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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

42–531 CC 1997

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OVERSIGHT: MISSION,

MANAGEMENT, AND PERFORMANCE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT

REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 10, 1997

Serial No. 105–29

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

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

PETE SESSIONS, Texas

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas

BOB BARR, Georgia

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

GARY A. CONDIT, California

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JUDITH MCCOY, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

TOM LANTOS, California

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Ind.)

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

LAWRENCE J. HALLORAN, Staff Director and Counsel

R. JARED CARPENTER, Clerk

CHERRI BRANSON, Minority Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 10, 1997 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Herman, Alexis M., Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor ........................... 2

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Herman, Alexis M., Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 6

Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio, prepared statement of .................................................................... 34

Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 31

(1)

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OVERSIGHT:

MISSION, MANAGEMENT, AND PERFORMANCE

TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:10 p.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Shays

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Shays, Towns, Barrett, and Kucinich.

Staff present: Lawrence J. Halloran, staff director and counsel;

R. Jared Carpenter, clerk; Cherri Branson, minority counsel; and

Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk.

Mr. SHAYS. We will call the subcommittee hearing to order and

to welcome Secretary Herman. All the members of the subcommittee appreciate your accepting our invitation to describe your

vision for the Department of Labor.

Over the past 3 years, we have begun our oversight partnership

in this way with each Secretary of the five cabinet departments

under our jurisdiction. For us, these hearings establish a solid

foundation for constructive, nonpartisan oversight. For you, it is

your chance to help focus our agenda on the challenges and opportunities we see facing the Department.

Today, the Department of Labor plays a central role in two vitally and recently important public-policy initiatives: implementation of welfare reform and health care portability reform. Each

challenges the DOL’s management capacity and resources. We look

forward to hearing your plans in these critical areas.

In the last Congress, based on work done by the General Accounting Office, GAO, this subcommittee began to identify the

basic operational characteristics of successful job-training programs. Now we need to know how DOL’s welfare-to-work and

school-to-work programs will measure up against these standards.

Under the Government Performance and Results Act, DOL’s

draft strategy plan has been received by the subcommittee, and

congressional consultations are ongoing. Last year, we noted some

obstacles to Department-wide coordination that could hinder results-oriented case management, particularly in the area of criminal enforcement. We hope you will address these issues today in

terms of your immediate plans, as well as your longer-term goals

under the Results Act.

Again, Madam Secretary, we appreciate your being here.

2

I think, as you know, it is our policy to swear in all witnesses,

including Members of Congress, and then we never get into a problem as to who we should and should not swear in. So if you would

stand, I will administer the oath.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. We have a number of committees that

are in markups because of the budget agreement, including the

ranking member, Mr. Towns, who I feel is an equal partner in

these hearings. So he wishes me to convey to you that he is in

markup, and he will be coming hopefully shortly.

You have a fairly long testimony, but I am more than happy to

have you put a good deal of it in the record verbally, so you can

summarize what you want, but you can read whatever you would

like to, and there is no time problem. You can pick and choose, but

we certainly will put anything that you want in the record that you

want to submit, but I am happy to hear your testimony.

STATEMENT OF ALEXIS M. HERMAN, SECRETARY, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Ms. HERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you

for your opening comments. I would like to have my full statement

included for the record, and I would briefly like to summarize the

full statement for you.

Let me begin by saying it is a great pleasure for me to appear

before you today to discuss some of the issues and challenges that

face the Department of Labor. As you know, I have been with the

Labor Department for just a short time, and I look forward to establishing a close working relationship with the subcommittee.

During the course of the Clinton administration, we have made

great progress in helping America’s working families build a better

future for themselves. The economy is growing steadily. More than

12 million new jobs have been created since January 1993. Unemployment is at its lowest rate in nearly 24 years.

The recently negotiated budget agreement balances the budget

and still maintains badly needed investment in education, training,

health care, and the environment. Both you, in the Congress, and

we, in the administration, can claim credit for this effort, which

still needs to be, of course, enacted. Yet we still face the challenge

of helping every American to participate and prosper in the new

economy.

It is our responsibility to make sure that all Americans have the

opportunity to find and hold secure jobs with good wages, reliable

pensions, health benefits, and opportunities to improve their skills

and earning capabilities. Work enables us to support ourselves and

our families. It affirms our humanity and allows each of us to make

our own unique contribution to the world.

That is why every worker is entitled to a fair wage, safe working

conditions, and a sense of dignity and respect. As Secretary of

Labor, I have established five goals which will build on the success

of the past 4 years and address the challenges that lie ahead.

They are, first, to equip every working American with the skills

to find and hold good jobs with rising incomes throughout their

lives; second, to help people move from welfare to work; third, to

assure that working Americans enjoy secure pensions when they

3

retire; fourth, to guarantee every American a safe, healthy workplace, free of employment-related discrimination; and, last, to help

families balance work and family.

My first goal, to equip all Americans with the tools they will

need to begin working and then throughout their careers to enhance their productivity and raise their standard of living, is a goal

that I intend to pursue vigorously.

In our fiscal year 1998 budget request and in negotiations on the

Balanced Budget Agreement, the President has held firm on one of

his top priorities: investing in education and training to ensure

that every American has the schooling and the skills to succeed in

the increasingly competitive global economy.

We seek to offer all Americans the tools to manage their careers

in the new economy, and we target the high unemployment, low

skills, and lack of work experience among youth and adults in some

of our poorest communities. That is why I am particularly delighted that the bipartisan budget agreement will include $250 million for the opportunities area for out-of-school youth initiatives,

which will provide grants to 15 to 20 high poverty urban communities for training, an estimated 50,000 teens for careers as an alternative to welfare and crime.

