

Oates, what I was really saying is out of 120 million workers, 12 

million of whom don’t have jobs, there is nothing we could think 

of as more acceptable in Federal dollars than finding people who 

either don’t have a job or would lose a job without training and get 

them trained. I think in our discussion of the green versus the 

green in one’s pocket, we are all for keeping green in one’s pocket 

by making sure they have the skills in order to do the jobs that 

are available. That is where you and I agree more than you will 

ever admit. 

Mr. CLAY. So you do agree that this is an important sector of the 

economy that has the potential for growth. 

Chairman ISSA. No, actually, the gentlelady had, if the gentleman would continue yielding, she actually said that she found 

often that the windmills didn’t create very many jobs, but the public utility had some very good jobs and they were able to get it. So 

I think where we are agreeing is that you should fit people into 

jobs that exist, or are likely to exist, and that is what these training programs are for. And I think that is where we can all applaud 

the work that she is trying to do to use local boards to make sure 

that this money ends up training people for jobs that exist. 

Mr. CLAY. So, Mr. Chairman, no matter where the jobs are created in the green economy, then that has to be a positive impact 

for job growth. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. That is all your time. 

Mr. CLAY. Assistant Secretary Oates, on March 13th of this year, 

Secretary Solis sent a letter to the Chairman of this Committee, 

and I am assuming you are familiar with that letter. 

Ms. OATES. I will get familiar, sir. 

Mr. CLAY. On page 8 of this letter, in response to the question 

of how many jobs had been created with Recovery Act money, Secretary Solis writes this: ‘‘In your letter, you further claim that the 

Recovery Act green jobs program cost $121,856 per trainee retaining a job. That calculation, which appears to be based on a preliminary and incomplete retention data cited by the OIG in its reporting, does not accurately portray the per trainee costs. The Department believes that the most accurate method for calculating the actual cost per a participant is to divide the total number of funds 

expended by these grants by the total number of participants who 

receive education training through the grants once the grants are 

over. Assuming that the targets for the numbers of participants 

who receive education training under these grants are met, this results in an approximate green jobs training cost per participant of 

$3,777.’’ 

Assistant Secretary, if I am reading the Secretary’s response to 

the Chairman correctly, DOL never spent anywhere near $120,000 

per job, but actually spent considerably less, about $4,000 per 

trainee, is that correct? 

Ms. OATES. That is correct, Congressman. 

100 

Mr. CLAY. Okay. Can you detail for this Committee the types of 

skills provided in these training programs and how you believe 

they will assist trainees to keep a job or get a job if they do not 

have one? 

Ms. OATES. Absolutely. I mean, we take applicants from where 

their clients are and where they want them to be, so for some of 

our programs there is some basic IT or basic adult literacy. But for 

most of them, because we have put a targeted concentration on industry recognized credentials, they are getting credentials that industry is saying they need. That is why they are staying longer in 

training and that is why it is costing us a little more. For many 

of our participants, that means things like getting the entry level 

credential they need and getting a higher level credential as well. 

Mr. CLAY. And how does the roughly $4,000 that DOL is spending to train workers to keep jobs or get jobs compare with the cost 

associated with being unemployed? 

Ms. OATES. Well, I mean, it is definitely a savings on so many 

ways. They are not on unemployment, they are not on any other 

government subsidies; but they are also productive members of 

their communities. So our whole vision is on reemployment, getting 

people back to work as quickly as possible, and some of the strategies that we have used, like on-the-job training or our registered 

apprenticeship programs, put them to work while they are being 

trained. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much for your response. 

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the cost of training employees 

so they can retain or find employment is clearly a wise and costeffective investment, and I applaud DOL’s effort for making this 

modest investment. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield for a question? 

Mr. CLAY. Sure. 

Chairman ISSA. The debate that you brought up in the question 

that we sent to the Department of Labor versus the answer, between over $100,000 per job actually created, in other words, someone who got a job, and the $3,000 estimated to be how much will 

be applied per trainee, which is important, the $3,000 of training 

or the $100,000 for each job that actually occurs? 

Mr. CLAY. I actually think that that data is rather inaccurate 

and incomplete. I mean, if you look at the actual costs of training 

these applicants, it is far less than $120,000. And as the Secretary 

testified, it is more cost-effective, instead of these people having to 

draw unemployment. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, I guess I would ask the same question, 

though. If training costs $3,000 per person, but you look at the 

amount of people who get jobs, it is $100,000 per jobs. 

