U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

87–136 PDF 2015

REVIEWING THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL 

YEAR 2015 BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR 

THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 26, 2014 

Serial No. 113–55 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education 

or 

Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman 

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin 

Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, California 

Joe Wilson, South Carolina 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Tom Price, Georgia 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Duncan Hunter, California 

David P. Roe, Tennessee 

Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania 

Tim Walberg, Michigan 

Matt Salmon, Arizona 

Brett Guthrie, Kentucky 

Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee 

Todd Rokita, Indiana 

Larry Bucshon, Indiana 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania 

Joseph J. Heck, Nevada 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Richard Hudson, North Carolina 

Luke Messer, Indiana 

George Miller, California, 

Senior Democratic Member 

Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, Virginia 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Carolyn McCarthy, New York 

John F. Tierney, Massachusetts 

Rush Holt, New Jersey 

Susan A. Davis, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Timothy H. Bishop, New York 

David Loebsack, Iowa 

Joe Courtney, Connecticut 

Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Frederica S. Wilson, Florida 

Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon 

Mark Pocan, Wisconsin 

Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director 

Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 26, 2014 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce 1 

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

Miller, Hon. George, Senior Democratic Member, Committee on Education and the Workforce ............................................................................. 4 

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

Statement of Witnesses: 

Perez, Hon. Thomas E., Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor .................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11 

Additional Submissions: 

Questions submitted for the record by: ...........................................................

Chairman Kline ......................................................................................... 88 

Mr. Miller ................................................................................................... 94 

Pocan, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Wisconsin ........................................................................................... 95 

Polis, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado .................................................................................................. 94 

Roe, Hon. David P., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee ........................................................................................... 92 

Rokita, Hon. Todd, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana ............................................................................................... 93 

Walberg, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Michigan ............................................................................................. 92 

Secretary Perez’s, response to questions submitted for the record .............. 97 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

(1) 

Reviewing the President’s Fiscal Year 

2015 Budget Proposal for the Department 

of Labor 

Wednesday, March 26, 2014 

House of Representatives, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in Room 

2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Kline, Petri, Wilson, Foxx, Roe, 

Walberg, Salmon, Guthrie, DesJarlais, Rokita, Bucshon, Heck, 

Brooks, Messer, Miller, Tierney, Holt, Davis, Grijalva, Bishop, 

Loebsack, Courtney, Fudge, Polis, Sablan, Wilson, Bonamici, and 

Pocan. 

Staff present: Andrew Banducci, Professional Staff Member; 

Janelle Belland, Coalitions and Members Services Coordinator; 

Molly Conway, Professional Staff Member; Ed Gilroy, Director of 

Workforce Policy; Christie Herman, Professional Staff Member; 

Benjamin Hoog, Senior Legislative Assistant; Marvin Kaplan, 

Workforce Policy Counsel; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; James Martin, Professional Staff Member; Zachary McHenry, Senior Staff Assistant; Daniel Murner, Press Assistant; Brian Newell, Deputy 

Communications Director; Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Molly 

McLaughlin Salmi, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy; Alissa 

Strawcutter, Deputy Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director; Loren 

Sweatt, Senior Policy Advisor; Alexa Turner, Legislative Assistant; 

Joseph Wheeler, Professional Staff Member; Tylease Alli, Minority 

Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator; Jody Calemine, Minority 

Staff Director; Melissa Greenberg, Minority Staff Assistant; Eunice 

Ikene, Minority Staff Assistant; Brian Kennedy, Minority Senior 

Counsel; Julia Krahe, Minority Communications Director; Brian 

Levin, Minority Deputy Press Secretary/New Media Coordinator; 

Leticia Mederos, Minority Director of Labor Policy; Richard Miller, 

Minority Senior Labor Policy Advisor; Megan O’Reilly, Minority 

General Counsel; and Mark Zuckerman, Minority Senior Economic 

Advisor. 

Chairman KLINE. A quorum being present, the committee will 

come to order. Good morning. I would like to begin by welcoming 

Secretary Perez. 

Good to see you here this morning, sir. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

2 

This is the committee’s first hearing since he was confirmed as 

the 26th Secretary of Labor. 

So thank you for joining us and we look forward to your testimony. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine the President’s fiscal year 2015 budget request for the Department of Labor. However, as is often the case, budget hearings are about more than dollars and cents. 

As the old saying goes, budgets are about priorities. Naturally, 

budget hearings provide Congress an opportunity to examine and 

discuss the policies an administration intends to pursue in the coming years. 

The authority of the Department of Labor governs practically 

every private business and affects countless working families. It is 

a great responsibility and one I am sure that you, Mr. Secretary, 

take seriously. 

Since taking office, you have shown a willingness to work with 

the committee on a number of important issues, such as the department’s unprecedented enforcement of family farms and health 

care providers serving active and retired military personnel. We 

haven’t agreed on every detail but we appreciate the efforts you 

have made to address our concerns. 

It is my hope that we can build on this progress in the weeks 

and months ahead. Our nation faces significant challenges that can 

only be addressed if we work together in good faith, and we all 

know there is a great deal that demands our attention. 

For example, more than 10 million Americans can’t find work 

and roughly seven million are employed part-time but need a fulltime job. The labor force participation rate has dropped to levels 

not seen since the Carter administration, a sign millions of workers 

are so discouraged with their job prospects that they have left the 

workforce entirely. 

We have a health care law that is discouraging and destroying 

full-time work. More than one out of every 10 African Americans 

can’t find a job and nearly 47 million individuals are living in poverty. In the Obama economy, stock prices on Wall Street reach 

record highs while the wages of working families on Main Street 

remain flat. 

We are told time and again a strong recovery is just around the 

corner if the President is allowed to spend more, tax more, and borrow more. Yet after $17.6 trillion in total spending and $6.8 trillion 

in new debt, we are stuck in the slowest economic recovery in our 

nation’s history. Despite the obvious fact that the President’s policies aren’t working, he has once again put forward a budget that 

doubles down on the status quo. 

This fundamentally flawed approach is evident in the President’s 

request for six—six—new job training programs at a cost of more 

than 10 billion. That is right, the President wants to pile more 

training programs onto the more than 50 duplicative and ineffective programs that already exist, making a confusing maze of programs even more difficult for workers to navigate. 

Taxpayers will be forced to invest in more bureaucracy instead 

of in the skills and education that will help workers succeed. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

3 

Spending more money on a broken system will not provide the support vulnerable workers and families need. 

The American people can no longer afford to invest in the President’s failed agenda. We need to change course and adopt responsible reforms that will get this country working again. Reforms 

that will help every individual who wants to enjoy the dignity of 

work find a job; reforms that will help ensure no one who works 

full time is forced to live in poverty; reforms that will help provide 

hope and prosperity for every working family. The policies embraced by the President during the last six years have not moved 

us towards these goals and his current budget request won’t either. 

So obviously there are stark differences on how best to move our 

nation forward. This committee will do its part to find common 

ground where we can and invest in real solutions that help grow 

our economy, create jobs, and expand opportunity for all who seek 

it. 

I urge the administration to be a partner in that effort. No executive order or unilateral action can put the country back on track 

and people back to work. 

Mr. Secretary, let’s please stop recycling bad policies and start 

building on the small but encouraging progress we have made in 

recent months to work together on behalf of the American people. 

With that, I will now recognize the senior Democratic member of 

the committee, Mr. Miller, for his opening remarks. 

[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman, Committee on 

Education and the Workforce 

Good morning. I’d like to begin by welcoming Secretary Perez. This is the committee’s first hearing with Mr. Perez since he was confirmed as the twenty-sixth secretary of labor. Thank you for joining us, Secretary Perez, and we look forward to 

your testimony. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine the president’s fiscal year 2015 

budget request for the Department of Labor. However, as is often the case, budget 

hearings are about more than dollars and cents. As the old saying goes, budgets are 

about priorities. Naturally, budget hearings provide Congress an opportunity to examine and discuss the policies an administration intends to pursue in the coming 

years. 

The authority of the Department of Labor governs practically every private business and affects countless working families. It is a great responsibility and one I 

am sure you take seriously, Mr. Secretary. Since taking office, you’ve shown a willingness to work with the committee on a number of important issues, such as the 

department’s unprecedented enforcement of family farms and health care providers 

serving active and retired military personnel. We haven’t agreed on every detail, but 

we appreciate the efforts you’ve made to address our concerns. 

It is my hope that we can build on this progress in the weeks and months ahead. 

Our nation faces significant challenges that can only be addressed if we work together in good faith, and we all know there is a great deal that demands our attention. 

For example, more than 10 million Americans can’t find work and roughly 7 million are employed part-time but need a full-time job. The labor force participation 

rate has dropped to levels not seen since the Carter administration – a sign millions 

of workers are so discouraged with their job prospects that they’ve left the workforce 

entirely. We have a health care law that is discouraging and destroying full time 

work. More than one out of every 10 African-Americans can’t find a job and nearly 

47 million individuals are living in poverty. In the Obama economy, stock prices on 

Wall Street reach record highs while the wages of working families on Main Street 

remain flat. 

We are told time and again a strong recovery is just around the corner if the 

president is allowed to spend more, tax more, and borrow more. Yet after $17.6 trillion in total spending and $6.8 trillion in new debt, we are stuck in the slowest ecoCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

4 

nomic recovery in our nation’s history. Despite the obvious fact that the president’s 

policies aren’t working, he has once again put forward a budget that doubles down 

on the status quo. 

This fundamentally flawed approach is evident in the president’s request for six new job training programs at a cost of more than $10 billion. That’s right, the president wants to pile more training programs onto the more than 50 duplicative and 

ineffective programs that already exist, making a confusing maze of programs even 

more difficult for workers to navigate. Taxpayers will be forced to invest in more 

bureaucracy instead of in the skills and education that will help workers succeed. 

Spending more money on a broken system will not provide the support vulnerable 

workers and families need. 

The American people can no longer afford to invest in the president’s failed agenda. We need to change course and adopt responsible reforms that will get this country working again; reforms that will help every individual who wants to enjoy the 

dignity of work find a job; reforms that will help ensure no one who works full time 

is forced to live in poverty; reforms that will help provide hope and prosperity for 

every working family. The policies embraced by the president during the last six 

years haven’t moved us toward these goals, and his current budget request won’t 

either. 

Obviously there are stark differences on how best to move our nation forward. 

This committee will do its part to find common ground where we can and invest 

in real solutions that help grow our economy, create jobs, and expand opportunity 

for all who seek it. I urge the administration to be a partner in that effort. No executive order or unilateral action can put the country back on track and people back 

to work. Mr. Secretary, let’s stop recycling bad polices and start building on the 

small but encouraging progress we’ve made in recent months to work together on 

behalf of the American people. 

With that, I will now recognize the senior Democratic member of the committee, 

Mr. George Miller, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for your partnership and 

support of hard-working American families. 

Since the Great Recession we have made a good deal of progress 

toward repairing our economy, but much more needs to be done. 

The good news is that for the past four years the private sector has 

added 8.5 million jobs and the unemployment rate is down to 6.7 

percent. But unemployment is still too high and we still have more 

than 3.6 million long-term unemployed. 

On top of that, we are seeing an alarming growth in income inequality. In the last decade real wages for low-income workers have 

dropped, middle-class wages are mostly stagnant, and while the top 

10 percent have seen double-digit increases. 

It is not right that low-wage workers are working harder yet sliding backwards, and while very few wealthiest Americans capture 

more and more of the gains. This increasing income inequality is 

holding back our economic growth. 

When the very richest make more money, they end up with bigger bank accounts. When low-income and middle-income consumers 

make more money they spend more money on Main Street at the 

grocery store, at the shops and the restaurants, generating economic activity that benefits everyone. 

In fact, throughout this recession now many businesses have reported after survey after survey that they didn’t have enough customers. There wasn’t enough demand on Main Street for their 

goods and their services and it was holding back growth. 

As a front page story in the last week’s Wall Street Journal 

pointed out, stagnant incomes have created, quote: ‘‘a vicious cycle 

that has left businesses waiting for stronger spending before they 

rev up hiring and investment.’’ To grow our economy we need poliCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

5 

cies that stop this vicious cycle, policies that boost working families’ incomes. 

Pending before Congress are two tried and true ways to stimulate that kind of growth: extended unemployment benefits to those 

who simply can’t find work—they are looking all of the time, they 

can’t find it; and the increase in minimum wage so that no one who 

works full time has to raise their family in poverty. 

While the Senate is expected to vote on extending unemployment 

benefits soon, House Republican leadership continues to refuse to 

act on either of these measures. This inaction is unacceptable. It 

also makes the Secretary of Labor’s job and the willingness to act 

all the more critical to address the economic concerns of America’s 

families. 

This administration has proven time and again that it is willing 

to advocate for hard-working Americans, taking decisive action to 

reward work, to protecting the nest eggs and pensions and 401(k) 

participants, enforcing and enhancing worker safety and wage 

laws, and promoting unemployment of veterans—promoting the 

employment of veterans and individuals with disabilities. 

For example, just recently the administration announced plans to 

update our overtime rules to allow millions of additional workers 

access to overtime pay. The idea is pretty simple: If you work more 

you should be paid more. 

The President has also recently announced that federal contrac- tors must pay a minimum wage of $10.10 an hour—the first step 

toward raising the minimum wage for all Americans. I know that 

both the President and Secretary Perez support my legislation to 

increase the minimum wage to index it for inflation and provide 

overdue relief to tipped employees, lifting millions out of poverty. 

On the retirement front, the department has been fighting to 

help 401(k) plan participants protect their hard-earned nest eggs 

from high fees and to ensure that workers receive the investment 

advice that is truly in their best interest. At the same time, the department has been fighting child labor abroad and helping to level 

the playing field for American workers with our trade partners. 

Mr. Secretary, I commend you for your leadership in tackling 

these critical issues, yet we need to be doing more. 

Mr. Chairman, in the 40 years I have been in Congress I have 

never been more disappointed by this committee’s repeated failure 

to address America’s critical economic concerns. While the Republican leadership will likely say that they have scores of jobs bills 

designed to help the economy, most of them are gifts to special interests at the expense of workplace safety, clean drinking water, 

and the soundness and safety of our financial institutions. 

There is still time—not much time—to do better. We should work 

with Secretary Perez in the final months of the Congress to pass 

legislation that will increase the minimum wage; tackle wage inequality for women; protect senior citizens, the LGBT workers from 

discrimination; and provide quality jobs through training to boost 

employment opportunities. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you again for your appearance here this 

morning and thank you for all you are doing on behalf of America’s 

working families. 

I yield back. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

6 

[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member, 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Welcome, Secretary Perez, and thank you for your partnership in support of hardworking American families. 

Since the Great Recession, we’ve made a good deal of progress toward repairing 

our economy, but much more needs to be done. 

The good news is that in the past four years, the private sector has added 8.5 

million jobs, and the unemployment rate is down to 6.7 percent. 

But unemployment is still too high, and we still have more than 3.6 million longterm unemployed. 

On top of that, we are seeing an alarming growth in income inequality. In the 

last decade, real wages for low-income workers have dropped, and middle-class 

wages have been mostly flat, while the top 10 percent has seen double digit increases. It’s not right that low-wage workers are working harder, yet sliding backwards, 

while the very few wealthiest Americans capture more and more of the gains. This 

increasing income inequality is holding back our economic growth. 