Two years ago, President Clinton proposed to dramatically overhaul the complex structure of Federal job training programs by

consolidating multiple programs into a single integrated work force

development system by providing skill grants or vouchers to adults

who need training and by improving accountability by focusing on

results and not process.

I am specially pleased that the House passed a bipartisan bill on

May 16 that reflects our common goal of building an integrated

work force development system and incorporates principles similar

to the tenets in the President’s GI Bill for America’s workers.

I look forward to working with the Congress to realize enactment

of this important legislation this year. After enactment, it is our expectation that we will continue to work in a bipartisan fashion on

its implementation. My second goal is to begin successfully to implement the welfare-to-work effort launched last year. In our new

system, millions of people must make their way from a welfare

check to a paycheck.

I started my own career by helping people move from welfare to

work, and I can tell you it will not be an easy task. It will take

a profound depth of commitment, learning what kinds of skills employers are looking for, equipping welfare recipients with those

skills, and then convincing employers to hire them. Once hired, we

need to ensure that we do the best job we can to encourage retention if we are to succeed.

We have requested $756 million in the 1998 appropriations for

a new Welfare-to-Work Jobs Challenge, which is designed to help

States and cities move hundreds of thousands of the hardest-to-employ welfare recipients that will be in hopefully lasting jobs by the

year 2000 through job placement and job creation.

My third goal is to assure that workers and their dependents are

economically secure when they retire. Life-skills development, economic security, is a lifelong concern. We must continue to do all

that we can to safeguard private pension funds and encourage

4

workers to save on their own for retirement. More than 150 million

participants and beneficiaries depend on the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act to protect their pension, health, and other welfare benefits.

Employee benefit plans provide critical income and services on

which workers and their families rely to protect their financial security. My charge as Secretary of Labor is to protect and strengthen this Nation’s private pension system. Three weeks ago, Attorney

General Janet Reno and I announced a successful, multi-agency enforcement initiative. Its purpose was to crack down on white collar

pension crimes targeted at the $3.5 trillion in assets held by the

Nation’s private sector pension plans. This initiative to date has

closed 70 cases, involving more than 150 participants.

Just last week, the administration—or I should say today—the

administration transmitted the legislation to Congress, entitled the

Pension Security Act of 1997. For a number of years, Secretaries

of Labor and Inspector Generals of the Department, as well as at

the GAO, have reported to the Congress a major loophole in ERISA

known as the ‘‘limited scope audit.’’ The bill would close that loophole. The audit reforms contained in the Pension Security Act

make limited changes to ERISA rules but have the potential to create lasting reform with respect to the enforcement of ERISA.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you and members of this subcommittee to

commit to working with me to improve the quality of pension plan

audits to better assure hard-working Americans that their pension

benefits will be protected.

My fourth goal is to guarantee every worker a safe and healthy

workplace, free of employment-related discrimination. I spent a

substantial portion of the 1970’s, including my service as director

of the Women’s Bureau, fighting barriers to employment opportunity for women and minorities. I spent most of the 1980’s advising companies on how to create a climate of understanding so that

those hired would stay on and succeed with their respective corporate cultures.

In this intensely competitive new economy, smart employers

must utilize all of the talent that is available to them. We must

also strive to guarantee safe and healthy workplaces, as well as

other worker protections. Although most employers make good

faith efforts to protect their workers, others do not. DOL’s worker

protection agencies, therefore, must maintain a credible enforcement presence. Every day, the lives and health of American workers are jeopardized by the experiences they have at work.

For this reason, American workers need their Government’s help

and credible enforcement as an important intervention tool and an

effective deterrent.

Let me speak briefly to a subject of special interest to you, Chairman Shays: the criminal enforcement efforts of the Labor Department’s agencies. In addition to the work of the Independent Office

of the Inspector General, five department agencies and offices—the

Office of Occupational Safety and Health, Mine Safety and Health

Administration, the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration,

the Office of Labor Management Standards, the Wage and Hour

Division—conduct investigations that may lead to criminal prosecutions. I should point out that the Solicitor’s Office may have had

5

very limited involvement in criminal matters as opposed to civil

matters, per se.

In most criminal cases, Labor Department agencies, particularly

PWBA and OLMS, work directly with the Justice Department prosecutors. In recent years, the Inspector General’s Office has suggested that the criminal enforcement coordination among the various Labor Department agencies could be improved. The Inspector

General’s view is that the individual agencies could do more work

together, despite the very real differences in their programs.

The Department has taken the Inspector General’s suggestions

very seriously. A group was established in the Department that

brings together the criminal enforcement coordinators of the five

key agencies at the Department, along with the representatives of

the Inspector General’s Office and the Solicitor’s Office.

The Criminal Enforcement Coordination Group has met to address common issues confronting the agencies and to build a relationship among its key staff. A pilot plan to create an interagency,

coordinating mechanism in the field is now being developed, and in

July representatives from other DOL agencies will attend a 2-day

conference for criminal investigators organized by the Office of

Labor Management Standards for its own staff.

My last and final goal, helping working Americans balance work

and families, is something that I have seen work from a very practical point of view in the workplace today. I have worked with dozens of major corporations and labor unions that have adopted policies that support families. This is simply good business and good

family values.

And let me just say, as I conclude my remarks, that as a former

small business owner myself, I am particularly pleased with the opportunity to work on the Government Performance and Results

Act. The Department has traditionally viewed its work in this area

with an eye toward improving program accountability. Much

progress has been made in preparation for the Government Performance and Results Act implementation.

The Department has established a results-oriented environment

and is well positioned to meet its ambitious goals. Let me assure

you of my own commitment to continue the performance-based, results-oriented approach to goal-setting and strategic planning. I

personally welcome GPRA as a management tool to help the Department ensure the value of its accomplishments to the American

public as well as to the Congress. The Government must not only

work better, but it must also be able to demonstrate that it is

working better if we expect the public to have confidence in this

institution.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would

like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to discuss the

issues and challenges of the Labor Department. I would be happy

to answer any questions that you or other Members may have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Herman follows:]

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We have been joined—

Mr. Towns obviously came in first, and as you know is in a markup

in Commerce, a less important committee than this one, but still

an important committee. Mr. Kucinich of Cleveland is here; Mr.