Mr. CLAY. But you are lumping in all kinds of other costs here 

that are not associated with the training or retraining of workers. 

A laid off worker with typical skills, $3,777. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, we are looking at how much was expended per trainee. But $100,000 per permanent job created. 

Mr. CLAY. You are counting the grants. The grants to individual 

companies. That is what is going on here. That is how—that is 

your calculation of it. I don’t agree with it. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, I assume we will agree to disagree. 

101 

Mr. Ranking Member, would you like to go next? Mr. Tierney is 

recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Oates, I am looking at some of the data around this and 

some of the information. First of all, would it sound reasonable to 

you, our statistic here, that about 100 new United States renewable energy and energy efficiency manufacturing plants have 

opened up in the United States since 2009? 

Ms. OATES. That is the data that we have seen as well, sir. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And that is just one broad study. There are others 

as well, if I am not mistaken, correct? 

Ms. OATES. Yes. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Because I know in our State in particular we have 

done that. Are you also showing that States that have made their 

own investment, sort of leveraged Federal investments in this area 

have had a particular boon in the clean energy manufacturing and 

efficiency areas? 

Ms. OATES. Without a doubt, some States have really pushed to 

get businesses to grow there. I think Massachusetts is an example. 

But I also think North Carolina has pushed to get the lithium battery business there is well documented, as well as their push to get 

Siemens. So I definitely think States have been aggressively looking at how to attract foreign investment and how to incubate and 

grow American business as well. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And one of the grants—you give energy training 

partnership grants, I notice on that, so a range of whole careers on 

that. One is the hybrid electric auto technician career. 

Ms. OATES. That is right. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Are there particular skills and education people 

have to have to be employed in the hybrid electric auto technician 

area? 

Ms. OATES. In the plants that I visited, they have been totally 

reformatted. They use different equipment. The body stays the 

same, but the engine and mechanism is totally different. So there 

has been a real need to upgrade the skills of both incumbent workers and recruit new workers with different skills that fit the needs 

of that industry now. 

Mr. TIERNEY. I know in my district alone, but in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as well, we put a tremendous number of 

people together on weatherization projects on that and that they 

did need particular training for that. A number of the companies, 

as well as some of the communities that were involved in that, 

made comment to that and asked for these resources. Are you finding that to be generally true throughout the Country in weatherization projects, that it requires a particular set of skills and education to be able to perform those tasks? 

Ms. OATES. Absolutely. And while some of those skills, like using 

a blow door and doing insulation would be seen as entry level 

skills, we have seen a trend now through our work with CEWD 

that the folks that enter that career path went on to go to some 

of their Centers for Excellence, which we don’t fund, and went on 

to work and get permanent good jobs in utility industries. 

Mr. TIERNEY. We have a lot of people in our State doing wind 

and energy auditing, which has become a very active field on that. 

102 

Ms. OATES. Especially at the Cape. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Especially at the Cape, exactly right. That takes a 

particular skill set and education as well, does it not? 

Ms. OATES. Absolutely. And a higher academic skill set than 

many of the other jobs that would have been seen in these sectors 

in the past. People have to know how to use handheld IT devices. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And solar panel installers. We have some up in the 

old Lucent plant I think you are familiar with up in the Andover 

area, where those companies are doing very, very—— 

Ms. OATES. That is right. Four layoffs ago, right. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Four layoffs ago. But those companies which fill a 

lot of that building now, some of them are installing panels. They 

do everything from the panel installation to actually the claws that 

connect the panels to the rooftops on that. They are all asked to 

help with training their employees because it was a special skill set 

and education level, is that correct? 

Ms. OATES. That is correct. And you know the problem when you 

bring up Lucent, Congressman, that is exactly the trend we are 

seeing around the Country. Places that used to employ 6,000 people are now starting to incubate smaller businesses that hire a 

fraction of those people, and getting their needs, filling their skills 

gaps is much more difficult than it was talking to the HR director 

at Lucent 15 years ago. 

So it has really become much more complicated for all boots on 

the ground, the people that we pay through the money that you 

give us, through State and local areas, the WIBs and the one-stops, 

it has become much more laborious for them to go to employers 

that employ 50 people and really understand what they need. That 

is why we are pushing industry-recognized credentials. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And part of what you do is allow job seekers to 

really connect with the jobs that are out there, that is part of the 

Workforce Investment Board responsibility. 