When the very richest make more money, they end up with ever-fatter bank accounts. But when low- and middle-income consumers make more, they spend more 

of it at the grocery store, and in shops and restaurants, generating economic activity 

that benefits everyone. 

In fact, many businesses have reported that weak demand is a main factor holding back their growth. As a front-page story in last week’s Wall Street Journal 

pointed out, stagnant incomes have created ‘‘a vicious circle that has left businesses 

waiting for stronger spending before they rev up hiring and investment.’’ 

To grow our economy, we need policies that stop this vicious circle—policies that 

boost working families’ incomes. 

Pending before Congress are two tried and true ways to stimulate that kind of 

growth: extend unemployment benefits to those who simply can’t find work and increase the minimum wage so that no one who works full-time has to raise their family in poverty. 

While the Senate is expected to vote on extending unemployment benefits today, 

for the moment, House Republican leadership continues to refuse to act on either 

measure. 

That inaction is unacceptable. It also makes the Secretary of Labor’s job—and 

willingness to act— all the more critical to address the economic concerns of American families. 

This administration has proven time and time again that it is willing to advocate 

for hard-working Americans—taking decisive action to reward work, protecting the 

nest eggs of pension and 401k participants, enforcing and enhancing worker safety 

and wage laws, and promoting the employment of veterans and individuals with disabilities. 

For example, just recently the administration announced plans to update our 

overtime rules to allow millions of additional workers access to overtime pay. The 

idea is pretty simple. If you work more, you should be paid more. 

The president also recently announced that federal contractors must pay a minimum wage of 10.10 an hour—a first step toward raising the wage for all Americans. I know that both the president and Secretary Perez support my legislation to 

increase the minimum wage, index it to inflation, and provide overdue relief for 

tipped employees—lifting millions out of poverty. 

On the retirement front, the department has been fighting to help 401k plan participants protect their hard-earned nest eggs from high fees and ensure that workers receive investment advice that is truly in their best interest. 

At the same time, the department has been fighting child labor abroad and helping to level the playing field for American workers with our trade partners. 

Mr. Secretary, I commend you for your leadership in tackling these critical issues. 

Yet we need to be doing more. 

Mr. Chairman, in the 40 years I have been in Congress, I have never been more 

disappointed by this committee’s repeated failure to address America’s critical economic concerns. 

While the Republican leadership will likely say that they have scores of jobs bills 

designed to help the economy, most of them are just gifts to special interests at the 

expense of workplace safety, clean drinking water, and the soundness and safety of 

our nation’s financial system. 

There is still time—but not much time—to do better. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

7 

We should work with Secretary Perez in the final months of this Congress to pass 

legislation that will increase the minimum wage, tackle wage inequity for women, 

protect senior citizens and LGBT workers from discrimination, and provide quality 

job training to boost employment opportunities. 

Thank you again, Secretary Perez, for joining us today. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Pursuant to committee rule 7(c), all committee members will be 

permitted to submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record. Without objection, the hearing record will 

remain open for 14 days to allow statements, questions for the 

record, and other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be submitted in the official hearing record. 

It is now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished witness. 

The Honorable Thomas E. Perez was sworn in as the 26th U.S. 

Secretary of Labor on July 13, 2013. Prior to his confirmation, he 

served as assistant attorney general for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Justice and as the secretary of Maryland’s Department 

of Labor Licensing and Regulation. 

We are delighted to have you here with us this morning, Mr. Secretary. Before I recognize you to provide your testimony let me 

briefly remind everyone of the five-minute lighting system. 

Mr. Secretary, please give your testimony in its entirety. We are 

not going to fool with the lighting system for that. 

But for my colleagues, however, once again I will make every effort to hold us to the five-minute rule for our questioning of our 

witness so that all members may have a chance to engage in the 

discussion. I understand that the secretary has a hard stop at 12 

o’clock, so I will try to keep it moving along. 

Mr. Secretary, you are now recognized to give your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS E. PEREZ, SECRETARY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Secretary Perez. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Kline and 

Ranking Member Miller and members of the committee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to talk about the critical work of the Department of Labor. 

I know some of you are leaving the House at the end of this term 

and I wanted to say thank you to Congressman Holt, Congressman 

McKeon, and Congresswoman McCarthy for your distinguished 

service. 

And, Congressman Miller, I heard that you might not be coming 

back, as well, and I cannot say enough thank you for your leadership over four decades and your commitment to empowering middle-class families and making sure that we promote workers’ rights 

not just here in the United States but around the globe. We are 

forever grateful. 

In the State of the Union address President Obama laid out a vision based on the principle of opportunity for all. It is a very simple 

vision: How far you get should depend on how hard you work. 

The core pillars of opportunity include: creating more good jobs 

that pay a good wage, helping people get the skills they need to 

succeed in those jobs, ensuring that our workplaces are free from 

discrimination and are safe, making sure our economy rewards the 

hard work of every American, and giving people the chance to reCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

8 

tire with dignity. All of these goals fall directly within the purview 

of the Labor Department. 

We have come a long way in the past few years to emerge from 

the depths of the Great Recession. Private sector has created over 

8.5 million jobs in the last 48 months, where we have seen consecutive growth each month. The economy is unquestionably moving in 

the right direction. 

But opportunity still remains elusive for too many Americans. 

The President is working tirelessly to pick up the pace of the recovery and ensure that nobody is left behind. 

The Labor Department has played a critical role in helping people find work and helping the nation emerge from the worst economic crisis of our lifetimes. Our network of more than 2,500 

American Job Centers helps out-of-work Americans access all of the 

services they need: resume assistance, job leads, career counseling, 

training opportunities, and more. 

At the height of the recession the AJCs were the nation’s emergency rooms for job-seekers, administering the critical care necessary to get people back on their feet. And since the recession 

began we have served, on average, more than 14 million people 

each year, including more than a million veterans, through our job 

training and employment services. 

The American Job Centers are an important resource for businesses, as well. During the State of the Union the President singled out Andra Rush, a small businesswoman from Detroit, who 

owns Detroit Manufacturing Systems. Her firm is thriving because 

she found 700 of her employees through the local American Job 

Center. We essentially served as her human resources department 

during her period of exciting growth. 

I would like to think of the Labor Department in this capacity 

as playing a match.com kind of role, where we help workers and 

employers find exactly the right fit, and different needs for different people in different contexts. 

During my eight months on the job I have spoken to dozens of 

business leaders and CEOs, and to a person they are bullish about 

the future of America. They all tell me that they want to grow their 

business and they want to expand, and they also tell me that in 

order to grow and expand they need a steady pipeline of skilled 

workers. 

So we need to build on our success and we need to fix what isn’t 

working, as well, so that everyone can benefit from the programs 

that we are working with. And that is why the President has 

tasked Vice President Biden with conducting a soup-to-nuts review 

of our nation’s training programs. I was with the Vice President 

yesterday in New Hampshire as part of this initiative. 

This review will be guided by the principle of job-driven workforce investment. Its goals are to expand employer engagement and 

ensure our system is truly demand-driven. If you are going to create jobs you have got to talk to the job creators. We don’t train 

widget-makers if nobody is hiring widget-makers. That is what demand-driven is all about. 

We are making sure that we make it easier for people to acquire 

these in-demand skills. We are working to spur innovation at all 

levels of the workforce system. We are working to promote what 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

9 

works in workforce settings and fixing what isn’t working. And we 

are growing and transforming registered apprenticeships to meet 

the increasing and exciting need for these middle-class jobs. 

One of our most important workforce challenges is addressing 

the needs of the long-term unemployed. Even as the economy recovers, the high rate of long-term unemployment remains one of 

our most important pieces of unfinished business. 

And I will frankly acknowledge that of all the challenges I face 

as Labor Secretary, this is the one that keeps me up most at night 

because I have met so many long-term unemployed who are working tirelessly day in and day out to find work. And we need to keep 

working with them, and we are acting on a number of fronts to 

help them punch their ticket back into the middle class. 

Just yesterday we highlighted in New Hampshire a successful 

on-the-job training program wherein we subsidize the wages of new 

hires for a limited period of time. That program has been very successful in getting the long-term unemployed back to work and is a 

win-win investment for both the worker and the employer alike. 

A top priority for Congress is to pass an extension of emergency 

unemployment benefits, something that has been a bipartisan practice for decades. More than two million people have had this lifeline cut off since December and every day is a struggle for them. 

I was very encouraged by the recent bipartisan bill, which was 

introduced in the Senate and hopefully will receive action in the 

very near future, and I urge the House to follow suit promptly. 

If opportunity means nothing else, it must also mean the right 

to return home safe and sound after a hard day’s work. No person 

should have to sacrifice their life for their livelihood. 

Since OSHA was created in 1970, the number of workers killed 

on the job has been cut from 14,000 to an all-time low of 4,400 last 

year in a workforce that is twice the size. And we are working to 

make similar progress in mine safety. 

I talk to employer after employer who recognizes that their most 

precious resource is their human capital, and it is a false choice to 

suggest that we either have job growth or job safety. 

Rewarding hard work with a fair wage is also central to the opportunity agenda. Too many Americans are working a full-time job 

and living in poverty. They deserve a raise. 

That is why the President so strongly supports your bill, Congressman Miller, to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. 

Just today the Council of Economic Advisors released a report 

demonstrating how important this is for women, who account for 

more than half of all workers who will benefit from a minimum 

wage increase. The workers I speak to need this raise and the businesses that I have heard from recognize that it is the right thing 

to do and it is the smart thing to do because it reduces attrition, 

increases efficiency, and puts money in people’s pockets, which they 

spend. 

The President has also tasked me with updating and strengthening our overtime protections. Overtime is a pretty straightforward idea: If you work more you should be paid more. 

Under the current rules, many salaried employees are barely 

making enough to keep their families out of poverty, but they are 

still expected to work 50 or 60 hours a week, and in some cases 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

10 

more, and they are exempt from overtime protections and therefore 

all too frequently not receiving a fair and appropriate wage. 

Mr. Chairman, the basic bargain of America is that everybody 

has or should have a chance to succeed. No matter where you started in the race, you can finish it ahead of the pack. No matter the 

circumstances of your birth, or your zip code where you live in, or 

what your last name is, you can live out your highest and best 

dreams. 

And that is what we mean by opportunity for all. That is what 

the Labor Department is committed to every day. That is what gets 

me out of bed in the morning and that is what excites me about 

this work. 

I am very bullish about our future, and I am very much looking 

forward to listening and answering your questions today. And 

thank you for the courtesy you have shown not only today but in 

our prior meeting, and as well as meetings that I have had with 

others. I have really enjoyed our interactions. 

[The statement of Secretary Perez follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

11 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 1 here 87136.001
12 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 2 here 87136.002
13 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 3 here 87136.003
14 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 4 here 87136.004
15 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 5 here 87136.005
16 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 6 here 87136.006
17 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 7 here 87136.007
18 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 8 here 87136.008
19 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 9 here 87136.009
20 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 10 here 87136.010
21 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 11 here 87136.011
22 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 12 here 87136.012
23 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 13 here 87136.013
24 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 14 here 87136.014
25 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 15 here 87136.015
26 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 16 here 87136.016
27 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 17 here 87136.017
28 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 18 here 87136.018
29 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 19 here 87136.019
30 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 20 here 87136.020
31 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. That was an excellent summation. And if we had you on the clock you would have 

made it under the time limit anyway. 

Secretary Perez. Well, thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. So now, my colleagues, we are on the clock. 

Mr. Secretary, you mentioned the Vice President is going around 

apparently conducting a study of the nation’s workforce development programs. As you probably know, since 2011 the Government 

Accountability Office has issued five reports highlighting challenges with the federal workforce investment system, and in fact, 

the GAO has issued 17 reports on the Workforce Investment Act 

since the law expired in 2003. 

I am having some difficulty understanding why we need an 18th 

study. I would hope that the administration, that your department, 

would work with us in Congress to put forth a comprehensive plan 

to reauthorize the bill. We are working on that in Congress and we 

would like your engagement. 

In your testimony you rightly discuss the need for American 

workers and retirees to have access to secure savings and retirement options. However, as I am sure you know, there has been a 

great deal of discussion and bipartisan concern, frankly, about the 

department’s efforts towards redefining ‘‘fiduciary.’’ 

The previous, now-withdrawn, proposal would have increased 

costs and reduced access to financial education investment options. 

The fall 2013 regulatory agenda states that the new proposal of 

this rule will come out this summer. 

Can you assure us that the department’s revised proposal will 

address the bipartisan concerns that have been raised here in Congress? We would like to keep that engagement going. 

Secretary Perez. I have had a number of discussions, Mr. Chairman, with people on this body as well as folks in the Senate, and 

I can assure you that the outreach that we have conducted and will 

continue to conduct will be robust, that we will continue to listen. 

I am a big believer in listening and learning. 

And you look at the 503 regulation that was promulgated, and 

in the aftermath of that regulation Governor Ridge, who was very 

involved, wrote an op ed in the Wall Street Journal referring to 

that process as a model in which we were inclusive. We came up 

with solutions that were practical, addressed issues. 

That is how I have always tried to comport myself and that is 

why I have met with a number of you and will continue to do so. 

Chairman KLINE. Well, and we do appreciate that meeting, your 

willingness to come over here and meet with us. We want to continue that kind of relationship. 

When we have an issue like this where there has been bipartisan 

concern raised we really would like to make sure that we are staying in contact here because there are great concerns throughout the 

economy, and particularly in the industry, about this new definition of ‘‘fiduciary’’ and the impact that it might have. 

Speaking of rulemaking, your testimony highlights the accomplishments of, and future plans for a number of Department of 

Labor agencies, but one agency that is missing from your testimony 

is the Office of Labor Management Standards. On June 21, 2011 

the department proposed a significant change to the longstanding, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

32 

court-approved definition of ‘‘advice’’ under the Labor and Management Reporting Disclosure Act. Under the proposal the advice exception would be limited to oral and written recommendations, so 

we are hearing a great deal of concern, again, Mr. Secretary, about 

the impact this would have on employers and their relationship 

with attorneys as they move forward to address their concerns. 

This controversial persuader rule would be issued in March, as 

previously indicted in the fall 2013 Unified Agenda. The department did not provide a new date for issuance of a final rule but 

stated that they would be moving forward with it in the future, and 

I don’t have the quote here in front of me. 

Again, there is a great deal of concern here and we would like 

to stay engaged with the department as you look at that rulemaking. 

Secretary Perez. And I will continue to stay engaged. I have certainly heard a number of concerns that were raised in the course 

of the outreach I have done to a wide array of stakeholders. 

As you know, the rule is currently under review so there are limits to what I can say, but I can certainly assure you that we have 

been listening intently and I want to make sure—and I made sure 

when I came in that I had an appropriate handle and a full handle 

on all the issues and all the concerns that were raised, and I continue to assure you that I will do that. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, as we contemplate the Congress voting to increase 

the minimum wage in this session of Congress, it appears when 

you review the literature that the old traditional argument that an 

increase to the minimum wage meant fewer jobs has been stood on 

its head and study after study across the country, in localities, 

across states, in competing jurisdictions where the wages are different, that, in fact, that the minimum wage appears to not only 

have employees retain their jobs longer, but employers saying that 

they are getting the better quality of applicant for that job and 

they are staying longer at the higher wage. 