Barrett of Wisconsin; and I do not know if any of the three gentlemen, before asking questions, would just like to make a statement.

Mr. TOWNS. I would just like to ask that my written statement

be included in the record.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Edolphus Towns follows:]

31

32

33

Mr. SHAYS. Would you start with the questioning?

Mr. TOWNS. Sure. I would be delighted.

Mr. KUCINICH. I would also like to do the same. I have a statement that I would like included in the record.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich follows:]

34

35

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Barrett, do you have any——

Mr. BARRETT. I have no——

Mr. SHAYS. Well, if I could, I would like to do the unanimous consent request. We just have two housekeeping things that we need

to do, ask unanimous consent that all members of the subcommittee be permitted to place any opening statement in the

record and that the record remain open for 3 days for that purpose,

and without objection, so ordered; and also ask further unanimous

consent that all witnesses be permitted to include their written

statements in the record, and without objection, so ordered.

Mr. Towns, why don’t we start with you?

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You are right.

The reason I was a few minutes late is that we were voting in the

Commerce Committee, and, of course, I kept saying to them, hurry

up and vote so I can get down here, because this is a very important committee and a very important topic, and we are delighted

to have the Secreatary of Labor here with us.

Let me begin by saying, I know there are some things that are

broken that need to be fixed, and, of course, I know there are some

things that are running, but not running as fast as we would like

for them to run. And I want to say that with also saying that I am

delighted to have given you the ball, but recognizing that when you

have the ball, you need to have some blockers, and I really want

to let you know that I consider myself as being one of the blockers.

And knowing the chairman as I do, he is the kind of person who

would be one of your blockers, too, because he feels very strongly

about the issues that I know, having just listened to your testimony, that you feel about.

But I would like for you to just sort of expand on some of these

things for me. No. 1, what is your vision for the American worker?

I would like to hear where you would like to go. In other words,

what do you plan to be your legacy as the Secreatary of Labor, and

will your budget, the budget allocations in terms of the money that

is being allocated, does it reflect in terms of the kinds of things

that you would like to do and be a part of your legacy?

Ms. HERMAN. Thank you very much, Congressman Towns, and

let me say I appreciate the offer to be a blocker. I can certainly use

blockers in this environment.

With regard to my own vision for my tenure as Secretary of

Labor, it is really a very simple and a very basic vision. I want all

Americans today, all American workers to be able to get good jobs

with decent pay and to enjoy a rising standard of living throughout

their lives. That means for me, in selecting the five goals that I

have selected, those goals contribute to that very basic and simple

statement.

The first goal, as I articulated, to make the appropriate investments that we must make in lifelong learning and skill development to ensure that workers today not only have the opportunity

to compete and to prepare for the new jobs that clearly will be a

part of the new economy that will be in particular impacted by

technology today, but workers who are trapped in the old economy

who do not have the skills, who perhaps are not as mobile as they

need to be to go to where the jobs are.

36

We need to be equally concerned about those individuals, and so

for us to be able to target the resources appropriately of the Department to make the appropriate investment in skill development

and lifelong learning that will lead to higher productivity is very

critical.

Second, as I talked about the challenge of moving people from

welfare to work, that I think is also one of the important goals of

the President, it is important that we ensure that these individuals

get good jobs with dignity and respect, and that they truly can become a part of the economic mainstream, which means that we

have to find a way to provide these jobs in the private sector for

the long haul. I am committed to helping to make that happen.

Third, when we look today in particular at the aging of the baby

boom generation, the whole question of pension retirement and

pension security, it seems to me, becomes critically important, and

so my emphasis on pension protection, as well as looking at ways

of ensuring greater pension portability, is also an area that I intend to pursue. How can we make it possible in particular for small

businesses to set up pension plans for their own workers? As a

small business owner myself, I am particularly sensitive to what

we can do to assist small businesses, where the largest number of

jobs are being created today in our economy.

Fourth, as we talk about the enforcement programs of the Department of Labor, we must maintain our enforcement presence to

ensure that not only are our workplaces safe and healthy, but, in

fact, they are free of employment discrimination today. We, in this

economy, as we talk about what it means to compete today in the

global marketplace, certainly we do not have one worker to spare,

and to the extent that we can make sure that our enforcement programs are protecting the rights of those workers, it is very critical.

And, last, with the increased numbers, as we have seen for more

than a decade, of two earner families, in particular, we know from

all reports certainly that we receive at the Labor Department that

one of the No. 1 factors today that families talk about is the stress

that they feel as a family in the workplace today. So what we can

do to help workers balance the demands of work and family, it

seems to me, is very important.

With respect to the resources that are in the budget of the Department to carry out these goals, I think that the President’s 1998

budget, in particular, is reflective of these priorities.

I am particularly pleased that the President has made a request

for additional investments in the employment and training area so

that we can continue to make the appropriate investments in skill

training and development, especially the Out-of-School Youth Initiative, where the President has requested $250 million for the

highest areas in our country today where we have high rates of

youth unemployment and high incidences of poverty.

All of these efforts I hope to work on as Secretary of Labor to

take us back to that very basic vision statement of basically helping every worker to have a good job, to get a good job, to keep a

good job, but to also be concerned about our rising standard of living today.

37

Mr. TOWNS. In the 15 years that I have been here, this is the

first time I have said to the Secretary, I want to be identified with

that. I yield back.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman.