Ms. OATES. That is correct. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And I have watched that happen. One thing is the 

training; the other is, in a tough economy, trying to connect people 

with the jobs that exist. 

But in our district, and you can correct me if I am wrong because 

I know you have been up there, we have found a significant number of new jobs in the energy efficiency area and the energy manufacturing area, so our Workforce Investment Boards have actually 

been connecting people and trying to do more training that allows 

for internships and apprenticeships that give them some income 

while they are getting the skills and education, and then a transition because the employer now is familiar with the perspective employee and can bring them on. Is that something you have noticed 

as well? 

Ms. OATES. That is absolutely right. And some of the models that 

are in Massachusetts are the same as California, quite frankly, and 

Maryland, that if you want to get a dislocated worker immediately 

to pay attention to upgrading their skills, you have a much better 

opportunity to do that if you put them in on-the-job training, because they don’t want to sit home, they want to get back to work; 

and they are afraid, in this economy, if they sit home too long, 

there is not going to be a job. So they want to get back to work, 

103 

and those programs in all three of your States, quite frankly, have 

been the most productive. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. Ms. Oates, the gentleman from Massachusetts 

listed a number of jobs. Weren’t most of those jobs jobs that in fact 

rely on subsidies? In other words, the boom in the industry of insulating new windows, that was a stimulus program, so you were creating job training for jobs that were created under the Stimulus 

Act in that case. That is where the boom in that industry has been. 

Now, don’t get me wrong, it is an energy savings, I am all for 

it, but the fact is some of the jobs that you are job training, the 

green jobs, were linked hand-in-hand with stimulus. To the extent 

they were windmills, they were mandated by State law to get a certain renewable, they were funded, they were given subsidies, and 

then you were producing training. So you were, in a sense, directly 

an arm of providing green jobs for green stimulus money that had 

created green opportunities for business. Solyndra and all the others, in one way or the other, benefited from either mandates to do 

or stimulus money or grants, correct? 

Ms. OATES. I hesitate to say correct, sir. Again, with all due respect, I was educated in Massachusetts, I went to Boston College, 

and Massachusetts has been at the forefront of looking at how to 

do energy conservation—— 

Chairman ISSA. Right. But we are having a discussion about 3.1 

million jobs that are constantly being touted by this Administration. Those jobs in fact include people who empty porta-potties, 

they include who print on a cup that says power savings. So not 

only do we have the misleading figures because we are counting 

jobs that have been around for generations. You testified here 

today that your green jobs, you went to find where there was a job 

opening, not necessarily where there could be. 

What we are trying to understand is how significant is it when 

they claim 3.1 million jobs, and it appears as though it is not significant at all; that these are, to a great extent, $100,000 to create 

per job that is ‘‘lasting a year’’ and, at the end of the day, you simply took the money and did a jobs training program as the jobs existed. You weren’t ‘‘training’’ for some magical new jobs; you were 

training for jobs that happened to exist, and if it was somebody operating a piece of software while working for a power company out 

on the power lines, you did it. 

So I am all for what you are doing. I just want to make sure that 

we define that when the President is constantly touting 3 million 

new jobs, or Secretary Solis is, they are touting jobs that, under the 

definition, I think we would have a hard time finding them. 

Let me switch subjects. 

Ms. OATES. Sir, if I may. I can’t answer making an if-then clause. 

So I just don’t know if the people that we trained in Massachusetts 

with our dollars, and we trained a lot of them, were being trained 

for jobs that existed because of other government subsidies. I don’t 

disagree with you, but I think you were asking me to say that 

those jobs were only created because of—— 

104 

Chairman ISSA. Well, some of them were. That is all I was asking. 

Ms. OATES. Yes, I don’t disagree that there were jobs created everywhere. But I hope that we don’t train for jobs because they get 

a Federal subsidy. We train for job—— 

Chairman ISSA. Let me run you through some questions here because you are here because we are having a green jobs counting 

discussion. Someone who assembles turbines, is that a green job? 

Ms. OATES. Wind turbines? 

Chairman ISSA. Yes, wind turbines. 

Ms. OATES. I think we would call any kind of sustainable manufacturing fitting the definition—— 

Chairman ISSA. Does someone who sweeps the floor in a facility 

that makes solar panels, is that a green job? 