This was reinforced by Costco, the big box wholesaler, out of Seattle—national wholesaler—that said this was their purpose in 

supporting an increase in the minimum wage, that they thought 

they were getting better, longer-term employees. And the Gap, the 

national retailer, just announced that it is going to 10 an hour for 

the very same reasons and they expect to recover whatever costs 

are associated with retention and lower training. 

This is also being proven out in various communities and counties across the country, where mayors and county governments and 

others and states have made a decision that they cannot have a vibrant economy if low-income workers are continuing to get poorer 

and poorer and poorer as they work longer. 

And I just wonder what your review of the literature says to your 

department on this. You announced the—publishing of a study this 

morning on the impact on women. But it seems that there has been 

a sea change both in local experience and in the empirical studies 

of the impact of the increase in the minimum wage. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

33 

Secretary Perez. Congressman Miller, I completely agree with 

you that there is an overwhelming body of evidence demonstrating 

that when you raise the minimum wage it doesn’t result in job loss. 

It started with Alan Krueger looking at a jurisdiction in New Jersey, and then across the river in Pennsylvania, and when they 

demonstrated that when one jurisdiction raised the minimum wage 

it didn’t have an impact on jobs, people asked, ‘‘Well, that is just 

one pair of jurisdictions.’’ So economists studied literally thousands 

of jurisdictions that had the same situation across this country and 

came to the same conclusion. 

And then I would also bring your attention to the state of Washington. Washington has the highest minimum wage in the United 

States and has so for some time, and you look at the data there 

on job growth and job growth has been robust. And I would note 

parenthetically that Washington does not have a tip credit, so if 

you are a waitress or a waiter you are making the same minimum 

wage as others. 

And I have been to Seattle as recently as 3 weeks ago. The restaurant industry continues to thrive. So there is a robust evidence 

base demonstrating that this is good for workers; it is good for employers because it puts money in people’s pockets and they spend 

it. 

That is what Henry Ford did 100 years ago when he doubled the 

wages for people on the assembly line. He did it because he had 

360 percent attrition, but he also did it because he wanted to show 

that people who make my products ought to be able to purchase my 

products, and when I put money in people’s pockets they spend it 

in our communities. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. You mentioned the tip credit. The tip 

credit, I think, today—what tipped employees get paid as part of 

the minimum wage is now down to 29 percent of the minimum 

wage. It is the smallest share since 1966. 

What you have are some of these people in the restaurant industry and elsewhere arguing that their business plan—that a 1966 

wage is critical to the maintenance of their business plan. I don’t 

know any other sector in the economy that would make that argument today that I am going to have to pay you at 1966 wages in 

order for me to be able to survive as a business. 

And the impact on women, overwhelmingly—or part of that 

tipped workforce—is really dramatic in terms of the loss of earning 

power for their work—their schedule. 

Secretary Perez. Tipped workers have been taking it on the chin 

in all too many states. And you are correct, they are disproportionately women. They are much more likely to be living in poverty. 

They are much more likely to be relying on Food Stamps. 

And again, you look at the experience of places like Washington 

State. Your state of California does not have a tip credit. And I 

have hardly seen a diminution in the restaurant industry because 

the playing field is level for everybody. 

And I have asked restaurateurs in those states, ‘‘How do you 

deal with this?’’ And they say it is a level playing field. And when 

people have money they actually start going to restaurants again. 

And so it has been a consumption-deprived recovery. That is the 

theme I hear from employer after employer. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

34 

And when you put money in people’s pockets, including tipped 

workers, they are going to spend it. They are not going to bank it 

in some, you know, offshore account. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Petri? 

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

I listened to your testimony with interest. I, although years ago, 

I took economics 1, and I learned I didn’t understand or learn economics properly. I was taught that when prices change in a marketplace it affects supply and demand, and I always thought that 

applied to the price of labor as well as anything else. 

But leaving that aside, the President recently directed you to 

carry out a review of federal policies governing overtime pay under 

the Fair Labor Standards Act. Could you provide us with any additional insights as to which areas you intend to review or problems 

you are seeking to correct? 

Secretary Perez. Sure. Overtime stands for the simple proposition, as I mentioned in my testimony, that if you work extra you 

should be paid extra. In 1975 there was a threshold set for people 

who were working more than 40 hours a week; it was 250 a week, 

so white-collar workers were entitled to an exemption. And if you 

actually adjust that for inflation that would be $970. 

In 2004 there was regulation put in place by the Bush Administration that did two things. It established the threshold at $455 a 

week, and then it established a test to determine whether you were 

an exempt employee. And the upshot of the test—and there was a 

case out of the 4th Circuit that was litigated here—is you can work 

one percent of your time in a management function and 99 percent 

of your time stocking shelves and you will be an exempted employee under the current regulation. 

And so there are two issues that we are working on in this regulation, and that is, number one: what should the threshold be? It 

is currently $455; it was $250 in 1975. 

And secondly: how does the test work and how, if at all, should 

the test be adjusted? And what we are doing here is what we are 

doing in every regulatory context, is that we are reaching out to 

a wide array of stakeholders. I spoke to some business leaders last 

week; I am meeting with others actually later today and tomorrow 

to get their insights. We are meeting with workers. 

We are casting a wide net so that we can understand the impact 

of this, and I look forward to involving this committee and getting 

insights from you and any constituents that want to make sure 

that their voice is heard. 

Chairman KLINE. Mr. Tierney. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Perez. Morning, Congressman. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Morning. How are you? 

Secretary Perez. Very well. 

Mr. TIERNEY. I want to read you just a couple of statements. Our 

office is getting inundated from people that really are seeking an 

extension of the unemployment insurance, so just a couple of samples, one from a young woman from Lynn, Massachusetts. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

35 

‘‘I need to express my wish to have the unemployment benefits 

extended as soon as possible. I have worked since I was 16 years 

old until I was laid off from a major bank last May. Since then I 

have searched for work everywhere. I go on every Web site every 

day. I contact friends. I use the local career center and fulfill all 

the requirements set by the DUA. 

‘‘I have two children, a mortgage, a car payments, and utilities 

to pay. I am sure you can imagine how hard it is to say ‘no’ to 

every extra that the children ask for, but the worst of it has been 

that recently when they keep asking why I haven’t gone grocery 

shopping yet, since I normally go every Tuesday while they are in 

school, I have made every excuse. I am really starting to get 

scared. 

‘‘It is humiliating to live like this, especially when I have never 

had to ask for financial help from anyone. I am so scared that this 

argument with Congress will go on forever. I am begging for your 

help.’’ 

Another one comes from a constituent in Saugus, Massachusetts: 

‘‘I am one of the millions of Americans that find myself for the first 

time in my life in the ranks of the unemployed. My benefits were 

extended only the last two weeks of 2013 but now I have no money 

coming in. I have slowly drained my savings over the last seven 

months to the point where I have nothing to fall back on. 

‘‘The argument that extending benefits removes incentive to find 

a job is ludicrous. I am 55 years old; I have never had to collect 

unemployment in my career and want and need to work. Jobs at 

my level are competitive and scarce. 

‘‘I have worked hard and paid taxes all my life and need this 

money to help me make ends meet. What little money I receive 

goes right back into the economy to pay my bills.’’ 

And then one last once from Burlington, Massachusetts: ‘‘I believe you have already been on my side of this issue but I implore 

you to exercise whatever influence you might have on the obstructionists seem to want to further hurt those of us who are already 

hurting. 

‘‘My wife’s unemployment was cut off at Christmas time; my income alone can’t sustain mortgage payments in a timely fashion. 

My credit rating has taken a beating while options I have are not 

very good keeping my home over the last 20 years. Those checks 

were keeping our heads above water. 

‘‘I will be 65 in three months. My house is essentially my retirement money and if I am forced to sell I will have to do so at less 

than it is valued in order to pay my way out of mounting debts. 

My life is consumed by worry. My health is so-so and I have to continue working through the best I can, but I am losing ground fast. 

‘‘There are well over a million of us scrambling to rearrange 

chairs on the deck of the Titanic. How can this be happening in 

America? I have worked my entire life and played by the rules. Are 

people who find themselves in the same position now considered to 

be a disposable commodity? I am worried sick.’’ 

So this assertion by at least one Republican that was quoted recently in a news article that extending unemployment insurance 

will encourage unemployment—what would you say to that? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

36 

Secretary Perez. I couldn’t disagree more, sir. I have spent so 

much time with people like your constituents and their stories compel me. And the things I hear most frequently is, ‘‘I am spending 

full-time working—looking for work.’’ 

A cancer survivor from New Jersey told me, ‘‘I had a chemo drip 

on me seven or eight years ago. Fighting cancer was far easier than 

fighting long-term unemployment.’’ 

I have met Wellesley grads who are long-term unemployed and 

I have met people with a ninth-grade education who are long-term 

unemployed. And they are all working their tails off to find a job. 

And we are trying to work with them. I was in New Hampshire 

yesterday with the Vice President and we met a person who had 

an engineering degree—40 years an engineer and he couldn’t find 

a job. And through our on-the-job training partnership, where we 

subsidize the wage for a certain period of time, he is back on his 

feet. The employer has hired others through that initiative, which 

has proven very successful. 

But there are millions of others who are left behind, and what 

they tell me the most is that the thing that bothers them the most 

to a person is when people suggest they are sitting at home doing 

nothing. That is the thing that offends them the most. 

Mr. TIERNEY. What do you have to say to the comment made by 

one of the people that I quoted that whatever they get from unemployment benefits goes right back into the economy—the have bills 

to pay? 

Secretary Perez. Well, it is exactly true. People who are minimum-wage workers are choosing between a gallon of milk and a 

gallon of gas. People who are long-term unemployed are choosing 

between food and medicine. 

Congressman Courtney and I have been in touch with a woman 

named Katherine Hackett. She sat in her house with her hat and 

coat on because she had to keep it at 57 degrees. I mean, this is 

what people are doing. 

And we have a long, proud, bipartisan history of helping folks in 

this situation, and I hope we can continue that, at the same time 

looking at other investments so that we will get them back on their 

feet. And that is what we are doing. 

I said, this is what keeps me up at night more than any issue 

that I deal with, and I call people that I meet. I call them three 

weeks later because what they need is hope and what they need 

is a helping hand right now, and we need to give it to them. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Walberg? 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you— 

Secretary Perez. Good to see you again, sir. 

Mr. WALBERG. Good to see you, and I definitely want to express 

appreciation for your openness to meet, whether it is in my office 

or on a phone call or I am sitting in my pickup truck and you are 

in your office, I— 

Secretary Perez. Please don’t call me from your Harley, though. 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, if I, do it will be by the side of the road and 

your wife will be happy coming from Milwaukee. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

37 

Secretary Perez. Yes. Thank you for stimulating the economy of 

my wife’s home town, by the way. 

Mr. WALBERG. Well, I appreciate that. I think the openness, 

whether we agree or disagree, whether we have some efforts to 

work for compromise, it is always good to communicate. So thank 

you very much. 

Secretary Perez. Thank you. 

Mr. WALBERG. Certainly appreciate that. 

On the crystalline silica regulation, in your testimony you mentioned that OSHA is working on regulation regarding exposure to 

crystalline silica. I have, as you might guess, have heard from a 

number of stakeholders concerning the proposed regulation. 

A major flaw that they bring up to me in this regulatory proposal 

is that OSHA acknowledges laboratories analyzing workplace air 

samples can’t accurately measure the proposed lower limit that is 

under consideration. OSHA will allow the laboratories two years to 

work on the problem. However, employers are being told that they 

will not be given the same grace period. 

And so I guess my question would say, Mr. Secretary, how can 

regulation propose to regulate what cannot be accurately measured? 

Secretary Perez. Well, Congressman Walberg, what I would say 

at the outset is exposure to silica can have devastating effects on 

people. 

Mr. WALBERG. Certainly. 

Secretary Perez. And Secretary Frances Perkins, actually, in 

1937, hosted an event in which the issue of exposure to silica was 

discussed. And so for decades, literally, we have known the impact 

of silica. 

And what we are doing in this proposed rule is taking the 

science. We have worked with NIOSH; we have worked with other 

key stakeholders; and we have put it out there in a proposed rule 

where we have cast a wide net. 

As we speak, I believe hearings are still underway—I know they 

were underway last week; I can’t say for certain whether they are 

underway today. And at the end of that very inclusive process we 

are going to gather all this information and address concerns that 

are raised and come up with a final rule that I think addresses the 

balance that needs to be addressed. 

And I spoke to a guy named Alan White from Buffalo, New York 

who is my age and he works in a foundry and he is dying because 

he has silicosis. And he, you know, said to me, ‘‘You know, I feel 

like this issue has been, for me, studied quite literally to death.’’ 

And so— 

Mr. WALBERG. It is an important issue, but I guess concern using 

11-year-old data on this issue, and Mr. White is concerned. I 

worked in a steel mill myself; there are concerns there for me. 

But we would hope that the information, the statistics, the data 

would be more up-to-date than 11 years old. We also have some 

concern that stakeholders estimate the silica rule will cost well 

over $5 billion to implement. OSHA estimate is 637 million annually. That is quite a disparity. 

Appreciate you trying to explain those dramatic cost differences, 

but we also know that silicosis, the incidence has gone down except 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

38 

in certain limited and important areas. But ultimately, overall it 

has gone down. 

Secretary Perez. Well, I can assure you that this regulatory process is going to be hearing your views and a wide array of views. 

I was looking at my notes here and our hearings are continuing 

through April the 4th. I have been actively engaged in discussions 

internally. I have a lot of faith in the science and in the not just, 

you know, what we are doing, but what we are reaching out so that 

we have the state-of-the-art, current understanding of silicosis, its 

impact, its costs, its benefits of rulemaking, and that is what we 

will do. 

As I said, we are going to do the same thing we did in the 503 

context, which is to listen, learn, craft a rule that is appropriate 

and balanced and helps people stay safe without having other ill 

consequences. 

Mr. WALBERG. I would hope that there would be a willingness to 

open up to expand the amount of testimony questioning time in 

this process, specifically dealing with this area, from the stakeholders. I know that one suggestion has been to use water on sand. 

Having worked in a steel mill and having seen our locker room 

blown up as a result of water coming in contact with molten metal, 

I think we ought to have stakeholders with significant time to 

make sure that those questions are answered. 

Secretary Perez. Thank you. And we have extended, as you 

know, the time period, I think, twice—it may have been once; I 

think it was twice—and that is because we want to— 

Mr. WALBERG. —appreciate that— 

Secretary Perez. —we want to make sure that we get it right. 

Mr. WALBERG. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Holt? 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary Perez. Morning. Thank you for your service. 

Mr. HOLT. You referred to Secretary Perkins. You are part of a 

long line of really distinguished people who have looked after the 

welfare of Americans’ families, and I am pleased to see the way 

that you are undertaking this— 

Secretary Perez. Thank you. 

Mr. HOLT. —with a personal concern for that welfare. 

Frances Perkins, yes, talked about silica. This is something that 

we still have to work on, we still have to improve. My father, back 

in the 1930s, was involved in bringing to light the horrors of workers exposed to silica, and we have not done enough yet. We 

shouldn’t be cutting corners. 