Ms. HERMAN. Thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members

of the committee. I want to welcome Madam Secretary, and I will

probably be seeing a lot of you because not only am I fortunate to

be on Mr. Shays’ subcommittee, but I am also a member of what

was formerly known as the Labor and Education Committee. These

are two assignments that I requested because I know there is juncture with the work of the Labor Department, and I am quite

pleased that you have the opportunity to serve as Secretary.

As someone who, in the Ohio Senate, had a 100 percent labor

voting record, actually the only member of the Senate with that

record, I expect that we will be talking quite often about the needs

of the people I represent from Ohio’s 10th District.

There is one area of concern that I have that perhaps you could

give some thought to, and that is the underutilization of NAFTA/

TAA funds for dislocated workers. As I am sure you know, this

NAFTA/TAA program provides Federal resources to workers who

have been displaced because of the impact of NAFTA. And although many plants have been certified by the Department of

Labor as being affected by international trade policies, it appears

that NAFTA/TAA funds are being underutilized. For example, at

the end of 1996, about $13 million in NAFTA/TAA funds for fiscal

year 1995 and fiscal year 1996 remain unobligated.

I might add that if they are not spent by September 30 of this

year, they could go back to the Treasury. And I wondered if you

have any thoughts on this problem or plans or considerations to increase the awareness of available NAFTA or TAA funds around the

country?

Ms. HERMAN. Yes, I do, Congressman, and I think that you said

the key words at the end of the statement, and that is we have to

do a better job of increasing the awareness of the availability of the

NAFTA funds. In looking at the programs in the Department, both

the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program and the NAFTA Program, as you know, both of these programs perform a similar function, but clearly the historical nature of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is one that is probably viewed as a program that

is being more user-friendly.

It is also a program, clearly, that is better known in terms of its

availability and what it can do for affected communities. We, as

you know, do not have any available resources left, quite frankly,

in the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. Those resources, we

do use, and I am looking into this really to support my own hypothesis here of what I believe is taking place, but I do recognize that

to the extent that many individuals who are able to utilize the

NAFTA funds have also sought the use of the Trade Adjustment

Assistance Budget, not knowing about the availability of the

NAFTA resources that are there.

So what I think what we have to do is to do a better job of communicating what the program does and to make that information

38

available to affected communities so that they can avail themselves

of those resources.

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Secretary, thank you. I would be most interested in hearing what your plans are as they unfold, and we are

working up against a deadline right now, because those funds will

be returned to the Treasury by September 30, unless other legislative action is taken. I think it is much easier to try to find ways

of getting the information out and make those funds available as

opposed to trying to seek a reauthorization of spending.

Ms. HERMAN. Yes. I would certainly agree with that, and we will

do everything that we can to try and accomplish that end.

Mr. KUCINICH. And one final note. I do not really have any confidence in NAFTA, one of the reasons is because I have never seen

the Department produce any information about the jobs that have

actually been created. We do know from NAFTA/TAA about the

jobs that are lost or certified. I would like to see some certification

of jobs created presented to the Congress at some point in the future.

Ms. HERMAN. Thank you very much, and we will certainly take

a look into that situation as well. It is something that I, too, have

an interest in as we look at what we are doing more globally on

the trade front, and I think that is information that can be beneficial to all of us.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Madam Secretary, and thank you

very much for serving our country.

Ms. HERMAN. Thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Barrett.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and Madam Secretary,

it is a delight to have you here. Congratulations on your confirmation.

Ms. HERMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. BARRETT. I am glad I am not reading so many stories about

you. I am glad you are in your job.

Ms. HERMAN. So am I.

Mr. BARRETT. I want to echo my colleague from Ohio’s comments

on NAFTA and the need to quantify what the changes are in jobs.

I represent Milwaukee, WI, and it is a community where unfortunately we are tapping into the Department of Labor all too often

for funding for companies that have reduced their work force as

jobs move out of the country. And I think it is imperative that we

get an accurate handle on how exactly this trade pact is working

so that we can see who the winners are and who the losers are.

A couple of other points that I want to make, and most of these

arise from parochial issues that I think probably resonate throughout the country. One pertains to Pabst Brewery, which for almost

150 years was located in the district that I represent and recently

closed its doors. The Department of Labor has been helpful, and I

want to thank you on behalf of that as we attempt to fight in the

courts the denial of benefits to retirees.

And I think that this is something that the Department of Labor

has to be far more aggressive on, not only in the area that I represent, but throughout the country where you have a situation

where workers have been promised benefits, and those benefits

were promised through collective bargaining agreements, and years

39

pass and you have different people at the table, and promises that

were made at one time are no longer honored, in part because you

have different pressures on the people who are in the community.

Maybe you can tell me what, if anything, your Department has

looked into in this arena or if you have any plan.

Ms. HERMAN. Thank you very much, Congressman, for, first of

all, the compliment to the Department for its work in this area, because I do think, as you have stated, it is a very critical issue today

that certainly is impacting many of our retirees. We have actually

filed five friend-of-the-court briefs similar to the Pabst case that

has impacted more than 89,000 workers to date. We do believe that

where benefits have been promised as a part of retirement health

plans, that there is some obligation on the part of employees to

honor that obligation, and where we can make our views known in

court cases, the Department has done that.

We will continue, obviously, to monitor these plans where those

commitments are made and encourage employers as best we can to

honor those commitments.

Mr. BARRETT. And I appreciate that, and, again, I think that you

have done a wonderful job. I would be more than interested to

work with the Department if you have suggestions where legislative changes are necessary. Again, my fear is that we have not seen

the end of this, that as companies feel greater and greater pressure

to cut costs, that this is a very convenient way for them to cut

costs, notwithstanding the fact that promises have been made and

court decisions have been quite tight in allowing for extrinsic evidence to show that these promises were made and should be kept.