Ms. OATES. I will give that to Jack, if you don’t mind. 

Chairman ISSA. Mr. Galvin? 

Mr. GALVIN. We define—we have a two-part definition—— 

Chairman ISSA. We already had the briefing on that, so just answer the question. If you are sweeping the floor in a solar panel 

production facility, is that a green job? 

Mr. GALVIN. If you ask me for the number of health care jobs in 

the United States, I will give you the employment from the health 

care industry. 

Chairman ISSA. Look, Mr. Galvin, Mr. Galvin, you did not want 

to come here as a witness. You are not a delighted witness, so let’s 

go through this. I asked you a question; you know the answer. 

Would you please answer it? If you sweep the floor in a solar panel 

facility, is that a green job? 

Mr. GALVIN. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. If you drive a hybrid bus, public 

transportation, is that a green job? 

Mr. GALVIN. According to our definition, yes. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. What if you are a college professor 

teaching classes about environmental studies? 

Mr. GALVIN. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. What about just any school bus driver? 

Mr. GALVIN. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. What about the guy who puts gas in the school 

bus? 

Mr. GALVIN. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. How about employees at a bicycle shop? 

Mr. GALVIN. I guess I am not sure about that. 

Chairman ISSA. The answer is yes, according to your definition. 

And you have a lot of them. 

What about a clerk at the bicycle repair shop? 

Mr. GALVIN. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. What about someone who works at an antique 

dealer? 

Mr. GALVIN. I am not sure about that either. 

Chairman ISSA. The answer is yes. Those are recycled goods; 

they are antiques, they are used. 

What about someone who works at the Salvation Army in their 

clothing recycling and furniture? 

Mr. GALVIN. Right, because they are selling recycled goods. 

105 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. What about somebody who opened a store 

to sell rare manuscripts? 

Mr. GALVIN. What industry is that? 

Chairman ISSA. People sell rare books and manuscripts, but they 

are rare because they are old, so they are used. 

Mr. GALVIN. Okay. 

Chairman ISSA. What about workers at a consignment shop? 

Mr. GALVIN. That is a green job. 

Chairman ISSA. Does the teenage kid who works full-time at a 

used record shop count? 

Mr. GALVIN. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. How about someone who manufactures railroad 

rolling stock, basically train cars? 

Mr. GALVIN. I don’t think we classified the manufacturer of railcars—— 

Chairman ISSA. Forty-eight point 8 percent of jobs in manufacturing railcars counted, according to your statistics. 

About half of the jobs that are being used to build trains. Okay, 

how about just one more here. What about people who work in a 

trash disposal yard? Do garbage men have green jobs? 

Mr. GALVIN. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay, I apologize. The real last last is how about 

an oil lobbyist. Wouldn’t an oil lobbyist count as having a green job 

if they are engaged in advocacy related to environmental issues? 

Mr. GALVIN. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

With that, I go to the Ranking Member, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As I sit 

here and I listen to all of this, I live in the inner city of Baltimore 

and I think about, Ms. Oates, all of the young men and women who 

I see every day, I will see them this evening when I go home, and 

all they want is a job. If they get a shot at any of the jobs that 

the Chairman just mentioned, they would die for it. They want dignity; they want a job. They want to take care of their families; they 

want a job. They are not trying to get to Disney World; they are 

just trying to get to the local park with their family. They are not 

trying to buy $200 tennis shoes; they just want to buy a $10 pair 

at the bargain store. They want a job. 

Job training, I think, is very, very important, and I want to applaud you for your efforts because I know of them, and I know that 

you don’t just wear green today; you believe in what you are doing, 

and I appreciate it. 

In May, the seasonally adjusted national unemployment rate for 

people whose highest educational qualification is a high school diploma was 8.1 percent and the rate for those without a high school 

diploma was 13 percent. The unemployment rate for people with a 

bachelor’s degree or higher educational qualification was 3.9 percent. Given these numbers, it is critical that this Congress do everything in its power to create and support sustainable good paying 

jobs for working and middle class Americans. 