I look here on the wall at Mary Norton, a New Jerseyan, who 

in this committee, as chair, shepherded the National Labor Relations Act through Congress, setting the principle that wages and 

hours regulations are a wise thing to do for this country. And you 

mentioned my constituent and good friend Alan Krueger, who has 

demonstrated economically the value of the minimum wage to our 

overall economy. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

39 

And, you know, since I am talking New Jersey I mustn’t fail to 

mention Pete Williams, who was the father of OSHA, the Migrant 

Labor Act, and all of these great protections for working families. 

But I wanted to ask two questions. The minimum wage: Minimum wage has lost considerable buying power. It is not indexed 

to inflation, as we now in New Jersey recently have done through 

constitutional amendment. It is till way below its peak of 40 years 

ago in buying power. And we need to see that all workers, including workers depending on tips, women, workers supporting families 

on a minimum wage, workers between jobs—all these workers 

should have means to support their family, have, of course, good 

benefits, and an expectation of dignity in their non-wage-earning 

years. And that is my second question. 

So I wanted to ask two specific questions. Second question has 

to do with those non-wage-earning years. 

First of all, I wanted to give you a moment to specifically address 

the CBO claim that some of our colleagues are seizing on that raising the minimum wage, although overall very beneficial, might 

cause some job loss. 

Secretary Perez. Well, as I mentioned— 

Mr. HOLT. CBO has said that. 

And then my second question has to do with those non-wageearning years. The chairman raised this point. I would like to know 

more specifically how you can be sure—how you intend to be sure 

that setting standards on investment advice doesn’t result in no advice and doesn’t discourage saving and preparation for non-wageearning years. 

Secretary Perez. I will attempt to answer those two questions in 

short order. 

The CBO report acknowledged that there is a potential range of 

potential job loss that could result from a raise in the minimum 

wage, and one range was zero. Mr. Elmendorf also acknowledged 

that they didn’t do any independent studies to figure out what, in 

fact, it was. 

And as I outlined earlier, there have been a bevy of studies that 

have actually looked, in fact, at what happens when you have these 

match paired tests. And in fact, raising the minimum wage does 

not result in job loss because employers have workers who are 

more efficient, who are—who don’t leave as fast, and as a result, 

it has a good impact. 

So— 

Mr. HOLT. Well, I am glad you have addressed that so clearly, 

because the other side has been using this, I think, improperly. 

Thank you. 

Secretary Perez. And as to your second question, very quickly, we 

are looking very carefully at the best way to address the issue of 

conflicted advice in the retirement market. Two of the most important choices that people make are the choice to buy a home and the 

choice now of how to invest their retirement. In both cases we have 

a shared interest in making sure that they are making informed 

choices. That is our goal in this process and we are going to make 

sure that we listen to everybody as we move forward. 

Mr. HOLT. Thank you very much. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentleman. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

40 

Dr. Foxx, you are recognized. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and— 

Secretary Perez. Good to see you again. 

Ms. FOXX. Good to see you too, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate your 

coming by to see me recently and the great talk we had— 

Secretary Perez. I enjoyed our visit and I hope your brother is 

doing well. 

Ms. FOXX. Yes, he is. 

Secretary Perez. Good. 

Ms. FOXX. Thank you very much. You are very good at—you do 

your homework and I give you a lot of credit for that. 

You have told a lot of emotional stories here about individuals, 

but I think one of the things that we have all heard over the years 

is you give a woman a fish and you feed her for a day, teach her 

to fish and you feed her for a lifetime. And when you came by to 

see me we talked about the fact that we have passed a bill out of 

the House called the SKILLS Act, which is now over in the Senate, 

and when we passed the SKILLS Act we quoted President Obama 

often when he said in the 2012 State of the Union Address that he 

wanted to cut through the maze of confusing job training programs 

and create one program for workers to find the help that they need. 

We all know that there are about 12 million people in this country unemployed and the long-term unemployment situation is particularly dire in the country. We also know that we have about four 

million jobs out there that can’t be filled because people do not 

have the skills to fill them. 

And yet, in the fiscal year 2015 budget you are proposing to create six new workforce development programs that total more than 

$10 billion. You level fund the workforce investment state grant 

programs, which are the primary funding streams dedicated to 

helping unemployed Americans find and retain full-time work. 

I am wondering what has changed in the President’s mind since 

2012 when he said we needed to consolidate programs and have 

one program for people to come get the help that they need. That 

is his quote. 

Why are you creating new overlapping programs instead of modernizing the current workforce investment system and working 

with us in the House and encouraging the Senate to act on the 

SKILLS Act so that we can do what the President said he wanted 

to do? Why did he change his mind? 

Secretary Perez. The President didn’t change his mind, and I 

think we have a shared interest, Congresswoman, in making sure 

that we give people the skills that they need to succeed and the 

ability to punch their ticket either for the first time or again to the 

middle class, and making sure we give employers the access to the 

skilled workforce that they need to grow their business. And if you 

look at what the President’s proposals are doing, you look at what 

the Vice President is doing, we are, among other things, spurring 

innovation, taking what is working and taking it to scale, and trying to fix what is not working. 

And let me give you a couple examples. You cited, for instance— 

Ms. FOXX. We really would like those examples— 

Secretary Perez. Sure. I will give you a— 

Ms. FOXX. —exactly what you are doing— 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

41 

Secretary Perez. Sure. 

So for instance, you know, one of the programs you mentioned 

as—which I thought was actually exactly consistent with what you 

were getting at—is the President is proposing to combine the Trade 

Adjustment Act and the displaced worker provision of WIA into one 

program, and so that is actually taking two and consolidating them 

into one. 

Ms. FOXX. —we have 49 different programs. 

Secretary Perez. Well, it is interesting. Let’s talk about the veterans programs, for instance, because these are not programs as 

much as they are tools. If you are a veteran and you walk into a 

one-stop center you don’t know about the various programs. You 

walk in and you say, ‘‘I am a vet and I want a job.’’ 

There are four or five funding streams. If you are a veteran with 

a disability we will take that funding stream and help you. If you 

are a veteran and you don’t have a disability, well then we have 

another group of folks who can help you. Those aren’t programs; 

those are resources. 

And you look at the GAO report, those are four or five of what 

some people refer to as programs. What GAO said was the thing 

that we notice is that these funding streams are actually helpful 

to address the unique needs of certain job-seekers—people with disabilities. We have programs that are targeted at them. People who 

are ex-offenders. 

We have to take the people where they come. And that is why 

Congress, in its wisdom over the years—we didn’t establish these 

programs; Congress did. And they did that because different people 

have different needs. 

And what we are trying to do, through the apprenticeship program, which is one of the six programs that you cite—we already 

have investment in apprenticeship. We think it works. We are trying to take it to scale. Just as if you had a weapon system that 

works you would make more of it because it works. 

I remember our conversation very well and I think we actually 

have a lot of common ground on the issue of data, on the issue of 

performance measurement, and I am really looking forward to continuing that dialogue. And we want to work with you to craft a bipartisan solution because in state and local government when I 

worked on these issues they were—it wasn’t Rs and Ds; it was 

business leaders, political leaders, faith leaders, and others coming 

together to help people get jobs and help businesses grow. 

Ms. FOXX. As I told you when you left my office, you know where 

I am. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Secretary Perez. I look forward to it. 

Chairman KLINE. Mr. Grijalva? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and— 

Secretary Perez. Good to see you again. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. —Secretary. 

The question I have, you know, you hear the argument that minimum-wage jobs are really intended for first-time employees, primarily teenagers, as part of—and that is one of the reasons is, is 

because they will be out of that work environment quickly. You 

know, how many—my question is, if you look at that—the minCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

42 

imum-wage workforce, could—is there—do you have any information to break down that claim about— 

Secretary Perez. Sure. Eighty-eight percent of minimum-wage 

workers are ages 20 or older, and the recent CBO report again confirmed that 12 percent of minimum-wage workers are teenagers. 

The average age of a minimum-wage worker is 35 years old. 

Minimum-wage workers are disproportionately women. Twenty 

percent of children have at least one parent who would receive a 

raise if the minimum wage were increased. The data goes on. 

Two million people would be lifted out of poverty. Twelve million 

people in poverty would see their incomes rise with this. 

And so I have met so many people in the course of my tenure 

in this position who are working a full-time job, trying to raise 

their kids, and making the choice, as the person in Connecticut 

said to me, between a gallon of milk and a gallon of gas. The person working at Newark Airport who was making minimum wage 

until recently—got his first raise in nine years, and, ‘‘I can’t give 

my kid a birthday present because I got no money to buy him one.’’ 

And it was sad to tell. 

And this was apparent. And that is the face of minimum-wage 

workers across this country. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And the effect, if I may comment, Mr. Secretary, 

the effect on the child and the poverty within children based on the 

fact that we are at this stagnant level of income for what, a quarter 

of minimum-wage workers that happen to have dependent children. 

Secretary Perez. It has a huge impact on children. Every child 

deserves a fair start, a healthy start, and there is legions of data 

that demonstrate that by the age of three all too many people living in poor families, they have exposure to literally millions less 

words that are spoken in their household, and so they are already 

behind the eight-ball when they start preschool. 

If you are not getting through—if you are not reading at grade 

level by the third grade a wide body of research that demonstrates 

that you are going to have trouble later in life. You look at the 

adult studies from the OEDC, you know, we are—on numeracy and 

literacy, the good news is that we are ahead of Italy and Spain; the 

bad news is that there are many countries that are ahead of us. 

And when you don’t have a head start you are always trying to 

catch up, and—and that is not good for children. That is not good 

for children when they grow up and that is not good for America. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. The initiatives that have been talked about, the 

minimum wage initiative of the President and the administration 

and Labor, the availability of overtime for salaried employees 

would add to consumer demand, would rev up hiring in various 

business and investment. And also, all this whole part is premised 

on all the studies that—recent studies that talk about the significant income inequality in our country has reached a point where 

it is holding back growth. 

If that is true, should we be increasing the minimum wage as an 

urgent stimulus tool for this economy, or increased income tax 

credit, or should we do both? 

Secretary Perez. Well, I think you can do both. And the President 

put forth a proposal to expand the EITC. The EITC, as you know, 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

43 

has enjoyed strong bipartisan support for decades, as have increases in the minimum wage. And I think they work very synergistically, and the President’s proposal does just that. 

In the Senate I believe it was Senator Rubio who had floated a 

proposal on the EITC, as well, and I hope that we can work together on that. Ronald Reagan was very proud of the work he did 

in expanding the EITC. It was a very important tool. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Secretary, 200 members of Congress sent a 

letter to the President based on the fact that the House leadership 

won’t move on the ENDA bipartisan legislation that left the Senate, which would prohibit discrimination by federal contractors in 

this case based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and asking 

for an executive order. Your reaction to that? 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Salmon? 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, I noticed that the President’s budget calls for an 

increase in funding for whistleblower protection programs—an increase of 12.8 million specific to OSHA. And we know that the purpose of whistleblower protections is to allow employees to shed 

light on corruption and abuse of powers. Are you supportive of 

that? 

Secretary Perez. Absolutely. We have done a lot of work in that 

area and Congress has passed a number of very important statutes 

in recent years, and I look forward to not only trying to get that 

increased, but I would love to brief you on some of the differences 

that exist in certain whistleblower laws, because the laws that you 

have written more recently have remarkably robust protections. 

Some of the laws that have been on the books for decades could use 

updating, and we are actually working with a bipartisan group of 

people to try to address that. 

Mr. SALMON. How important are those whistleblower protection 

that are in statute in ferreting out corruption? 

Secretary Perez. I think whistleblower laws are a critical tool in 

our arsenal to make sure that our workplaces our safe, to make 

sure that financial services—whistleblower cuts across a wide 

swath of industry, and they have been a critical tool throughout 

and I am confident that they will continue to be. And I very much 

appreciate your question because I spend a lot of time with our 

staff talking about how we can do even more in this area. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. I think we can do more. 

In fact, are you aware that employees of unions are not afforded 

whistleblower protections and have, in fact, been fired without 

cause for simply exposing corruption? Is it time maybe to make 

sure that all employees be afforded whistleblower protections, including those that work for powerful union bosses. 

Secretary Perez. Well, if you have specific circumstances where 

you think there is a hole in the law I would be happy to talk to 

you about the specific circumstance and figure out if it is covered 

under current law, and if it is, how we can make sure we enforce 

that law, and if it is not, have a conversation with you about 

whether it makes sense to move forward. 

Mr. SALMON. I would love to do that. I just want to make sure 

that across the board that when corrupt practices are exposed by 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

44 

people that are courageous enough to stand forward to do that, 

that they are protected regardless of what entity that they are 

with. I think that is a valuable tool. 

Secretary Perez. As you know, our Office of Labor Management 

has done a steady diet of cases involving—and we have gotten a 

number of convictions for many years— 

Mr. SALMON. Right. 

Secretary Perez. —and I am very proud of the work they do— 

in cases that involve corrupt practices by labor unions and others. 

Mr. SALMON. Right. 

Secretary Perez. When the law is violated we will take action. 

Mr. SALMON. Excellent. 

On July 13, 2012 the case of 360Training.com, Inc. v. the United 

States and Clicksafety.com, Inc., the U.S. Court of Federal Claims 

found that OSHA violated federal procurement law related to online training for OSHA safety programs. Specifically, the court 

found that OSHA did not use the publicly announced solicitation 

criteria to select awardees. Court canceled all the awards for 

OSHA’s online training programs, ordering OSHA to rebid the solicitation. 

So OSHA’s limited training outreach is leveraged through third 

party providers of in-person and online training. OSHA has now 

had almost two years to rebid the online training programs. What 

progress has been made by OSHA to reissue the solicitation? 

Secretary Perez. I would have to get back to you on that because 

I don’t know the specific details of that particular matter. I think 

you mentioned it was in 2012 and I tried to get briefed up on a 

lot of things that happened before I arrived, and I want to make 

sure I give you informed answers. 

Mr. SALMON. Great. I just would submit that two years is plenty 

of time and would hope that we could move forward. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Bishop? 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being here. 

Secretary Perez. Pleasure to be here. 

Mr. BISHOP. I want to pick up on the unemployment insurance 

issue that Mr. Tierney raised, but before I do I just want to put 

some facts on the table. In the chairman’s opening statement he 

made the assertion that the President’s policies are not working, 

and I just think it is important to put some facts around that. 

From 2009 to 2014 we have added 8.5 million private sector jobs 

in this country. In the 10 years previous to that we lost 3.5 million 

private sector jobs in this country. And I think we can all agree 

that 8.5 million jobs added is not enough, but I would hope that 

we can all agree that adding 8.5 million jobs is quite a bit better 

than losing 3.5 million jobs, which we lost under the policies of the 

previous President. 

But now let me just go to unemployment, if I could. 

The CBO has issued a report that says that failure to extend unemployment insurance will result—pardon me; let me say it positively—that if we extend unemployment insurance compensation 

we will increase jobs by about 200,000. And I think, again, if you 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

45 

ask any member of Congress what our number one priority ought 

to be I think most of us on both sides of the aisle would answer 

that we have got to put this country back to work. 