Another area that is similar to that that I am, again, quite confident that the Department is aggressive on is the whole issue of

ERISA and pension benefits. Again, for system reasons, I think

that it is imperative that the Department remain very vigilant to

ensure that benefits that have been placed in accounts on behalf

of workers are used for that.

Ms. HERMAN. I would certainly concur with that statement. That

is why in my opening statement I was pleased to reference the fact

that approximately 3 weeks ago, as Secretary of Labor, and with

Attorney General Janet Reno, we actually did announce several

criminal indictments, as well as civil cases, against more than—I

believe it was 70 employers who had defrauded their workers of

more than $90 million. So what we can do to aggressively enforce

the law when it comes to pension protection is very, very important.

Mr. BARRETT. OK. And my good friend, Congressman Shays, is

always quite generous with time in the way he handles this committee, and I want to thank him for that.

My final question is a more difficult question, at least for me, because when I am in my district, and I have a district which has

a very large central city population, has a very large, unemployed

population at a time when, as everyone in this room knows, unemployment records are at decades lows; and I preach over and over

again education, education, education, because I fear what we are

seeing is a growing gap between those people who do well in society and those people who do not do well in society economically.

40

And I realize that we could talk for 50 hours on this, but what

thoughts do you have on whether we should be or how we can be

closing that income gap?

Ms. HERMAN. You are right. We could talk probably for 50 hours.

This is a subject obviously that is very close to me personally. I

think that there are a lot of things that obviously we can do in this

area. Very specifically, I am hoping, one, that we can more aggressively target the resources of the Department, particularly through

our training programs, to those most in need who are really

trapped in the old economy where we see the income disparity that

is so great, to get them the appropriate skills and training that

they do need for the real jobs and time in the future. And I intend

to closely monitor our own targeting of our resources, particularly

in those programs where we have the flexibility to work at the local

level to ensure that that can happen.

As we look in particular at the President’s 1998 budget, we have

made a request for additional resources in the out-of-school-youth

area for communities such as the one that you have described,

where we can hopefully begin to target young people at an early

age to break the cycle of dependency earlier to get them into betterpaying jobs, jobs that will have real skills with lifelong capacity at

the end of the day.

To the extent that we can use some of the very practical experiences that we have in the Department to upgrade training, to upgrade learning, and to make that connection, I am hopeful that we

will be able to do this through this pilot experience.

One of the things that I would like to see us do more of at the

Department, quite frankly, is to replicate successful models and to

be able to share that information and those techniques where we

can move people into better-paying jobs. I also believe that, overall,

as we look at the whole question of the wage structure today and

the service economy in particular that is growing at a rapid rate

where a number of the jobs are being created, that we need to have

more innovation in terms of what we can do to target resources and

capacity building into those areas in the workplace today where the

jobs are actually being created to bring up the standard of living

in those occupations. And to the extent that we can be more innovative and creative in doing that, I want to.

And, last—and I will just stop with this as a comment—I believe

very strongly also that the work of the Skill Standards Board can

help us a great deal in this area to better identify what are the real

skills that employers are going to need in the future as we look at

the job demands as well as the requirements of workers, and the

work that Jamie Houghton and others have begun in this area, I

think, will be valuable to us as we begin to examine more closely

practical solutions on what we do to close the income gap.

Mr. SHAYS. Again, thank you for coming. I, as you were talking,

was thinking that one of the challenges is I am not sure that big

government, big business, big labor can adapt quickly enough to all

the changes that are taking place. We were talking about this,

Larry and I were just talking about it, and we were saying that

18 months ago Windows 95 did not even exist, and yet that is a

basic information system software that everyone really needs to

use, and it did not exist a very short time ago.

41

And it may disappear quickly with something taking its place,

which leads me to talk to you about welfare reform, job training,

and the ability of the Bureau to marry labor statistics in terms of

occupational needs with very real job training needs.

The bottom line: I am just trying to see the connection between

job training programs and how they relate to jobs that actually

exist. While you are just thinking about the answer, let me just

give you another sense of why I am asking the question.

When we had a hearing on job training programs, I was amazed

on how much we spent on all the different departments, and I was

amazed that we loaned out in 1 year alone $750 million to individuals who went to schools of cosmetology. Many of them never got

a job because there was no job that existed for them, and they did

not pay back their loans because they said, ‘‘I am not paying back

a loan on an educational skill that I got where I do not have a job

that I am even implementing. What a waste.’’

So just give me your thoughts on how you relate job training to

the jobs that actually exist.

Ms. HERMAN. Well, first of all, I think the first priority has to

be that training programs have to be targeted to the jobs that do

exist. Then the question becomes, what is the best way to do that,

what are the appropriate systems that you need to have in place,

and what are the appropriate strategies to make that happen; and

what are the resources in the Department of Labor that we can use

and throughout the administration to bring that appropriate match

about?

When we look at the Department of Labor, in particular, we certainly realize that we have the Bureau of Labor Statistics and

other statistical capacities, if you will, that engage in job predictability that certainly we ought to be in a position to share more

broadly, let’s say, with the Department of Education, as we are

looking at ways to have better coordination.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, this is something that I have actually had a conversation with Secretary Riley about, and he agrees

that this is an area where we can share resources more appropriately to help with some of the training and skill development

that is taking place on the education front.

We also have at the local level in communities around the country the private industry councils that have the responsibility for

being more locally tied to their own labor markets that, in my view,

are probably the best people to be predictable indicators of what is

going on in their own local economies, working with local job forecasting and economic development offices.

We need to do a better job of coordinating with those local entities as well in terms of our own statistical work. As you look at

new programs that we have mounted, such as the School-to-Work

Transition Act, here we have the opportunity, and I believe that we

are doing a good job, from what I have seen in terms of the initial

reports, of making sure that we are more appropriately linking

school to work and that the education and the training and, to

some extent, the apprenticeship opportunities that these young

people are engaged in are, in fact, tied to the skill developments

that they are going to need for the real jobs that will be there in

the future.