William Dudley, the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of 

New York, said at the quarterly regional economic press conference 

one of the problems facing America’s middle skilled workers is job 

polarization. He stated this: Over the past three decades, job opporVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:21 Sep 06, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\75708.TXT APRIL
106 

tunities have become increasingly concentrated in high wage, high 

skill occupations and low wage, low skill occupations, while job opportunities or those in the middle have been shrinking. At the 

same time, he says, there has been a growing gap in wages between jobs that pay the most and those that pay the least. Taken 

together, this phenomenon is often referred to as job polarization. 

According to President Dudley, there are steps we can take to address this problem, and he said this: More than ever before, jobs 

are requiring a greater degree of knowledge and skills. In order to 

adapt to these changes, it is increasingly important for workers to 

acquire and upgrade their skills, whether through formal education 

or other forms of training. 

Mr. Fillichio and Assistant Secretary Oates, can you describe the 

programs within DOL and ETA, for example, the Workforce Investment Act programs, that have helped employee middle skilled 

workers transition to new careers? Briefly. 

Ms. OATES. Sure. I would be happy to start, Carl, if you have 

something to add. 

ETA is really the part of the Department of Labor that does the 

lion’s share of this work, although we do it with our friends at Vets 

and Office of Disabilities and Women’s Bureau as well, but I think 

basically, to sum things up, we are really focusing on credentials, 

industry-recognized credentials that employers want. We are 

partnering with our friends both at HHS, mainly in Children and 

Families, the folks that are transitioning from TANF and our partners at Education. So, for instance, take somebody who has worked 

for 20 years. They could work in a factory and make a good salary, 

and that factory went away. Their high school diploma, if they 

have one, may not be enough to get them a new job in a new sector. But it is ridiculous for them to have to go to adult basic education and job training separately. 

We have created integrated programs where people can upgrade 

their reading and math skills and their IT skills at the same time 

they are learning the new trade. So the easiest example for me to 

give you is somebody who doesn’t read very well, but wants to get 

into health care. They don’t need to learn to read a menu today; 

we shouldn’t be paying for that. We should be teaching them how 

to read using medical vocabulary. And that is what we have done. 

We have those programs in Baltimore City and Baltimore County 

right now so that a 40-year-old who is dislocated doesn’t have to 

learn to read before they can learn medical vocabulary or billing 

and coding. 

So those are the kinds of things we have done. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And that is a very practical thing because that 

is real. I think a lot of folks just think that—I have heard all kinds 

of things like people don’t want to work and there are people who 

can easily get jobs if they wanted to. There is a lack of jobs, unfortunately. 

When I was listening to what you were saying a little bit earlier, 

I was thinking about the training. Training is very, very important 

and, unfortunately, training dollars have been slashed tremendously under Republican budgets, and I am just wondering if you 

are going to get somebody on their feet and make sure that they 

do not become a detriment to society and lose their dignity, I think 

107 

one of the things that we could do, and I think this is what Mr. 

Dudley was saying, is you have to give them some kind of training. 

Some folks think that folks can just walk into a job and automatically do a job. 

I think what employers want, we often talk about what employers want. I think, and you can correct me if I am wrong, I think 

what employers want is a trained employee. They want someone 

who is going to come to work, going to do the job, going to do it 

well, and if they can have a trained employee from the very beginning, I assume that that would save them some money, and that 

is one of the reasons why they want a trained employee. Is that 

right? 

Ms. OATES. Absolutely. It costs employers a fortune when somebody leaves after four or five weeks because they weren’t the right 

fit for that job. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. The other thing, the flip side of that is when 

they have to train, if they can find programs or whatever to train 

these folks before they get there, then they don’t have to spend resources training people, is that right? 

Ms. OATES. That is exactly right. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Another thing that is very interesting is that 

when we look at these folks, the ones that I talk about, the ones 

that I see every day, while they may train in these areas, they are 

given skills that hopefully are transferrable. In other words, they 

may not have a job today, or they may get a job and the job may 

not last but so long, but at the same time they get skills and hopefully, as I tell folks all the time, sometimes you have to tread water 

until you can swim. So I assume that that is part of your philosophy, too; even if you can’t get something right away, what you 

want to try to do is make sure that you give them the skills to be 

able to fend for themselves and hopefully get a job. 

Ms. OATES. That is exactly right. And we do it on a core competency model so that, for instance, the same basic core competencies could be for construction as well as the utility areas. And 

then as people demonstrate through the acquisition, passing a test, 

performance-based test usually, to get an industry-recognized credential, that is what makes it really transferrable. It is not just 

that Jack said Jane could do the job; Jane has an industry-recognized credential, an assessment that she can show a new employer. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So whether you call it a green job, a blue job, or 

a purple job, the fact is that they get training and hopefully they 

will be able to acquire a job. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

We now go to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Galvin, you are the Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. 