So I guess what I am struggling to understand is why, when we 

have, as you put it, a consumption-deprived recovery—and when I 

ask business owners in my district what they need more than anything else, what they tell me is they need customers, which is the 

same thing that you are saying. So when we have a chance to put 

money in the hands of 2 million people who are going to go out and 

spend it on the everyday necessities of life, and in the process of 

doing so create 200,000 jobs, I am struggling to understand the opposition. 

Would you agree with the CBO assessment that this is a—if we 

make this investment in alleviating human misery and helping 

people stay afloat while they are looking for work that we are ultimately going to create jobs as a result of that process? 

Secretary Perez. Yes I do, in short. And the basic premise is that 

when we provide this lifeline to people we are putting money in 

their pockets. They spend it, and when you spend it businesses are 

making more money and they hire more people. And that is the essence of the 200,000 number that you see in that report, and that 

is one of many reasons why I think it is so critically important to 

extend that lifeline. 

I mean, if we want to grow jobs comprehensive immigration reform is a pretty good idea, and the studies have pretty clearly documented the impact of comprehensive immigration reform, the Senate bill, on job creation. Investing in infrastructure—building our 

roads and bridges—is a way to create jobs. And so these are the 

things that the President continues to talk about. 

We are proud of the progress that we have made. We will be the 

first to admit that there is more work to do and we need to pick 

up the pace of progress and make sure that people for whom the 

opportunity quilt is fraying can get that job that allows them to 

feed their family and have a modicum of decency, a decent retirement, the ability to go to a restaurant once in a while, the ability 

to look your kids in the eye and say, ‘‘I am providing for you.’’ That 

is what I hear the most from folks who are fighting to get a job. 

Mr. BISHOP. On the same theme, the Economic Policy Institute 

has estimated that if we increase the minimum wage we will put 

$35 billion into the economy without spending a dime of federal 

money and we will increase employment by approximately 85,000 

jobs. Do you find those statistics to comport more with the studies 

that have been done over the years with respect to minimum wage 

than does the really vague estimate that the CBO put out? 

Secretary Perez. Well actually, when you look at the estimates 

of the number—the billions of dollars, the debate is whether it is 

like $20 billion or $30 billion in the economy. That is real money. 

I mean, Mr. Elmendorf, as I understand, in the previous hearing 

in the Senate, indicated that this is—this program puts a lot of 

money—when you raise the minimum wage, for instance, it puts a 

lot of money into the economy and that is good. 

And there was another study that demonstrated that you can reduce Food Stamps intake by 4.6 billion a year. We are trying to reduce Food Stamps in this country. One way to do it is to increase 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

46 

the minimum wage. 4.6 billion a year and millions of people who 

would no longer be on the rolls. 

People I talk to say, ‘‘I don’t want to be on Food Stamps. I want 

to be self-sufficient but I can’t make a decent enough wage.’’ 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank— 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Dr. Roe? 

Mr. ROE. [Off mike.] 

Secretary Perez. Morning, Doctor. 

Mr. ROE. —on the subject of unemployment insurance, Mr. Secretary, I was meeting with our homebuilders at home about a week 

ago and in areas of the country I don’t think there is no question 

that probably there does need to be unemployment insurance extension, and their comment was they can’t find anybody to work 

now and they are afraid if you extend the unemployment insurance 

that it will encourage people to stay out until they have exhausted 

those. Whether that is true or not I don’t know, but this was our 

area homebuilders. 

And you bring up immigration reform—they are interested in immigration reform because they can’t find workers to fill those jobs. 

So just a comment there. 

And one other brief comment, if you want to actually stimulate 

the economy one of the things you could do is increase energy exploration in this country. For every 25 cents that a gallon of gas 

goes down it puts 35 billion in the consumers’ hip pockets. So a coherent energy policy in this country—it wouldn’t cost the taxpayers 

a nickel. You would stimulate the economy and to follow the logic 

that has been passed, the people would spend that money and 

drive the economy. 

I have just a couple of quick questions. One is, we have one part 

of the health insurance market, Mr. Secretary, that is working very 

well, and that is the self-insured part. In this market right now 

there is a lot of controversy. 

Whether you agree or don’t agree with the Affordable Care Act, 

the self-insured market, which is about 60 percent of the ERISA 

market or a little more, it seems to be working. And one of the 

things that was brought up is the Department of Labor looking at 

regulating the stop-loss and changing the adjustment point. That 

is very, very important for people out there who have or use that 

portion of the market. 

Secretary Perez. Congressman Roe, I am unaware of any efforts 

to regulate in the stop-loss area. 

Mr. ROE. Very good. So we will take that as a no then. 

The second thing I would like to ask—and this is a question I 

have been heavily—at least a situation I have been heavily involved in are pension plans. We provided a pension plan from the 

day I started work— 

Secretary Perez. I remember talking to you about this. 

Mr. ROE. We did, for over 30 years. And one of the things that— 

and I think it is extremely important for people who work for you 

for years and years and decades to retire at a reasonable lifestyle. 

I certainly agree with that. 

One of the things that bigger companies—we were—we got big 

enough we could afford advice, but for people who have a 401(k) 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

47 

or maybe an IRA, I know in the U.K. basically they have sort of 

had rules banning the financial advisors from receiving any kind 

of recall revenue from the funds they regulate—I mean, funds that 

they buy. And what has happened is many of the banks or some 

of the banks have dropped out of that business. 

Do you think that this is a solution looking for a problem instead 

of a problem looking for a solution? 

Secretary Perez. Let me comment on the U.K. issue. The U.K. 

banned commissions. We have never proposed nor do we intend to 

propose to ban commissions. 

As to your question about whether it is a solution in search of 

a problem or a problem in fact, I strongly believe that it is a problem in fact. And we have a shared interest. As I mentioned before, 

the two most important decisions that people make financially in 

their lifetimes are the decision to buy a home and the decision now 

how to invest your retirement. 

And whether you have $5,000 to invest or $500,000 to invest, we 

have a shared interest in making sure that the decisions you make 

are informed, that the person giving you that advice, just like in 

the home context, that broker or lender giving you that advice is 

looking out for your best interest, not for his or her, you know, lining of the pockets. 

And we saw in the mortgage context that there were some really 

bad practices that transformed the American dream into the American nightmare through the corrosive power of— 

Mr. ROE. That is a different issue than what I am talking about, 

and what I am saying is—because my time is short—is that I can 

go, I can pull up on my iPad right now and show you a 401(k) that 

I have that shows you the investment risk, the fees—everything is 

fully disclosed. And look, a net of fees, if my returns are excellent, 

I am really not as worried about what the fees are if my return 

is good, my net is. 

That information is available right now. I can show you after this 

hearing if you want to see it my own personal 401(k). 

And so anyway, just a point there. I think it is a problem looking 

for a solution. 

I think my time is about expired so I will yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Loebsack, you are recognized? 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thank you, Secretary Perez, for being here today, making 

the time to testify before the committee. 

I like the phrase ‘‘consumption-deprived economy.’’ I think that 

makes a lot of sense. I think we all know that to the extent to 

which we have been experiencing a recovery in the economy, it has 

been weak and wanting and we have got quite a distance to go. 

And I would agree that it is important to raise the minimum 

wage to get more money in folks’ pockets so they could go out and 

buy the services, the goods, whatever that it is they need that they 

are not able to buy right now because they are not making enough 

money. So I am one of those also who strongly supports increasing 

minimum wage and I think it is really significant and best way to 

grow the economy, so I thank you for your support on that. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

48 

I do want to talk specifically a little bit about sector partnerships, something that, as you may know, I have been working on 

for many years, really going back to 2010, at a time when in the 

U.S. House we had significant bipartisan support for this. And I 

have actually worked with Chairwoman Foxx on this, in terms of 

the most recent attempt to reauthorize WIA. I have seen time and 

again where sector partnerships have been very, very effective in 

Iowa, and making certain that we close the skills gap that we see 

out there, especially at the mid-skill level. 

And so I was really happy to see in the budget that there is some 

funding, some grants along these lines, but I also know that you 

worked in Maryland at the Department of Labor and you worked 

on these issues. Could you give us a little bit of history as far as 

your experience in Maryland working on sector partnerships? 

Secretary Perez. Sector strategies are a critical lynchpin of an effective workforce system that is demand-driven. The sector strategy 

is simple. You take the biotech sector in Maryland—and we met 

with them, the employers—large, mid-size, and small; we brought 

educators in. We understood what their demand needs were not 

only today but 5, 10 years down the road, and working with the 

secret sauce of community colleges and other providers of education, we build that pipeline to the middle class. 

And it is not simply biotech. It is health sector; it is hospitality; 

it is whatever—I was in Central New York recently. They are having a nanotech boom and we were talking about how we commercialize that. In other words, they have got great technology. Now 

we have got to turn it into a product that can make—can create 

jobs and grow a community. 

This is tried and tested. And we have evaluated sector strategies 

in Maryland and through the work we are doing at the Department 

of Labor. This is a really critical and, I think, time-tested strategy, 

and that is what we support this throughout the country in our 

grant-making and in our work through our TAACCCT, which is our 

grants to community colleges to support sectors in various areas. 

I really appreciate the leadership you have shown in Iowa and 

others have shown. You are totally correct, this is not a partisan 

thing. This is a good idea. And it is good across the ideological 

spectrum. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. No, and I think it is important that, you know, 

while obviously most if not almost all of this is going to take place 

at the state and local level because it is about local communities 

thinking strategically for themselves about how they are going to 

grow their economy and how they are going to increase an industry 

or establish an industry and then find the folks out there with the 

skills who can actually be employed in the industry or the group 

of industries, whatever the case may be, but I also think it is important at the federal level we provide some incentive as well for 

folks to be thinking about that. 

How do these grants that are in the budget—how would these 

work, as far as sector partnerships? 

Secretary Perez. What we are trying to do is figure out what 

works and take it to scale. We know sector strategies work, so we 

are trying to take it to scale so that across this country we can take 

advantage of this. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

49 

Our work in Los Angeles, for instance, there are five or six community colleges in Los Angeles. They received an award under our 

TAACCCT program to help build capacity in the health care setting. 

Prior to that grant these community colleges had never spoken 

to each other, so you could take, you know, Nursing 101 at Community College A and the curriculum was different than the curriculum in Community College B and it wasn’t aligned to what the 

industry needed. And so we, in our match.com role, have been a 

facilitator of this partnership and collaboration. It is really simple 

but it is rather elegant and it really works. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. And you can include apprenticeship programs, 

too, from labor unions, obviously, too, to train the skilled folks as 

well. 

Secretary Perez. There is 27 return for every dollar of public investment in apprenticeship. And in the state of Wisconsin the average age of a skilled tradesperson is 59 years old. Businesses across 

this country are telling me, ‘‘We need to get the pipeline moving.’’ 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

And thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Guthrie? 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the recognition. 

I want to talk about ESOPs—employee stock ownership plans. 

And it is important to me the largest ESOP in the country is actually in my hometown, Bowling Green, Kentucky, and it started as 

a grocery chain that went ESOP—was sold to the employees, and 

has expanded into a big market where, as a matter of fact, and created wealth. That is why I am interested in it because it has absolutely created wealth. 

There is one of the grocery stores across from where I—a foundry 

that I worked, and the lady who made ham—worked at a deli 

counter in a medium-sized grocery store probably, my guess is, 

didn’t make much north of minimum wage, retired with seven figures in her account—over a million dollars. So it is important. 

And I know we are—so what I am focusing on is DOL’s proposal 

to expand the definition of ‘‘fiduciary’’ to include independent appraisers of ESOPs. And my concern is it would jeopardize the longterm viability of ESOPs, raising the cost of administering the plans 

and creating barriers to establishing new ones. And ESOPs in private companies have documented record of being productive, profitable, and sustainable more than some of the conventionally owned 

companies. 

And while no one disagrees—and I certainly don’t disagree with 

going after any rogue actors, I am afraid we are throwing the baby 

out with the bathwater with this rule. The proposed rule is controversial, as evidenced by the Employee Benefits Security Administration withdrawing the first version of the rule. 

So I’ll get to my questions, then: What is the status of the second 

round of rulemaking, and does DOL intend to go ahead with a new 

version? And if so, what is the timeframe? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

50 

Secretary Perez. I don’t have a precise timeframe, and I can’t 

give you one right now because again, as I said in response, I 

think, to a question from the chairman, we are very concerned 

about getting things right. And so that is one of the most frequently asked questions I get in any rulemaking and my goal is always to get things right. 

I am a huge fan of ESOPs, and so is the Department of Labor. 

And we have seen them remarkably successful in empowering 

workers to have ownership. And I loved your story. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Is there concern about—within the department if 

you put the independent appraisers as a fiduciary then the concern 

is that you would have a difficult time finding someone to appraise 

because they are now on the hook legally for that— 

Secretary Perez. Here is the challenge that we need to thread the 

needle on, and I think it is a shared challenge: You are getting 

ready to sell your business. It is an ESOP and you are getting 

ready to sell your business, and the question presented is—and you 

are going to sell it to your employees. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Right. 

Secretary Perez. And the question presented is, what is the business worth? And we have regrettably seen a number of cases where 

appraisals have been deliberately inflated—and by the way, we 

saw this in the mortgage setting, you know, ‘‘What do you need 

your appraisal to come in at?’’ And the appraisal masterfully came 

it at what you needed it to come in at during the height of the bubble. 

And when that appraisal is deliberately inflated then it ends up 

hurting workers because they are buying a business that they are 

paying too much for and—then they potentially lose jobs. That is 

the problem we are trying to solve. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Well, my understanding is they would have—they 

have standing, though, in court if that—if it was a deliberate—for 

any appraisal. I guess they would have standing if particularly 

they thought it was a deliberate inflation to—against the trustees. 

The concern that people, who are in the ESOP world, is that it 

would be just—they have to have an annual appraisal. That is part 

of the law to do so. And finding fiduciary—finding appraisers who 

would make the appraisal, given that they have the fiduciary responsibility, would either be real expensive because you have to 

buy insurance into it, and I am certainly—the description that you 

have about the deliberate increase—that does rip the employees off. 

It needs to be remedied. 

The question is the way the department is going about it, would 

it—are there other ways to do it? Are there other options— 

Secretary Perez. Well, I would love to brainstorm with you because I think we have a shared interest in getting this right and 

we have a shared affection for ESOPs. I know you do, and I know 

I do. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Because I would hate to see somebody cashing out 

their business at the expense of their employees. 

Secretary Perez. Yes. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. My experience of the one that—it is in my district 

that I am—that I know, because I know the people very well, they 

created an enormous amount of wealth for the employees and—and 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

51 

matter of fact, most of the people who retire from—I mean, checkers in grocery stores now, because of some of the way they did their 

businesses, they are having to go through counseling almost like 

lottery winners do because they are used to living close to minimum wage or just above and all of a sudden they are retiring with 

seven figures in their account, especially if they have been there 

long-term because of some decisions that the ESOP made—the 

trustees of the ESOP made. 

And so I would love to be able to have a dialogue with you about 

how we can— 

Secretary Perez. Well, I would like to meet your ESOP. 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Okay, let’s do that. I will do that. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Mr. Courtney? 