42

In short, what I would say is that we need to take the information and the resources clearly that we have available at the Department and do a better job of coordinating with other departments and agencies like the Department of Education, in particular, that has the mandate for educational requirements, to

make sure that where appropriate we can share information and

make sure that we are doing a better match.

I believe that the Job Training Consolidation Bill that we have

looked at as well that just recently passed the House will give us

the opportunity to do that, and as we look in particular at the onestop career centers that are being operated around the country

today, we are looking at how we can bring in other departments

and agencies into the one-stop model so that we have a better coordination, if you will, at the local level to take advantage of the

Department’s services.

We have done it with HHS, and we need to look at how we can

further explore that, I think, with the Department of Education as

well.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is an organization that technically is not independent. It is not an independent agency, but in a sense, it has functioned somewhat independently. While some would say it just gathers statistics, the impact of what it decides is tremendous, and I am interested to know

how you are able to interact with the Department without it becoming—first off, do I make an assumption that there is a point at

which you have to be careful?

It is a unit within the Department of Labor that you oversee, but

the data it gathers makes millions and costs millions to people. We

depend on it, for instance, in terms of the Consumer Price Index,

ultimately. So I would like to just know how you interact and what

can we do to help them become a little more up to date and speed

up the process of gathering statistics so that the statistics are more

timely.

Ms. HERMAN. Well, I think it is very important, certainly for me

as Secretary of Labor, to make sure that the independence of BLS

is protected, and I view my job largely as one of making sure that

the Bureau of Labor Statistics has the resources that it needs.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me just clarify one thing.

Ms. HERMAN. OK.

Mr. SHAYS. Is it independent by statute or independent by custom?

Ms. HERMAN. It is independent by custom, not by statute, per se.

But to maintain, I think, the integrity, if you will, of the Bureau

of Labor Statistics, I think that we have to continue to protect that

integrity by, in fact, insulating it from political considerations and

allowing the technical experts to be able to do its job.

So, for me, making sure that it has the resources to do that and,

second, as it relates in particular even to the question that we just

discussed, how can the information that the Bureau is gathering be

more broadly shared in terms of the outputs and its products is

something that I think we can be more supportive of in terms of

the work of the Bureau of Labor Statistics itself because, as you

know, we all depend on the statistical data that the Bureau does

gather.

43

Mr. SHAYS. We had a hearing about the CPI, and Mr. Barrett

was there for some of it as well, and I went with the sense that

the CPI is out of date, that the basket of goods and services needs

to be revised and there are issues of substitution. What I left with

was the sense that under the present capability, whatever adjustments it makes to that bread basket would not have any financial

impact until 1999 and beyond, so not next year’s budget but the

budget afterwards, which was a surprise to me.

But are you relatively comfortable or very comfortable that the

Office has all the resources it needs to ensure that it is as quick

as possible—as current, not as quick—as current as possible with

its statistics; and, second, that it has the ability to review issues

like CPI and review it well?

Ms. HERMAN. Well, we have a request in the 1998 budget. When

you say the ‘‘degree of comfort,’’ I think it is tied in part to the resource request that is actually in the 1998 budget, because we have

made a request for additional support for BLS to continue its improvement process, if you will, to the CPI revisions.

Mr. SHAYS. If you find that the Committee on Appropriations is

not inclined to favor that request, I would like to make sure that

you have your staff let our committee know, and we would like to

weigh in on that regard.

Ms. HERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will be certain to

do that.

Mr. SHAYS. Would you—I mean, we will as well, but if you get

information that lets us think that it will not be respected and be

able to be funded. Getting to this whole issue of the audits and the

issue of full-scope audits and limited audits dealing with retirement pension funds, I am fascinated by this issue, and you made

reference, I think, to that in saying you would forward a proposal.

Can you, in simple terms, tell me how someone qualifies for a

limited scope audit? These are big pension plans that instead of

having a full audit, end up with a partial audit that basically tells

us nothing or very little. First, how do you qualify for that?

Ms. HERMAN. Well, when we talk about a plan that has a limited

scope audit, what you are basically saying in simple terms is that

the CPA that is certifying the plan assets will not give a full opinion. It will only give a qualified opinion because they have not had

the benefit, if you will, of having the full certification of the full

plan.

Mr. SHAYS. How does someone—to me, I consider it a loophole,

and would that be your sense?

Ms. HERMAN. Oh, it is definitely a loophole in the legislation, and

that is why—— Mr. SHAYS. And the loophole occurs because of—— Ms. HERMAN. The loophole occurs because right now you can actually opt to have a limited scope audit.

Mr. SHAYS. By doing something.

Ms. HERMAN. Well, you can opt to have a limited scope audit because if you are with a financial institution, a bank or an insurance

company, that is regulated, you have the option there for saying

that you will invoke ‘‘a limited scope audit.’’

Mr. SHAYS. So, for instance, if in a major pension plan they had

a $100 certificate of deposit from a bank or a credit union in a $100

44

million pension plan, that would qualify them for a limited scope

audit?

Ms. HERMAN. It would qualify them for a limited scope audit if

they are in a regulated Federal institution, if that is where their

assets are held, and if they have——

Mr. SHAYS. For some. It does not have to be all. Correct?

Ms. HERMAN. Right. And if they have 100 or more participants

in their plan, then they can qualify for a limited scope audit, and

what we are trying to do is to close that loophole by basically saying that if you have that much in terms of assets in a regulated

institution, be it a bank or insurance company or what have you,

that we need to have a full audit.

Mr. SHAYS. My sense from your testimony is there are about

32,000 of these potential audits and close to $1 trillion of assets

that basically your Department has very little comfort level that

these pension funds are secured funds.