Mr. GALVIN. Correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. The Chairman made note a little while ago that 

our former colleague, now the Secretary of Labor, was herself the 

author of some of the environmental legislation that seems to guide 

the whole issue of classification of green jobs. Just to clear that up, 

108 

has the Secretary herself personally intervened to ensure that jobs, 

green jobs get classified or reclassified as such? 

Mr. GALVIN. No, she has not. In developing our definition, we did 

a very thorough survey of what other Federal statistical agencies 

around the world had done. We looked at what various States had 

done. We talked to, as Mr. Hall said earlier, experts in other Federal cabinet agencies with sort of a green portfolio, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, for example. 

We came forth with a draft definition, published it in the Federal 

Register Notice for comment by the American public, got something 

like 150 comments, processed them, made some changes, and then 

came out with our final definition. In all of our responsibilities, we 

have complete independence in the development of—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. The Secretary hasn’t called saying, hey, don’t 

make me look bad because I am the author of that legislation? 

Mr. GALVIN. No. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield for a second? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. TIERNEY. As the other author of that legislation, and I can 

tell you as the one who started the legislation and was happy to 

be joined by the Secretary, this did not start as a subset of the Recovery Act; this started as a separate bill when my State made 

clear to me, through the employers or whatever, that they had 

emerging technology areas in clean energy and clean technology 

and clean manufacturing, and had a need for people that were 

trained in that area. 

I would suggest that there is a good showing that the global energy efficiency and renewable use industry internationally is going 

to grow by billions of dollars, going from 3 percent to 15 percent 

of energy generation on that time by clean energy by 2035. Some 

$6 trillion of money will be invested. And this Country wanted to 

be a leader in that area internationally, and my State, North Carolina, and others wanted to be a leader within this Country. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my colleague. 

Chairman ISSA. If that were the case, we needed to have people 

that were able to take those jobs because you need capital and a 

workforce that can do it. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my colleague. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And let me ask my colleague what year was that 

legislation before the stimulus? 

Mr TIERNEY. I think we started drafting that in 2008, early 2009, 

but I think 2008. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. I thank my colleague. 

But in listening to some of the comments and some of the questions about this, is the idea of classifying jobs in a particular category sui generis? I mean, it is unique to green jobs, it has never 

happened before in the BLS, Mr. Galvin? 

Mr. GALVIN. No, absolutely not. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Oh, when else has it happened? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, you know, we have—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Quickly, Mr. Galvin. 

109 

Mr. GALVIN. Okay. Really, our insight for defining green jobs are 

two that came from our previous efforts to define high-tech jobs. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would IT jobs be an example? Including the existing jobs, but reclassified so that we have a broad band category 

to identify what people are doing, is that correct? 

Mr. GALVIN. Correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Now, what about the criticism that in our eagerness to classify and reclassify jobs as green jobs, we have taken 

century-old jobs that were there long before anyone thought of 

them as green jobs, sewer jobs and all kinds of jobs that seem silly, 

and we are just tripping over ourselves to redefine things as green 

so we have a good number? Why would the BLS be doing that? 

Mr. GALVIN. Well, the BLS put the data together in a way which 

clearly breaks down each industry’s worth of green jobs, and users 

who disagree with regards to our judgments regarding some industries, as to whether they are producing green outputs or not, can 

remove the employment associated with those industries from our 

numbers. But, again, this was an exercise just like defining hightech jobs. There is no OMB definition for high-tech; it was our responsibility to look at existing jobs, decide which ones we wanted 

to classify as high-tech, and then count them up. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So despite the negative inferences to the contrary, what you are trying to do, as you have done before in the 

modern economy, is aggregate jobs in some broad classification so 

we can better understand the nature of the workforce and what 

people are doing, and create a baseline so we can measure is it 

growing or shrinking. 

Mr. GALVIN. Correct. To provide usable, measurable definitions 

and data. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Sounds socialistic to me. 

My time is up. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

I now recognize myself. 