Mr. COURTNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And it is great to see you, Mr. Secretary. Just wanted— 

Secretary Perez. Good to see you, sir. 

Mr. COURTNEY. —to give you a little update actually within the 

last few minutes from the state of Connecticut, where you visited 

twice to talk about the minimum wage. The state senate just convened at 11 o’clock and within about an hour or so they are going 

to take up a minimum wage bill, which will take Connecticut up 

to 10.10. And the House, unlike this city, is actually poised to act 

immediately and by the end of the day or maybe into the wee hours 

of the morning Connecticut will pass a $10.10 minimum wage. 

Of course, Mr. Chairman, I just point this out because the secretary has been to Connecticut twice— 

Secretary Perez. Only once with the President. 

Mr. COURTNEY. That is right. And also with the House members 

on the second visit, which— 

Secretary Perez. Yes. 

Mr. COURTNEY. —in any case, your arguments were, I think, 

very helpful in terms of creating an environment where the minimum wage bill will pass. 

I also would point out that last week we had a job fair at Manchester Community College, right in the Hartford sort of eastern 

part of the state. We had over 60 employers there, which is higher 

than last year’s equivalent event. Yesterday we had a Hiring for 

Heroes event in East Hartford Connecticut with over 80 employers. 

So the job market is growing in Connecticut and we are already 

above the 7.25 minimum wage, so again, it is—the notion that this 

is, you know, somehow going to obstruct its recovery, just events 

in just the last few days in a state that is poised to move forward 

really kind of rebuts that. 

And I also just want to thank you for pointing out the impact on 

SNAP and Food Stamps if we pass a minimum wage. I sit on the 

Agriculture Committee. We went through this unfortunate exercise 

to try and sort of chainsaw Food Stamps through the energy assistance calculation that goes into determining allotments, and governors all across the country are already sort of rebelling against 

that provision of the farm bill and protecting people’s access to 

Food Stamps, which is probably going to pretty much eliminate any 

of the savings that folks in the city were trying to carve out of that 

program. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

52 

The better way to do it is to raise people’s income, and as you 

point out, the savings that we would garner from raising the minimum wage far surpasses anything that folks were trying to do 

with the farm bill that just passed here. So again, thank you for 

your leadership in terms of making those arguments. 

I also just want to note, you mentioned Katherine Hackett earlier today, who again, is one of the victims of the non-action on the 

unemployment extension. As you pointed out, she was in Connecticut, where it was a pretty cold winter, with the temperature 

in the 50s in the house because of the fact that unemployment ran 

out. She has, again, found employment, as you and I discussed, 

with a temporary position right now. 

But I think it is important to also get out in the record that this 

is a woman who, again, has worked her entire adult life, paid 

taxes, two sons in the military, one Marine Special Forces the other 

a physician working at Fort Hood, Texas. There is not a more patriotic, dignified, upstanding American than Katherine Hackett, 

and the failure of this place to do what we have always done in 

past recessions, which is to pass an emergency unemployment, in 

her case, I mean, is really just a textbook example of the fact that, 

you know, we have got to get this done. 

Individuals like her, who are out there busting their tail looking 

for work, deserve to get a lifeline so that they can keep a roof over 

their head and keep the heat turned on and the lights turned on 

in their house. 

Lastly, I just want to ask you, the numbers just came out for veterans unemployment. Again, 7.2 percent is the national unemployment average. We are still looking at 9 percent unemployment for 

post-9/11 veterans. 

I was wondering if you could just sort of comment in terms of, 

again, we had the jobs fair yesterday, which we coordinated 

through DOL, but, you know, what are some of the other initiatives 

from the department, including OFCCP, to try and promote better 

hiring amongst this deserving population? 

Secretary Perez. Veterans employment has been an all-hands-ondeck enterprise in not only the administration—Department of 

Labor, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense— 

but also with the business community and so many others. I am 

really excited about the partnerships we have had with the U.S. 

Chamber, with labor unions, Helmets to Hardhats. People have 

really come forth in meaningful ways. 

The 503 regulation is going to help so many people—so many 

veterans who are looking for work and need somebody to focus on 

their ability and not the first three letters of the word ‘‘disability.’’ 

And so I am bullish. 

And this is, again, another example of—when I hear critiques 

about too many programs, they are not programs; they are people 

and they are funding streams. It is like an app on an iPod or an 

iPhone. You know, we have a number of different apps to use for 

our veterans, and not every veteran needs every app, but some veterans do. 

And it is nice that we have—and I want to commend Congress 

for the leadership in recognizing that we need to have a lot of different apps because there are different needs in that context. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

53 

Chairman KLINE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Dr. DesJarlais? 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Secretary Perez— 

Secretary Perez. Pleasure to be here. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. —for joining us today. 

In your testimony you talk quite a bit about collaboration and 

honest dialogue, but no matter who I talk to down in Tennessee, 

whether it is bakers, manufacturers, or famers - or anyone that is 

just trying to do the right thing for their employees and their families and their businesses - there seems to be some disconnect in the 

way I am sure you honestly set out to run the department and the 

way the department has interacted and continues to interact with 

stakeholders. 

For example, Tennessee’s 4th District is home to the largest farm 

bureau in the United States and agriculture is not just a way to 

make a living in Tennessee, it is a way of life. And no matter 

where I go, still I have farmers bring up the fact the department’s 

ill-conceived and thankfully unsuccessful efforts to control not only 

how farmers run their farms but how they raise their families continues to come up. 

But, you know, thanks to the outcry of the opposition and the 

work of a lot of my colleagues in Congress, this campaign was ultimately abandoned. Can you assure my constituents in Tennessee 

that the Department of Labor, under your leadership, will not pursue this sort of interference in family farms again? 

Secretary Perez. Certainly. We understand the riders that have 

been put in place and we respect the will of Congress in that and 

we will do that. 

The definition of a family farm, I have come to learn, is easier 

said than done. When I drive—and I spend a lot of time in rural 

Wisconsin because that is where my in-laws have a place, and, you 

know, farms that I see up there don’t list, you know, how many 

employees they have at their farm; they list who they are. 

And what has brought us in have been deaths—people in mostly 

grain silos who have been suffocated. And whenever we have 

learned during the course of our investigation that it fell within the 

definition of a family farm, we have left and—because we recognize 

the limits of our jurisdiction. 

We want to make sure that we promote safety and we have really done a lot of work in that area, including child labor in this context. It is a very important issue. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. It is, and I thank you for that. And so we can 

also assure that the department in future regulatory efforts will at 

least reach out to learn more about how to define family farms before making unilateral changes to farm regulations. Can we count 

on that, as well? 

Secretary Perez. I am actually very proud of the work that our 

OSHA folks have done in reaching out. They actually have a very 

aggressive safety outreach program for, you know, folks in the agriculture sector. 

And the biggest issue that I have seen, again, has been this 

grain silo issue. I spoke to a family who had lost a child, and he 

and his best friend were holding each other’s hands as they were 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

54 

getting quite literally suffocated. And that is one of the many stories that you just reflect on over and over again—how can we prevent this? 

And I am really proud of the preventive work that our OSHA is 

doing and I look forward to working with you to figure out ways— 

because no parent—no constituent, regardless of the size of a farm, 

wants to bury their child. And that is what we are working to prevent. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. But as you said, we need to be very careful 

when we move forward with blanket regulations, as well. 

I am glad you brought up OSHA. On February 21, 2013 OSHA 

issued a letter of interpretation dramatically changing its policy related to the presence of third parties during an inspection. The 

agency reversed its previous position, stated that third parties 

could accompany the inspector even if they are not employees. 

This change to longstanding policy, Mr. Secretary, raises a number of troubling questions. For instance, why was a change of this 

significance made through a letter of interpretation rather than the 

formal rulemaking process? 

Secretary Perez. I don’t believe it was a change of policy regarding third party representatives. The OSHA Act provides that a representative of the employer and an authorized representative of the 

employees are allowed to accompany the inspector, and so the department has permitted third parties to be walk-around representatives in order to make a contribution to a thorough and effective 

inspection, and this has been OSHA policy predating me, predating 

this administration, as I understand. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. Well, I know that it has caused some 

problems back home in my district, and recently had biomanufacturing mention this, but there is also concerns for them—for instance, how are employers expected to treat these non-employee individuals in relation to liability issues? 

Secretary Perez. I am sorry. I didn’t— 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. How are they expected to treat these non-employee inspectors, in terms of liability issues if they are bringing 

them on the premises? 

Secretary Perez. Well again, we work with employers all the time 

to accommodate this and that has not been an issue in the many 

years that we have been dealing with this matter to date. And I 

am more than willing to put our folks at OSHA in contact with employers in your community who have concerns. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you— 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. Fudge? 

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

And I thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony today. I just 

have a few questions, and I am certain that they shouldn’t be too 

difficult. 

The first one is, is there any validity to the assertion by the National Association of State Workforce Agencies as to our ability to 

determine retroactive pay for the emergency unemployment insurance? 

Secretary Perez. Well, we have done it a number of times before 

and I think we can do it again. And I would note that the labor 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

55 

commissioner in Nevada for the Republican Governor Sandoval 

noted, I think as recently as yesterday, that we can implement 

what is in place in the Senate bill. It can be done. 

If you have the will to do it can be done. I have been a state 

labor secretary. We have done things like this and, you know, the— 

folks I talk to in state government have said to me that the burden 

that we would confront pales in comparison to the burden that 

long-term unemployed are confronting every single day. And so one 

person said it would be a privilege to get them their benefits back. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. Just so that we are clear, that 

means that the language in the Senate bill is fine? 

Secretary Perez. I think the language is very workable, and they 

redid it, as I understand it, to address some of the concerns that 

were raised. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. 

Job Corps. Job Corps is really very important. It is a very important program in my district as well as it is across the country. 

Last year the Department of Labor was forced to reduce the 

number of slots available to youth due to cost saving measures that 

were implemented in 2012. Do you think that the department is 

going to be able to expand enrollment for students this next year? 

Secretary Perez. I hope that we will. Job Corps—there were 

some—we fell short in the Job Corps setting. We, as a result of 

some failures of internal controls, failures in procurement, we 

ended up in a situation where we had to freeze enrollment. 

That was on us. That was our fault. And there was an I.G. report 

and we have been working methodically to implement all of the 

recommendations there. 

I am pleased to say that we have made tremendous progress. Enrollment is inching back up. And with the complement of resources 

we have in 2014 we hope in the very near future to be allocating 

additional slots. And our methodology there is we are going to be 

allocating it to the centers that are the most productive. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. 

My home community college, Cuyahoga County Community College, the students there rely very heavily on the Trade Adjustment 

Assistance Community College and Career Training programs to 

learn skills that American businesses rely on. We have a huge 

manufacturing system in our state. 

But it is my understanding that the funding for this program is 

going to expire next year. Is that correct? 

Secretary Perez. We are about to undertake year four of four. It 

has been a 2 billion investment. There has been a remarkable return on investment and I would love to take anyone who is interested to your areas so that you can see the return on investment. 

It has been a real game-changer. 

And I am hopeful that, again, in the spirit of our shared interest, 

and taking what works and taking it to scale, that we can do this. 

Ms. FUDGE. Why would we not fund a very successful program? 

What happens when we don’t fund it if this is one of the programs 

that works? 

Secretary Perez. Well, we don’t make the progress we need in 

getting people back to work and getting people their ticket to the 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

56 

middle class. And that would be unfortunate because we really 

have had great success in the TAACCCT program. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. 

And lastly, certainly I do commend you for your emphasis on expanding apprenticeship programs, and I believe that apprenticeships are a good way to create career pathways and improve an individual’s earning potential. Please speak to how the department 

is planning to accomplish this goal of expanding apprenticeships. 

Secretary Perez. Well, the President would like to double the 

number of apprentices in this country over the next 4 or 5 years. 

You go to Germany and you see the leadership that they demonstrate in the apprenticeship context and the stature that people 

in this world—in this field have, and we need to emulate that because we have, in this nation, over the course of, frankly, a few 

decades, somehow devalued career and technical education. 

There is a bright future for people who want to work with their 

hands in this country. I know that because I go out and I talk to 

employers day in and day out. Ford Motor Company is very concerned about the number of electricians and welders that they are 

going to have. Their folks are retiring; their business is growing; 

they are in-sourcing production and they need this help. 

And that is why I think apprenticeship is an area where I hope 

we can work together on, because you complete an apprenticeship 

program, you punch your ticket to the middle class. These are 

great jobs. They start at $27, $32 an hour plus benefits. Good stuff. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Rokita? 

Secretary Perez. Good to see you again. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the chairman. 

Hi, Tom. How are you? 

Secretary Perez. I am doing great. How are you, sir? 

Mr. ROKITA. I feel I can call you Tom because we know each 

other— 

Secretary Perez. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROKITA. —from prior work. We both were Dow fellows, and 

for the record, you know the purpose of that program is to bring 

people from all sides—different sides of the aisle—who are very 

strong in their preferred ideologies and introduce them to each 

other. We studied the great texts and— 

Secretary Perez. Traveled. 

Mr. ROKITA. —and travel and get in a situation like this and actually come to some solutions for the country. So let’s test that. 

I have an idea. I think that regardless of a union contract—and, 

you know, we can argue back and forth about the social value of 

a union contract and that is not the point—but regardless of a 

union contract, if an employer of a union employee wants to give 

that employee a raise that employer should be able to do that. 

If we are interested in the worker, if we are interested in those 

four pillars that you talked about at the beginning of your testimony, this seems like a reasonable idea to me. Why be beholden 

to a union contract if an employer wants to give an individual employee a raise? Could you support an ideal like that? 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

57 

Secretary Perez. When you look at the data from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, the median wage of a person—of a union member 

is $200 more than the median wage of a nonunion member, and 

that actually doesn’t include benefits. The benefit package would— 

Mr. ROKITA. I am not talking about union versus nonunion. I am 

talking about in a union shop, if a union employer wants to give 

an individual union employee a raise, can’t they do that? 

Secretary Perez. Well again, I think the answer is—and the reason I gave that data is they have been. And as a result, the 

union— 

Mr. ROKITA. But the scenario is one union employee, not the 

whole union shop, a raise. 

Secretary Perez. Well again— 

Mr. ROKITA. Good or bad? 

Secretary Perez. —I think the—whatever the agreement is going 

to govern the terms of how they move forward, and again, I look 

at that Bureau of Labor Statistics data and I think it has worked 

well for union members who, again, have a median income of $200 

more than nonunion members doing similar work. 

Mr. ROKITA. No, no, no. But again—I mean, we could go round 

and round and eat up my 5 minutes, and I hope you would give 

me more respect than that—the idea of giving one union employee 

a raise is good, right? 

Secretary Perez. Well again, I think you want to give people a 

raise, but— 

Mr. ROKITA. —union contracts, is it true—we have talked about 

minimum wage here a little bit—isn’t it true that a lot of union 

contracts, and maybe you know the percentage, are key to the minimum wage rate, such that if we raise the minimum wage and 

made it a national law, federal law, even though you are the, supposed to be the unbiased umpire of union contracts and disagreement therewith, wouldn’t this automatically bump up the pay 

under a lot of union contracts? 