Ms. HERMAN. That is correct. And it covers actually about 23

million workers when you talk about those 30,000-odd plans; and

we also know, in plans where we have had full audits, if you will,

that the recovery is about four times as great as with those plans

that do not have it. So we have actually seen evidence of what can

happen.

Mr. BARRETT. When you say ‘‘recovery,’’ what do you mean?

Ms. HERMAN. When I am saying recovery when you go in to actually review and conduct an audit of your plan, if there are things

that are found to be in question or issues that could speak to the

viability of the plan, that the likelihood of getting that information

around the soundness of the plan is four times as great in plans

where we have full audits as opposed to limited scope.

Mr. SHAYS. Now that the Department has forwarded its request

for reform, we are going to be weighing in as an oversight committee to encourage the statutory committees to move forward.

Just tell me what is your knowledge of why, in the 7 years under

Republican and Democrat White House and Congress, there has

been no action. Is there a general sense that it is just totally the

issue of Republicans not wanting to regulate—what is the bottom

line—and Democrats not wanting what?

Ms. HERMAN. Well, you know, it is interesting because I have

asked that question, too, and I have concluded—this is my personal

opinion—that it really is not about Republicans or Democrats. The

bill was first introduced by Senator Dole in 1990, in terms of the

need to close the loophole here, so it has enjoyed bipartisan support

in terms of an effort really for the last 7 years.

I do think, in part, that some of the misunderstandings may, in

fact, be due to not having a greater appreciation for what is at

stake here in terms of what it is we are trying to do and viewing

this as being overburdensome in terms of the process.

Mr. SHAYS. The full scope is burdensome, and the limited scope

is——

Ms. HERMAN. I think that could potentially be the perception

here. That is why one of the provisions in the bill actually could

state that you do not have to bring in additional accountants, if you

will, to certify the plan, but if the institution, let’s say, that you

just referenced in your own model has its own accountant already

45

on board, then we will accept the opinion of that accountant that

is already certifying the existing plan, so there really is not a laying on of additional administrative requirements. I think that could

be in part the perception around the intent of the legislation.

Mr. SHAYS. But a full scope means you are going to do a lot more

investigating. There is going to be greater cost, but the bottom line

is we want to know what is happening to $1 trillion.

Ms. HERMAN. We want to know what is happening, and the bottom line is that if there is a certified accountant that is already in

place for, let’s say, a NationsBank or a Metropolitan Insurance Co.,

then that accountant would simply have to verify as well the assets

of that plan as a part of the overall portfolio.

Mr. SHAYS. I am very happy that on a bipartisan basis we passed

the Health Care Portability Act, and this is something that Tom

and I know had been around Congress for a long time, and it was

great to finally see this come to fruition. I am not quite sure how

the Department of Labor weighs in, and I am not sure we gave you

any additional resources to do this, but what is the role of the Department of Labor in overseeing the Health Portability Act?

Ms. HERMAN. Well, the Department has a substantial role in

overseeing the act. We had the responsibility for actually issuing

the interim regulations, the final regulations, which the Department did do the first of April this year, and we will have the responsibility for basically enforcing that provision and health plans

as the law now kicks in. The way it works, any plan that employers

are mounting after the April 1 date has to come into compliance

on an annual basis with the HIPPA requirements specifically as it

related to the portability of pre-existing medical conditions. We

will, of course, be continuing to analyze the regs in its interim final

stage, and we will have the responsibility for issuing final regs on

this legislation.

Mr. SHAYS. So you do the regulations, but I do not quite understand how the oversight—will you go into businesses and determine if they are following it?

Ms. HERMAN. We will have to take on the traditional enforcement responsibilities that go with the legislation.

Mr. SHAYS. And will it be done when you do something else,

when you are going in for some other issue? It will not be OSHA

inspectors. Who will be doing this?

Ms. HERMAN. We have actually asked for additional resources in

the President’s 1998 budget. We have actually asked for 63 additional positions to help with the enforcement of the HCFA regs.

Mr. SHAYS. Who would take the complaints? If there is a complaint, who would it——

Ms. HERMAN. It would go into PWBA. They have the responsibility.

Mr. SHAYS. Do they have offices around the country?

Ms. HERMAN. They do have offices around the country.

Mr. SHAYS. So this is the same group that basically would oversee retirement funds will oversee it.

Ms. HERMAN. It is the same group, but that is why we have

asked for additional resources in the 1998 budget, to help with the

enforcement aspects of the HCFA regs.

46

Mr. SHAYS. I just have a few more questions. Mr. Barrett, do you

have some?

Mr. BARRETT. Just a couple, if I could?

Mr. SHAYS. Feel free, as many as you want.

Mr. BARRETT. To go back to the issue of the pension plans, of the

32 pension plans that qualify for a limited audit, have you any

breakdown as to how many of those have gone out of their way to

avoid the audit by putting a small amount into a regulated financial institution, or are most of them legitimate ones that just happen to fall into the category that allows the exception?

Ms. HERMAN. I do not have any specific data on that. I should

point out it is 32,000——

Mr. BARRETT. I am sorry.

Ms. HERMAN [continuing]. I do not have specific data on that. I

will be happy to check with the staff to see if we have any profiles

on that. I think the general view here, though, is that it is the latter as opposed to the former aspect of your statement.

Mr. BARRETT. I am sorry. So that means?

Ms. HERMAN. That it is generally those plans with 100 or more

participants that are in institutions that are federally regulated

that would fall under the limited scope audit provision as it is now

presently stated in the legislation.

Mr. BARRETT. OK. And if you have an accountant that is doing

a qualified analysis, what does that show us, or what does that tell

us?

Ms. HERMAN. Presently? You mean as it is presently?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes.