Mr. Galvin, when you were doing high-tech jobs, did they include 

a portable toilet emptying people? Did they include people who 

manufactured steel? Did they include people who did garbage job 

or ran recycling centers, sold used high-tech equipment? Were 

those high-tech jobs? 

Mr. GALVIN. Not that I recall. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay, so as is probably not true, but has been 

attributed to the late Joe Stalin, it is not the vote that counts, it 

is he who counts the votes. Ultimately, it is about whether or not 

the count is selective or whether it is not. 

You are not a political appointee, you are a career professional. 

If you were given the ability to reduce, for greater accuracy, true 

high-tech, would the number be smaller than it was in the past, 

since the gentleman mentioned that? In other words, if you could 

say, well, I would like to really make this very focused on hightech, could you make the number a little smaller and reflect more 

directly ‘‘high-tech?’’ And I know high-tech is a tough one. Let’s say 

biotech. If you were going to try and do biotech, you probably 

wouldn’t include the person sweeping the floor in biotech; you 

would try to only look at the jobs created for which those high 

skills and what we assume biotech is about. 

110 

In the case of green jobs, when we count nearly 50 percent of everybody making a box car for a train as high tech and everyone 

driving a transit bus, aren’t we in fact inflating the number beyond 

what is the reasonable expectation by somebody who hears a quote, 

3.1 million new green jobs? 

Mr. GALVIN. No, in that methodology we are counting green jobs 

the same way we count jobs in any industry. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay, I guess we are just going to assume that 

emptying porta-potties is a green job and that it is a fair counting, 

and I guess we will go on. 

Mr. Fillichio, you are probably the most important person here 

today. I assume you have read the Sandia Lab report? 

Mr. FILLICHIO. I have, sir. 

Chairman ISSA. Would you agree to provide this Committee a 

copy of that report, a full copy? 

Mr. FILLICHIO. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Labor’s lockup 

is still operating under the conditions that Sandia looked at, so it 

wouldn’t be prudent to release the report just yet. As you know, we 

are trying very hard to change that system on July 6th. After July 

6th, or after the situation that we have where we no longer are operating under what Sandia looked at, we would be happy to explore 

with the Committee how to release that. 

Chairman ISSA. So you are refusing to give us the information 

based on an assumption that we cannot look at your vulnerabilities 

and your proposed rulemaking and make an analysis? I am not 

asking to post it on the website; I am asking you to release it to 

the Ranking Member and myself. 

Mr. FILLICHIO. Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with security 

issues, and making that report public while we are still operating—— 

Chairman ISSA. We are not asking you to make it public. Will 

you make it available to this Committee? 

Mr. FILLICHIO. I would—— 

Chairman ISSA. Our people asked and your people said no, so I 

am asking you. 

Mr. FILLICHIO. If I could get back to you today, Mr. Chairman, 

I would consult with our staff and we will get back to you today 

on that, if it is just to the two of you. 

Chairman ISSA. We are looking at it being an embargo document, 

but it is very hard to look at your rules and your negotiations without knowing what was in that report. 

Mr. FILLICHIO. I understand, sir. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

I am going to ask you just a few questions. I am old tech geek, 

so I apologize if these don’t seem like the questions you expected. 

But was there any reason that you couldn’t have come up with a 

standard that, for example, instead of your producing at your cost 

a line for these folks to send out T1, T3, whatever you are sending 

out, couldn’t you have in fact specified and had specific standards 

and limitations, but had these reporting entities use their own 

dime to produce their own lines? Is there any reason that you could 

not have put the burden on, if you will, the editorial folks? 

111 

Mr. FILLICHIO. Mr. Chairman, the way that the lockup is set up, 

the burden is shared by almost everybody, with most of the burden 

carried by the Department of Labor. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, let me ask you the question. What is the 

cost of operating the lockups? You use them 10 times a month. 

What is the budget for that? 

Mr. FILLICHIO. There is no set budget; it comes out of—— 

Chairman ISSA. So you don’t know what it costs to do lockups? 

Mr. FILLICHIO. I don’t, sir. 

Chairman ISSA. Do you know what the cost of the Sandia report 

was? 

Mr. FILLICHIO. I do, sir. 

Chairman ISSA. How much was that? 

Mr. FILLICHIO. We entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Sandia. We obligated a little over $184,000; we spent 

$70 of it. I think we will spend probably $20 more in the next 

phase of this—— 

Chairman ISSA. So it is a contract of performance where they 

come back and forth, so it is an ongoing contract. 