Secretary Perez. Well, as I understand the data, you increase the 

minimum wage and there are something—depending on what 

study you look at, roughly 15 million to 19 million people who are 

directly affected, and then there are another category of people— 

eight to 10 million people—who are affected and they are affected 

because their wage is slightly above the minimum wage and employers will react to that by— 

Mr. ROKITA. Do you know the percentage of union contracts that 

are keyed to the minimum wage— 

Secretary Perez. I don’t know the answer to that. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay. 

Silica dust, the permissible exposure limit. Do you know what 

percentage of American businesses, employers are in compliance 

with the current limits? 

Secretary Perez. I don’t have a precise answer to that question, 

and I am sure our OSHA folks can work with you to answer any 

questions you might have. 

Mr. ROKITA. Sixty to 70 percent is what I think it is, based on 

what I have read. Does that surprise you? 

Secretary Perez. I don’t know what the answer is so I don’t want 

to guess. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

58 

Mr. ROKITA. Let’s assume it is 60 to 70 percent. Now we could 

go two ways from there. We could either use your—the resources 

in your budget—and I am on the Budget Committee; I have seen 

your resources. And by the way, I could build the pyramids with 

your budget even under a union contract. 

Now, if the goal is workplace safety why wouldn’t we use those 

resources to get more in compliance, get that 70 percent, which is 

a decent number, up to 90, 95, or whatever percent? Why go and 

get a whole new set of regulations that is actually going to reduce 

the compliance rate when you have a limited resource in terms of 

your budget? 

Secretary Perez. Well actually, if you look at the work it is not 

an either-or situation. The work that OSHA has been doing in the 

compliance setting has been significant. They have many tools in 

their arsenal, including prevention. In the grain silo context they 

have been doing a lot of preventive work so that people aren’t going 

to funerals. 

In terms of your question of—I don’t know if it is 30, 40 percent, 

70 percent, but I will say this: If my daughter—if I knew that my 

daughter had a 30 or 40 percent chance of going into a workplace 

and having that exposure kill her I wouldn’t want her to be in that 

workplace. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes. Agreed. So why— 

Chairman KLINE. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Sablan? 

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

And, Mr. Secretary, welcome and thank you very much— 

Secretary Perez. Good to see you again. 

Mr. SABLAN. —for your service to our country. 

It was people like Senator Inouye, now Mr. Miller, and your 

predecessor, Ms. Solis, who pushed and enacted Public Law 110– 

229, which extended the federalized immigration to the Northern 

Mariana Islands, and the law established a 5-year transition period 

during which foreign workers were to be replaced by U.S. workers. 

This transition period ends this December. 

But the law foresaw the possibility that 5 years might not be 

enough time so the secretary of labor—so you were given the authority to extend the transition period if, and I quote: ‘‘necessary 

to ensure an adequate number of workers will be available for legitimate businesses,’’ end of quote. And the secretary was required 

to make a decision one way or the other, Mr. Secretary, within 180 

days of the end of the transition period. 

So I as—we ask the question, what kind of progress have we 

made in the Northern Marianas over the past 4 years? When the 

period—transition period began in 2009 there were over 17,245 foreign workers, according to the GAO. As of October of 2013 the Department of Homeland Security said there were 9,617, so I think 

that is significant progress in getting to entirely U.S. workers. 

But I also think it is clear that getting to zero by the end of this 

year is not possible, which is—that is why I wrote to your predecessor in February of 2013, almost 14 months ago actually, asking 

for a decision to extend the period—the extension period. And I 

asked for that decision to be made sooner rather than later because 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

59 

leaving the decision to the last minute leaves businesses uncertain 

whether they would have an adequate number of workers. 

Leaving the decision to the end of transition period would also 

have less number of, say, consumers in the Northern Marianas, 

and so if the businesses don’t invest, they don’t create jobs, and 

that plays hell on an economy trying to pull itself out of a deep recession. That is the economic argument. 

Now, there is the humanitarian concern as well, because waiting 

until the last minute leaves 9,617 foreign workers hanging in the 

breeze. Many of these people have lived in the Northern Marianas 

for decades; they have families and homes there. 

If they have to be gone by the end of this year we owe them the 

courtesy, Mr. Secretary, of letting them know as soon as possible. 

They need to start looking for work elsewhere, selling their belongings, and moving their families and their kids. 

But for 14 months your department has been unable or unwilling, sir, to make a decision. Now, Mr. Secretary, I know that the 

Northern Marianas does not have an admirable history that—when 

it comes to foreign workers. Mr. Miller will tell you that himself. 

But it is possible that your department does not trust the Northern Marianas will replace foreign workers with U.S. workers, that 

we are just buying time. But I remind you, sir, the annual number 

of foreign workers is not a decision of the Northern Marianas government. The Department of Homeland Security sets that number 

and the law requires fewer and fewer each year. 

For this year Homeland Security set the number at 14,000. That 

is a long way from zero. 

I also want to remind you, sir, that my office has reached out to 

your department to ask that you provide technical assistance to the 

Northern Marianas and advice on how to train up U.S. workers. 

We really want your help. 

We want to complete the transition that Public Law 110–229 requires, but we need to do it in a way that keeps our economy whole 

and does not put the jobs of U.S. workers in that economy at risk. 

And that uncertainty in the absence of your decision, sir, is not 

helping. 

So I hope you will take my words to heart, Mr. Secretary. I am 

not asking my question, sir, I am just making a statement and hoping that you would hear us and then make the decision soon. 

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I also—I fully support increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10, and I know that may 

sound strange coming from someone who asked for a delay in the 

minimum wage in my district. I did so because in my view the rate 

increase in the Northern Marianas since 2008 needed to be tempered. But I have never wavered in my commitment to see workers 

in the Northern Marianas receive the full minimum wage and I 

know they will be glad to see it increase to $10.10 an hour. 

Mr. Chairman, that is my statement. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Dr. Bucshon? 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you very much. 

Secretary Perez. Morning, sir. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

60 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. My dad was a coal 

miner and I was a physician, and that will lead into some of the 

questions that I have regarding. 

I am concerned about the scientific basis upon which MSHA’s 

proposed respirable dust rule is predicated on and the availability 

of technology to reduce dust concentrations to levels contained in 

the proposal. GAO is currently conducting analysis of this rule to 

include a review of the technological and other options available for 

lowering the level—lowering the level of dust in coal mines and the 

cost advantages and disadvantages of these technologies. 

Do you think you would be willing to take into consideration all 

the relevant information and conclusions from the pending GAO 

study before finalizing that rule? 

Secretary Perez. I cannot comment specifically about the rule because, as you know, it is still under consideration and so I am limited in what I can say. What I can say is that it has been a very, 

very lengthy process, and appropriately so—an exhaustive process, 

an inclusive process. And we have learned a lot. 

We learned, for instance, you know, when we studied the tragedy 

at UBB in West Virginia the medical examiner reported that 17 of 

the 24 victims who had enough lung tissue to be tested showed evidence of black lung even among miners who had been there as little as five years. And so this is an issue that is very real. The impacts are real. 

I mean, mine safety is very real. As you know, there was a fatality—I think we notified your office about it yesterday— 

Mr. BUCSHON. Yes there was, in my district. 

Secretary Perez. —in Indiana, and our thoughts and prayers go 

out to the victim and the victim’s family. And it is a constant reminder of the stakes. 

And that is why we had such a lengthy comment period and we 

had seven public hearings around the country because we knew in 

this particular context that we had to make house calls and get out 

there— 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you for that information on—as far as the 

hearings go, as you probably know, most of those didn’t occur in 

coal areas; they were in more urban areas unrelated to the coal industry. But that said, you know, historically I have tried to get the 

data from MSHA and HHS about the studies that the proposed 

rule is based on and have pretty much been stonewalled on that 

based on HIPAA regulations, as far as this being personal medical 

information. As you know, most medical journals produce aggregate data almost on a daily basis. 

So do you think that I might be able to get the aggregate data 

that shows the actual evidence behind the proposed rule? 

Secretary Perez. Well again, our NPRM had a pretty significant 

amount of information about the underlying basis, including the 

fact that pneumoconiosis has been the underlying or contributing 

cause of death for more than 76,000 coal miners since 1968 and the 

cost of compensating disabled coal miners and beneficiaries has exceeded, I think, $45 billion since 1970. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Yes. I wouldn’t dispute those numbers. My question is, is changing from two to one, you know, your respirable 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

61 

dust—the impact that would have and what the scientific basis for 

that change. 

Miner safety is number one in my mind. Everybody I knew growing up and my father were underground coal miners. I was a thoracic surgeon who treated all of these people in practice. 

The numbers you talk about are true. The dispute, I think, can 

be from the technological availability and whether or not there is 

actually scientific evidence to show that the rule change will 

make—have an impact. 

I have another question regarding your letter, March 11, 2014, 

to Chairman Kline and Representative Walberg. You referred to 

TRICARE providers as ‘‘TRICARE subcontractors’’ throughout. As 

your letter acknowledges, the National Defense Authorization Act, 

NDAA, made it clear Congress’ intent to exclude TRICARE providers from OFCCP’s jurisdiction. 

To be clear, is it your view, yes or no, that TRICARE providers 

are, in fact, federal subcontractors regardless of the moratorium? 

Secretary Perez. Well again, I have had a lengthy conversation 

with both Chairman Kline and Chairman Walberg, and we discussed the fact that OFCCP has been exercising jurisdiction over 

TRICARE subcontractors since the late 1990s. At the same time, 

I saw the information in some of the contracts that created conflict, 

and that was why I offered the proposal that I offered to the chairman to address that issue and—deal with the situation, and that 

was—and we continued to have conversation in that area. 

And so we will continue to work on this issue and we have taken 

steps in the aftermath with Chairman Walberg, with Chairman 

Kline, and with Congressman Courtney. 

Mr. BUCSHON. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Wilson? 

Ms. Wilson of Florida. Thank you to the chair and ranking member for today’s hearing. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for your work with the attorney general in making Miami a safer place to live. Thank you so 

much. 

And thank you for being here today and speaking to us about 

these very important issues, especially extending emergency unemployment compensation and raising the minimum wage. I have said 

it over and over again, the mantra of this Congress should be jobs, 

jobs, jobs. But until my colleagues in the House pass a serious employment agenda, extending emergency unemployment compensation and raising the minimum wage is the least we can do. We 

need to help the people of America. 

If we raise the minimum wage people will have more money to 

spend, companies will be able to create more jobs, people will have 

higher salaries and pay more in taxes, and American workers will 

be happier and healthier. Everyone wins and America wins. 

Mr. Secretary, it is shameful that we have not extended unemployment compensation to the millions who are unemployed. It is 

un-American to hurt those who are down on their luck. 

In my district, on the bright side, there is a model of how to improve the economy through targeted investments in education proCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

62 

grams. A collective effort between Florida International University, 

Miami-Dade County Public Schools, and local business helped position graduates to succeed in college or in STEM careers, including 

apprenticeships, internships, and careers they never dreamed 

would be in their portfolio, and we want to replicate and expand 

this program by working with your agency. This initiative is having 

a significant impact on thousands of my constituents and making 

South Florida an attractive place to live. 

I have two questions for you if the time permits. Several of my 

colleagues and I have expressed concerns about the department’s 

proposed fiduciary rule and its effect on our constituents’ access to 

retirement planning and financial advice. Can you assure us that 

the revised fiduciary proposal will not negatively impact lower-income workers’ ability to receive investment advice? 

Secretary Perez. That is certainly a goal of ours and that is what 

we are going to work toward. 

Ms. Wilson of Florida. That is what you are going to work toward? 

Secretary Perez. Absolutely. 

Ms. Wilson of Florida. Well, we appreciate that because so many 

people are learning to save for the first time in their whole—the 

whole family has never saved, and they are going to need advice. 

And we don’t want anything to interfere with that, so thank you 

very much. 

Can you please discuss the impact of raising the minimum wage, 

what kind of impact that would have on Florida, when estimated 

1,732,000 people would see an increase in their income? 

Secretary Perez. It is money in people’s pockets, and when people 

have money in their pockets they spend it. And when they spend 

it, businesses have to hire more people because people are spending 

more. And it would enable—I don’t know the precise number; I 

would have to disaggregate from the national data—but it would 

enable, you know, many, many Floridians to get out of poverty. 

It would enable working women to be able to feed their children 

and not have to make the choices between a gallon of milk and a 

gallon of gas. And these are choices that people tell me that they 

make week in and week out, and these are choices that people in 

America in the year 2014 shouldn’t have to make. 

Ms. Wilson of Florida. Mr. Secretary, are there any plans in 

place for summer jobs for youth through local workforce agencies 

or OIC or the Urban Leagues of our—especially in our urban districts? 

Secretary Perez. We have certainly had many conversations with 

business leaders about summer jobs issues. I just spoke to the CEO 

a couple days ago of Jamba Juice, which has been a leader in summer youth employment. They are a California-based company with 

a national footprint and they have been a national leader in this 

area. 

As you know, there was money in the Recovery Act to assist in 

summer jobs. That money has largely dried up. 

The President has a proposal to invest in this, because I will tell 

you the research shows that summer jobs work. When people get 

the chance to see what it is like to show up at 8 o’clock and work 

till 5 o’clock and get that mentoring, it makes a difference. And 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

63 

that is why the President wants to take something that has worked 

and take it to scale. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. Bonamici? 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. I really appreciate your testimony and your work, and I apologize for not 

being here during the questioning. I am in two hearings today. 

So recently I joined some of my colleagues on the committee and 

sent you a letter asking you about the Department of Labor efforts 

to ensure equitable treatment in the workplace for LGBT workers. 

I want to thank my colleagues, Mr. Polis and Mr. Pocan, for leading that effort and thank you for your prompt reply. I look forward 

to working with all of you on this issue. 

An issue of significance in Oregon and, of course, nationwide is 

the need to provide good compensation to hard-working Americans, 

and I support Ranking Member Miller’s proposal to increase the 

minimum wage. Glad to see the administration recognizing the importance of that issue. 

Oregonians increased the minimum wage and linked it to the 

CPI by ballot initiative back in 2002, and I want to note that effort 

was supported by the Oregon Catholic Conference and other members of the faith community, as well as poverty advocates. And I 

have to say, we have one of the highest minimum wages in the 

country at this point and it is working just fine. 

One issue I wanted to discuss more closely with you today are 

the recent efforts by the administration to address the skills gap. 

This is something that I hear about when I am out in the community on a regular basis. 

I have introduced a bill—it is called the WISE Investment Act, 

which is Workforce Infrastructure for Skilled Employees Act—to 

help close the skills gap by better connecting local workforce 

boards, community colleges, and vocational schools with local employers, especially small businesses. And I heard the President 

task Vice President Biden with a review of federal worker training 

programs so I am encouraged about making progress in this area. 

You said in your testimony something about the soup to nuts approach. 

So will you please talk a bit about what the Department of Labor 

is doing about the skills gap and provide an update on the progress 

being made by the Vice President on his task force in evaluating 

federal worker training efforts? 

Secretary Perez. Sure. This is an issue near and dear to my 

heart, and here is the good news: Everywhere I go employers are 

bullish about the future. They want to expand their footprint. 

There was a study recently by the Boston Consulting Group 

about—they survey businesses that are doing business in China, 

and over half said they want to come back. So there is a lot out 

there. There is a lot of opportunity out there today and tomorrow 

and years from now. 