Ms. HERMAN. Well, basically what it says is that if it is a qualified opinion, it is a qualified opinion and that they would not give

you the full certification that all of the plan assets and all of the

backing that is stated is, in fact, there.

Mr. BARRETT. But does it do us any good? Does it do you any

good to get that qualified opinion?

Ms. HERMAN. Well, obviously, some representation is better than

none, but it is not what you want to have for $1 trillion of assets

in terms of the Nation.

Mr. BARRETT. OK. Thank you. I have no other questions.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. As it relates to OSHA, OSHA does not

have enough inspectors to go out and periodically visit every business on an ongoing basis, and so it has established a program

where if businesses continue to show a good record and not have

many complaints, no accidents, they are able to be more self-policing. We refer to it as the ‘‘Maine plan’’ in one instance where they

took 200 businesses.

Ms. HERMAN. Maine 200.

Mr. SHAYS. Are you on board with that approach, or are you opposed to it? How do you weigh down on that one?

Ms. HERMAN. Oh, I am very supportive of the Compliance Assistance Program that OSHA is now operating. I think it helps us to

get more small businesses involved with understanding the requirements of OSHA, and I also think in terms of just more effective management of our resources, since we cannot cover obviously

every workplace today, to the extent that you can use models like

Maine 200, it is very helpful.

47

Mr. SHAYS. Is the Department still comfortable that the program

is working well?

Ms. HERMAN. We are still comfortable that the program is working well, and obviously where we can make improvements, we will

do that, and as more communities use the model, I am sure that

we will benefit from those learnings.

Mr. SHAYS. Are you aware of any problem—I am not, so I am not

asking it with a hidden agenda here, but are you aware of any

problems that are not working out, that there are some kinks in

the program that you think need fixing, or is it pretty much going

according to plan?

Ms. HERMAN. I think anything that is—and I am not aware of

any huge problems either, but just from a conceptual standpoint of

view, I think any experimentation that is still as new as this one,

you have to assume that there are still some blips in the road as

we attempt to educate and involve more of the employer community around this effort, and there obviously will be some issues, I

am sure, that will be raised somewhere along the way still.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me get to the last area, and that deals with a

hearing that we had on July 11 of last year with the Department’s

criminal and civil enforcement duties. You have reference to that

in your statement, and you refer to some of it in your statement

in your oral testimony. There has been a longstanding disagreement between the Inspector General again and the Department as

to what the Department should be doing. As we reviewed it, some

of it we agreed with and some of it we felt, frankly, was straining

out gnats and swallowing camels. We felt that there could be room

for some better communication between the Department and the

Inspector General.

Are you finding that dialog taking place, and is it a positive dialog?

Ms. HERMAN. I think it is a positive dialog. I think the fact that

we now have a formal coordinating team comprised of all of the

various enforcement agencies in the Department is useful and helpful, and not only have we instituted this at headquarters, but as

I indicated in my written statement, we are actually now trying to

replicate this at the regional level as well, and to the extent that

information is being shared, strategies are being shared, I think it

will be a benefit overall to effective enforcement coordination.

Mr. SHAYS. I said it was the last area, but I would like to just

revisit one area that I have made mention to, and that is the whole

issue of welfare reform and job training. I would like to know your

view about one tradition, particularly at the Department of Labor,

has been you get job training and you look for work, and another

one that has started to evolve is, you have job training—by the

way, the people who are giving this job training are going to be

staying in touch with you while you have this job.

They are going to be calling you up in the morning sometimes,

finding out that you may not be going to work because you do not

have day care, and they are going to say, ‘‘Well, you have got to

find a solution to that,’’ and the job trainer is in touch with the employer and saying, ‘‘Are you pleased?’’ and the employer is saying, ‘‘Well, I am pleased about this, but we do not have success, that

we are having problems here. The employees come in late.’’

48

And we, in fact, have found that some programs where you actually do not pay the job trainer until a year later or 6 months later,

so they have a stake in the person not just getting the training but

getting a job and being able to stay on the job.

Do you have any initiatives in that area? Do you focus any attention? Are you thinking about this at all? This is an area you have

had a background with, but I am just curious as to what your

thinking is.

Ms. HERMAN. That is an area that I am taking a look at, Mr.

Chairman. I think what we have to concentrate on that is equally

important is not just securing the job, but what we do to help people keep the jobs for the long haul. And so the ability to have follow-through services, if you will, follow-through support as a part

of our job-training systems, I believe, is something that we need to

take a look at, what we can do to foster greater flexibility in this

area with our existing programs to allow for this kind of activity

to occur, what can we glean to date from models that we are operating in this area that can prove to us that these kinds of activities, in fact, lead to a greater retention; and, therefore, a greater

payout in the long haul is an important area that I intend to give

greater attention to.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I would conclude. Do you have any concluding comment that you would like to make? I just have one

other comment I would make, not a question. Do you have anything else you would like——

Ms. HERMAN. No. I would just say, in conclusion, I appreciate the

opportunity to appear before you and this committee, and I particularly appreciate the interest that you have taken in not only just

the oversight questions into a number of the programs of the Department, but our ongoing fiscal health as it relates to how we

maintain our effectiveness.

Mr. SHAYS. We look forward to working with you and your Department, and I would say to you in public—I have said it to you

privately—that I believe that this administration and this Congress

have a vested interest in working together, obviously, for the American people.

We both have decided that we were going to move forward with

welfare reform, and we may have had our differences in certain aspects, but the bottom line is I think we are going to be judged by

the success or failure of our ability to get people off welfare and

into work. And if you do not succeed in that, this Congress will

have failed, as well as the White House.

So the success or failure of that will depend on how people, I

think, in the years to come view how well we in the Congress and

the White House have done our jobs, so we are definitely going to

be working together.

Ms. HERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. And with that, I will close this hearing.

Thank you for being here.

[Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