Mr. FILLICHIO. And we will probably not use about $80,000 to $90,000 of that money. 

Chairman ISSA. Use what you need to be secure. I don’t think 

anyone from the dais is disagreeing with that part. 

Well, let me just ask the hypothetical. If you have private sector 

willing to spend their own money to move data, and this is a burst 

data, this is dated in which you don’t use the bandwidth at all for 

hours and hours, and then you need a tremendous amount and, as 

was mentioned earlier, you had a fairly catastrophic crash of your 

own system. If you have private enterprise willing to spend their 

own money, wouldn’t it, from a tactical standpoint of protectors of 

the taxpayers, wouldn’t it be better to put the burden on them, 

whenever possible, to pay their own way, rather than, as is proposed, that you have the taxpayers pay for their dissemination of 

information? 

Mr. FILLICHIO. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we have 

been exploring over the past month is better ways than what we 

proposed. And as you well know, we are in a much better place 

with the media organizations. I know that there are some rules 

where we cannot accept, there were some proposals made by the 

media organizations that would constitute a gift to the Federal 

Government, and we couldn’t accept that. But I think we are being 

very creative and very innovative, and balancing our security concerns with their business and public responsibilities to find a solution 

Chairman ISSA. We could probably just come up with a tax. That 

is how we do gifts to the Government, we just tax them. So I am 

sure there is a creative way to do that. 

Let me just close with a question that is most important for this 

hearing and why we wanted you here today. Would you commit to 

this Committee to stay the June 15th deadline unless a final agreement is met, and then reset that deadline for this transition to a 

date sufficient for whatever is agreed to? In other words, here we 

are less than two weeks away. If you were to implement your rule 

today, without change, it would be a very short period of time. 

112 

Quite frankly, I think both the Ranking Member and I would be 

concerned. Would you agree to have a rolling stay on that while 

these negotiations that both of you have said have been fruitful so 

that we can have confidence that it will in fact be, as I am sure 

you really want it, a mutual buy-in by the fourth estate and yourself? 

Mr. FILLICHIO. Mr. Chairman, I am very anxious for this to work, 

and I am very anxious for you to have confidence in the security 

of our data and the security of our processes, our procedures, and 

our protocols. We are exploring with the media organizations fudging the time line a little bit, where we can get some things done 

by July 6th. We would prefer to. The more we can get done by July 

6th, I think the better off we would be. 

Chairman ISSA. So translating that, I think, for both of us, we 

certainly are not asking—if you have anything that is agreed with 

in this get-together with the press involved, we have no problem 

with implementing. But to the extent that you have not resolved 

issues, could you stay it and inform the Committee on a periodic 

basis of, if you will, the new date while you continue to negotiate 

additional items? 

Mr. FILLICHIO. I would be very happy to. 

Chairman ISSA. I would be pleased. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Would the Chairman yield? 

Chairman ISSA. Yes, I would yield to the gentleman. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I just want to say that, Mr. Fillichio, I agree 

with what the Chairman just said. It seems like there is an issue 

of balance and it sounds like the parties are acting in good faith, 

and I just think it is the right thing to do to have that flexibility 

until you all can get done what you say you are going to get done. 

I am glad you said what you said and I am urging you all to provide that flexibility so that nobody will be, I don’t want to say penalized because that is not the right word, but nobody should suffer 

as a result of the inability to get this worked out. 

I have full faith and confidence that it will be, but at the same 

time I think it is important that we give the media folks the comfort of knowing that they have room to do that without suffering 

any kind of undue hardship. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

I thank you for your bearing with us on a hearing that uncommonly was somewhat on two unrelated, but related, somewhat, 

subjects. It is not often, but thank you for being here for both of 

our hearings. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

113 


Insert offset folio 50 here 75708.050
114 


Insert offset folio 51 here 75708.051
115 


Insert offset folio 52 here 75708.052
116 


Insert offset folio 53 here 75708.053
117 


Insert offset folio 54 here 75708.054
118 


Insert offset folio 55 here 75708.055
119 


Insert offset folio 56 here 75708.056
120 


Insert offset folio 57 here 75708.057
121 


Insert offset folio 58 here 75708.058
122 


Insert offset folio 59 here 75708.059
123 


Insert offset folio 60 here 75708.060
124 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 61 here 75708.061