There are structural things happening in this country in manufacturing, including but not limited to our advantages in intellectual property, our supply chain, our workforce, our energy costs. 

Good things are happening, and the challenge I hear from emCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

64 

ployer after employer is, ‘‘How do we make sure we have that 

skilled workforce to succeed?’’ And that is what we are trying to do. 

I spoke about our investments in apprenticeship. We need to 

double—frankly, we probably need to do more than double—the 

number of apprentices in this country so that people can have access to these jobs. 

I spoke to the CEO of PG&E, the utility out in California—in 

Northern California, and he talked about the multi-trillion dollar 

future investments in our utility infrastructure in the United 

States in the years ahead and the workforce needs that come with 

that. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Right. 

Secretary Perez. Again, good middle-class jobs. And so we are 

working to invest in those areas. 

The sector strategies that Congressman Courtney talked about, 

where we are understanding at a regional level how many—what 

are your health care needs? How many allied health professionals 

do you need? How many nurses do you need? And then working in 

partnership with community colleges and others to meet those demand needs and help people punch their ticket to the middle class 

through those training programs. 

Oregon has done a great job on short-time compensation. You 

have been a national leader. I would love to see other states take 

that up. You really have done a great job. It is a very powerful layoff aversion strategy. 

And what the Vice President is doing is we are compiling the 

things that work and taking them to scale, figuring out where we 

have areas of improvement—and we have undeniable areas of improvement in issues of performance measurement, data collection, 

areas like that. And so we are learning about this. 

This isn’t a pat-yourself-on-the-back exercise. This is about making sure that we are doing the best job possible. 

Ms. BONAMICI. And then in the remaining time I just wanted to 

address the issue of emergency unemployment compensation for 

the long-term unemployed. I had a roundtable discussion with several people who were long-term unemployed, and I have to say that 

this was putting faces on the people who are out of work, they were 

looking for work on a daily basis, applying for jobs. They were more 

mature than—you know, they weren’t teens; they were people who 

had worked for several years. 

So can you discuss a little bit about who is the population of— 

well, now my time is expired but maybe if you could respond to the 

committee, who are the long-term unemployed? Because I have 

found that they are people who are supporting families, trying to 

make rent payments, mortgage payments, and they are looking for 

work. They need this lifeline so that they can put gas in their car 

and have a phone to— 

Chairman KLINE. The gentlelady’s time has indeed expired. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KLINE. Mr. Pocan? 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary. It is very nice to meet you today. 

Secretary Perez. Good to see you. 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

65 

Mr. POCAN. It is great to hear you have roots to my home state 

of Wisconsin through your wife and in-laws. I appreciate that. 

I would like to try to get to three or four areas as I bat cleanup 

here, so first would be on the minimum wage. I am a small business owner. I have been an employer for 26 years. 

I kind of straddle an interesting area. I also have a union shop, 

so I kind of am business and labor but a member of the Painters 

and Allied Trades for that time, as well. 

And my business almost exclusively deals with other small businesses, and what I hear are the things that have come up today 

about, you know, it is smart to pay people more. You can retain 

them; there is less cost in trying to train employees. 

And also the ‘‘consumption-deprived economy’’—I am going to use 

that term now—that you talked about, that really people know that 

if that money gets out there it is going to help all of our small businesses. So we are hoping for something like this. 

But the one thing that wasn’t discussed today was something 

that I have seen in the state of Wisconsin as a former legislator 

there, which is when we don’t pay people more, when the minimum 

wage is as low as it is, we wind up subsidizing as taxpayers 

through programs like—whether it be food assistance programs, 

health assistance programs, et cetera. Do you have anything to 

comment on some of the subsidies that we all as taxpayers pay 

when people aren’t paid enough? 

Secretary Perez. Well, most recently there was a study that indicated that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 would result in 

$4.6 billion per year—$46 billion over 10 years in savings in Food 

Stamps alone. And that doesn’t include other subsidies. 

As your income goes up, by the way, your Earned Income Tax 

Credit will eventually diminish. You still would be eligible for 

some, but not as much. And we are rewarding work. 

I was working as a Senate staffer in 1996 when welfare reform 

passed, and it wasn’t simply about getting people to work; it was 

getting people self-sufficient. And that was my recollection. 

And the minimum wage was increased at the same time and 

President Clinton talked about how we are raising this minimum 

wage because we do have a goal of promoting self-sufficiency, and 

that is—I mean, when you think about it, $4.6 billion reduction. 

We have had a debate about Food Stamps. I want less people to 

be on Food Stamps, and most importantly, the people I meet who 

are working 50 hours and still relying on Food Stamps, they want 

to be off Food Stamps but they can’t because they are not making 

enough money. 

Mr. POCAN. Great. Thank you. 

Emergency unemployment benefits. For the State of the Union I 

brought as my guest someone who had lost their benefits in December—a steamfitter, worked all of his life, played by the rules, and 

his wife actually wrote us and the real problem that they highlighted was they had to put their home for sale rather than get 

foreclosed on. Their daughter wanted to bring a friend over for dinner; they said, ‘‘We can’t afford another plate.’’ 

So this is a real issue to people in my district growing every single week that we don’t take action. Are there any credible arguCEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

66 

ments about why you can’t do retro-pay with unemployment comp, 

as you have heard? 

Secretary Perez. I have not had—again, I used to be a state labor 

secretary. This has been done multiple times. This wheel has been 

invented. It can be done. It has been done; it can be done again. 

And as I said before, what one state official said to me was, you 

know, the burden on states pales in comparison to the burden that 

families are confronting, like the families you have both described. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you. 

Then let me ask on apprenticeships. Mr. Miller and I are working on an apprenticeship bill right now. As I mentioned, I come 

from the trades. 

When the economy gets a cold, people who work in the trades get 

pneumonia. We were up to 24, 26 percent unemployment. You 

mentioned Wisconsin. We have got people 59 years old. That is the 

age we are looking at a lot of these programs. 

We need to get people into the apprenticeship programs. I am 

really glad to see that you are looking at some of these programs 

and expanding, and I agree, I think you could expand even more 

than what we are expanding. 

I was just wondering if you are familiar with the program in Milwaukee, the Building Industry Group, BIG STEP, which helps get 

people to jump into the trades from underrepresented populations? 

Secretary Perez. Well, the average age, I said, of a person in the 

skilled trades is 59 in Wisconsin. The average age of a Latino in 

Wisconsin is 17. I know where the future of the workforce is, and 

they are in the city of Milwaukee and they are in Racine and they 

are in many other corners of the state. 

And programs like the program you describe are programs that 

enable people to have a career pathway, and that is a big part of 

what we are trying to do. That is what apprentices do. Apprenticeships give you that career pathway, and those careers, as you well 

know, Congressman, because you have lived it, you have led it, 

they pay really, really good wages. And that is where investments 

like that program you describe in Milwaukee need to go. 

Mr. POCAN. Thank you. 

In 5 seconds, if I can— 

Chairman KLINE. No, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. POCAN. Okay. All right. 

Chairman KLINE. Mrs. Davis, you are recognized as the last 

questioner? And the secretary has been kind enough to extend his 

stay until 12:15 so ask fast. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary— 

Secretary Perez. An honor to be here. 

Mrs. DAVIS. I think anyone who has sat here and listened to you 

or heard you today recognizes that many, many programs are in 

place and are working well. And yet, a lot of people feel that the 

economy just still is not quite taking off the way that it should. 

In a nutshell, what is holding the economy back? 

Secretary Perez. Well, we need to pick up the pace of progress. 

And I think we know what works. 

When we have invested historically in infrastructure we put people to work in good jobs and we are doing real projects. That is one 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

67 

way to help the building trades. That is one way to get people back 

to work. 

When we pass comprehensive immigration reform we grow the 

economy. When we do the issues—when we address the challenges 

that we are addressing in the skills set we grow the economy because people have access to the skill set that enables them to get 

the jobs that are available today and survive tomorrow. 

Mrs. DAVIS. You know, the GAO reported—and you mentioned, 

I think, 15 million to 19 million—16.5 million is the figure that the 

GAO had used of people who would benefit. I think there obviously 

has been some focus also on whether 500,000 jobs or whatever that 

number might be would be lost. Why the focus not on the 16.5 million people that really impacts, women particularly, who are minimum-wage workers and their children? And we know that has a 

multiplier effect when children are more exposed to all the advantages that any other child has. 

Secretary Perez. And in addition to the 16 million or 17 million 

or 18 million, depending on the study, there are the other folks who 

are indirectly benefitted because they are slightly above the minimum wage and statistics say that the combined impact is about 

28 million. And we talked before about the billions of dollars that 

this puts into the economy at a time when businesses need it. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Is that a tough story to tell? 

Secretary Perez. I think it is pretty straightforward. I think we 

have done it many times before. 

And, you know, they call it economic theory for a reason. You 

know, sometimes you have got to get it into the reality, and the reality is, you know, in states like Washington that have increased 

the minimum wage years ago, we have a laboratory to figure out, 

you know, has Washington gone to heck in a handbasket? And the 

answer is no, actually, they are one of the most robust economies 

in this country, notwithstanding the fact that a tipped worker in 

Washington State is making the minimum wage. They have leveled 

the playing field. They are allowing more people to make ends 

meet. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And as you know, I have 

a little bit of time left—just a little, and the chair is pushing. 

My colleagues have really done a good job, I think, in trying to 

pull together a few of the pieces that I wanted to talk to you 

about—the veterans programs that we have that many of the other 

programs that are working to help our innovation economy. While, 

you know, we still do see that veterans unemployment is lower, I 

am also impressed, though, that in addition to the G.I. bill and in 

addition to many programs at the universities that really go well 

beyond educating and training and then not just praying for the 

veterans but, you know, really putting in a support system that 

helps them. 

I had a number of veterans that came to me and said, ‘‘Why 

aren’t we doing more of that for either the long-term unemployed 

or people who have been looking for a job?’’ Do you see in the programs that you are taking a look at and the Vice President is taking a look at—you have mentioned a number of those here today, 

the sector strategies—where we are really making a difference, I 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

68 

mean, where you think there is a real value added in the way the 

programs are moving forward now? 

Secretary Perez. Are you referring to the long-term unemployed? 

Mrs. DAVIS. Not just the long-term unemployed, but especially, 

you know, as we are trying to match the needs of the economy, the 

future innovations, and today. 

I mean, one of the things I would just say really quickly is—and 

I am not sure why this is happening, Mr. Chairman, but we have 

the America Competes Act. We ought to be moving forward on that. 

The Science Committee ought to be doing that. I am not sure why 

that is not happening. 

But what is it that you are doing that really answers the need 

that the America Competes Act should be doing right now? 

Secretary Perez. What we are doing is working on a regional 

level to understand what is happening in Northern California, 

what are the needs of employers in Northern California, and then 

working with our educational infrastructure there—community colleges, 4-year colleges, high schools, and others—to match that need 

so that people can punch that ticket to the middle class. 

Going into Minnesota, where the demand needs are different. 

Getting a handle on that. Listening, learning, and then putting together the partnerships that enable people to have those career 

pathways that enable them to get access to not only the jobs of 

today but then to survive the jobs of—the downturn of tomorrow. 

I grew up in Buffalo, New York. I saw ups and downs. And the 

challenge we had in Buffalo, New York was that 40 years ago a 

ninth-grade education enabled you to punch your ticket to the middle class. That is just not true anymore, and—for all too many 

folks, and that is why we need to up-skill America to make sure 

that they can survive not only today but they can weather the 

storms that may be 10, 15 years down the horizon. 

Mrs. DAVIS. All right. Thank you. 

Secretary Perez. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. Gentlelady’s time has expired. 

And we are running over, so let me recognize Mr. Miller for any 

closing remarks? 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much 

for this hearing and, Mr. Secretary, for your participation. 

Mr. Chairman, it has been referred to numerous times this 

morning the report on the minimum wage by the National Economic Council. I would ask unanimous consent it be made part of 

the record of this hearing? 

Chairman KLINE. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

69 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 21 here 87136.021
70 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 22 here 87136.022
71 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 23 here 87136.023
72 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 24 here 87136.024
73 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 25 here 87136.025
74 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 26 here 87136.026
75 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 27 here 87136.027
76 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 28 here 87136.028
77 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 29 here 87136.029
78 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 30 here 87136.030
79 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 31 here 87136.031
80 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 32 here 87136.032
81 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 33 here 87136.033
82 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 34 here 87136.034
83 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 35 here 87136.035
84 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 36 here 87136.036
85 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 37 here 87136.037
86 

Mr. MILLER. And, Mr. Secretary, thank you. I want you to continue to focus on what the decisions about people’s retirement. In 

working with people who advise individuals and small businesses, 

the question around fees and cost are very, very important. John 

Bogle, the founder of Vanguard, will tell us that fees can eat up 

30 percent of your retirement savings without you ever thinking 

about it, and the people that play with other people’s money, they 

have a fiduciary relationship and they have an obligation to those 

retirees. 

And so I think that you are headed in the right direction. This 

is a very important subject. It has been before the Congress for a 

long time, but it really is about whether or not people are going 

to have sufficient retirement savings for the rest of their lives, and 

so I don’t want to suggest that somehow that is complicated and 

we really shouldn’t get into it. It is very important to retirees and 

to their families. 

Thank you so much for your service and thank you for your— 

again, for being here. 

Chairman KLINE. I thank the gentleman. 

And I, too, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming. 

Secretary Perez. Thank you. 

Chairman KLINE. I, too, would ask you to look closely at that fiduciary rulemaking. You have seen real bipartisan concern here; 

you have heard it from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We 

are concerned about the timing, what the SEC is doing, what you 

are doing, and what the impact will be on important advice that 

people, particularly low-income people, might need. 

So I would ask you to look at that with that awareness in mind. 

I apologize we did run over. I want to thank you again for extending your time a little bit to accommodate our questions. Look 

forward to continuing to work with you. 

Secretary Perez. Me too. 

Chairman KLINE. There being no further business, the committee 

is adjourned. 

[Questions submitted for the record and their responses follow:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

87 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 38 here 87136.038
88 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 39 here 87136.039
89 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 40 here 87136.040
90 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 41 here 87136.041
91 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 42 here 87136.042
92 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 43 here 87136.043
93 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 44 here 87136.044
94 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 45 here 87136.045
95 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 46 here 87136.046
96 

[Secretary Perez’s response to questions submitted for the record 

follows:] 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER

97 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 47 here 87136.047
98 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 48 here 87136.048
99 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 49 here 87136.049
100 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 50 here 87136.050
101 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 51 here 87136.051
102 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 52 here 87136.052
103 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 53 here 87136.053
104 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 54 here 87136.054
105 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 55 here 87136.055
106 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 56 here 87136.056
107 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 57 here 87136.057
108 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 58 here 87136.058
109 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 59 here 87136.059
110 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 60 here 87136.060
111 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 61 here 87136.061
112 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 62 here 87136.062
113 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 63 here 87136.063
114 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 64 here 87136.064
115 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 65 here 87136.065
116 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 66 here 87136.066
117 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 67 here 87136.067
118 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER


Insert offset folio 68 here 87136.068
119 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

CEWDOCROOM with DISTILLER